Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

#1563968
flybymike wrote:I’m not sure where this class A airspace would have been where you got a SVFR clearance not above 2000. :scratch:


It's an exam of competence at using rtf, the airspace you 'fly' through is make believe and doesn't pretend to represent anywhere real.
So it doesn't matter that a particular clearance isn't going to be given in the UK.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1566862
Class A CTRs no longer exist in the UK.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1566863
. When and where should I ask for traffic service as opposed to a basic service?


The see and avoid principle has severe limitations.
My instructor's instructor died in a mid-air en-route collision in Florida.

In my opinion, you should ask for a traffic service where available.

A deconfliction service is only available to IFR flights.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567011
James Chan wrote:
. When and where should I ask for traffic service as opposed to a basic service?


In my opinion, you should ask for a traffic service where available.


This is obviously an area where strong personal opinions abound. Personally I don't agree with your line quoted above James, but that's just my opinion.

I think that my reservation stems from that fact that if everyone asked for a traffic service then no-one would get it, because there simply isn't capacity in the system to provide a traffic service to all VFR traffic. Furthermore, leaving aside controller workload, the airwaves would be simply swamped with traffic information rendering it unusable for any other purpose.

Furthermore, many students or low-hours pilots simply do not have the capacity to process that information in the air, in my experience. That, in turn, would lead to more missed calls, more repeats, more clogging of the airways etc.

And finally, and this is more or a philosophical point than one of practicality, a VFR pilot should be flying visually and he should be looking out. He should be seeing and avoiding. If he can't or won't do that then frankly he shouldn't be flying and he shouldn't in my opinion be using the fickle comfort of a traffic service to compensate for his poor look-out.

In my view, less is more when it comes to volume of communications. The advent of the Listening Squawk, for example, has noticeably reduced radio clutter on some busy frequencies. This clutter stemmed from [largely unnecessary] Basic Services in the main. As a result, important radio traffic now has much more chance of being heard by all - which in turn improves everyone's lot.

Just my opinion....
Last edited by David Wood on Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Danny liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567018
While I agree radar services are not a substitute to maintain a good lookout in Class G VFR, I will say out of experience I keep looking out and sometimes don't see all that much until the very last minute.

I've seen some research material here: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/259.pdf although it is a little old.

If people who ask for a Basic Service move towards a listening watch, it'll free up the airwaves for "callsign collecting and disposing" so that radar controllers can get on with providing traffic information or deconfliction advice, and aid with the limitations of see and avoid.

Just my own opinion.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567019
many students or low-hours pilots simply do not have the capacity


This I sort of agree with. I have been a student myself and have stumbled over the radio before. For me, my instructor suggested that I didn't take up services (unless required) until I was happy with the aviation and navigation part of my flying.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567050
David Wood wrote:

In my view, less is more when it comes to volume of communications. The advent of the Listening Squawk, for example, has noticeably reduced radio clutter on some busy frequencies. This clutter stemmed from [largely unnecessary] Basic Services in the main. As a result, important radio traffic now has much more chance of being heard by all - which in turn improves everyone's lot.

Just my opinion....

I largely agree with most of it - albeit I think I get some value out of some of that 'clutter' .... most of my flying is still largely in a LARS environment, and whilst I don't care about POB, destination, etc, etc I do find some value in hearing routing and altitude. On more than one occasion I've heard someone announce that they are doing the reciprocal route to me at the same altitude, which gives me the opportunity to add/subtract 500 ft to stand a better chance of missing them. I've noticed that some pilots use one of our local weekdays only LARS frequency when it is closed for A/A coordination presumably for similar reasons.
Horses for courses IMHO.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567052
kingbing wrote:I have read that radar returns make it tricky for LARS to give a traffic service below 3000ft. This is a pretty important criterion, when making the decision. But I've not seen this widely made known.

Probably depends on where ..... for Lincs and Vale of York you'll get secondary returns from Claxby down to the surface for a lot of it, and down to 1000ft for almost all of it.
I often get something akin to a 'traffic service with own responsibility for terrain separation' below 3000ft, and sometimes caveated with 'limited traffic information from below due to limitations of radar coverage'
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1567063
Yeah and certain aircraft never show up on radar too. There are limitations which is why it's to aid with the limitations of see and avoid, and not replace it.
#1569069
Murgatroyd wrote:The crossing of the Class A was emphasized for the request to transit HAD to mention specifically a "Special VFR clearance".
...
The clearance through the Class A, was granted with the condition not above 2000'. I flew it at 1800'


Well done with your test, but your experience does make me wonder why we're still teaching and examining obsolete procedures .
#1569075
bookworm wrote:Well done with your test, but your experience does make me wonder why we're still teaching and examining obsolete procedures .


Completely agree Bookworm, I have asked the CAA about this and there is a chap called Richard Craske who is reviewing the RT Practical routes and exam procedures but I suspect it has a lower priority than we would like. When I conduct RT practicals I have changed my route and explain to the student that changes since SERA.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1569158
Just take executive action... change it to class D, on first contact controller says "visibility 4km, cloud scattered 3200', what type of clearance do you require?". Voila, problem solved with same situation as class A ctr and student more up to speed on reality. The trouble is, you won't be able to tell the clever ones from the not so well trained ones.
Not so well "vfr" (no idea)
Ok trained "s vfr"
Cleverly trained "vfr" (transit, pilot decides)