Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What if ATC deny an "avoid due to wx" because of military airspace?

This happens quite a lot in the lower airspace (below FL200) where most of this mil airspace resides.

Over the years I have had some really aggressive situations, and the most notable were some quite recent ones.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I never had avoidance denied. On the contrary, I get avoidance suggestions from ATC from time to time. Maybe it’s because my tendency is to sit quiet and see what happens. Unprofessional, I know. Some guys from my airfield flew a brand new CJ3+ into hail by doing just that. Later they told the owner it was the ATC vectoring at fault and also that hail is not visible on radar. Who would have thought? :-) For me, sitting quiet ended once with a 180 due to severe turbulence. Anyway, when really in trouble, I don’t mind the ATC so much. Do what you have to do, talk later.

Imaginary threats not visible on radar may be a different matter.

EPPO, EPPK

When flying VFR or IFR?

Don't get too slow
LECU | LECN, Spain

Squawk 7700 and turn

EBZW EBST

When flying VFR or IFR?

IFR, of course.

ATC are under no obligation to accommodate VFR traffic in any way. But “request xx to avoid” is something a pilot in the IFR system is entitled to.

Of course there will be times when ATC think you are taking the p1ss as in e.g. here and here, so maybe in some scenarios they are resistant to the request.

The 2nd link above related to Munich where there seems to be a particular ATCO doing this, and I got some more of it on my trip to Tivat, from a sector at/near there, though I am not sure of the exact area. I do have to video+audio so should be able to find it.

OTOH on my return flight yesterday, Munich did coordinate with a military area to let me through it, so it is not a general policy to totally refuse. They let me through it only after I refused a descent from FL110 due to definite icing conditions below (we were just above the tops), so they were going to re-route, but then managed to coordinate a transit.

Squawk 7700 and turn

That’s interesting. Obviously the turn must be made, for safety, and ATC advised, but I had not previously heard of the 7700.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

That is a request of our military. But 99% of the time they will grant acces due to bad wx.

EBZW EBST

Peter wrote:

ATC are under no obligation to accommodate VFR traffic in any way.

Of course they are. If the clearance is unsafe the PIC has a responsibility to request a revised clearance and ATC has to accommodate that. There is no difference from IFR.

If you are flying VFR and there is a buildup in your path you have to request a revised clearance because you can’t maintain VMC if you fly into it. Do you seriously mean that ATC has no obligation to provide one!?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

If you are VFR OCAS then ATC has no obligation beyond the ICAO FIS. You have no “implied enroute clearance / expectation of completing the flight” which you have under (Eurocontrol) IFR. OCAS, you can fly where you like (TRAs etc excepted) but most IFR is in CAS and that is where you have to work with ATC. If you are VFR OCAS then you have no assurance of getting a CAS transit, to avoid wx or for any other reason. If you are VFR in CAS then the “avoid wx” situation is the same as IFR in CAS.

But “everybody” knows the above so maybe I have wires crossed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Perhaps AA is referring to VFR flight in controlled airspace, where having let you enter in the first place they definitely do need to do something if you state you’re unable to continue as cleared or unable to comply with a subsequent instruction.

But I get what Peter means in that from their perspective they can make the problem go away by just not allowing you to enter in the first place.

Last Saturday I heard the Farnborough LARS West controller trying to impose level and heading restrictions on VFR aircraft in Class G airspace (who didn’t want any service) for the convenience of jet traffic inbound to Farnborough. This sort of stuff is what fosters an ‘us and them’ attitude.

EGLM & EGTN

Last Saturday I heard the Farnborough LARS West controller trying to impose level and heading restrictions on VFR aircraft in Class G airspace (who didn’t want any service) for the convenience of jet traffic inbound to Farnborough

I’d strongly advise to file a report when this happens. It is an upcoming trend that needs to be suppressed asap.

EBZW EBST
25 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top