Procedural Separation

[No_Speed_Restriction]

quick question: 1 IFR a/c departing from an airfield outside controlled airspace. 2nd VFR aircraft inbound to the same airfield.

Is atc required to provide any separation between the outbound IFR aircraft and the inbound VFR aircraft as there IS a possiblity of confliction between the outbound and inbound routing?

[Frunobulax]

And what is the class of airspace in the case?

[catocontrol]

Outside controlled airspace class G: NO
Inside controlled airspace class D to E: NO
Inside controlled airspace class B and C: YES
Inside controlled airspace class A: Only IFR
SVFR and VFRNight in controlled airspace: YES

[Dizzee Rascal]

If the situation was in Glass G (OCAS) then no separation would be provided, just traffic information to both. If the inbound was IFR, then some form of separation would have to be provided (and if it couldn't) then Essential Traffic Information would have to be passed to both (then keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best!)

:uhoh:

[airac]

(and if it couldn't) then Essential Traffic Information would have to be passed to both (then keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best!)

Wouldn't try that on a checkout if you want to retain your licence

[Frunobulax]

In G class? There's no ATC in G class.

[M609]

There's no ATC in G class.

In most of the civilized world no, but oddly enough, in the airspace many of pprunes readers work there is........

:\

[Frunobulax]

One never ends to learn ;)

[No_Speed_Restriction]

I just find that we, as pilots, are let down in some respect by the lack of separation we should expect when in possible confliction of non IFR traffic. Amen for TCAS!

[jangler909]

SVFR and VFRNight in controlled airspace: YES

The latter one depends on the country in question.

[M609]

The latter one depends on the country in question.

Indeed, I dread the day they 'they' force us to provide seperation between VFR night flights. 5 helos low level in the CTR VFR Night, and poor radar coverage, nice........ :(

I get enough ulcers from IMC weather moving into the above situaton as it is!

[Chilli Monster]

I just find that we, as pilots, are let down in some respect by the lack of separation we should expect when in possible confliction of non IFR traffic.

Interesting comment - would you care to expand on that?

The idea behind the lack of separation is actually common sense. The VFR is flying visually, and as such is operating under "see and avoid" - the traffic information he's passed ensures he sees you - the traffic info you're passed lets you know he's out there but will (ok - should) avoid you.

Providing the above happens you shouldn't require any more separation intervention by ATC, and as such, in certain classes of airspace, you shouldn't really expect it.

You said possible conflict - I would suggest that means there may or, equally, may not be one. I suspect recognised conflict is what you really meant.

Maybe this is symptomatic of the UK's use and allocation of airspace - totally different to everybody else's and as such is actually misunderstod by many users (from both sides).

[Spitoon]

Agree completely with Chill that the way the UK establishes and uses airspace is unusual - maybe even unique - and is widely misunderstood by many pilots and controllers alike. The fundamental problem is a lack of understanding of what the pilot will get from the controller in any class of airspace (and what other traffic might be encountered). If a pilot wants to be separated from other aircraft in the UK the sedret is to stick to Class A airspace. Unlike many other countries, in the UK just because you are talking to a controller it does not mean that all other IFR aircraft in the airspace will be! Having had many a long chat with pilots, many it seems are not aware of what "leaving controlled airspace, under radar advisory service means". This is not helped by the fact that the phraseology etc. used by the controller does not change much.

[terrain safe]

Sticking my neck out here but........

I think a lot of pilots are under a misapprehension here regards the fact that to a controller as far as separation goes it doesn't always matter what flight rules you are under (In the UK). The main thing is what service you are provided, and the airspace you are within, that defines what separation you are given. So just assuming because you are IFR you will be given separation is a no no, as is I'm VFR and the controller is responsible for terrain separation in class D Airspace because it is a radar control service (from a pilot with a lot of hours flying a scheduled service VFR in the daytime I kid you not).

So it's not eas,y and i'm sure I will get told that I've got this all wrong, and I'm sure I have as I haven't had to worry about this for a few years now Thank the Lord.

TS

[DFC]

Agree completely with Chill that the way the UK establishes and uses airspace is unusual - maybe even unique - and is widely misunderstood by many pilots and controllers alike

Agree totally. The fact the the situation continues is a safety oversight failure by the CAA.

Chilli said;

The idea behind the lack of separation is actually common sense. The VFR is flying visually, and as such is operating under "see and avoid" - the traffic information he's passed ensures he sees you - the traffic info you're passed lets you know he's out there but will (ok - should) avoid you.

No. There is no requirement for the VFR flight alone to avoid the IFR flight. If the VFR flight is legal then it will be in VMC. That measn that the flight will be in conditions that as you say will permit 'see and avoid'. If the two aircraft are head to head then acording to the rules of the air, both shall alter course to the right.

More importantly, if the flights are converging and the IFR has the VFR on it's right (VFR has right of way) then the IFR flight shall alter it's course to pass behind the VFR flight and avoid passing ahead etc etc unless well clear. The VFR flights maintains track height and speed.

When an IFR flight has an airprox or a mid-air collision with a VFR flight in class G, VMC, the report on the matter will most likely state the cause as - late sighting of the other aircraft by both pilots.

If the IFR flight is in IMC then a) they will never see each other so no action and since the the VFR flight will not be IMC, it can be very close to but not in the exact same parcel of air as the IFR flight.

----

What is missing in the UK is the confinement of IFR flights to either class E airspace or higher class or when in class G, above 3000ft (where the VFRs have to be 1000ft below the base of cloud). There of course would be a requirement to spend money on ATS facilities if the situation was to change. Thus money before safety and you risk your life when IFR in class G.

A good place to start would be for Class E at places like Farnborough, Filton, Blackpool.

Regards,

DFC

[RAC/OPS]

I'm VFR and the controller is responsible for terrain separation in class D Airspace because it is a radar control service (from a pilot with a lot of hours flying a scheduled service VFR in the daytime I kid you not).

Not quite sure where you're coming from there TS. From the AIP ENR section:

6.2 Controllers will ensure that levels assigned to IFR flights when in receipt of a Radar Control Service and to flights in receipt
of a RAS will provide at least the minimum terrain clearances given below:.....

6.2.3 Radar Controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and will not assign levels to, aircraft in receipt of a RIS or aircraft operating Special VFR or VFR which accept radar vectors.

At my unit, VFR clearances are along the lines of "Not above 1500ft VFR/SVFR." No terrain clearance built in there!!

[sandstorm inferno]

quick question: 1 IFR a/c departing from an airfield outside controlled airspace

I just find that we, as pilots, are let down in some respect by the lack of separation we should expect when in possible confliction of non IFR traffic.

That's why its UNCONTROLLED airspace :ooh:

[terrain safe]

RAC/OPS : my point exactly the pilot thought I was responsible for his terrain separation because he was receiving a radar control service.:D :D

[RAC/OPS]

Sorry Terrain Safe, thought you were the VFR pilot!! My mistake.