ATC separate VFR traffic!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just stand by one Crash and Burn.
I think it is blatently obvious you haven't got a real grasp of what is being revealed here. As TC_LTN puts so well describes reference Class D, there are situations where positive control (hence the title ATC) has to be taken. And last time I checked, in the UK you require a clearance to enter this airspace. I can fully understand B-L's comments.........I'm sure your reaction would be similar if you or your colleagues were questioned as such regarding their airmanship.
Remember this?
And was there a subsequent discussion reference the whole situation, and why the controller did what he/she did? It may just be what was done is done on a day to day basis for very good reason.
ATC are not working from one rule book and pilots another, we're there to ensure ALL users are provided with the best possible service. Re-read you initial post. I think you'll find the "us and them" you mention starts there. It's not a case of who's right or wrong.................
I think it is blatently obvious you haven't got a real grasp of what is being revealed here. As TC_LTN puts so well describes reference Class D, there are situations where positive control (hence the title ATC) has to be taken. And last time I checked, in the UK you require a clearance to enter this airspace. I can fully understand B-L's comments.........I'm sure your reaction would be similar if you or your colleagues were questioned as such regarding their airmanship.
Remember this?
The commander correctly pointed out that the pilot of a VFR flight is responsible for separation provided traffic information is issued in good time and refered to the Air Naviagtion Order.
ATC are not working from one rule book and pilots another, we're there to ensure ALL users are provided with the best possible service. Re-read you initial post. I think you'll find the "us and them" you mention starts there. It's not a case of who's right or wrong.................
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again more interesting subject comments
After reading your opinions, I have to comment on the lack of focus on the topic. The question was do ATC separate VFR traffic from IFR?
Comments have ranged from the scenario that existed at that time to 'my' grasp of the situation. One thing I would like to point out to whoever it was who mentioned infringements of controlled airspace, if you take the time to read the C.A.A. analysis of those incidents the vast majority are due to very low, inexperienced PPLs. Therefore, since you are comparing ATC errors to PPL errors, it is also true that you are comparing your ability to that of an incompetent PPL holder.
The last submission shows a lack of understanding of the written word, for those with the hard of understanding, I was merely stating from the tone of some individuals postings ON THIS THREAD, some controllers give a strong impression of a 'them against us' attitude.
As for the scenario, although in the interests of a good working relationship between the two organisations involved paperwork will not be forthcoming. However, it was confirmed this evening that the Controller in question could not be bothered with working an item in his empty circuit pattern. There were no other items expected into or out of this aerodrome and no reason existed, which prevented circuits from being flown.
No doubt there will be much tapping of keyboards etc, but spare a thought to this pilot who only gets paid for what he flies and has patiently waited for the last three years for an airline job with nothing on the horizon yet. One child and a wife in tow with a mortgage to pay... 'I'm alight Jack
the rest' comes to mind.
Comments have ranged from the scenario that existed at that time to 'my' grasp of the situation. One thing I would like to point out to whoever it was who mentioned infringements of controlled airspace, if you take the time to read the C.A.A. analysis of those incidents the vast majority are due to very low, inexperienced PPLs. Therefore, since you are comparing ATC errors to PPL errors, it is also true that you are comparing your ability to that of an incompetent PPL holder.
The last submission shows a lack of understanding of the written word, for those with the hard of understanding, I was merely stating from the tone of some individuals postings ON THIS THREAD, some controllers give a strong impression of a 'them against us' attitude.
As for the scenario, although in the interests of a good working relationship between the two organisations involved paperwork will not be forthcoming. However, it was confirmed this evening that the Controller in question could not be bothered with working an item in his empty circuit pattern. There were no other items expected into or out of this aerodrome and no reason existed, which prevented circuits from being flown.
No doubt there will be much tapping of keyboards etc, but spare a thought to this pilot who only gets paid for what he flies and has patiently waited for the last three years for an airline job with nothing on the horizon yet. One child and a wife in tow with a mortgage to pay... 'I'm alight Jack
the rest' comes to mind.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, you couldn't be bothered for sparing a thought before your intial post in such a haughty manner, especially with how quickly you state than on checking ANO the commander's understanding was entirely correct! (are you now attempting to score another percieved point with your little chip above? Care to reveal which ATSU you're referring to?)
The simple answer is that in Class D as you rightly mention as per ANO, traffic is passed to VFR on IFR aircraft accordingly. However, ATC instructions may be issued to VFR aircraft (and subsequently, if the pilot unable to maintain VFR ATC should be advised). Quite simple really.
