ATC separate VFR traffic!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its hilarious that Controllers here are being flamed for daring to offer a separation service to VFR aircraft. In Australia in Class E airspace under the new NAS system, the controllers were trained purely by the book procedures and that is, IFR recieve traffic information on known or observed VFR traffic. Thats it, no separation to be provided. This was done, and a 737 almost cleaned up a Lancair, and may have succeeded if not for a TCAS RA, near Brisbane. The controller was publicly called "criminally negligent" for not stepping in and positively separating the aircraft, even though he followed his training to a T and passed traffic on three occasions. So which is it, ATC steps in and separates, and gets told by the pilot to butt out, or sits back and watches them almost hit, and gets accused of being negligent.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm.. I just discovered this thread and I'm quite surprised at some of the reactions... may I give my "unprofessional" pilots opion? 
Shouldn't the reactions in such a forum be: "There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers"?
I think many VFR "beginner" pilots don't realise that there is no separation, only information, given in Class D. So they fly in having the wrong expectations. This could be from poor training, with little class D experience. or in areas with little class D around. On the other hand, I would definitely appreciate an ATC "informing" me about traffic coming up from above, behind, or whereever I wouldn't necessarily be able to see it! And even perhaps give me or the "big Boy" vectors to avoid ! I would assume that you guys have the "big picture" which I, as a "simple" VFR pilot, can't possibly have.
It was mentioned before, that there seem to be a lot more "infringements" of class D (or other) airspace. I think, if put in "private flying" in an informing way, this information could possibly make some pilots think about what they are doing. Too many pilots don't realise what they or many of their buddies do that could lead to serious consequences for all (increased class C areas, more class D instead of F, etc.).
I hate this bashing of posters... no matter what the reason. Some people can't express what they mean in written form well and thus misunderstandings happen.
We are supposed to work together (I thought) and help EACH OTHER.... or have I misunderstood something?
Ok... let the bashing start...
Westy
P.S. it's like asking for a clearance at an uncontrolled airfield... hear it quite often!
Shouldn't the reactions in such a forum be: "There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers"?
I think many VFR "beginner" pilots don't realise that there is no separation, only information, given in Class D. So they fly in having the wrong expectations. This could be from poor training, with little class D experience. or in areas with little class D around. On the other hand, I would definitely appreciate an ATC "informing" me about traffic coming up from above, behind, or whereever I wouldn't necessarily be able to see it! And even perhaps give me or the "big Boy" vectors to avoid ! I would assume that you guys have the "big picture" which I, as a "simple" VFR pilot, can't possibly have.
It was mentioned before, that there seem to be a lot more "infringements" of class D (or other) airspace. I think, if put in "private flying" in an informing way, this information could possibly make some pilots think about what they are doing. Too many pilots don't realise what they or many of their buddies do that could lead to serious consequences for all (increased class C areas, more class D instead of F, etc.).
I hate this bashing of posters... no matter what the reason. Some people can't express what they mean in written form well and thus misunderstandings happen.
We are supposed to work together (I thought) and help EACH OTHER.... or have I misunderstood something?
Ok... let the bashing start...
Westy
P.S. it's like asking for a clearance at an uncontrolled airfield... hear it quite often!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
I have just read this thread and quite frankly, I am horrified that so much vitriol can be thrown about over what was a relevant question, albeit perhaps phrased in a rather controversial way.
Seems to me that we are all here to do essentially the same job, i.e. move people and machines about the sky in as safe and expeditious way as possible. If there is a lack of understanding about the application of the rules, why can't we discuss this in a more productive way? Please. After all, we are supposed to be professionals - and this website provides a window to the public. This sort of stuff doesn't give a favourable impression of any of us.
Seems to me that we are all here to do essentially the same job, i.e. move people and machines about the sky in as safe and expeditious way as possible. If there is a lack of understanding about the application of the rules, why can't we discuss this in a more productive way? Please. After all, we are supposed to be professionals - and this website provides a window to the public. This sort of stuff doesn't give a favourable impression of any of us.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1
Classification of Airspace:L
Class D
Aircraft Requirements:
ATC Clearance before entry
Comply with ATC instructions
MINIMUM service by ATC Unit:
Separate IFR flights from other IFR flights
Pass Traffic Information to IFR flights in VFR flights and give Avoidance IF REQUESTED
Pass Traffic Information to VFR flights on IFR flights and other VFR flights.
We don't give avoiding action to VFR flights in clas D airspace.
I work at an airfield within Class D airspace and also have responsibility for a fairly busy section of Class E airspace.
Quite ofted the IFR flights make visual approaches, the paths conflict with VFR flights, I pass traffic information to the IFR on the VFR and likewise to the VFR on the IFR, neither has the other in sight, the VFR is operating up to 2000ft, the IFR is descending throught 3000ft on the visual approach conflicting traffic in his 12 o clock 3 miles at 2000ft - still neither has the other in sight.
What do I do??
I build in a form of separation until the IFR has the VFR in sight or vice versa so I'll restrict the IFR to not below 2500ft until such time as one has the other in sight.
I'm not legally required to do this but we as controllers have a moral duty (and you can discuss this till the cows come home) not to let the bits of metal bang into each other.
The see and be seen principle of separation is not ideal, look at the number of airprox encounters outside CAS because of poor lookout or late sighting - add to that the number of collisions because of poor lookout or late sighting.
I treat every PPL holder the same (unless I know them from experience) as a low hours flyer, that way I'm not surprised when they behave erratically.
Only yesterday one PPL holder took 2 minutes to blurt out his initial mesage and request for zone transit, he then reported overhead a reporting point that was 5 miles west of his position. Unfortunately this is not uncommon and whilst I will contine to provide the best service I can to ALL traffic that talks to me, you'll forgive me for being cautious and making sure that I don't have to appear at the coroners court because I applied the rules to the letter and something went wrong.
As for the incident that started this topic the controller was wrong, but berating him on this forum was not the best thing to do, perhaps a simple question as to what the separation standards we apply would have been better.
At least it's started a hot debate and it's something we can ALL learn from
Classification of Airspace:L
Class D
Aircraft Requirements:
ATC Clearance before entry
Comply with ATC instructions
MINIMUM service by ATC Unit:
Separate IFR flights from other IFR flights
Pass Traffic Information to IFR flights in VFR flights and give Avoidance IF REQUESTED
Pass Traffic Information to VFR flights on IFR flights and other VFR flights.
We don't give avoiding action to VFR flights in clas D airspace.
I work at an airfield within Class D airspace and also have responsibility for a fairly busy section of Class E airspace.
Quite ofted the IFR flights make visual approaches, the paths conflict with VFR flights, I pass traffic information to the IFR on the VFR and likewise to the VFR on the IFR, neither has the other in sight, the VFR is operating up to 2000ft, the IFR is descending throught 3000ft on the visual approach conflicting traffic in his 12 o clock 3 miles at 2000ft - still neither has the other in sight.
What do I do??
I build in a form of separation until the IFR has the VFR in sight or vice versa so I'll restrict the IFR to not below 2500ft until such time as one has the other in sight.
I'm not legally required to do this but we as controllers have a moral duty (and you can discuss this till the cows come home) not to let the bits of metal bang into each other.
The see and be seen principle of separation is not ideal, look at the number of airprox encounters outside CAS because of poor lookout or late sighting - add to that the number of collisions because of poor lookout or late sighting.
I treat every PPL holder the same (unless I know them from experience) as a low hours flyer, that way I'm not surprised when they behave erratically.
Only yesterday one PPL holder took 2 minutes to blurt out his initial mesage and request for zone transit, he then reported overhead a reporting point that was 5 miles west of his position. Unfortunately this is not uncommon and whilst I will contine to provide the best service I can to ALL traffic that talks to me, you'll forgive me for being cautious and making sure that I don't have to appear at the coroners court because I applied the rules to the letter and something went wrong.
As for the incident that started this topic the controller was wrong, but berating him on this forum was not the best thing to do, perhaps a simple question as to what the separation standards we apply would have been better.
At least it's started a hot debate and it's something we can ALL learn from
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find the questions about "where did this happen?" stem from the fact there is a good chance somebody from the relevant unit reads this forum, and may be able to enter into an intelligent discussion regarding the senario (or senarios.............and I'm not talking about a justification or defence.)
