Jump to content

VMC minimas


Johan Grauers

Recommended Posts

Johan Grauers

This has changed, and this post is no longer accurate. Since I find removing something several years old slightly strange I will let the original post remain below, but it is no longer correct!

 

There has been a trend recently where a poor understanding of VMC minimas is shown. This is posted as a general reminder to all controllers of what the VMC minimas are and how to apply them. This post is based on MATS part 1,sec 1, chap 2, §4.

 


The basic VMC minimas are affected by two things:

The time, they are different at Day and Night

The class of Airspace.


Further there are a few exceptions when the minimas can be reduced further, these depend on both the above and also on the aircraft speed and type (fixed wing or helicopter).

 

At and above FL100 there is only one minima which applies at day and night in all UK airspace.

Minimum flight visibility 8KM, minimum distance from cloud 1500 meters horizontally and 1000 feet vertically.


Below FL100 there is a slightly different basic minima (that apply to all aircraft), it applies day and night, in all UK airspace:

Minimim flight visbility, 5KM, minimum distance from cloud 1500 meters horizontally and 1000 feet vertically.

 

The above two are basic minimas, they can be used by any aircraft type at any speed. Then there are a few special cases where you can reduce the minimas further, these are as follows:

 


By day

Controlled airspace (UK class C, D and E)

For aircraft other than helicopters, flying 140 knots IAS or less, 5KM flight visibility, Clear of Cloud with Surface in Sight (CCSIS).


For helictopers, Flight vis 1500 meters, CCSIS

 


Uncontrolled airspace (class F and G)

At or below 3000 feet AMSL, CCSIS, 5km flight visibility

For aircraft other than helicopters, flying 140 knots IAS or less, 1500m flight visibility, CCSIS

Helicopters, 1500m flight visibility, CCSIS, with a speed which having regard to the visibility, is reasonable.

 


By night

Inside CAS at night there is no reduction of VMC minima, you have to fulfill the basic minima.

In class F and G airspace, at or below 3000 feet AMSL
For aircraft other than helicopters, CCSIS, 5km visibility
For helicopters, CCSIS, with a speed which having regard to the visibility, is reasonable.

 

 

The above are all the options for VMC minimas. Sometimes you can easily tell if it's VMC (ie, CAVOK is always going to be VMC), but when the weather gets marginal it can get more complicated. I suggest that you always refer to the table in the MATS part 1 if you are at all unsure.


In aviation night is defined as half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise, both times inclusive. Ie if sunset is 2010 and sunrise is 0542 night is from 2040 (2010+30 minutes) to 0512 (0542-30 minutes).


You will notice that all VMC minimas refer to "flight visibility", this is the visibility from the flight deck. It is assessed by the commander. However the MATS pt 1 says:
"For fixed- wing and helicopter flights wishing to operate under VFR to or from an  aerodrome, or enter the aerodrome traffic zone, or aerodrome traffic circuit in Class D airspace the ground visibility shall be used "

This means that any traffic coming close to an airport inside class D will have their VMC minima determined by using the metreport visibility (the number in the METAR). This means that regardless of their own assesment the ATC reported visibility overrides them, but only when operating inside the ATZ. Traffic outside of this area may self assess visibility even though they are inside CAS (for example, a zone transit passing the corner of a CTR).

 

If a METAR gives two visibility values the lowest one should always be used.

 

As controllers then, our responsibility lies with knowing if we may legally issue a VFR clearance or not.

We need to do this in two cases, traffic departing inside of CAS, or traffic entering CAS (for whatever reason).


We still start looking at a departure, and again begin with the time of day.

If it is daytime we look at the visibility. If it is 5km or more, the visibility is fine.
We then look at the cloud.


When we look at the cloud what we need to determine is if the pilot can stay at least 1000 feet away from cloud, while also complying with the low flying rules. This is a set of rules which I won't go into here but the one we're interested in is the 500 foot rule. This says that an aircraft has to be at least 500 feet away from obstacles, vessles, vehicles, persons, and structures.

 

Since the METAR gives cloud as a figure above aerodrome level the magic number is 1500, as this allows the pilot to fly at 500 above ground, and thereby obey both the 500 foot rule and staying VMC.


Therefore if the cloud ceiling (at least half the sky, ie BKN or OVC) is 1500 or more, it is VMC and we can issue the clearance.

 

If the cloud ceiling is lower than 1400 feet, we have to ask the pilot to ensure he can fly VFR.
"GCD, visibility 9 kilometers, clouds broken 1400 feet, what clearance do you require?"

It is up to the pilot to ensure that he can accept VFR (in this case if he will be able to fly 140 IAS or less).


If we conclude it is IMC (for example, visibility 4500 meters in haze, fixed wing wanting VFR) we do the same thing:
"GCD visibility 4500 meters in haze, no significant cloud, what clearance do you require?"
 
If the pilot requests a VFR clearance we need to inform him that we can't issue one
"GCD, I am unable to issue a VFR clearance due to the visibility, what clearance do you require?"

At this point you hope he will decide to go back to the flying club, but it is up to the pilot to request an alternative SVFR or IFR clearance if they want to and can accept it.

I will get back to the issue of pilots with their own weather further down.

 


The other version is for inbounds, this is the same thing again. Check the weather and determine if it is VMC, IMC or marginal (ie depends on aircraft type, day or night etc).

Then it's the same thing again, if need be we inform the pilot of the weather and ask them what clearance they need.


The slightly more complicated thing is that for traffic entering controlled airspace, but not the ATZ, the pilots actual flight conditions will be used. This means that if the pilot determines it is VMC. This means that they can assess the conditions and decide that they can accept VFR, if so ATC will issue the clearance.

 


So what happens if we issue a clearance and the conditions change? Well it depends on the circumstances.

If an aircraft has either departed and is airborne, or has already entered CAS, then the original clearance remains valid. ATC will inform the pilot of the changes and ask them if they wish to remain VFR; if they answer yes then they may continue.

If traffic has not departed or entered CAS the clearance is void and ATC have to cancel it. Then the above procedure restarts with ATC giving the pilot conditions and asking what clearance they need.

 

 


Finally on a related topic, I want to mention SVFR.

SVFR is a hybrid between IFR and VFR. It allows a pilot to fly VFR even though it is IMC. There are limits even for SVFR which can be found in the mats part 1 sec 1 chap 2 §8 (some units also publish more stringent criteria in their part 2).

The main difference is that SVFR although it is VFR can not be deemed to have the same option of separating against other traffic through see and avoid. Therefore we have to separate SVFR from all SVFR and IFR flights.


This catches a lot of controllers out as they are unfamiliar with what consitutes separation in these matters. Basically, this can be:
Vertical separation (ie 1000 feet)
Radar separation (3 or 5 miles depending on the local instructions)
Geographical separation (which always has to be specified in the vMATS)
In rare cases, longitudinal separation (ie MATS pt 1 or part 2 speed tables), this will only be used if you have SVFR departures on set routes.
Reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome (difficult to apply in SVFR conditions)

Most commonly you will use a combination of vertical and radar separation. This means that approach radar have to ensure at least 1000 feet vertical or radar separation.

For example, if you have IFR inbounds and an inbound SVFR you have to hold the SVFR at least 3 (or 5) miles away from the ILS and any go around tracks to ensure radar separation. When you bring it in to land you still have to ensure radar separation until the aircraft ahead has landed.


Also remember that SVFR is flying under very challenging conditions, they may have to otice dodge clouds or manoeuvre to remain legal with late or no notice to ATC. Therefore always allow leeway to SVFR traffic to give a buffer for the pilot.

 

As always I would be happy to answer any questions on the above or provide clarfication as needed.

 

It is also worth noting that on vatsim we can't force anyone to use a particular time or weather setting, therefore you may get pilots requesting VFR because they have set their pilot client to CAVOK. In this case the suggestion is that you issue a VFR clearance but attempt to treat them as SVFR for anyone else, as the other pilots can't see them and therefore can't see and avoid. However that is up to the individual controllers to decide. We can however not refuse a VFR clearance if a pilot chooses to simulate conditions which permit VFR flight.

Edited by Johan Grauers
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Johan Grauers pinned this topic

The day a pilot calls me on Radar, with the correct details, aircraft type, QNH and asks for a clearance to transit to zone SVFR and successfully does so is the day I successfully fornicate with Katy Perry. I look forward to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johan Grauers
4 hours ago, James Horgan said:

The day a pilot calls me on Radar, with the correct details, aircraft type, QNH and asks for a clearance to transit to zone SVFR and successfully does so is the day I successfully fornicate with Katy Perry. I look forward to it.

