Radar vectoring questoin

[soaringhigh650]

Hi,

I wonder if someone can explain the below:

When I was flying through the Luton zone in the UK, I heard these instructions (where G-CG was a PA-28):

"Speedbird 211, fly heading 250"
"Fly heading 250, Speedbird 211"

"Delta 214, fly heading 240"
"Fly heading 240, Delta 214"

"G-CG, for you.. err.. track east, maybe somewhere between.. err... heading 080 and 090 should work"
"I will fly heading 085, G-CG"

Is it generally harder to vector a PA-28 compared to a jet?

[HPbleed]

The PA28 was probably flying relatively low, and not a threat to other aircraft. The controller probably just wanted the aircraft out of the zone and hence just gave them general vectors out to the east whereas the jets would have been being vectored for an arrival or avoidance.

Plus the fact the PA28, on a DI would have only been able to maintain a rough heading, unlike the two jets using state of the art GPS and IRS's.

[ADIS5000]

HPbleed I think you may not have hit the nail on the head! It is most likely that the PA28 was VFR and (if required) controllers will only issue a rough direction to track to such aircraft. If the controller was to give a radar heading to the PA28 then he would have to attach a long winded phrase at the end of the instruction regarding the pilot informing him if the vector would prevent the pilot from maintaining VMC etc. It almost certainly was not because of the equipment fitted to the PA28.

Regards, ADIS

[zkjaws]

HPbleed
I think you underestimate the poor PA28 pilot. Even a PPL would be required to demonstrate the ability to fly a heading on a compass (with all it's errors), within 5 or so degrees.
Not knowing the requirements in the airspace you mention, but going on my experience from a land far far away, one of the following may have been the case:

Tower Controllers weren't allowed to issue radar headings - they could only issuing tracking instructions (track east or track to a point)
Radar Controllers weren't allowed to issue radar headings when aircraft were outside controlled airspaceADIS5000 maybe right as well - all we had to do was add "VFR" on the end of the clearance.

[soaringhigh650]

he would have to attach a long winded phrase at the end of the instruction regarding the pilot informing him if the vector would prevent the pilot from maintaining VMC etc

In the US we have the short phrase "Maintain VFR" which is issued once after passing the message. After this reminder, it is understood that the VFR pilot must advise if a vector will take it into cloud.

Not knowing the requirements in the airspace you mention,

This was radar approach control inside Delta airspace.

[bookworm]

Is it generally harder to vector a PA-28 compared to a jet?

Yes. The slower the aircraft, the greater the drift angle between heading and track. If the wind is unpredictable or variable, the track associated with a particular heading is much more predictable at higher airspeed.

[Talkdownman]

Is it generally harder to vector a PA-28 compared to a jet?

Yes. The slower the aircraft, the greater the drift angle between heading and track. If the wind is unpredictable or variable, the track associated with a particular heading is much more predictable at higher airspeed.
Hello bookworm :)

Are you, or have you ever been, a radar controller?

[loquendum non loquax]

As stated by others, one should realize the VFR pilot could run into IMC conditions, so vectors/radar headings should be given cautiously, that is to say sometimes it would be hard for the controller to distinguish or anticipate IMC conditions for a VFR pilot.
Mostly i would prefer to use the following phrase in advance:
"are you able to accept radar headings/vector" indicating (hopefully) the ability of the pilot concerned to interpret this message the way it is intended to, viz. give the controller a call when unable to maintain VMC on the given heading/vector.

Ofcourse it goes without saying that modern day VFR pilots should be able to hold a heading as good as any other pilot............yeah right...:cool:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Lots of weirdies here.. BAW211 and Delta 214 I can find no information on. However, it is very doubtful that, given the R/T quoted, that they would be flying in the Luton Zone; more like in the London TMA. The TMA is Class A airspace so no VFR flights are permitted. The PA-28 must therefore have been IFR under radar control. I very much doubt that the controller wanted the PA28 "out of the zone". If the PA28 had a problem or was unsure of its position it is again most unlikely that a TMA controller would be talking to it..

Few people on here not too familiar, eh Talkdownman???

[Talkdownman]

Few people on here not too familiar, eh Talkdownman???
Hello HD! So it would seem from some of the postings... ;)

[Red Four]

Perhaps the PA28 was below the minimum level for vectoring aircraft at, and even though the controller could see the aircraft, was not able to vector, just suggest a track to be flown.

[bookworm]

Hello bookworm

Are you, or have you ever been, a radar controller?

Nope. I'm a slow-aircraft pilot. I'm just going by the number of times radar controllers have to take a second bite of the cherry! If it's easy, why would they get it wrong so often? ;)

[Talkdownman]

I'm a slow-aircraft pilot. I'm just going by the number of times radar controllers have to take a second bite of the cherry!
So not one of your usual reliable, informed, scientific and definitive reponses on this occasion, then.
Hmmm......

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I'm just going by the number of times radar controllers have to take a second bite of the cherry! If it's easy, why would they get it wrong so often?>>
??

I never found it any more difficult to vector clockwork mice than 747s... What do we get "wrong so often"?

[Casper87]

Soaringhigh650,

As stated by ADIS5000, chances are the 28 was VFR.

C

[bookworm]

Touché, HD! :)

[chevvron]

zkjaws:
Tower controllers can issue headings when instructed to do so by radar, but in this case the aircraft was clearly already talking to radar.
In the UK, radar controllers can and DO issue headings outside controlled airspace ie Class G airspace - there are many airports with APS and iaps outside controlled airspace in the UK.

[soaringhigh650]

In the UK, radar controllers can and DO issue headings outside controlled airspace ie Class G airspace - there are many airports with APS and iaps outside controlled airspace in the UK.

Doesn't that make it Class E controlled airspace by definition? or not?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

soaringhigh650. The callsigns you mentioned in your original posting do not appear to exist. I can find neither on the respective airlines web sites. They sounded to me like flights from a major UK airport but certainly not Luton. This led me to believe that they were in London TMA Class A airspace, where VFR Cherokees would not be permitted.

If you could provide more information, maybe someone on here could help?

PS. Over here it is illegal to publish anything you hear on the R/T. Maybe that's why the callsigns were changed?

[soaringhigh650]

HD - the callsigns probably do not exist as I don't remember what exactly they were.

I was just paraphrasing the fact that there was hesitation when giving a vector to a PA-28 (as compared to an airline jet).

Maybe it was Stanstead and not Luton.

[chevvron]

soaringhigh650: no it's not 'class E by definition' as you can still fly IFR in class G without any ATC clearance or service (in the UK). If doing so however, you must fly at quadrantal levels rather than semicircular.

[soaringhigh650]

But vectoring IFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace sounds really weird!

Doesn't it ring alarm bells that
-They don't have to follow those instructions
-You don't have to separate them from anything else
-You don't have to provide any service to them
-They can't see where they're going

By issuing headings to aircraft and sequencing them for the approach you're effectively separating them from each other and they should be complying with you. Which is what controlled airspace is, is it not?

So it doesn't make any sense to have instrument approach procedures outside controlled airspace when there IS an approach control function!

In other words, a glider can legally soar in cloud right up my approach path and I can be sent right into it, and nobody sees it.

Now tell me please where I'm jumbled up.

[chevvron]

soaringhigh650: I don't know what aviation experience you have, but it's obviously very restricted. Without going into too much detail, I can assure you it's quite normal to have iaps outside controlled airspace in the UK (we don't have a lot of airspace to play with), and also to provide radar based air traffic services (including vectoring either for iaps or traffic avoidance) in class G airspace. This applies to both civil and military airfields.
We have a comprehensive system of services available to aircraft outside controlled airspace (known as ATSOCAs), which provide either just flight information (known as Basic Service), traffic information using radar derived information (Traffic Service) or vectoring with avoiding action (De-confliction Service). Finally there is Procedural Service which is non-radar.

[novation]

souringhigh- some suggested reading for you CAA CAP 774:

CAP 774: UK Flight Information Services | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3174)

[2 sheds]

Ease off, chaps - if you look, soaringhigh650 is from the USA and what he says is completely valid. It is we in the UK who are out of step with most of the rest of the world - a lot of the Brits who comment need to remember that.

2 s

[galaxy flyer]

Soaringhigh

There is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the UK, I suggest, if you transit there, you read the CAP publication. Farnborough is located outside of CAS, for example. You might also read up on " joining clearances", if you go there.

It is strange to us Yanks and there have been some, shall we say, interesting incidents when we didn't know the rules of the air, just like driving on the left.

GF

[BrATCO]

Soaringhigh650, But vectoring IFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace sounds really weird!

Doesn't it ring alarm bells that
-They don't have to follow those instructions
-You don't have to separate them from anything else
-You don't have to provide any service to them
-They can't see where they're going

Not that weird.
In France, ATC provides 3 services :
Control in controlled airspace
Information as long as we've got the ACFT on freq.
"Alert" (assistance and SAR) until landing.

