can i comply

[pilotho]

i remember flying near doncaster once and the controller said:

"G-SJ turn right heading 180, 737 on final for r/wy 28"

out of common sense i turned to avoid it.

the question i am asking is that i am not an IFR flight, wasnt receieving RAS and wasnt in controlled airspace. am i legally allowed to take that instruction?? or should i have replied "cannont comply" and carried on with the lookout?

[foxmoth]

:confused:
Sorry I do not understand the problem here. You were not obliged to comply if you were not in CAS but I do not see why you should not be able to comply and still maintain your lookout. The only exception here would be if it put yu into some other situation you could not comply with ie. into cloud/CAS without clearance/too low over built up areas etc. Assuming this was not the case you did the correct thing. the person in the "wrong" if anyone would be the airtrafficker who is going beyond his remit to issue it as an instruction not an advisory.

[robin]

I think you answered your own question.

"out of common sense i turned to avoid it."

Where I fly we are also given instructions by ATC in the open FIR, and on occasion are abused by commercial operators for getting in their way.

If I am given an instruction in those circumstances I am usually willing to change course or level, when asked. If it places me in danger by making me enter cloud or near to obstructions, then I would tell the ATCO.

Unfortunately in my area the local regional (sorry, International) airport is looking to control traffic outside its airspace, and some controllers like to give us orders. They are obviously looking for the day when they get Class D and can start refusing us access

[pilotho]

even though i did compled with the instruction i carried on with the lookout and i never had visual with the 737.

i did have a moment to think if i could have just carried on forward because i was at 3000ft qnh and surely if the 737 was on final, i would be above it?!?

[foxmoth]

And the problem is?

[pilotho]

just wondering if anyone would have just carried on track...

in short...taken the risk

[foxmoth]

Why?
If it is no problem to do as asked,so reducing risk then why not do so, ATC will not usually give this sort of instruction just to push you around.

[robin]

Basically, no.

You say that you were never visual with the 737 so , as long as it was safe for me to make the turn requested of me, I'd make the turn. And I would have thanked the ATCO as well. One thing that isn't often said here, is that if you can help another person, then the favour, usually, is returned.

If the 737 had had to move out of your way they'd have filed a report giving the ATCO a hard time for not keeping the required separation. The next person to upset them will be given a real roasting.

[WorkingHard]

Robin - sorry but I do not understand this bit!
!If the 737 had had to move out of your way they'd have filed a report giving the ATCO a hard time for not keeping the required separation. The next person to upset them will be given a real roasting."

To answer the original question, move every time because (unless other circumstances dictate) it is far easier for GA to change course than CAT and no real problem to us.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Robin - sorry but I do not understand this bit!
!If the 737 had had to move out of your way they'd have filed a report giving the ATCO a hard time for not keeping the required separation. The next person to upset them will be given a real roasting."

To answer the original question, move every time because (unless other circumstances dictate) it is far easier for GA to change course than CAT and no real problem to us.

So that makes the open FIR into CAS then.

If it is that difficult for CAT to integrate themselves with the rest of the flying fraternity in the open FIR I suggest they pay for those mode-S transponders so they can watch them on their TCAS.

Back to the original question. Comply if you want to but make it clear that you can't if circumstances dictate (weather or other traffic - would spoil your day if you turned onto the heading and collided with something else not on the ATC scope)

[Final 3 Greens]

FD

I see your point, but there is a grey area surely?

Years ago I was practising an ILS approach into Southend when we popped out of cloud to find that we had just an airprox with a helicopter that was, clear of cloud, in sight of the ground and outside CAS, as was part of the approach.

I really wish that an ATCO had been able to ask the helicopter to turn away.

In fairness to the ATCO, he didn't have radar and I don't think that the helicopter was on his frequency frequency.

[Rod1]

I would have turned as you did but asked for the position on the 737 to help me understand the situation. If another aircraft has appeared unexpectedly – no transponder and unknown to ATC I would need to know more about the local traffic environment to do the safe thing. If you had turned and collided with another aircraft it would have been all your fault!!

Rod1

[snchater]

Doncaster Robib Hood Galactic Spaceport is situated within some of the busiest open FIR in the country - Gamston,Sandtoft, Netherthorpe are all close by ,Sherburns training area is to the north and a lot of GA/military traffic transit via GAM.
Doncasters IAPs are in open FIR. Listen to Donc App trying to provide a safe RAS with so much unidentified traffic on their screen to get an idea of their workload.
Doncaster are in the process of applying for Class D protection and this will inevitably be approved.
I would urge anyone flying close to Doncaster to make use of their FIS/RIS/RAS and to comply with any ATC requests. A mid-air between a light aeroplane and a civil airliner in open FIR would lead to knee-jerk draconion airspace restrictions.
Flying out of Sherburn I have found the Doncaster controllers(based in Scouseland) extremly helpful and accomodating and I hope that they will continue to be so when they have their Class D airspace.