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C&B,
You have consistently managed to avoid any of the simple questions which would allow any of the ATCOs in this forum to effectively answer your questions or fully understand the scenario. In your latest post you seem intent on re-writing the book in order satisfy your perception that separation standards should be based on pilot qualification and IQ rather than the flight rules and type of airspace they operate in.
I and I suspect most of my colleagues remain more than happy to try and explain any genuine scenario you are prepared to fully describe or even enter into constructive debate as to how 'the book' could be changed to better serve the service provider and our customers. IMHO, on the basis of your postings to this thread, you are not prepared to listen but are simply intent on 'bulldozing' your opinion as to what you think happened in the in original scenario.
I would be happy to be convinced otherwise.
You have consistently managed to avoid any of the simple questions which would allow any of the ATCOs in this forum to effectively answer your questions or fully understand the scenario. In your latest post you seem intent on re-writing the book in order satisfy your perception that separation standards should be based on pilot qualification and IQ rather than the flight rules and type of airspace they operate in.
I and I suspect most of my colleagues remain more than happy to try and explain any genuine scenario you are prepared to fully describe or even enter into constructive debate as to how 'the book' could be changed to better serve the service provider and our customers. IMHO, on the basis of your postings to this thread, you are not prepared to listen but are simply intent on 'bulldozing' your opinion as to what you think happened in the in original scenario.
I would be happy to be convinced otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and give Avoidance IF REQUESTED
Might as well make it class C, since it sounds like you need to treat it as such anyway......
I quite glad that the quoted pice does not figure in the rulebook I have to comply with!
Some airline crews (IFR) have had misgivings about the "lack of seperation" to VFR traffic (in TMA, medium level), but as far as I'm concerned: Bitch to the CAA and try to get more class C, othervise get yout eyes over the glareshield when you are given traffic info, and work the problem.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Caniplaywithmadness,
When you said "As for the incident that started this topic the controller was wrong, but berating him on this forum was not the best thing to do", etc.., what were you referring to?
I have re-read the original post and don't see any "berating" at all.
However, as someone who passes through the various types of regulated airspace in UK on a fairly regular basis, I always try to behave as if I am visiting someone's house or garden. If they ask me to do something, I do it! If a question arises, I still do it provided it doesn't compromise safety (as I know this type of thing is likely to be taken into consideration at a later date when requesting subsequent clearances)!
The only time I recall taking issue over something like this was some time ago on a VFR flight when a controller, on my initial free call which was to request a Class D crossing, told me to "standby", which I did, for about 10 minutes.
Having realised early on that Approach was very busy and we were unlikely to get a clearance through the airspace, we had already descended in order to pass beneath the TRA stub but were now clear beyond it too. I called to say we no longer required a service and were going en-route, but to our surprise, without the controller having identified us (we were on a 7000 squawk), we were suddenly told to turn 70 degrees right. This turned out to be away from another aircraft well ahead of us, crossing from right to left, which we subsequently realised was inbound to the controller's airspace from Class G.
As we had been in sight of that aircraft for some time, were well laterally separated in good VMC, already going to pass well clear behind and below, the captain told me to decline his offer (I was acting as second pilot that day and covering the RT). The ATC person began to berate us on the RT so I politely pointed out both aircraft were in Class G airspace and asked if we could discuss it by landline later. We rang on landing at our destination, but without actually resolving the situation to our satisfaction. The controller was really quite aggressive on the phone and insisted we were wrong to decline instructions in Class G and that the other pilot could have "filed against us". We pointed out that we were not identified, had not been in regulated airspace at any time, nor been in receipt of a service and were therefore operating under the principle of "see and avoid", which presumably the other pilot would have been doing.
Please note, I am certainly not berating anyone either
but would welcome constructive discussion.
When you said "As for the incident that started this topic the controller was wrong, but berating him on this forum was not the best thing to do", etc.., what were you referring to?
I have re-read the original post and don't see any "berating" at all.