There is bits of that I can arrange, and bits I can't, I'll let you think about which bit is which ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
David Etheridge

Regarding VMC minima, the rule is 1000ft AGL (reduced from 1500ft in the recent rule changes) over built up areas such as cities or events with > 1000 people attending. It should be noted that this is 1000ft above the highest obstacle. Outside of built up areas / events the 500ft rule applies.

Source: Latest PPL training material.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johan Grauers
1 hour ago, David Etheridge said:

Regarding VMC minima, the rule is 1000ft AGL (reduced from 1500ft in the recent rule changes) over built up areas such as cities or events with > 1000 people attending. It should be noted that this is 1000ft above the highest obstacle. Outside of built up areas / events the 500ft rule applies.

Source: Latest PPL training material.

That is correct, there are more restrictive rules than the 500' rule in some cases, however in terms of ATC we assume the pilot can manouver around any such areas as required. Also most airports are not surrounded by built up land and circuits are flown fairly close in, so the 1000' rule should not be a problem for circuits, and if you're outbound then you should be able to navigate a route which allows you to stay clear of built-up areas if you are unable to apply with the 1000' rule.

 

All of this to be honest though is a pilot issue, as controllers being aware that 1500' is the magic number is really sufficent on vatsim. I don't expect vatsim controllers to know the low flying rules for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Anthony Lawrence unpinned this topic
  • 3 years later...
Michael Pike

Brining up an old post for potential revision.

Am I right in thinking that the UK exemption from the SERA definition of VMC expired yesterday and VFR flights in CAS must remain 1000ft AGL or above? If so the "magic number" become 2000ft. I picked this up from the latest AIRAC  with special provision for the Manchester LLR

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad Byworth

Not quite.

The change is the UK was not permitted to renew it's exemption from VMC in Class D.

Essentially you can no longer use the clear of cloud if < 3000 ft and < 140 knots and you must now remain clear of cloud by 1000 ft and 1.5 km in Class D.

There's been no changes to the low flying bits (ie what historically would be Rule 5)

Obviously this means there's going to be an increase in SVFR clearances when the cloud ceiling does not permit 1000 ft separation from cloud.

The bit that's affected the Manchester LLR is the CAA have issued another exemption from SERA which states that within the LLR you can fly SVFR without an individual clearance but you won't be separated by ATC. The exemption is here:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1357.pdf

The LLR also now operates as effectively an RMZ - aircraft operating VFR must squawk the Manchester or Liverpool frequency monitoring codes (7366 or 5060) and listen in on the appropriate frequency. Aircraft operating SVFR must squawk 7364 and listen in to Manchester Radar.

This exemption is also temporary until May 22 - presumably whilst they work on a permanent solution.

Further detail is in the AIP entry for Manchester.

 

But the take home message is VFR must now operate 1000 ft/1.5 km clear of cloud in class D or otherwise operate SVFR.

The CAA is able to designate specific regions as areas in which SVFR flight does not require separation and the Manchester LLR is one of these areas (as for example are all of the local flying areas in the London CTR).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad Byworth

What I don't know is how this affects the Liverpool operation on 27.

These aircraft are vectored 500 ft above the LLR which is fine when an aircraft is operating VFR but this won't be considered separation for anything operating SVFR in the LLR.

The exemption only exempts separation between aircraft operating SVFR, no mention of IFR.

Maybe our resident Manchester expert could help? @Johan Grauers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke Collister

I asked Liverpool ATC the same question.

Liverpool will not vector aircraft on a base leg below 2300ft until 3NM from the LLR (that'll be a fun intercept, it's already tight enough!), to ensure separation against anything SVFR. They will however try to enter an agreement with any SVFR aircraft to be not above altitude 1000ft so that they can continue to descend aircraft on base legs to 2000ft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad Byworth
11 minutes ago, Luke Collister said:

I asked Liverpool ATC the same question.

Liverpool will not vector aircraft on a base leg below 2300ft until 3NM from the LLR (that'll be a fun intercept, it's already tight enough!), to ensure separation against anything SVFR. They will however try to enter an agreement with any SVFR aircraft to be not above altitude 1000ft so that they can continue to descend aircraft on base legs to 2000ft.

?

So Liverpool phone Manchester to ask them to ask the SVFR squawk monitoring 118.575 if they can accept not above 1000 ft and Manchester then report that back to Liverpool presumably?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke Collister
Just now, Chad Byworth said:

?