AlanM sums it up perfectly:
The simple answer is that in Class D as you rightly mention as per ANO, traffic is passed to VFR on IFR aircraft accordingly. However, ATC instructions may be issued to VFR aircraft (and subsequently, if the pilot unable to maintain VFR ATC should be advised). Quite simple really.
AlanM sums it up perfectly:
This is a typical case of someone knowing a law but not it's application.
Two points here.
Regardless of how tactfully the issue was raised, there is an issue about the level of control exercised over VFR flights in class D, and the nature of the separation provided. The UK interpretation tends to err on the side of control and separation, while ATC in other states take a rather more minimalist by-the-ICAO-book view that you give the IFR flight traffic info and that's it. I'm not suggesting that one policy is better or worse than the other, but it's worth noting that there is a difference.
This is not correct, or at least not complete. The pilots of both aircraft are responsible for separation according to the normal rules of the air. For example, if the VFR flight is approaching from the IFR flight's right, it is the IFR flight's responsibility to give way. Which gets back fairly quickly to the "safe and expeditious flow of traffic..." thing 
Regardless of how tactfully the issue was raised, there is an issue about the level of control exercised over VFR flights in class D, and the nature of the separation provided. The UK interpretation tends to err on the side of control and separation, while ATC in other states take a rather more minimalist by-the-ICAO-book view that you give the IFR flight traffic info and that's it. I'm not suggesting that one policy is better or worse than the other, but it's worth noting that there is a difference.
The commander correctly pointed out that the pilot of a VFR flight is responsible for separation provided traffic information is issued in good time and refered to the Air Naviagtion Order.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C&B
If you are looking for sympathy you won't find it here. Try the dictionary - it is there between sh1t and syphillis!
Oh and we have TRM (Team Resource Management). Go join a team and get back to to me!!
As for the scenario, although in the interests of a good working relationship between the two organisations involved paperwork will not be forthcoming.
No doubt there will be much tapping of keyboards etc, but spare a thought to this pilot who only gets paid for what he flies and has patiently waited for the last three years for an airline job with nothing on the horizon yet. One child and a wife in tow with a mortgage to pay... 'I'm alight Jack the rest' comes to mind.
If you are looking for sympathy you won't find it here. Try the dictionary - it is there between sh1t and syphillis!
Oh and we have TRM (Team Resource Management). Go join a team and get back to to me!!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, that's a good point. While you're revealing which ATSU, perhaps you could also explain what actually happened to warrant a consideration of submitting paperwork?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho, the fact that ATC instructions may be passed to VFR aircraft is actually completely irrelevant. ATC is still not rtequired to offer separation to VFR aircraft, the aircraft commander is responsible for avoiding all other traffic.
Bright-Ling's utterances suggest a few things. Firstly he is childish, petulant, nasty and self-centred, and I would certainly not wish to join a team with someone in it with that attitude to other people and their concerns concern. Secondly he doesn't bother to consider who he may be addressing, the experience of someone who posts on PPRuNe who may well know a lot more than he does about aviation issues (or who else might read here - would you be worried about ATC with that attitude if you were a passenger or a pilot? I am). Finally that he has an impetuous streak not good in a controller.
Bookworm are you sure about that? In class D separation is only provided by ATC between IFR and IFR. IFR traffic may not be sufficiently aware of the conflict to give way as the pilot has no requirement to look out of the window and may not have the time to do so, and I always was under the impression that I had to arrange separation from all IFR traffic when I was in class D.
Bright-Ling's utterances suggest a few things. Firstly he is childish, petulant, nasty and self-centred, and I would certainly not wish to join a team with someone in it with that attitude to other people and their concerns concern. Secondly he doesn't bother to consider who he may be addressing, the experience of someone who posts on PPRuNe who may well know a lot more than he does about aviation issues (or who else might read here - would you be worried about ATC with that attitude if you were a passenger or a pilot? I am). Finally that he has an impetuous streak not good in a controller.
Bookworm are you sure about that? In class D separation is only provided by ATC between IFR and IFR. IFR traffic may not be sufficiently aware of the conflict to give way as the pilot has no requirement to look out of the window and may not have the time to do so, and I always was under the impression that I had to arrange separation from all IFR traffic when I was in class D.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who's for the introduction of Class C then? Seems that is what we are doing anyway!
a) All UK Class 'D' becomes 'C' (As STMA so rightly says - that's how most of them operate anyway, and you'll never change their working practices).
b) All ATZ's with ATC become Class 'D'
We follow the ICAO definitions re: separation for both. Wonder if that's ever been tried anywhere else
(Scott, Mike and Dave - don't say a word!)
