Special VFR clearance example - The Flying Reporter 

Nice one Matthew. Thanks. I hear it is hard to clear SVFR than it seems.

The Flying Reporter I’m not 100% sure what you mean. SVFR clearances are not difficult but they are more likely to be declined as they can be a lot more labour intensive. They would be much more dependent on our workload than a VFR clearance. Inside the Control Zone (Class D airspace) we (RADAR controllers) are required to maintain 3 miles or 1000 feet separation between aircraft operating SVFR and IFR. We have to; separate SVFR and SVFR, separate SVFR and IFR, separate IFR and IFR. If we have IFR arrivals and departures and the weather isn’t great this can make maintaining separation between SVFR and IFR aircraft difficult. We may ask you to take up an orbit in your present position (for example, if you are just over 3 miles from the airfield) to ensure this separation. Some airfields have VRPs inside the Control Zone that can be closer than 3 miles from the airfield which can be used by SVFR aircraft to hold at. As they are a know reference point they are deemed separated from IFR arrivals/departures. These allow controllers to get you closer to the airfield, thus allowing the tower controller to hopefully acquire you visually more easily. We don’t have these at Stansted, but Luton do! TOWER controllers are allowed to reduce the 3 miles/1000 feet separation under certain circumstances, hence why I asked you to turn your lights on. Once a tower controller can see you they can apply “Reduced Separation in the Vicinity of an Airfield” rules. Therefore you might often be transferred to the tower to actually cross the airfield. Having said that, if it was particularly quiet and there were no IFR movements you may be kept by the radar controller all the way through the zone. There is no “one size fits all” way of doing it. I really enjoy speaking to the VFR aircraft although when we are busy the time to do this clearly gets less. It saddened me to read another comment on this video talking about the “reputation” of Essex controllers. I do understand the comment as not all controllers are overly comfortable with the integration of VFR traffic but whenever I am on I will always try and facilitate any requests, all be it that “sometimes” I might have to say no!!

That's a great insight thanks. I know of some controllers who have told me they wouldn't under any circumstances grant an SVFR clearance because of the workload involved so I am grateful you did.

The Flying Reporter You’re very welcome. SVFR are much more dependent on traffic and workload than VFR aircraft. The problem we face is when the weather is not great we can’t bring you closer than 3 miles from the airfield, to ensure we maintain separation from our IFR aircraft. If the tower still can’t see you, they then can’t use reduced separation in the vicinity of an airfield to get you over the airfield. Therefore we can end up in a bit of a pickle! You’re right, some controllers would ALWAYS say no to SVFR. Personally I don’t agree with this. I believe each case/request should be evaluated at the time and a decision given based on what is happening at that time. This is how I do it... If I can make it work, I will! It’s part of the fun of the job.

Thank you Matthew for your reply and explanation above, very useful

Thanks for watching Tim. Hope you're keeping well.

Thanks for the message Findlay. Glad it's helped you.

Haha same…

Thanks for watching Gary.

All good things come with patience! You’ll get there soon. Use this downtime to your advantage and get ahead of the game in your studies. Best of luck!

Thanks Chris.

I’m glad to hear that your experiences on the whole have been positive with regards to Stansted/Essex Radar. I was the radar controller who gave Jon the SVFR clearance through the Stansted Control Zone in this video. I have to say, on the whole I enjoy giving services to aircraft outside controlled airspace and giving transits where I can. Essex can be a very interesting and varied position, having a mix of both IFF and VFR aircraft. Obviously, services can be dependent on how busy things get but it’s nice to accommodate you guys when and where we can. I can understand the confusion of my Luton colleague following the change to the requirements of SVFR/VFR flights as it was all a change for us to think about too. As I have said in another comment on this video SVFR transits are more likely to be refused due to the requirements of us having to provide separation however, certainly speaking for myself, if I can accommodate it I will.

Thanks Adam.

From an R/T point of view it really is no different to requesting a VFR clearance. The main thing to consider is that a SVFR clearance is more likely to be refused therefore you need to ensure you have alternative plans readily available.

Thanks Rory. As Matthew says, the tricky part is if you will be granted the clearance. I think helicopters may find it easier to get a clearance. Matthew may be able to elaborate.

The Flying Reporter well it would be great if there was something about helicopters that was easier. 😉😂🚁

The Flying Reporter I would agree with that. I think in general helicopters would be more likely to be given a SVFR clearance than fixed wing aircraft, but it is dependent on the situation at the time. From a controllers point of view helicopters can pretty much just stop if you say hold position. With a fixed wing having to take up an orbit it can make things a little more unpredictable when having to try and maintain separation. The day of your flight the visibility looked really good and the tower could see you from a long way out. The more complicated SVFR transits (or arrivals) to handle are when the visibility is worse so you have to get closer to the airfield to see it and be seen. In this case a helicopter is good because they can slowly “creep” towards to airfield. We can easily say hold position if we have IFR traffic and then allow them a little closer once there is a gap in IFR traffic. At busier London airfields like Gatwick, Stansted and Luton (obviously things are a little quieter at the moment due Covid-19) where the traffic is normally much more constant, it can take a long time to find a gap in the traffic to get a transit over the airfield. IFR aircraft have priority so this can often result in a long delay for transits or more often a refusal due to the complexity and the risk of losing separation between the aircraft operating SVFR and all of the IFR arrivals and departures. A controller will often not want to risk their licence by having an incident. Clearly an aircraft inbound to the airfield that is unable to fly VFR would be given a SVFR clearance and at some point a suitable gap would be made for it to fit in. Another potential tool that we could use is to actually give vectors to the SVFR aircraft but obviously we can’t see the clouds on our radar so the pilot would need to let us know if that wouldn’t work. Having said all of the above, in really poor weather aircraft inbound to the field that couldn’t accept VFR would have to be given SVFR but transits will almost certainly be refused. I doubt you would ask for it anyway if the weather wasn’t that good!!

