hazek wrote:
Do you know that not knowing this can get you killed? I mean forget about rules and infringing a CAS, you could literally die if you don’t understand and apply what is listed here:
Given that this discussion is about VFR, you should be avoiding getting killed by looking out of the window! and not banging into the Pennines.
I’ve never contacted FIS to get a radar clearance
Well, you can’t because in the UK FIS is done – to save money – by FISO-grade controllers who are not supposed to even see a radar 
In reality, London INFO do have radar screens but aren’t allowed to say anything on the radio – even if you are about to do a major bust. They have to transfer you to a radar unit e.g. Farnborough, who can then tell you that you have already busted, and they can enjoy (not) writing out the MOR 
Accordingly, I almost never call up an “INFO” unit in the UK.
I vaguely recall hearing that the CAA may be closer to approving some tower equipment (basically a laptop running stuff like ADSB-exchange) for more official usage. Currently every airfield has got such a “nonexistent laptop” (because it is so obviously useful) but they can’t “use it”.
Peter wrote:
RPS is completely useless and needs to be avoided. This is a UK-only thing.
RPS is also an RAF thing. It’s the lowest forecast QNH anywhere in the region for the next X hours, where X is a number that I forget.
The reason they use it is because they have fast jets crossing over the ground quickly who may be in IMC and need to be assured of terrain clearance. Because of the dearth of radar units covering the areas they may be crossing, they cannot necessarily just get the local QNH. In busier areas the speed at which they are transiting may make hopping between QNH settings impractical.
It has no practical use at all in GA.
Military ATC units pass RPS to GA because they do things their own way and will never be told. They also pass you the QFE if you transit a MATZ. Just ask them for the QNH.
London Info (non-radar, at least officially) pass you RPS because they cover a large area and seemingly cannot be bothered to pick an appropriate QNH based on where you tell them you are.
It is certainly not impossible to fly at an altitude in contravention to the semicircular rule, which may or may not apply.
So this is irrelevant.
But you can fly at the transition altitude below CAS with a FL as a lower limit regardless of the QNH.
The two systems are kept separate by the transition layer, you fly on QNH up to and including the TA, and on 1013 above and down to the TL.
The real risk of busts are
– climbing through the TL and then climbing inmediately into the CAS above
– descending from a FL and in setting finding yoh entered some airspace defined as AMSL
– moving horizontally from an area to a lower transition altitude
All of the above can be avoided by changing the altimeter setting well ahead of time.
But – while this simply follows from the altimeter setting procedures (you cannot fly or infringe a flight level which does not exist), would you trust an authority which prosecutes the smallest infraction to apply this properly?
Peter wrote:
Well, you can’t because in the UK FIS is done – to save money – by FISO-grade controllers who are not supposed to even see a radar In reality, London INFO do have radar screens but aren’t allowed to say anything on the radio – even if you are about to do a major bust. They have to transfer you to a radar unit e.g. Farnborough, who can then tell you that you have already busted, and they can enjoy (not) writing out the MOR Accordingly, I almost never call up an “INFO” unit in the UK.This shows perfectly how far behind the UK is, compared to most countries in mainland Europe. A radar belongs to the basic FIS features. Even those countries with FISO-grade ‘controllers’ like Germany, have official radar screens. Not even to speak about those countries with real ATCO at FIS positions.
A radar belongs to the basic FIS features
This is 100% about ATC funding politics, State-owned versus “privatised”, etc. It is a super hot topic within ATC and within their employers. Drop into any forum (they seem to be largely on FB) frequented by ATC and raise this and you will get beaten into pulp. I don’t use FB much (use it 99% to promote EuroGA ) and I have >100 people, apparently NATS employees, on my block list
The UK, along with plenty of others, implements the “ICAO minimum” which is FIS. Obviously the UK is technically capable of offering a radar service everywhere… they just chose not to. An H24 radar desk costs $1M+ a year (a figure from NATS c. 2011 so >50% more now).
This is another topic but IMHO no country should sit there comfortably thinking that its taxpayer funded system will stay like that for ever. The “user pays” principle is emotionally powerful, is tempting to expand, along with so much in modern society (like unisex toilets ) the whole thing is a one-way ratchet, ATC (area ATC and big-airport ATC) is extremely well paid, none of the paymasters understand it so they just provide whatever is demanded, so the system is super-expensive to run, and it takes serious political balls to maintain it where it is appropriate (and it is appropriate in many places) at taxpayer expense.
It’s a total joke that the UK CAA has a zero-tolerance policy against CAS violators, but at the same time, won’t offer proper CAS avoidance services to VFR pilots. It’s bad and sad at the same time.
Yes. But the people in the system just don’t “get” this line of thinking. A bust is a bust and must be punished. Simple!
Peter wrote:
This is another topic but IMHO no country should sit there comfortably thinking that its taxpayer funded system will stay like that for ever. The “user pays” principle is emotionally powerful, is tempting to expand, along with so much in modern society (like unisex toilets ) the whole thing is a one-way ratchet, ATC (area ATC and big-airport ATC) is extremely well paid, none of the paymasters understand it so they just provide whatever is demanded, so the system is super-expensive to run, and it takes serious political balls to maintain it where it is appropriate (and it is appropriate in many places) at taxpayer expense.
I wouldn’t mind to pay it for the SEPs I usually fly at the Eurocontrol charges-level, but it is not on offer. :)
@Cobalt I don’t understand why you keep bringing up TA/TL in this circumstance.
AIUI the chart indicates CAS starting at FL055.
You are flying along at 4500ft QNH 964 on your altimeter. On his radar the ATCO sees you at FL 059 because he has 1013 set. Therefore you have infringed his airspace.
Or do you think that if there is a TA/TL of say 6000ft he is also working to QNH and that he calculates what altitude everyone descending should have. But whilst they might well raise and lower the TA/TL this does not change what is written onbthe chart for the floor of the CAS.
You are flying along at 4500ft QNH 964 on your altimeter. On his radar the ATCO sees you at FL 059 because he has 1013 set.
No.
If the ATCO sees you in CAS with a QNH base he will see you as A45 or A4500.
His system computes pressure altitude corrected for current QNH, so shows true barometric altitude.
How he sees you as you fly from QNH-based airspace to FL-based airspace, I don’t know but I would expect the display switches from A45 to F45 at the boundary, and then a bust is readily visible. Of course there are ATCOs reading this who could say exactly what they see but none of them participate… (Cub dropped in to say we are all idiots beneath his level of intelligence, but he could have answered this) and it’s a pity! But you can google/images on “atc screen” and see lots of examples.
I wouldn’t mind to pay it for the SEPs I usually fly at the Eurocontrol charges-level
You would be alone. The route charges are of the order of 50/hr.