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC, I don't think it's totally irrelevant. ATC may not be to the letter of the books required to provide separation, however situation s present themselves where the guy watching a radar may not be happy with what they are seeing and do something positive about it. It is tin plating our asses, there's no doubt about it. You may be totally happy with the separation you have provided yourself, the commander of the IFR may not, and if he files, guess who's going to have the customary bag of sh*t thrown in their direction?
And not casting dispersions on anybody's aviating abilities, what happens if the VFR aircraft fails to visually aquire the IFR (for what ever reason).
Reasonably, perhaps Crash and Burn could tell us all which unit he's refering to, as it may be somebody from there may be on the forum.
(And you'll have to excuse B-L. He gets a little carried away if he doesn't take his medication!)
And not casting dispersions on anybody's aviating abilities, what happens if the VFR aircraft fails to visually aquire the IFR (for what ever reason).
Reasonably, perhaps Crash and Burn could tell us all which unit he's refering to, as it may be somebody from there may be on the forum.
(And you'll have to excuse B-L. He gets a little carried away if he doesn't take his medication!)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst you girls bitch about what who has said and what needs to be done.....
WTF is this bozo whittling on about not filing paperwork on the ATCO concerned?
Please, please please tell us all.......... or are the facts too much to tell?? The facts are STILL missing from post #1.
Don't be shy - we are all friends here!
B-L
Your Favourite childish, petulant, nasty and self-centred ATCO, who doesn't bother to consider who he may be addressing, the experience of someone who posts on PPRuNe who may well know a lot more than he does about aviation issues.
DGWM
WTF is this bozo whittling on about not filing paperwork on the ATCO concerned?
Please, please please tell us all.......... or are the facts too much to tell?? The facts are STILL missing from post #1.
Don't be shy - we are all friends here!
B-L
Your Favourite childish, petulant, nasty and self-centred ATCO, who doesn't bother to consider who he may be addressing, the experience of someone who posts on PPRuNe who may well know a lot more than he does about aviation issues.
DGWM
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho
I spend about half my airborne time VFR in class D airspace. ATC prevent the type of conflict you refer to by not allowing me to start my base leg until I have visual contact with any IFR traffic on the final approach. They have no need to actively separate the traffic.
If the VFR traffic does not provide sufficient separation in the opinion of an IFR pilot I know damned well where the **** goes, because I know someone who has been filed against very recently. It is not toward the controller.
Bright (surely a misnomer?) Ling
If you bother to read C&B's post it is obvious that someone was not allowed into the circuit at a class-D airfield and was given the reason that ATC could not provide separation they were not required to provide. For a flight instructor this is frustrating - remember you get paid to train and get paid whatever the traffic you work. We pay for our training, only get paid when we are airborne. You have come across here as sneering, arrogant and completely unconcerned about the issues other people face or about their skills and knowledge.
I spend about half my airborne time VFR in class D airspace. ATC prevent the type of conflict you refer to by not allowing me to start my base leg until I have visual contact with any IFR traffic on the final approach. They have no need to actively separate the traffic.
If the VFR traffic does not provide sufficient separation in the opinion of an IFR pilot I know damned well where the **** goes, because I know someone who has been filed against very recently. It is not toward the controller.
Bright (surely a misnomer?) Ling
If you bother to read C&B's post it is obvious that someone was not allowed into the circuit at a class-D airfield and was given the reason that ATC could not provide separation they were not required to provide. For a flight instructor this is frustrating - remember you get paid to train and get paid whatever the traffic you work. We pay for our training, only get paid when we are airborne. You have come across here as sneering, arrogant and completely unconcerned about the issues other people face or about their skills and knowledge.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet more interesting views
To finish off the wild guessing of what happened
, as my colleague was on base leg the controller issued landing clearance and wished him a ‘good night’. His response was I’ve got another hour of circuits yet, no response came back but he got that telephone call instead.
To answer the lack of sympathy comment above, who justifies your existence? I wish I had a job where I did nothing and got a packet for it, wake up to the real world!
I wonder what life would be like without ATC... could ATC be replaced by a computer, now there's an interesting thought and as stated above, at least one controller would not mind if 'someone' didn't have work. Although, I am sure this is a minority opinion.