So Liverpool phone Manchester to ask them to ask the SVFR squawk monitoring 118.575 if they can accept not above 1000 ft and Manchester then report that back to Liverpool presumably?

I would imagine so. Or Liverpool will ask to work the traffic. Either way that sounds like a lot of coordination ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johan Grauers
7 hours ago, Chad Byworth said:

What I don't know is how this affects the Liverpool operation on 27.

These aircraft are vectored 500 ft above the LLR which is fine when an aircraft is operating VFR but this won't be considered separation for anything operating SVFR in the LLR.

The exemption only exempts separation between aircraft operating SVFR, no mention of IFR.

Maybe our resident Manchester expert could help? @Johan Grauers

 

Unfortunately my residency there ended a while ago so I can't help on this one I'm afraid. 

 

But the original post is no longer current after these changes, so I've added a new line in bold at the top to point this out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Pike

I remembered it though and found it. It was very valuable and in principal still is. The current definition of VMC is right at the top of the AIP in ENR 1. Table 1 shows the limits. Don't make the mistake I made - Read para 1.3 as well! As Chad says I see that it doesn't affect low flying so 1500 is still the magic number for ceiling for VFR in class D?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • Jason Shen
      By Jason Shen
      I followed the steps on the website and I chose to  start covering theory content before my Introduction to ATC group session. I have read and finished all the staff in Course:S1 . Also, I successfully passed the theory exam for S1. but  I haven't received the email yet. When can I receive it and know when will the session begin?
       
      At last, I am from China and there is a time difference between UK and here. So I can get ready for the session if you can inform me early
       
      Jason Shen                  
    • Barney Wakefield
      By Barney Wakefield
      Sorry to bother anyone, but I've been on the waiting list for roughly a year now (that's fine I realise it's a long queue) but the thing is I no longer see on the VATUK CTS my position in the queue. I don't now if its like this for everyone but about 3 months ago that just stopped appearing. I guess they moved to a different queue system. I don't want to make a ticket at the helpdesk if I don't have to so I'm just wondering if this is normal.
    • David Etheridge
      By David Etheridge
      Hi,
      After recently returning to Vatsim I've been assigned to EGNX_TWR for S2 training which is great as it's my local major airfield and the one I use for PPL training. However several other controllers have mentioned that EGNX is no longer used for mentoring sessions.
      Are there any kind mentors willing to take on an S2 wanabee who was previously half way through S2 training on EGCC?
      Many thanks
      Dave
    • Oliver Gates
      By Oliver Gates
      We have been running the weekly Gatwick MWM event for a few months now, so I have collated a few tips for ADC controllers. Thanks to everyone who submitted their ideas. If you have any suggestions for improvements or additions to the post, please send me a message on Slack. Thank you to @Harry Sugden for reviewing the post.
      GMP
      Intra-TMA flights
      Detailed procedures regarding intra-TMA flights will follow soon, but – in general – GMP should prenote the first receiving TC controller (as well as KK FIN in some cases*), who will inform GMP of any delay. This delay shall be absorbed on stand. Note that this includes flights to the Solent Group. See the vMATS Part 2 for more information regarding further action(s) based on estimated delays.
      * See local documentation for details on actions for flights to each TMA airport.
      Pre-notes to TC controllers
      It is likely that the TC controllers will be quite busy (with traffic and coordination). It is therefore preferable (but not mandatory) to use text coordination for pre-notes in this case.
      On a separate note, there is no need to prenote TC controllers regarding departures on old or non-RNAV SIDs; these don’t cause any major issues for the receiving TC controllers (as the majority of departures are vectored off the SID during periods of high traffic levels anyway).
      GMC
      Use of the northern runway as a taxiway
      When using the northern runway as a taxiway, the name of the taxiway included in taxi instructions is not dependent on which runway (26L or 08R) is in use. If the aircraft is taxiing west, the instruction should always be “taxi via 26R…”; if the aircraft is taxiing east, the instruction should always be “taxi via 08L…”. The word ‘backtrack’ should not be used.
      Particular care should be taken when taxiing aircraft down 26R when Gatwick is on easterly operations. It is likely that there will be a constant stream of arrivals during the event. Because of this, it is not advisable to taxi departing aircraft along 26R east of D, as this may cause arriving aircraft to stop on the rapid exit taxiway to give way (which may lead to a delayed takeoff and/or a go-around). Instead, it is recommended that aircraft are instructed to taxi via J, T and 26R. Note that taxiway E is not available for vacating 08R, so this should not cause a conflict.

