Talk:Special visual flight rules

message: Re proposal to merge with Visual Flight Rules:  I vote against.  SVFR is a bit of a misnomer - it is definitely not VFR.BaseTurnComplete 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in favour of a merge, but of course SVFR is "directly related" to VFR.  To say otherwise requires a redefinition of either "directly" or "related".  Paul Beardsell 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  VFR requires VMC.  SVFR does not, for starters  Without delving too deeply into semantics, that's a pretty major distinction and therefore does not require the redefinition of the word "directly" in my opinion.BaseTurnComplete 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree VFR requires VMC and SVFR does not.  (The article as it stands seems to say otherwise, somewhere, but it is wrong.)  SVFR requires a different set of meteorological conditions from IMC.  Some less but some more.  But I cannot work out what point you are making.  Obviously SVFR is related to VFR, otherwise it wouldn't be called "Special VFR", it would be called XFR or YFR or ZFR.  Paul Beardsell 11:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possibly my profession leaking into the writing.  ATC treats SVFR very differently to VFR.  I think we both agree with the point anyway, that the two articles shouldn't be merged!BaseTurnComplete 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[SVFR]] merge with [[Visual flight rules|VFR]]

message: SVFR exists as a compromise between two sets of rules?  Who says?  Reference required.  Paul Beardsell 10:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They exist as a compromise between visual flight rules (VFR), where other aircraft and terrain must be seen-and-avoided and pilots fly by utilising external visual cues, and instrument flight rules (IFR), where pilots fly by utilising on-board instruments, and use promulgated procedures and Air Traffic Control (ATC) assistance to avoid other aircraft and terrain.
There is no "compromise" and no regulator explains SVFR this way.  This might be the writer's understanding and it might be a helpful way of thinking about it (but it also confuses!).  Paul Beardsell 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my interpretation (and the interpretation of other aviation professionals).  However as you say it is not an official description, therefore if it confuses others then it goes.BaseTurnComplete 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "compromise" 

message: Cut:
:SVFR is intended as a means of a flight, that is intended to be flown by external visual cues not by instruments, to be able to enter more restrictive airspace where VFR flight is for some reason not permitted.
(1) A "means of flight" is the flapping of wings, or such like.  SVFR is a set of rules.
:you've ignored an "a" - a means of a flight, not a means of flight.  Include that and the meaning changes to a correct one.BaseTurnComplete 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flapping of the rules will never be the means of even one flight.  :-)  Paul Beardsell 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct.  My mistake.  SVFR is such a nebulous concept that, in the verbal gymnastics to try and define in non-jargon words what it is, I appear to be confusing things further.BaseTurnComplete 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "means of flight" & "for some reason not permitted" 

message: Cut:
:"Like flight under instrument flight rules (IFR), air traffic control will provide SVFR aircraft with separation from other aircraft; unlike IFR flight, the pilot does not necessarily require an instrument rating (although some countries require it in certain circumstances),"
No!  IFR flights are not always separated by ATC.  IFR flight is frequently undertaken outside of controlled airspace.  So: No separation.  Flying under IFR rules only requires an instrument rating in IMC.  This is a common misconception.  So culled text is wrong, twice, again.
Paul Beardsell 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about SVFR.  SVFR is only ever inside controlled airspace.  The preceding paragraph makes that clear.  Per ICAO, ATC always provide IFR aircraft with separation from other IFR aircraft inside controlled airspace.  Also, in many countries, IFR flight requires an instrument rating full stop.  The UK (and certain other countries) are more the exception than the rule on not requiring one for IFR flight.  Culled text not wrong on either count.BaseTurnComplete 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To ensure that the wrong impression is not gained all that need be done is to add the words "in controlled airspace".  What must be remembered is that the reader of this may know NOTHING at all about airspace rules.  Paul Beardsell 11:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement is made in general terms.  If it is not correct universally then it is wrong.  Paul Beardsell 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to Instrument Ratings, then I don't agree with this assertion.  If we held to this in aviation, particularly in aviation law and rule-making, we'd end up writing nothing because many jurisdictions do things differently.  The way to proceed, in my opinion, is to  write about either a de facto standard or an actual standard (i.e. ICAO, but see my concerns below with this), and then point out important and significant exceptions.BaseTurnComplete 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you as per the de facto and ICAO.  But when, in the same or fewer words, we can be more clear and more accurate we should always be so and not allow the difficulty of sometimes being so to give us an excuse.  Here, e.g. in the same paragraph we go to the trouble of saying "not necessarily" on a different issue.  So why not say "in general" on the other point?  I am getting sidetracked anyway:  The para seems to say that an instrument rating is sometimes required for SVFR??????  Why would we say here that SVFR does "not necessarily" require an IR.  "Not necessarily" means "usual but not mandatory".  This would be very unusual!  And so should not be phrased this way.  Or said at all, here, at WP.  Paul Beardsell 12:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably my verbal gymnastics again.  Apparently you need an IR in the US to operate under SVFR in certain circumstances.  That was inherited from previous versions of the article.BaseTurnComplete 12:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "separation" & "instrument rating" 

message: Article says:
:In the United Kingdom, a pilot needs a Night Qualification to fly SVFR at night; see Night flight in the UK.
That seems to imply that in the UK one can fly VFR at night and possibly without qualification.  This is unecessarily confusing.  Better to say:  "In the UK VFR flight is not allowed at night." 
Paul Beardsell 11:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the explicit or implicit suggestion in that sentence that night VFR is allowed in the UK, it quite clearly states SVFR!BaseTurnComplete 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK flight at night is not allowed without a night rating or an instrument rating.  What is said in the article is that "A requires B" where A = "SVFR flight at night" and B = "a night qualification".  For the newbie reader the inference could easily be made that what is meant is "SVFR as opposed to VFR" - which is how much of the rest of the article reads.  Paul Beardsell 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that sentence anyway.  It didn't really add anything to the article.BaseTurnComplete 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVFR at night in the UK 

message: In the UK SVFR absolve the pilot from the low flying rule that requires the pilot to stay 1000ft above the highest fixed object within 600m distance.  Does this also apply to other countries?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf.Baechle (talk • contribs) 11:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A pilot may receive an ATC clearance to do something which is otherwise forbidden in general, or forbidden for the aircraft type, or forbidden for that pilot with his/her set of qualifications, or forbidden .  A clearance is not permission to break other rules.  So, AFAIK the answer is no, in all countries.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVFR in the UK