Vectoring in non-controlled airspace is possible, in the frame of Information service, that's not Control.
After a traffic information, on pilot's request, the message would be : "I suggest you turn right 20 deg".
Technically, that's a radar vector. The pilot turns if he wishes, under his own responsabity. When the traffic is no longer a factor, we give him his position and tell him to resume navigation.

However, we don't use vectors to intercept anything in non-controlled airspace, unless the pilot is lost (assistance).

[novation]

Taken from the CAP 774:

Deconfliction Service

A Deconfliction Service is available under IFR or VFR and in any meteorological conditions. The controller will expect the pilot to accept headings and/or levels that may require flight in IMC. A pilot who is not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a Deconfliction Service unless compliance permits the flight to be continued
in VMC.

A controller shall provide traffic information, accompanied with a heading and/or level aimed at achieving a planned deconfliction minima:
• class F/G airspace;
• active Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA);
• active Military Training Areas (MTA).

The pilot shall inform the controller if he elects not to act on the controller’s deconfliction advice. The pilot then accepts responsibility for initiating any subsequent collision avoidance against that particular conflicting aircraft. However, the controller is not prevented from passing further information in relation to the conflicting traffic, if in his opinion it continues to constitute a definite hazard.

[DFC]

Chevron,

I think that you need to do some reading before demanding the experience of a person who has raised a very important issue.

Start with;

1. Quadrantal levels only apply outside controlled airapce, above 3000ft or the transition Altitude (whichever is higher - 6000ft around Luton and Stansted) and while in level flight. The Quadrantal level system does not provide any form of separation outside class F airspace structure and only limited separation in class F to opposite direction and crossing traffic when both are in the cruise.

2. The UK provides a suite of services outside controlled airspace which together make up the Flight Information Service. Basic, Traffic and Deconfliction services are elements of the Flight Information Service.

3. Civil operators have for years requested class E airspace at places like Farnborough for the exact reasons that this person highlights. As someone else has said - it is the UK that is out of pace with the rest of the world and not the other way round. The original poster's comments are very apt when one looks at somewhere like Oxford with a procedural service and no way of knowing when some traffic is crossing the centerline just below the cloudbase you are about to pop out of never mind the others flying in the same cloud as you but not talking to anyone - as is their right!!

------

Having read the generic R/T quoted in the original post, I can agree that it is poor non-standard R/T. It is Class D airspace and ATC are not required to apply separation between a VFR flight and the IFR arrivals / departures. Therefore I expect that they were simply trying to issue a routing that ensures the VFR flight did not conflict with the IFR ones and thereby negating the need for traffic info and to give all the flights the best possible routing etc.

However, if anyone is worried that asking a VFR flight to fly a heading could cause them to enter IMC and therefore requires a reminder to remain VMC to be issued then please tell me how requiring them to fly a specific track is any different - do IMC conditions only ever appear on headings and not on tracks or other routings? Heading, Track, Routing - unless the controller can see where it is going then either of them can be pointing the flight at some IMC.

[chevvron]

It would seem more logical to me personally to have class E below TMA's only and class C replacing classes A & D for CTRs. Having 'blanket' class E without a massive expansion of size and complexity of LARS units (where would the money come from?) would not be possible.

[DFC]

Having 'blanket' class E without a massive expansion of size and complexity of LARS units (where would the money come from?) would not be possible.


If for example, the UK changed the airspace outside the major TMA's to something like

UK wide TA of 6000ft and Class E 3500ft - FL95 / Class D FL95 - FL195....

Then why would LARs have anything to do with IFR flights in the enroute IFR structure at say 4000ft?

The current LARS system can still deal with the VFR flights that want an appropriate part of the FIS but making everything from x level up class E would have zero impact on LARS units.

It would have an impact on the Enroute ATS provider. However a suitable amendment to the RAD would fix some of the initial problems.

What would have an impact on LARS units would be the idea to make the area of responsibility of the LARS unit class E above 3000ft and at the same time keeping it outside the enroute structure while also having a suitable size of class E zone around places like Oxford, Farnborough, Filton, Exeter etc so that one does not have to worry about being in cloud on an IAP while at the same time meeting anything from a Jet to a pitson single to a Glider in that cloud and not talking to anyone (as is their right currently).

The big sticking point in many of these issues are unfortunately the Military - look at the mess that exists in the Class C FL195 - FL245 during the "on route" hours. Imagine the mess they would create at lower levels!!

[soaringhigh650]

The big sticking point in many of these issues are unfortunately the Military

What are they doing? Do they routinely fly in IMC without talking to anyone either?