[WorkingHard]

"Doncaster are in the process of applying for Class D protection and this will inevitably be approved"
I do hope this is not correct. As I understand it from many other threads on this kind of subject it most certainly IS NOT a forgone conclusion. Others have tried and failed to get Calss D (Humberside? comes to mind).
Yes ATC at Finningly are very very good and are to be congratulated BUT (and I mean no disrespect to these people) will they be as good when they do not have to be. One only needs to look at the complaints on these threads to see what happens at other CAS operations.

[Lucy Lastic]

I understand that Exeter is another one looking for Class D

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've had Doncaster do this to me also.

Why is it that particular airport (or is it a particular controller) doesn't understand the difference between a request and an instruction?

If I'm receiving a FIS, and outside of controlled airspace it is my decision whether I change course. of-course, if I'm passed a request, and I can reasonably comply, I'll do so. But for a controller to give me an instruction under those circumstances is inappropriate, not to mention likely to land him in trouble sooner or later since he's effectively taking responsibility for my actions.

If RT is quiet, my mildly sarcastic response would be something like "G-CD is outside controlled airspace, but say again your request". I'll still do as I'm asked, but it makes a point that the controller needs making to him.

G

[Talkdownman]

In Class G unregulated airspace the VFR pilot under a FIS decides the appropriate course of action. All that is necessary is traffic information. If VFR then own separation in VMC is acceptable. If the IFR CAT flight requires radar separation from the VFR then it is up to the approach controller to provide the IFR flight with vectors accordingly, not the other way round.

[snchater]

Talkdownman, you are absolutely correct, but surely it is good airmanship to be helpful to the controllers - they can be our best friend when we have a problem in the air.

[robin]

In Class G unregulated airspace the VFR pilot under a FIS decides the appropriate course of action. All that is necessary is traffic information. If VFR then own separation in VMC is acceptable. If the IFR CAT flight requires radar separation from the VFR then it is up to the approach controller to provide the IFR flight with vectors accordingly, not the other way round.

But we have experienced instances of the VFR traffic being vectored away from the IFR traffic

a) because it is easier
b) because the IFR traffic 'asked' the controller to do so from a TCAS contact
c) because the IFR CAT didn't want to lose it's slot

Normally this isn't too much of a problem, but trouble came on the day when the vectoring put the GA traffic into an area of low cloud and hills. It was an experience that cured any constipation I might have had.

Interestingly, we (and others) heard on the radio that GA traffic were having difficulty maintaining VMC and asking for an alternate routing. This was denied them, as by that point the safe route would have taken them into the ATZ.

When I called to to say I would be passing clear of the ATZ on the safe side, the ATCO refused that too, as he had a commercial jet about to take off and turn in that direction.

So, we had roughly 10-12 aircraft willingly cooperating with the controller, but being placed in a risky situation because the controller didn't want to delay a CAT departure, or to 'knit a hole' for us to pass safely by.

Once they get their massively extended Class D, they'll have more power to exclude VFR from the area and ease their workload. Trouble is, the VFR traffic will be squeezed closer together.

[pilotho]

intererstiing to hear what you all had to say. it is quite reasonable for the pilot to deicide whether the turn would put him into trouble and hence tell the controller.

i can also sense that some of you guys think that 737s shouldnt really get piority over our pipers and cessnas, in fact why should they! thats why ryanair has a customer service desk for delayed passengers! :}

finally what does CAT mean...the only CATs i can think are clear air tubulence and catagory

[bookworm]

Talkdownman, you are absolutely correct, but surely it is good airmanship to be helpful to the controllers - they can be our best friend when we have a problem in the air.

True. Particularly Talkdownman, I'm sure. ;)

Here's what MATS Pt 1 has to say:

c) The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot. There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors.

I struggle to work out how the second sentence is consistent with the first. Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?

[WorkingHard]

Pilotho - Whilst not wanting to speak for anyone else, I think what the majority of GA (General Aviation) pilots would say is that in anything but CAS (Controlled Airspace) then CAT (Commercial Air Transport) should not be assumed to have priority and any necessary deviations for any aircraft should be requested not instructed. Give reasons if appropriate.

[FlyingForFun]

c) The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot. There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors.

I struggle to work out how the second sentence is consistent with the first. Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?Just a guess, Bookwork, but "tactical planning" might involve vectoring a light aircraft away from the area you are about to vector a jet into. There is no issue of traffic separation when the vectors were given, since the jet is not currently in a position where any loss of separation is imminent, but the vectors for the light aircraft will allow the next bit of vectoring of the jet to take place safely.

As for a pilot requesting vectors, how about vectors to a field if the pilot was lost?

On the general subject of the thread:
Interestingly, we (and others) heard on the radio that GA traffic were having difficulty maintaining VMC and asking for an alternate routing. This was denied them, as by that point the safe route would have taken them into the ATZ.

