HeliComparator
Please don't take personal offence by my comments, it is an institutional issue not a personal one.
None taken. The debate is useful.
I feel ATC culture is increasingly following an agenda where "arse covering" is the highest priority and that is a shame because there are many great individual controllers for whom safety is the highest priority ( yourself included I am sure).
It's wider than that. It comes from society in general. That said, the VFR 'rules' are not something new. The requirements and responsibilities have been there as long as I remember and come from internationally agreed practices. If the industry and pilot community want them to change, there are various umbrella groups who have the ability to try and change things, first nationally, then internationally. I am not sure there is any underlying support to change anything though. Changes would only introduce even more 'control' and regulation and that's a Pandora's box that GA pilots shouldn't want to open.
Ps no clock codes as far as I remember, just info that another aircraft was crossing via the same point.
Without the controller report, there could be legitimate reasons for this, for example, the other aircraft not identified and thus not receiving a surveillance service. Normally however:
Whenever practicable, information regarding traffic on a possible conflicting path should be given in the following form:
a) relative bearing of the conflicting traffic in terms of the 12 hour clock with the optional prefix ‘left or right’ as appropriate; or, if the aircraft under service is established in a turn, the relative position of the conflicting traffic in relation to cardinal points i.e. northwest, south etc.;
b) distance from the conflicting traffic;
c) direction of flight of the conflicting traffic; and
d) relative speed of the conflicting traffic or the type of aircraft and level if this is known.
From the preceeding post:
Clearly you are quoting the "party line" and you are correct within the context of the systems currently applied by ATC. My point is that the system is IMHO not a good one from the pilot's point of view, not well understood by some pilots including me ( a TRE with more than 10000 hrs) and not promulgated to pilots in any way that I can find.
It's not so much the party line, it's the procedures published by ICAO and the CAA. The controllers have to work under the same rules as the pilots, although the levels of education between the two sides are of course differing in some cases. I don't mean that as an insult, just a fact that a 20 hour GA pilot or an IFR 747 pilot may not have the depth of detail that the controller is required to have, nor be aware of all the nuances, especially if they are not regulars to the airspace or the procedures being used. A controller using it every day will have a very high level of knowledge of the theory and the practical rules. They need it to practice their black arts
In terms of it's name, "radar control" implies positive control like IFR, and as for "service" I struggle to see what benefit I am receiving from this "service". I must do as I am told and only deviate if I am about to crash. Seems like ATC has all the power but no responsibility, and the only ones benefitting from the service are ATC.
A few more CAA quotes which might help
Radar Control - Term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service.
An ATC service is provided according to the particular circumstances and class of airspace, for the purpose of:
a) preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
b) assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft moving on the apron and the manoeuvring area;
c) assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft and obstructions on the
manoeuvring area;
d) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic.
So that's the service you receive. Point a) is the thrust of this thread. The controller's job is to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air. As it states, this depends on the circumstances and class of airspace. Ultimately, the circumstances and airspace class dictate that a VFR-VFR encounter/confliction requires no separation standard to be applied in Class D airspace, at least by ATC. The controller is not required to give you any, but he is required under the ICAO and CAA rules to give you traffic information which will help prevent that collision. If based on that information, either you or the controller are unhappy, then one of you has to raise the ante and ask for something else. In the controllers mind however, you are VFR and in visual conditions, you have been given the information. That's totally acceptable right up until the point where you have said you can't see the traffic and need another course of action. In this case the controller has a duty to reassess the situation and help you out. That help may have come from the other pilot calling that he has you in sight and is happy, it could be an orbit, or something else. Or it could be the controller assessing that you were not going to hit each other (either vertically or laterally) and so no other course of action was deemed necessary. Without appropriate RT and radar recordings, it's hard to tell if he performed badly or not.
Your last sentence is wrong. ATC have the responsibilities laid down as the service. Their responsibility for the provision of separation is also laid down as mentioned, dependent on rules of flight and class of airspace. But, there are also pilot responsibilities which are laid down under the rules which you elect to fly. If a pilot is VFR, he can't just ignore the see and be seen principles, the rules of the air, and airspace classifications, and then do the Telegraph crossword expecting ATC to move everything out of their way. Pilots need to know what is expected of them and know how ATC can help them comply with their responsibilities. It's a two way street, but in VFR, most of the requests and initiations to avoid collisions have to come from the pilot who a) knows what he can and can't see and b) knows what is the best course of action in preventing any potential collision.
The benefits of the service are that IFR and SVFR flights, whose visibility may be limited, operate in a known traffic environment, where separation is assured. The benefit for VFR flights are that they can operate in a known traffic environment without the need for IFR ratings or equipment, and follow the VFR rules and conditions within Controlled Airspace which might otherwise be off limits to them (e.g. Class A) with a little help from ATC in identifying potential conflicts.
In terms of your last para, I think you make the point well that ATC have lost the plot with regard to what they should be trying to achieve, and a great deal of this results from the first priority being to not get sued, flight safety is somewhere further down the list.
ATC has always had the service goals quoted above. Nothing has changed in that respect in the last 30 years. The only change is the introduction of a Duty of Care. The test of whether this is complied with is to ask what a reasonable person would have done. Not in your specific example, but as a generic statement, I would argue that a reasonable person who granted 2 VFR aircraft a clearance and told them about each other, in the absence of any other information from either pilot, would be compliant. In turn, would it be reasonable for either of the pilots not to speak up if they were not able to separate themselves ? I think not, and your specific issue indicates that you probably think so too. Without a full investigation and report, no one will ever know the issues in your case, so please file an Airprox if you are unhappy.
Sumburgh Director
At your home airfield, when arriving VFR, you will go directly from outside CAS on offshore deconfliction to Aberdeen Tower which being a Tower doesn't provide you with a radar service.
But they must provide a change of service surely if the aircraft is entering from outside Controlled Airspace ? It's mandatory to do so.
Remember that if you felt it was too close for comfort, or you had to take avoiding action, even if it's VFR vs VFR you are fully entitled to file an airprox. They get taken very seriously and investigated thoroughly and could lead to a good lesson to be learned.
I agree. The Board which investigates has a broad panel of expertise which is helpful to everyone.
10W.. I take it you work en route? Do you get many VFR - VFR conflictions in the airways?
I don't think clearing 2 a/c to same place same level at same time is a great idea, even if VFR.
We get them occasionally, but they are not frequent. Sometimes they are even gliders, so 'control' is a bit of a misnomer as there is little they can follow in terms of a clearance.
You think it's not a good idea, I think that's over-control, which is a particularly British disease
As a VFR GA pilot, I know my responsibilities and the last thing I want is ATC telling me to do this and do that in respect of another aircraft who I can see and avoid myself. On the occasions I can't see it, I'll do what HeliComparator did and ask for help. Many busy VFR places would grind to a halt if we had to start applying 'separation' between VFR aircraft which is effectively what you are suggesting. How would ATC ever be able to clear more than one VFR in the circuit ?