Thanks one and all for your collective and educational comments into the mind of ATC.
, as my colleague was on base leg the controller issued landing clearance and wished him a ‘good night’. His response was I’ve got another hour of circuits yet, no response came back but he got that telephone call instead.To answer the lack of sympathy comment above, who justifies your existence? I wish I had a job where I did nothing and got a packet for it, wake up to the real world!
I wonder what life would be like without ATC... could ATC be replaced by a computer, now there's an interesting thought and as stated above, at least one controller would not mind if 'someone' didn't have work. Although, I am sure this is a minority opinion.
Thanks one and all for your collective and educational comments into the mind of ATC.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To finish off the wild guessing of what happened , as my colleague was on base leg the controller issued landing clearance and wished him a ‘good night’. His response was I’ve got another hour of circuits yet, no response came back but he got that telephone call instead.
Am I being slower than normal? I am still confused about the scenario. Are you saying that the circuit detail was covering the transition between day and night? If so, this could well go some way to explaining the ATCO's comment about the need to separate.
You are obviously not comfortable revealing names and location but please explain the WHOLE scenario so we can ALL learn from this.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh...................the true colours come out now!!
Hahahahahahaha. Go look up hypocrite in the dictionary (It's quite a few pages before sympathy!). Do you remember typing this?
If we take B-L's attempts at making friends aside, some have tried to ascertain what sitation actually transpired to warrant the phone call (and just how the ATSU knew the number!) and WHERE it happened. You seem to be ducking this issue rather well. I am starting to wonder was your initial post was just an attempt to wind people up? I am learning from the input of others above (S.C. - I'm starting to see what you mean, and have had a bit of a discussion with guys at work! Thank you!). Obviously Crash and Burn isn't.
who justifies your existence? I wish I had a job where I did nothing and got a packet for it, wake up to the real world!
If an ATCO feels that the relationship between Pilots and ATCOs is similar to a 'them against us' routine, I suspect that particular ATCO has issues and should seek professional help
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is all very interesting and I'll make one or two observations - maybe not directly related to the original post but the subject matter has cropped up in the thread.
* I don't think the separation standards applied by ATC are in the ANO.
* Send Clowns says
IFR pilots have no requirement to look out ou the window?? Sorry but Rule 17 of the Rules of the Air makes the commander responsible for avoiding aerial collisions - full stop. No mention of separation, no mention of flight rules. As a pilot you have no obligation to arrange separation from other aircraft (and in practice have no way of doing so), you simply have to avoid a collision.
* So, from the paragraph above, don't get confused between collision avoidance and separation.
* Air traffic controllers have a responsibility to all aircraft under their control to manage a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. Occasionally one aircraft will get asked to do something that is for the overall good. If you think you're the only one that ever gets inconvenienced, go back and think about it again. You're wrong.
*If you want sensible answers from people with ATC knowledge on this forum, give the the whole story. If some of the scenario was at night, then there's a good reason for the controller's response (not necessarily his attitude, but certainly his response). If you think you're VFR at night, go back to your books and look again. Then look again at what ATC have to do.
* If you think you've been done wrong, do the paperwork. But do it tactfully. Recognise that somone with greater expertise in a subject may know something you can learn from. Write to the ATC unit Manager, ask for an explanation. If you really have been done wrong, they'll tell you. If you haven't, maybe you'll start to understand why controllers get paid a professional salary.
* And if you want to be a professional in aviation, don't be a d1ckhead. It's dangerous.
* I don't think the separation standards applied by ATC are in the ANO.
* Send Clowns says
In class D separation is only provided by ATC between IFR and IFR. IFR traffic may not be sufficiently aware of the conflict to give way as the pilot has no requirement to look out of the window and may not have the time to do so, and I always was under the impression that I had to arrange separation from all IFR traffic when I was in class D.
* So, from the paragraph above, don't get confused between collision avoidance and separation.
* Air traffic controllers have a responsibility to all aircraft under their control to manage a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. Occasionally one aircraft will get asked to do something that is for the overall good. If you think you're the only one that ever gets inconvenienced, go back and think about it again. You're wrong.
*If you want sensible answers from people with ATC knowledge on this forum, give the the whole story. If some of the scenario was at night, then there's a good reason for the controller's response (not necessarily his attitude, but certainly his response). If you think you're VFR at night, go back to your books and look again. Then look again at what ATC have to do.
* If you think you've been done wrong, do the paperwork. But do it tactfully. Recognise that somone with greater expertise in a subject may know something you can learn from. Write to the ATC unit Manager, ask for an explanation. If you really have been done wrong, they'll tell you. If you haven't, maybe you'll start to understand why controllers get paid a professional salary.
* And if you want to be a professional in aviation, don't be a d1ckhead. It's dangerous.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class C is on its way. Being truly European, we have agreed to implement Class C above FL195. With that implementation, the UK will define rules for the application of Class C across the UIRs/FIRs (just a small project I am working on right now 
). Within this, I suspect that there may well be a case to upgrade (and downgrade) significant elements of existing CAS to Class C status.
). Within this, I suspect that there may well be a case to upgrade (and downgrade) significant elements of existing CAS to Class C status.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelieveable
TC Luton,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't VFR flight in the U.K. a day only event?
As for those interested as to where in the U.K. this occurred, is it also possible by the amount of interest that those posting here might be have tried the same stunt to reduce their workload?
Potentially, the person involved could be loudest defending their action.
Incidentally, if those you read above scroll back to the comment on giving avoiding action when requested by the commander of an IFR item, please explain why you give avoiding action to the VFR item. As a Commander, if I ask for avoiding action, I would expect it to be given to me since the VFR item is obviously happy with his position in relation to my aircraft. After all if the VFR pilot has placed his aircraft into a venerable position there is nothing to suggest that this commander will correctly or efficiently complete the instruction you might give. Additionally, if that commander has got his aircraft on the wrong side of the drag curve and in an inappropriate configuration, there might be little he can do in the time available, but if you tell us early enough, we at least can attempt to manoeuvre to minimise the effect of our vortex descending onto the light aircraft potentially beneath. I understand it's a judgement call that you ATC guys make and to date I have had no cause to complain. I appreciate that there are a vast range of pilot competencies out there and no doubt the 'Sunday drivers' of the PPL fraternity are a little rusty to say the least. However refering to the origin of this thread and from my Air Law days at college I was under the understanding that ATC could delay a clearance, not withhold it because they felt like it!
I remember one particular aerodrome about ten years ago, who insisted when booking out the commander had to include their grade of license. I thought this was a brilliant idea, for those with CPL's / ATPL's, we got wheeled and dealed around the sky. It wasn't that the PPL and student pilot's got worse treatment, they simply didn't have the experience to react quickly to changing events that more experienced pilots had either already anticipated or could easily adapt to. No doubt this booking out procedure no longer exists for 'duty of care' reasons, although if I were a controller, I would like to know the person I am taking to has some grey stuff between their ears.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't VFR flight in the U.K. a day only event?
As for those interested as to where in the U.K. this occurred, is it also possible by the amount of interest that those posting here might be have tried the same stunt to reduce their workload?
Potentially, the person involved could be loudest defending their action.
Incidentally, if those you read above scroll back to the comment on giving avoiding action when requested by the commander of an IFR item, please explain why you give avoiding action to the VFR item. As a Commander, if I ask for avoiding action, I would expect it to be given to me since the VFR item is obviously happy with his position in relation to my aircraft. After all if the VFR pilot has placed his aircraft into a venerable position there is nothing to suggest that this commander will correctly or efficiently complete the instruction you might give. Additionally, if that commander has got his aircraft on the wrong side of the drag curve and in an inappropriate configuration, there might be little he can do in the time available, but if you tell us early enough, we at least can attempt to manoeuvre to minimise the effect of our vortex descending onto the light aircraft potentially beneath. I understand it's a judgement call that you ATC guys make and to date I have had no cause to complain. I appreciate that there are a vast range of pilot competencies out there and no doubt the 'Sunday drivers' of the PPL fraternity are a little rusty to say the least. However refering to the origin of this thread and from my Air Law days at college I was under the understanding that ATC could delay a clearance, not withhold it because they felt like it!
I remember one particular aerodrome about ten years ago, who insisted when booking out the commander had to include their grade of license. I thought this was a brilliant idea, for those with CPL's / ATPL's, we got wheeled and dealed around the sky. It wasn't that the PPL and student pilot's got worse treatment, they simply didn't have the experience to react quickly to changing events that more experienced pilots had either already anticipated or could easily adapt to. No doubt this booking out procedure no longer exists for 'duty of care' reasons, although if I were a controller, I would like to know the person I am taking to has some grey stuff between their ears.