Wikiposts
Search
Private Flying The forum for discussion and questions about any form of flying where you are doing it for the sheer pleasure of flight, rather than being paid!

CAP 1779

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th May 2019, 14:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: North britain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAP 1779

I am surprised to find no discussion of the implications for VFR flight in the UK if this proposal is implemented. ( 1000 ft vertical clearance from cloud in class D airspace unless special VFR). It is available online. It seems like a killer blow for flying schools in class D.
1claudius is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 09:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nottingham
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The APPG-GA response is pretty good. http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/wp...Response-1.pdf.

One point they didn’t pick up on though is that the CAA doc says SVFR clearances are only permitted in CTRs but not CTAs (is that true? I’ve never had the need to request one), if that’s the case I can imagine the impact for pilots based at airfields nearby CTAs who currently routinely transit them being even more impactful, and the CAA seem to have excluded that factor from their analysis.
Cenus_ is online now  
Old 27th May 2019, 13:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is indeed not much activity on this in PPRUNE. I know at least one organisation who will be affected by this who are pursuing it with the CAA/AOPA. This looks like the most effective, or in fact the only way, to respond. I am not holding my breath!
Captain Jock is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 17:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nottingham
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another observation. There’s no mention in the CAA document of controllers taking the cloud base into consideration when a VFR transit will be requested. I’m not suggesting anyone should or would shirk the rules but I wonder if there’s a chance everyone will simply carry on as before...until there’s an indicent?
Cenus_ is online now  
Old 29th May 2019, 09:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Captain Jock
There is indeed not much activity on this in PPRUNE. I know at least one organisation who will be affected by this who are pursuing it with the CAA/AOPA. This looks like the most effective, or in fact the only way, to respond. I am not holding my breath!
AOPA's approach seems to be that we should be proposing an alternative means of mitigating the problem. That seems to me to be misguided. We should simply say the proposed change is unsafe and unnecessary and we should keep the current exemption. Here's why:
1. SVFR transits through busy CTRs will be subject to massive delays due to the need to separate all SVFRs by minimum 3nm horizontally from all IFR traffic. Controllers will quickly get fed up with the increased workload and will deny SVFR requests.
2. The alternative - asking for a straight VFR clearance and complying with min 1000ft vertical separation from cloud - means pilots will be flying much lower than they currently do, leaving less margin for terrain/obstacle/traffic avoidance and increasing the risk of a bad outcome in the event of engine failure.
3. The reality and perception of difficulty getting a VFR/SVFR transit will mean lots more light aircraft routing around CTRs, causing traffic bottlenecks, increased risk from low level over-water flights and greater risk of vertical and horizontal infringement of the very controlled airspace they are seeking to avoid.
You have until this Friday to respond. Please do!
https://consultations.caa.co.uk/futu...ss-d-airspace/
NorthSouth is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.