Just a gopro sticky mount.

I'm at 39h, just completed my QXC and getting my refresher training done for the skills test. When you get to this stage you will be talking like a pro;) good luck with your training!

@@lukecolman9162 Thank you! :) Good luck with your skills test!

Maybe one day!

My clearance limit was the aerodrome boundary. They meant, the aerodrome perimeter, I thought them meant ATZ. I began to hold at the atz outer limit.

@@TheFlyingReporter That makes sense now, thank you Jon.... Stu

@@TheFlyingReporter I must say I found things a tad confusing - well done for being the person to do a good job "at the sharp end" !. Whilst I understand CTA, CTR & ATZ I'm not entirely sure what they meant by aerodrome perimeter/boundary (the bit inside the fence ???). I must confess I wasn't expecting to hear that phrase. I couldn't help but think the controller was prepared/happy with a direct route from Chipping Ongar to Audley End albeit via the 22 threshold AND avoiding the terminal building. Well done you. At least Audley End was nice and quiet when you arrived ! I always learn helpful things from your VLOGS (I realised I didn't have Airways Reporting Points enabled for my Skydemon) ! Thanks and look forward to seeing your French trip.

Graeme Craven By using the phrase Aerodrome Boundary we are literally meaning the fence that goes around the airfield. I was happy for Jon to come as far as the boundary and would expect him to orbit to remain just outside of this boundary if no further clearance is given. That way, he would not cross the runway or the inbound/outbound track and would thus stay away from IFR aircraft. As per the clip, these aircraft are usually transferred to the tower controller in adequate time for the clearance limit (in this case, the aerodrome boundary) to be updated. Whilst I was happy for Jon to route from Chipping Ongar to Audley End (via the 22 threshold) we would rarely give a clearance that would allow you to go all the way over the airfield as this would add too much uncertainty in ensuring safety against our IFR traffic. By giving the aerodrome boundary as an initial clearance limit it builds in a layer of safety.

Stuart Essex When I told Jon to continue on his track and to contact the tower I hadn’t spotted that he had started a turn (probably due to the slight delay in our radar picture). As Jon said above, he thought I’d meant the Aerodrome Traffic Zone boundary when in fact I had meant the boundary of the actual airfield. Thus, I wasn’t expecting him to enter an orbit. He did the right thing by rolling quickly out of the turn and continuing on his track. One thing I would suggest is that if you were to hold in an orbit in that position (which would have been around a couple of miles south of the airfield) I would prefer the orbits to be right hand as that would make the initial turn away from the airfield, and the climb out!

Hi Hayden. This is one of my frequently asked questions. www.jonhunt.net/faq/

On my way out to Charleroi in Belgium (EBCI). No cameras onboard I’m afraid...

N101DW we’re missing the videos!

You can get an SVFR clearance through a CTR regardless of whether it's a transit or you're taking off/landing. Each controlling authority may have specific rules about when they will allow clearances.

Yes, 16 July.

No, that shouldn't happen. I shall have a look and check that. Thanks for letting me know. Should just be the one at the beginning.

I think YT has turned that on by default, I have now turned that off.

Don't mind the adverts at all. For the content we are receiving for free, it would be more than justified anyways. Loving it!

I don't understand your question?

The Flying Reporter what did you say about the Gear position?

@@TheFlyingReporter "gear's up" in fixed undercarriage

I'm trying to keep the discipline of the gear-up check, for when I return to retractable.

@@TheFlyingReporter Excellent discipline, but isn't a check useless if you simply repeat it parrot fashion? Maybe say "Gear fixed" to force yourself to think about what is installed?

Shane Fleming ..I wondered the same..what helpful controllers Jon. Good stuff.

The terminal buildings at Stansted are pretty much right at the north eastern edge of the airfield. By flying just to the south of the terminal buildings, and on a north westerly track (as Jon did) he would have flown just about right over the numbers of the 22 threshold. If you use the satellite view on google maps you’ll be able to visualise this much better. The landing threshold is generally where you would be told to cross over an airfield.

Matthew Richards Thanks for the answer. I had a look at the satellite view alright. Going south to north would avoid the terminals. And while you’re here, if Jon asked for a VFR transit, would they have said no because he didn’t ask for SVFR or would they have suggested SVFR?

Shane Fleming I can’t remember what the weather was at the time but if the weather precludes a VFR transit over the airfield but a pilot asks for it then yes, it would be refused. I can’t speak for all controllers but I would suggest that SVFR transits would not very often be offered as it can significantly increase your workload. VFR transits are far more straight forward of course due to the fact that we are not required to maintain 3 miles/1000 feet of separation. One thing to note is that if the weather at the airfield is too bad to allow us to give VFR clearances to cross the airfield (there are some exemptions like Police and Helimed helicopters) we may still issue VFR clearances for aircraft to clip the edges of the control zone as the weather where that aircraft is may well be suitable for VFR flight. That is up to the pilot to decide...

Matthew Richards Thanks for the detailed reply. That’s great information to know

Sqauwk conspicuity. It's a new British thing, meaning squawk 7000(if VFR) or 2000(IFR)

I was the controller and until recently we would just say Squawk 7000. However, as Jon says, this was recently changed so that we now say squawk conspicuity. The reason that it was changed is that 7000 is the squawk worn by aircraft operating VFR and 2000 is the squawk worn by aircraft operating IFR (outside controlled airspace). When we tell aircraft to continue with their en route frequency we do not know what flight rules they will then be flying, hence we say squawk conspicuity. The pilot should then select the correct code (2000 or 7000) depending the the flight rules. Obviously being familiar with this makes it easy to understand. However, it’s horrible to say and I’ve certainly stumbled over “squawk conspicuity” more than once!! :-)

@@matthewrichards1564 brilliant thanks for the replies, all clear now! What a coincidence that the controller watched this video!

Iain Millar Absolutely! One of my colleagues (who also flies) saw it and let me know about it. It’s quite good seeing it from the other side!! Also, I remember doing it too as it was only something like 3 weeks ago...

I was surprised he didnt pick that up immediately after as he mentally checked the condition before "check". great videos these . So relevant to UK flying.

I think you'd have to ask the pilot of that aircraft. Perhaps it was VMC his way.

@@TheFlyingReporter I would! So let's make it hypothetical. If I asked for a VFR clearance, would ATC ever say "No, it's not VMC"? It's the pilot's responsibility to determine conditions but would ATC override if they knew cloud base was too low?

@@matthewwilliams2128 Possibly, but probably not. It's up to you as PIC to determine the flight conditions, and inform ATC if you cannot maintain VFR. In the ATZ though, it can safely be assumed that the controller will know the conditions there, because of the METAR, and so would be unlikely to grant you a transit through the ATZ VFR if it was not VMC.

Matthew Williams Hi Matthew, you are correct that somebody else was given a VFR transit. I was the radar controller handling the traffic at the time. The video shows Jon making a SVFR transit through controlled airspace and over the top of the airfield, flying through the ATZ. I can’t remember the specific weather on the day but I think the cloud ceiling was just below 1500 feet. If the weather is below VFR minima we would have to issue a SVFR clearance for the route that Jon took (through the ATZ). However, the other aircraft that transited VFR was on its way to Andrewsfield from the north west (from the Duxford sort of area). The transit that this aircraft took only took it inside the CTR by a mile or so, meaning it was a few miles away from the airfield. The weather in that location could be completely different to the weather at the airfield therefore I wouldn’t apply the airfield weather to the aircrafts clearance. It would be up to the pilot to determine whether or not they could transit VFR. From a controllers point of view, I would always give a VFR transit wherever possible due to the extra workload that a SVFR transit can make. If you look through the other comments on this video I have explained a bit about what we have to do with regards to separation etc. I hope that makes sense!

@@matthewrichards1564 It does, and thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply. SVFR is not something GA pilots have had to deal with much till recently. Understanding what happens "at the other end of the radio" makes it a lot easier to do it properly. Thanks again, and thanks to Jon for making the video.

I know that Chris, but we say and do funning things when we're under pressure, don't we?

Yes we do, and you tend to this solo and broadcast your first attempt, so full respect. interested to see flight to France and what issues you may face. LeTouquet?

You don't *need* to repeat everything, but human memory is subject to proscriptive errors, and it's a helpful guard against those errors to say a future task out loud. I think repeating these "simple" instructions shows good airmanship.

We have Cap 413? Which directs numbers and clearances are repeated,. It does this so that, in busy airspace, controllers are not listening to unnecessary words. I’m not being critical of the flying reporter, but I could not agree with you. If ATC think you can’t handle commas in controlled airspace they will keep you out.

Chris Palmann It’s quite sad to know that there is a reputation regarding Stansted controllers. I can only assume this isn’t the best of reputations. I’m glad that this clip will help improve that reputation!

In this flight/clip Jon was flying in to an airfield called Audley End. Although it wasn’t a radar handover, permission was given for Jon to leave the Essex frequency (whilst he was still inside the Stansted Control Zone) and the appropriate frequency of that airfield was given. In these circumstances I would expect the frequency and the requirement to squawk conspicuity (7000) to be read back. Ordinarily, a pilot is not necessarily required to tell a controller who they are contacting next although they should definitely let the controller know when they are leaving the frequency. I hope that makes sense.

Because it's in CAP413, the radiotelephony manual for UK airspace.