IFR & Small Aircraft in the UK

[Christopher Trott]

Okay, I need some clarification on this. I'm trying to fly from EGCC to EGBB in a DHC-1 Chipmunk. Small airplane. Weather isn't exactly condusive to VFR flight, so I file a simple IFR flightplan - GPS Direct at 4000 feet. I call EGCC Ground (with an EGCC Radar online) and I spend 10 minutes just trying to get clearance ending with me having to file for 8000 instead of 4000 after having been told that if I couldn't fly a Standard Departure, I needed to fly VFR (again, weather was MVFR due to low ceilings). Add to that that I had to make all the changes to the FP myself (including changing from DCT to HON), it's very frustrating for a little 30 minute flight to have to go through all of that just to start engine.

 

I'm trained on the US Airspace system as far as light aircraft, but reading through what is on the VATSIM-UK website, the basics seem pretty much the same, so my question - why is it that the controllers aren't able to adjust for the fact that I'm a little 90 knot, single-engine airplane wanting to fly IFR?

[David Saunders 818672]

what you should have filed was a SVFR flight rather than a IFR flight, this way you have the best of both worlds, a VFR flightplan but being able to fly under IFR rules,.

 

Also Manchester TMA is Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A airspace so VFR should not be allowed to fly there anyway so it would be IFR or SVFR.

 

Filing direct GPS is as far as i know not allowed on Vatsim for IFR flights so you need to file an approved IFR flightplan with waypoints and fly the correct SID.

 

So unfortunatly you didnt get the correct advice to get you on your way, bearing in mind that most Gnd controllers dont necessarly have the experience to give this advice, but the pilot should also now the differences of what to fly, so if the visibility is to low then VFR is out so if you filed for IFR then the controller was correct to get you to refile and change alitude to be able to fly the SID.

[Keith Smith]

David,

 

SVFR has very little to do with IFR rules, at least in the USA. It simply allows for a reduction of the basic VFR minimums.

 

As far as I know, direct GPS is neither allowed or disallowed on VATSIM, it would depend on the country, distance of flight (at least in the USA), and traffic flow considerations.

 

Insisting that a pilot file a SID does not make sense, and does not happen in the real world. Giving a clearance the contains a routing similar to what is contained in a SID is normal.

[Paul O'Donnell 969350]

If you filed IFR, you could have always asked for radar vectors instead of flying the SID, that way the controller on DEP/APP or CTR could have vectored you out of the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A airspace to a waypoint similar to a SID, or could have vectored you along the route of a SID.

[Nigel Spink 811859]

From the VATSIM UK training section:

 

A Special VFR Flight is any flight within a Control Zone which is permitted to proceed in accordance with special instructions issued by the appropriate ATC unit during conditions (either by way of airspace cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ification, weather or time of day) which would otherwise require compliance with IFR.

 

Note that SVFR is ONLY permitted within a Control Zone - NOWHERE ELSE.

 

This means that in a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A CTR, or in any CTR at night or if the weather is below VFR minima (5,000 metres visibility OR cloud ceiling less than 1,500 above aerodrome level) aircfraft which cannot comply with IFR will require a SVFR clearance.

 

SVFR flights must be provided with Standard Separation against all IFR traffic and against all other SVFR flights and so any SVFR clearances must be requested from APP for departing flights prior to the aircraft getting airborne.

 

SVFR arrivals will be sequenced into the arrival stream by APP prior to being transferred to TWR.

 

Subject to APP approval aircraft may be permitted to conduct circuits under SVFR. Separating such flights from other SVFR traffic and from IFR arrivals and departures is beyond the scope of this manual, these techniques will be taught during practical training where appropriate.

From the VATSIM UK flight planning guide:

 

In UK airspace we request that you refrain from flying "direct GPS". Our airspace is very compact and we have specific routes and altitudes that aircraft should fly depending on the direction of travel. This is especially important in the London area where the departures and arrivals for the London airports can only be separated by 1000ft in some areas.

 

 

I agree that the pilot could have been provided with an IFR departure clearance which while not being a SID would still comply with noise abatement procedures etc. However it is also not unreasonable to request that a route be suggested and entered in the flight plan.

 

Nigel

[Keith Smith]

Nigel,

 

Everything you have described about SVFR is much the same as it is in the USA. It can only be provided in certain airspace, requires separation from other IFR aircraft, etc. But....it is NOT IFR. The pilot must still remain clear of clouds, and adhere to certain weather minimums.

 

In the real world, you do NOT have to hold an instrument rating to fly under SVFR during the day.

 

My concern, based on your message, is that ppl will think that is weather is below basic VFR minimums, they can request SVFR in lieu of IFR. That is not necessarily the case. You still cannot go near a cloud under SVFR.

[Christopher Trott]

All - Being that I was going from Manchester to Birmingham, I don't really see how "DCT" would not have been appropriate being that (at least in the US) when one files "DCT" that means that one wants direct but ATC is free to vector at will. My only issue is that a DHC-1 is UNABLE to comply with SIDs or STARs because of its performance ability. Just as in the US I will not file for a SID or STAR flying a Cessna 172 unless it is specifically designed for propeller driven aircraft (i.e. PROP-only printed on the chart) because the expected performance to fly a SID or STAR that is not specifically for props is beyond the capability of the aircraft.

 

I think that the point I'm trying to make here is that instead of requesting the SID and then telling me when I declined that I should go VFR, the ATC should have instead said "okay, we'll just give him radar vectors" and been done with it. I don't quite understand why it had to be a 15 minute ordeal to be done. Not only that, but why should I need to fly at 8000 feet in a Chipmunk just because I'm IFR? I looked at the charts, the MVA along my route of flight was 3,500 feet so 4,000 should have been high enough. I understand that UK airspace is tight, but at the same time, the distance of the flight should be taken into consideration into how ATC handles a situation. For a 50 nautical mile flight from EGCC to EGBB, it should have been automatic that once I declined the SID that I be given vectors and the ATC modify my FP to have HON in it instead of asking me to (after I'd departed) to do it since both ASRC and VRC are capable of doing it. If I was trying to go from Blackpool to Dover, I could understand the issue, but when my "direct' routing more-or-less followed the SID but at a lower altitude and in a TINY aircraft, I just can't understand why it would become such an issue with ATC.

 

Also, please remember that Ground's actions were at the direction of the Radar (EGCC_S_APP) controller who under the UK system should be aware enough of the rules to know not to offer me VFR or SVFR with the conditions and not suggested it to the Ground controller.

[Paul O'Donnell 969350]

Christopher, I seen quite a few pilots and aircraft being cleared via SVFR last night at EGCC, maybe they have changed their policy, or perhaps it was a new controller on GND who didn;t ask for approval by APP or something or other. I know EGCC_S_APP will be manned alot this week, so why not try your flight again. I've certainly seen people flying EGCC-EGBB or vice versa many a time and quite like you they will file DCT, especially if it is VFR, or something like "heading to the south". As you said, if APP was online I don;t see why you couldn;t fly IFR and receive vectoring, and then if EGBB_APP was also online, then I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that EGCC_S_APP would hand you over to EGBB_APP if you were below FL120 (I think thats their airspace ceiling, could be FL140 or 150)

 

I reckon you try your flight again, you will definately see APP from EGCC online alot this week.