PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NAS apathy
Thread: NAS apathy
View Single Post
Old 19th Feb 2003, 09:13
  #61 (permalink)  
SM4 Pirate
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Feather #3 wrote:

That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed, if the relevant traffic is IFR, the ATCO would be obliged to separate the IFR from the pickup.
The heading would only be on request, and then only advisory. The IFR in E with a clearance, would not be separated from the IFR pick-up, that's the point, otherwise you'd just issue the 'IFR pick-up' with a clearance and separate them.

You will get traffic on IFR in E and known VFR in E, whilst doing an IFR Pick-up. Known VFRs (i.e. ones getting a RIS and talking to the controller), will get traffic on you, IFRs with a clearance will get traffic on you, they then can ask us for avoiding action if necessary and we are able, i.e. in radar, shouldn’t be too hard, outside radar, just about forget it.

Problems:

1) Procedure introduced initially in RADAR (just about) only airspace, procedure stays forever. Will it be used in a radar environment, rarely (why cause you can see everything and only need 5 miles and headings are an option as above), will it be used later after E's rolled out into non radar areas (can’t vector off radar), definitely makes sense, procedural standards are larger, more opportunity to use it, possibly safer, if I need 15 DME and I’ve got 10 DME should be safe enough.

2) CASA yet won't allow Bigger RPTs to use the procedure (on good mail), but wait that's who its designed for, i.e. the ones that can't just go VFR... that's why we 'invented' this procedure.

Can anyone confirm the info I have about the US model, the IFR pick-up is given to a VFR aircraft (that has planned IFR, but currently isn't) operating in 'E', for 2 reasons:

1) wishing to enter a new class (A, C etc.) of airspace, where VFR or not would need a clearance to enter (vertical or lateral boundary) so would do so IFR cause it makes no difference, e.g. still subject to a clearance and that's what it planned, or

2) wishing to upgrade to IFR and therefore need a clearance as an IFR in 'E', ‘picking up your IFR plan’.

Isn't that how its used there?
Why don't we need a design safety case?
Is it the same? Apples with apples please...

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline