Separation between VFR aircraft in C Airspace

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

I was approaching Westgate bridge from the north (with a clearance) a while ago & heard a gent get knocked back for a clearance over the Bolte Bridge. I spotted him and told the tower, & he still got to orbit. When I reached Westgate he got his clearance. We were both VFR flights in fine weather & only entitled to a traffic service in C airspace but were obviously being comprehensively separated. Does this sort of thing happen often? Is it a recent thing, influenced by a certain personality encouraging ATC to tear up the rule book and separate everything they talk to, or date back to before alphabet airspace?

[Dick Smith]

JumpuFOKKERjump, possibly once again we have gone back to the old “full separation” for VFR traffic. I suggest you look at Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/hall_of_doom.php) and then click on Chapter 6 – See and Be Seen.

It was one of my earlier successes. It only took six years of my involvement to remove the full separation between VFR traffic in primary control zones. The resistance to change was very similar to what is now happening with NAS. Every reason that could ever be imagined was given by people within the bureaucracy and within the Civil Air union on why we needed to be different in Australia and separate all VFR aircraft from all other VFR aircraft as if they were IFR.

It actually had nothing to do with ‘alphabet’ airspace. The removal of the full separation took place before the introduction of the ICAO ‘alphabet’ airspace. Tens of millions of dollars have been saved in waste since then. Of course, if air traffic control goes back to fully separating VFR from VFR and holding VFR outside Class C airspace rather than simply giving traffic, costs will go up again and do further damage to the aviation industry.

I should mention that back in 1984, a number of air traffic controllers who were in positions of influence were utterly convinced that separating VFR from VFR (as per an IFR standard) did not have any extra cost and did not result in any delays for VFR aircraft.

Sometimes I would orbit at Hornsby to the north of Sydney (just outside controlled airspace), intermingling with the Channel 9 and Channel 10 helicopters, so we could be let into the control zone with a three mile radar standard. Safety was obviously reduced, but this was the procedure which many air traffic controllers insisted must be kept.

Fortunately not too many air traffic controllers would want to go back to that system now.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Is it a recent thing, influenced by a certain personality encouraging ATC to tear up the rule book and separate everything they talk to, or date back to before alphabet airspace?

Huh?

---------

BTW - how do you know that your aircraft was the reason that the clearnace was not immediately available? For example, had the other aircraft submiited a flight plan for TAAATS, or was he/she waiting for the approach controller (who should really be looking at the traffic) to do it? Most controllers have no problem with putting in flight plans for short notice sorties or diversions - however, it is a lower priority when high priority tasks like separating, sequencing, coordinating are required, which is nearly all the time with the current staffing to traffic levels. There could be a myriad of other reasons why the other clearance was delayed a bit.

ATC do not separate VFR from VFR in any class of airspace - although a few pilots themselves do not seem to realise this. What ATC are required to do is pass mutual traffic - this takes at leaset four long transmissions - sometimes keeping an immediate radar or vertical standard can be quicker for all concerned whilst in Controlled airspace.

--------

For anyone to suggest that ATC have "gone back" to the old system is a falsehood, and to suggest any nexus with the NAS debacle is mischevious at best.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

...how do you know that your aircraft was the reason that the clearnace was not immediately available... The tower telling him that clearance was not available due to traffic outbound via Westgate...or was he/she waiting for the approach controller This was in the SE corner of the Melbourne CTR, a sector which is routinely released to Essendon tower.For anyone to suggest that ATC have "gone back" to the old system is a falsehood...What I related is an actual experience of mine and I do not appreciate being labelled a liar. **** off. I drew no conclusions about the experience, just asked a question., and to suggest any nexus with the NAS debacle is mischevious at best.A strange nexus is shown with Dick's post, & shows a curious dissconnect with recent NAS experience. I was entitled to a traffic service on my flight and (I believe) I got separation. No problem for me and a 2 minute delay for him, big deal, but Dick cries foul saying, "possibly once again we have gone back to the old “full separation”". Yet not that long ago a Virgin flight & a VFR homebuilt in E airspace (& entitled to a traffic service, NOT separation) were not separated & his response was the ATC were "...basically criminal...". He has expressed personally to me a desire that Oz ATC operate as the US ATC do and provide separation to IFR in G airspace, despite actually being entitled to buggar all. That was the connection I was making. Did I mention **** off?

[Capt Claret]

Hey Fokker, methinks you've jumped in boots first.

I don't think ****su's "Anyone" was you! :{

[Squawk7700]

After a "bit" of flying around the area I think you'll find that timing was of the essence here. If you are after a clearance from "approaching" Westgate and the other guy is approaching Bolte and you called first, then clearly the other guy is not gonna get ahead of you safely and in time, especially if he has not yet provided his details. By the time he gave his details and if you had had a plan in, you would have potentially been in direct conflict.

Generally if you give enough notice, say 5 miles at 100 knots or perhaps 10 miles at 160-180 then you should be fine; however that being said if you don't have a plan in and they are busy you will struggle.

I've been knocked back on occasions simply because they are just too busy and I realise this when I hear the radio traffic plus there are many aircraft in my area. I've never been knocked back with a plan in though.

I was also once called up several times on area frequency when I was happily cruising along VFR. When I realised they were after me and I identified myself, they asked me to change my altitude urgently (I was climing through @8,000ft) because there was IFR traffic approaching me from the rear, 5 miles out.... in class G airspace... and they wanted me to keep away from him!