When I called to to say I would be passing clear of the ATZ on the safe side, the ATCO refused that too
That sounds to me like a good time to note Bookworm's quote:
There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors
In any case, where safety is concerned, the correct thing to do is to tell the controller what you are doing and why (e.g. "routing to the east of your ATZ to maintain VMC"). Where such action would take you inside controlled airspace without a clearance, I would leave it until an absolute last resort - but outside controlled airspace, I don't see that the controller could complain.

FFF
---------------

[robin]

Bookworm's quote:
In any case, where safety is concerned, the correct thing to do is to tell the controller what you are doing and why (e.g. "routing to the east of your ATZ to maintain VMC"). Where such action would take you inside controlled airspace without a clearance, I would leave it until an absolute last resort - but outside controlled airspace, I don't see that the controller could complain.
FFF
---------------

Next time I'll see what happens when I take that line. They were certainly most insistent that we didn't stop them launching the commercial jet.

[Talkdownman]

Talkdownman........surely it is good airmanship to be helpful to the controllers - they can be our best friend when we have a problem in the air.I never said it wasn't. What isn't helpful is controllers reversing the rules in Class G for their own convenience. Until they get their Class D they shouldn't pretend it is. Small wonder that pilots get confused.

[Talkdownman]

Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?"Tactical planning" is usually tactical vectoring whilst under a RIS to ensure that the aircraft is eventually in the correct location from which to intercept a pilot-interpreted IAP eg. radar vectoring to an ILS or VOR/DME FAT in Class G. It frequently occurs at Biggin especially for ILS training. It maximises the IAP exposure for training at the expense of standard separation under RAS, which around Biggin is almost totally impossible anyway. It is not necessary to vector the known VFRs out of the way..........traffic information is passed instead...........;)

[FREDAcheck]

Of course you are not legally obliged to follow ATC instructions outside CAS, but IMHO it is common sense to do so, and ATCOs CAN EXPECT YOU TO DO SO unless you say. From another part of MATS Pt 1 (CAP493, Manual of Air Traffic Services), Section 1.4.2 p157:
1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise. Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.
[My emphasis.] Of course you could get into a long debate with the ATCO about the instruction not being legally binding, but for me discretion is the better part of valour, where valour might mean being hit by a 737.

[Keef]

I've several times bimbled over Kent, talking to Manston, and been asked (politely) to restrict my climb or to adjust my heading to avoid inbound B747 or similar - this in the open FIR. I've always complied (sometimes including telling them that will make me IFR, but happy to do that).

The quid pro quo is that I've then received an excellent RIS for the next part of my trip. No harm done, everyone happy.

I think Manston's radar is u/s at the moment anyway :(

[Barnaby the Bear]

Basically, you are responsible for the safety of your aircraft. If you are not happy because it may put you at risk, ie cloud etc. Then tell the ATCO.
As was said before, the ATCO would not ask you to do anything just for the hell of it.
If you are in contact with an ATSU, the controller will assume you will comply with his/her instructions. As VFR, 'YOU' are responsible for separation from IFR traffic once traffic info. has been passed in class G. But the ATCO may give routing instructions to deconflict you.
Even IFR traffic in class G do not 'have' to comply with ATC, but they would be ill-advised not to if receiving a service from an Approach control or RADAR unit (ie FIS, RIS, RAS)
remember, outside CAS 'Although these services are advisory in nature as the airspace is not controlled, participating flights are expected to comply with ATC instructions'*

*ENR 1.1 GENERAL RULES
ENR 1.1.2 CLASS G AIRSPACE

[NudgingSteel]

An ATCO shouldn't vector VFR traffic in any case without specifically requesting the pilot to advise if they are unable to maintain VMC. I'd be particularly careful in case the VFR pilot was be a low-hours student who is unused to radar vectors, and may then become unsure of position etc. If you operate in the FIR it is essentially up to both pilots to see and avoid each other (unless the IFR is on a RAS, in which case he should be vectored to remain clear of observed traffic). Outside CAS you're entitled to do pretty much what you want, as long as you comply with the ANO...

However, were you operating in the vicinity of a published instrument approach outside CAS? If you peruse the books of AIRPROX reports, there have been several over the years in which VFR traffic has done so, and come into sometimes very close proximity to IFR traffic on a procedure at least noted on the AIP charts (albeit often without radar monitoring). Given the danger to both aircraft on these occasions, and the subsequent investigation and general stress for the pilot(s), a radar vector away from the approach sounds like a much less stressful option (obviously subject to my first sentence, and that routeing not then putting you towards cloud or terrain). Can't remember where a reminder was published about this, think it was featured in a GASIL some time back.

[bookworm]

Given the danger to both aircraft on these occasions, and the subsequent investigation and general stress for the pilot(s), a radar vector away from the approach sounds like a much less stressful option (obviously subject to my first sentence, and that routeing not then putting you towards cloud or terrain).

If the aircraft has the other in sight, there is no danger and there should be no stress involved.