I'm a little late in my response to this thread but would like to add a few observations....
Whilst the different types of service (particularly those outside CAS) have been rebranded/renamed/altered in recent years, I find it concerning that a VFR pilot within Class D
controlled airspace is unaware of what service he/she is actually receiving and that his/her perception of a "
control service" could be so different to that of the air traffic controller.
Even a rudimentary search on google (other search engines available
) directs me to several reliable sources (i.e. not un-cited Wikipedia entries
) of information...CAA, AIP, ICAO, etc...referring to "
control service" (both Radar
Control and Aerodrome
Control btw - let's not forget the guys & gals in the tower!).
However I have no idea what is involved in training for (and maintaining) a pilot licence...I'd be pretty shocked however if ATC services/responsibilities within
controlled airspace are not covered along with pilot responsibilities.
Without knowing more about the specifics of the incident in question I think it is rather subjective to question the actions of anyone/everyone involved.
For example, points have previously been made regarding refusal of request for higher altitude (possible TMA above = change of airspace classification, or, even if it was same classification, another controller's airspace?).
I would concur with various posts that VFR is
normally restricted to "not above" a specific altitude - however, in certain circumstances, particularly for airfield overhead/threshold transits it may be more beneficial for all parties (VFR aircraft, IFR aircraft on approach, ATC) for a VFR flight to maintain a specific altitude during transit to effectively deconflict (or "segregate" as someone else described it!) flightpaths, and missed approach procedures, without causing delay. That is, of course, subject to Met conditions and ability to maintain VMC...
(Were both VFR aircraft actually instructed to maintain the same altitude? Or were they "not above" a specific altitude?)
Without knowing the bigger picture, the airspace, the overall traffic situation - not just the 2 VFR flights (there are, after all, more aircraft about than just "you") - then it is difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion - or apportion blame (as some are keen to do) - except that responsibilities (both pilot and ATC) and ATC "duty of care" should be better understood by all.
I think that was the crux of the original post and IMHO it should be addressed by training - pilot training (both VFR & IFR pilots) and ATC training.
Providing a snapshot of an incident, a singular perspective, is only likely to stir various parties to comment without full understanding. On this front I am disappointed to hear about your dissatisfaction regarding feedback from filing your AIRPROX report...but I would always encourage you to file such a report whenever you believe aircraft safety has been compromised (or would have been had action not been taken).
Regards