[Dick Smith]

JumpuFOKKERjump, I think you may be being a bit unfair in relation to my comments about the air traffic controllers in Brisbane. You may remember that I corrected my comment and apologised to the air traffic controllers on Brisbane radio the next day. That has been covered more than once on this site. If I make a mistake at least I correct the mistake – which is a start.

In relation to Aussie controllers following the US procedure of separating IFR from IFR in Class G airspace – they don’t do this by holding an aircraft, they simply give a radar vector if they can, because it is all commonsense. There is no rule or requirement in the USA that requires air traffic controllers to separate IFR from IFR in Class G airspace, however most controllers will do so when it is simple and it will not delay the aircraft.

We all know in Australia a controller would probably have his or her licence lifted (only joking) if they gave this service in Class G airspace. All you would get is endless traffic information – just like the old flight service pre-radar days.

I like the idea of controllers being able to use commonsense and professionalism. I do realise that Airservices relies on overly prescriptive rules with a threat to take licence action if a mistake is made. See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/atc_culture.php)

[Icarus2001]

I like the idea of controllers being able to use commonsense and professionalism. Dick I fly for a living five days a week and witness every day controllers doing just that.

Sometimes I think that they leave a little too much margin, but then I cannot see what they can see and they do not know my capabilities eg if they say expedite or cleared for immediate take off will I help them out by doing just that or dawdle along.

they don’t do this by holding an aircraft, they simply give a radar vector if they can,...and if they can't? What then?

It seems that if the VFR has elected not to input any notification in to the system then the ATCO has to do it. Surely this causes the delay? Can they process traffic with no flight data strip and no transponder code?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

What I related is an actual experience of mine and I do not appreciate being labelled a liar. **** Off..../...That was the connection I was making. Did I mention **** off?

Thanks for the fruity invitation (x2), but I was not responding to you in that section of my post.

Besides - nobody called you a liar as far as I can see.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Apologies S_T, I thort the 'falsehood' jibe was aimed at me.

Sorry Dick, I only mentioned IFR stuff coz I thort it had influenced the ATC's input to my experience. If you want to debate it get your own thread.

Squawk 77, I was in CTR and outbound. I would have expected the inbound and I to get traffic on each other and for him to get a clearance, not for us to be separated. I reckon I was, and am wondering why.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Manual of Air Traffic Services
2.1.1.Objectives of the Air Traffic Services
2.1.1.1 The objectives of the air traffic services shall be to:
a. prevent collisions between aircraft;
b. prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area;
c. expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic;
d. provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights; and
e. notify appropriate organisations regarding aircraft in need of search and rescue aid, and assist such organisations as required.
2.1.2.Divisions of the Air Traffic Services
2.1.2.1 The air traffic services shall comprise three services identified as follows:
a. The air traffic control service, to accomplish objectives a. b. and c. of 2.1.1.1, this service being divided in three parts as follows:
1. Area control service: the provision of air traffic control service for controlled flights, except for those parts of such flights described in 2.1.2.1 a. 2. and 3., in order to accomplish objectives a. and c. of 2.1.1.1;
2. Approach control service: the provision of air traffic control service for those parts of controlled flights associated with arrival or departure, in order to accomplish objectives a. and c. of 2.1.1.1;
3. Aerodrome control service: the provision of air traffic control service for aerodrome traffic, except for those parts of flights described in 2.1.2.1 a. 2., in order to accomplish objectives a., b. and c. of 2.1.1.1; …. Is issuing 'traffic information' between two or more aircraft (IFR/VFR/VFR) being provided an air traffic control service enough to prevent collisions?
.
In a purely legal sense, who is responsible (partly or wholly) if that IFR/VFR/VFR conflict pair (inside C,D or E CTA/R) collide??
.
..now ask yourself (as the ATC carrying the risk management can), were I not able to watch a TI conflict pair sufficiently to ensure they do not collide … what would I do ? ;)

[peuce]

In relation to Aussie controllers following the US procedure of separating IFR from IFR in Class G airspace – they don’t do this by holding an aircraft, they simply give a radar vector if they can, because it is all commonsense. There is no rule or requirement in the USA that requires air traffic controllers to separate IFR from IFR in Class G airspace, however most controllers will do so when it is simple and it will not delay the aircraft.

I like the idea of controllers being able to use commonsense and professionalism. I do realise that Airservices relies on overly prescriptive rules with a threat to take licence action if a mistake is made.

Mr Smith, I hope you are joking ...
You appear to be "liking the idea" of Controllers breaking the law by providing a service specifically precluded by that class of airpace, which, by the way, I think, is designated by CASA, not Airservices.

It's "commonsense" that I can probably safely cruise on the freeway at 105kph in the middle of the night with no other traffic in sight ... but it's illegal.

Other than the issue of breaking the law, once a service is provided "out of commonsense" once ... it will be expected by the pilots and their actions (or lack of action) will be dictated by that expectation.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Thanks for the detailed and frank replies. It would appear I can expect a traffic service or full separation, depending on whether ****si or Scurvi is on that day. And the root cause of the conflict of expectations is yet another shoddy bit of implementation by you-know-whooo

"It was one of my earlier successes. It only took six years of my involvement to remove the full separation between VFR traffic in primary control zones. The resistance to change was very similar to what is now happening with NAS."

Resistance to change arising from obvious conflicts in the documents leading to duty of care concerns for reasonable thinking ATC I expect...

[Chief galah]

Check PM's to get the real story.