      Transfer of departures
      Departures should be handed off to AIR in good time. Ideally, departing aircraft should be handed off before reaching the runway holding point(s). GMC should consider using the instruction “monitor” instead of “contact” to reduce RT congestion on the AIR frequency.
      AIR
      Final approach spacing
      If the final approach spacing is consistently too low, AIR must coordinate with FIN to make them aware. Equally, if there are far more arrivals than departures, coordination should take place to reduce the spacing (for increased efficiency).
      Proactivity
      Anticipate, don’t just react. On VATSIM, pilots may not be aware of MROT. If a pilot expresses concern about the lack of landing clearance, tell them to expect a late landing clearance. If a pilot is clearly going to stop before vacating the runway, or is travelling far too slowly, tell them to keep rolling until they have passed the stop bar and/or to expedite. If necessary, request that pilots vacate via a particular exit. It is important to remember that this is VATSIM, not real life, so the pilots will often not be as vigilant.
      Some examples:
      "BAW73J, expedite, vacate first right [via E/FR]" "BAW73J, keep rolling, taxi first right onto RW08L / second right onto J" Conditional landing clearances
      Special landing procedures exist at Gatwick (and Stansted) to assist with high-intensity runway operations. Further details can be found in the AIP (GEN 3.3) or in this forum post, and these will be included in the new KK vMATS Part 2. AIR controllers should use these procedures to their advantage (assuming the appropriate conditions are met). These should be used with caution, though, and issuing one of these clearances when the departing aircraft hasn't even started its takeoff roll is ill-advised, as there is no way to ensure that the two aircraft will be far enough apart by the time the landing aircraft crossed the threshold.
      Releases
      Do not underestimate the importance of departure releases. If there is initially no response from the TC controller regarding an aircraft requiring a release, this is probably because the controller is busy. This is not an excuse to simply depart the aircraft anyway, as this will simply increase their workload.
      There has been some confusion about releases following missed approaches. After a go-around, AIR must obtain (or re-obtain) a release from FIN only if the next departure is:
      on a TIGER/WIZAD/DAGGA SID; on SFD SID from 08R/L; a non-standard IFR departure; an SVFR/VFR departure to the south. Note that the lack of release for other SIDs is, of course, dependent on the aircraft executing the correct missed approach procedure. If an aircraft turns right after a go-around from 26L, it isn't particularly wise to launch a LAM departure (for example)!
      Route separation
      It is also important to emphasise that the route separation criteria are minima and should not be reduced by the AIR controller. Departing two aircraft 60 seconds apart on a LAM1Z SID (for example), putting one on a heading, and coordinating this with TC is not helpful and, again, will unnecessarily increase the TC controller’s workload.
      Departures turning in the wrong direction or busting levels
      If you notice that a departing aircraft is deviating from their SID (or after departure instructions), don’t just hand off the aircraft to TC to let them solve the problem; by the time the pilot calls TC, the problem will be worse. This is particularly prominent for aircraft which incorrectly make an immediate sharp left turn after departure from 26L. For obvious reasons, this will be problematic, and if the aircraft has turned into the arrival stream, do not just hand it off to the original receiving TC sector and hope for the best. Coordinate with FIN/INT and TC to resolve the issue.
      Similarly, if an aircraft climbs above the initial climb altitude whilst still on your frequency, don’t just hand it off to the receiving TC sector to let them stop the climb; again, by the time the pilot calls up, they will be even higher above the initial climb altitude and (probably) still continuing to climb. Stop the climb yourself and coordinate with TC if necessary.
    • Oliver Gates
      By Oliver Gates
      Hi, all.
      As per Dan's forum post, I'm sad to say that I will be resigning as TGI for Approach and leaving the Training Department. Going into my second year at university, I have realised that I will no longer be able to dedicate sufficient time to the role, and it would be unfair on the division and department for me to continue. This isn't to say that I won't be around at all - just not as much as before, and I will continue to help out where I can. I hope that I'll be able to return at some point in the future, if/when I eventually get a bit more time.
      I'd like to thank @Daniel Crookes and @Oliver Rhodes for their excellent management of the department over the past few years, and @Charlie Watson and @Jack Edwardsfor working with me. I can confidently say that the standard of S3 training has gone up this year, whilst waiting times have decreased significantly. I'd like the thank all the training staff, mentors and students, and I wish Charlie and my successor the best of luck.
×
×
  • Create New...