|
pauls
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWhile I recognise the utility for VFR pilots not to see IFR NOTAMs which would drown out NOTAMs relevant to them in non-relevant ones, I think: 1. This should at least be indicated on the NOTAM list; e.g. on the top "Filter: VFR" or "Filter: VFR next 24h" or whatever the filter is set to. 2. This VFR-only filtering should not be done, in the airport view, when IFR features are enabled. 3. It is debatable whether an IFR pilot filing a VFR flightplan wants to see IFR NOTAMs or not. I would err on the side of caution, and show IFR NOTAMs on a VFR flightplan on an account where IFR features are enabled. This could be an explicit per-flightplan setting.
You always want to see all NOTAM, example, when an airport with IFR and VFR traffic changes SID and/or STAR by NOTAM, you definitely want to know that as a VFR pilot, because the heavy iron around you is appearing at a different place (don't ask why I know). doesnt anyone know the "rules" that are used to filter in and out NOTAMs? Perhaps that is where the issue is>?
|
|
|
|
|
lmamane
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12,
Visits: 8
|
+xYou always want to see all NOTAM, example, when an airport with IFR and VFR traffic changes SID and/or STAR by NOTAM, you definitely want to know that as a VFR pilot, because the heavy iron around you is appearing at a different place (don't ask why I know). When I was a VFR pilot, I had not been trained on where to find, and how to understand, SID and STAR charts, nor advised to look at them to understand where the heavy iron is. Typically SIDs and STARs with heavy iron are completely in controlled airspace, so ATC will separate you from them. In my view, VFR traffic plainly doesn't care where SIDs and STARs are.
|
|
|
|
|
pilot-byom
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 323,
Visits: 388
|
@pauls: AFAIK, the VFR/IFR is a tagged label originating from the one issuing the NOTAM, be it the airfield in question or somebody at the authorities
@Imamane: you should start immediately learning to look at the IFR NOTAM when flying Europe, because all the new GPS IFR procedures will be where the little guys fly and No, ATC is not providing separation in all cases. As VFR traffic in E you have to know where the SID and STAR are and starting a while ago you have to know in G where the GPS approaches and departures from small fields are.
My prognosis, in a not too far future we will see the death of VFR/IFR tags and get only NOTAM.
|
|
|
|
|
lmamane
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12,
Visits: 8
|
+x@Imamane: you should start immediately learning to look at the IFR NOTAM when flying Europe, because all the new GPS IFR procedures will be where the little guys fly and No, ATC is not providing separation in all cases. As VFR traffic in E you have to know where the SID and STAR are and starting a while ago you have to know in G where the GPS approaches and departures from small fields are. Well, theoretically, people flying IFR in VMC have to maintain "look and avoid", and theoretically there will be no VFR traffic in IMC (modulo the problems of the IMC/VMC interface in F/G airspace, where VFR traffic is allowed right to the edge of the clouds). I mean "theoretically" exactly like I mean that "theoretically" VFR traffic is supposed to use "look and avoid", and "right of way from the right". In practice, I don't believe in that working, and in practice we use mostly radio calls for separation, and we absolutely don't, in E/F/G airpace, count on the regional airliner yielding to our right of way from the right. I have it from the local airline's safety manager that most of his pilots, if light GA is not their hobby/background, have no clue they are in E airspace, and no clue that they are not separated from VFR traffic; they file reports for each crossed VFR traffic. And it is good airmanship for VFR traffic near an aerodrome to at least maintain a listening watch on the aerodrome frequency, if not even make (blind) calls. The problem is their notion of "vicinity" doesn't go very far, and certainly doesn't extend to the area occupied by an IFR approach, much less a STAR or SID.
Having had to do a missed approach on final due to unseen VFR traffic crossing the extended centerline on/near the glideslope, (traffic system blaring...), I'm conscious of the problem. However, as much as I would like VFR "club style" traffic to be aware of IFR trajectories, that's a "change the rest of the world" system... Needs changing the whole training industry, and then will take generations, until after I die or lose my medical, until all pilots are the "new", aware, model. The only workable solution can come only from ourselves, not from changing the rest of the world.
Having them read the VFR enroute NOTAMs is already an uphill battle.
|
|
|
|
|
pilot-byom
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 323,
Visits: 388
|
@Imamane: You have to get familiar with approaches like - https://flugplatz-zellamsee.at/de/pdf/forpilots/Instr-Approach%20Chart.pdf - and there will be IFR aircraft still on RADAR frequency not yet on the airfield frequency dropping out off the clouds just in front of you in airspace G and these approaches are now coming in greater numbers - believe me, you better learn this now.
|
|
|
|
|
lmamane
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12,
Visits: 8
|
+x@Imamane: there will be IFR aircraft still on RADAR frequency not yet on the airfield frequency dropping out off the clouds just in front of you in airspace G and these approaches are now coming in greater numbers - believe me, you better learn this now. To be honest, when it happened to me, I did get traffic advice warning about the VFR traffic in class G from the approach controller. What I don't believe is that we will succeed in getting all VFR pilots to stay out of these paths. The solutions have to come from us, the people flying these IFR approaches. But if you have a way to change everyone else's (the vast majority of VFR pilot's) behaviour, then by all means do it! It will make my life easier! I can then fly my approach on autopilot, head down! (Not really.)
|
|
|
|
|
lhe
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 144,
Visits: 445
|
How is (non-)separation between VFR and IFR in class E/F/G relevant to NOTAMs?
|
|
|
|
|
lmamane
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12,
Visits: 8
|
+xHow is (non-)separation between VFR and IFR in class E relevant to NOTAMs? pilot-byom was arguing that VFR pilots should read IFR NOTAMs so that they are appraised to NOTAMed changes to IFR SIDs, STARs and approaches, so that they can stay out of these paths. This is only relevant in class E/F/G, where VFR and IFR are not separated.
|
|
|
|
|
pauls
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHow is (non-)separation between VFR and IFR in class E relevant to NOTAMs? pilot-byom was arguing that VFR pilots should read IFR NOTAMs so that they are appraised to NOTAMed changes to IFR SIDs, STARs and approaches, so that they can stay out of these paths. This is only relevant in class E/F/G, where VFR and IFR are not separated. Remember a "VFR" pilot is better described as a "VMC" pilot as they can fly IFR too.
|
|
|
|
|
lmamane
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12,
Visits: 8
|
+xRemember a "VFR" pilot is better described as a "VMC" pilot as they can fly IFR too. I'm not aware of any possibility for a pilot that doesn't have an IR (if not a "full" ICAO IR, then at least a restricted form of it like the British IR(R), IMC rating or the EASA EIR or BIR), which is what I meant by "VFR pilot", to fly IFR, unless with an IRI (but then the two-person crew has a member with an IR).
|
|
|
|