However, as someone who passes through the various types of regulated airspace in UK on a fairly regular basis, I always try to behave as if I am visiting someone's house or garden. If they ask me to do something, I do it! If a question arises, I still do it provided it doesn't compromise safety (as I know this type of thing is likely to be taken into consideration at a later date when requesting subsequent clearances)!
The only time I recall taking issue over something like this was some time ago on a VFR flight when a controller, on my initial free call which was to request a Class D crossing, told me to "standby", which I did, for about 10 minutes.
Having realised early on that Approach was very busy and we were unlikely to get a clearance through the airspace, we had already descended in order to pass beneath the TRA stub but were now clear beyond it too. I called to say we no longer required a service and were going en-route, but to our surprise, without the controller having identified us (we were on a 7000 squawk), we were suddenly told to turn 70 degrees right. This turned out to be away from another aircraft well ahead of us, crossing from right to left, which we subsequently realised was inbound to the controller's airspace from Class G.
As we had been in sight of that aircraft for some time, were well laterally separated in good VMC, already going to pass well clear behind and below, the captain told me to decline his offer (I was acting as second pilot that day and covering the RT). The ATC person began to berate us on the RT so I politely pointed out both aircraft were in Class G airspace and asked if we could discuss it by landline later. We rang on landing at our destination, but without actually resolving the situation to our satisfaction. The controller was really quite aggressive on the phone and insisted we were wrong to decline instructions in Class G and that the other pilot could have "filed against us". We pointed out that we were not identified, had not been in regulated airspace at any time, nor been in receipt of a service and were therefore operating under the principle of "see and avoid", which presumably the other pilot would have been doing.
Please note, I am certainly not berating anyone either
but would welcome constructive discussion.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing how much so many pilots and controllers/FISOs don't know about the rules.
We all seem to accept that the standard of training of PPLs is falling, mainly due to the shortage of dedicated vocational instructors, as opposed to kids who have only just learnt to fly themselves styling themselves as instructors a couple of hours later.
But is the standard of controlling falling as well? I ask this as a neutral question, with no agenda, so don't all blow me to bits for even suggesting it, but I do think that it is a question worth asking.
I have myself drawn attention over the last few weeks to some basic lacks of knowledge demonstrated by ATCOs (A LARS controller can instruct an aircraft under RIS to descend; an aircraft cannot cross an airway at its base where the base is a FL; a Class D crossing does not have to be explicitly IFR or VFR, that can be inferred by the choice of words of the controller; a met vis just below the min RVR for an approach, where no RVR is available, implies an approach ban.) Has this amount of ignorance about basic principles been there for a long time, or is it a recent phenomenon?
And if we were to agree that there does seem to be a gradual decline in knowledge among ATCOs/FISOs, why should it be? Is training being reduced, or its focus changed? Is privatisation and competition resulting in corners being cut? Are the rules getting more complex? Is controller workload getting to the point that the plot is getting lost?
Please don't all burn me to death at once for suggesting that there might be a problem looming. Someone's got to say it.
We all seem to accept that the standard of training of PPLs is falling, mainly due to the shortage of dedicated vocational instructors, as opposed to kids who have only just learnt to fly themselves styling themselves as instructors a couple of hours later.
But is the standard of controlling falling as well? I ask this as a neutral question, with no agenda, so don't all blow me to bits for even suggesting it, but I do think that it is a question worth asking.
I have myself drawn attention over the last few weeks to some basic lacks of knowledge demonstrated by ATCOs (A LARS controller can instruct an aircraft under RIS to descend; an aircraft cannot cross an airway at its base where the base is a FL; a Class D crossing does not have to be explicitly IFR or VFR, that can be inferred by the choice of words of the controller; a met vis just below the min RVR for an approach, where no RVR is available, implies an approach ban.) Has this amount of ignorance about basic principles been there for a long time, or is it a recent phenomenon?
And if we were to agree that there does seem to be a gradual decline in knowledge among ATCOs/FISOs, why should it be? Is training being reduced, or its focus changed? Is privatisation and competition resulting in corners being cut? Are the rules getting more complex? Is controller workload getting to the point that the plot is getting lost?
Please don't all burn me to death at once for suggesting that there might be a problem looming. Someone's got to say it.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy, I think the simple answer to your statement is that in this modern day environment, controllers are starting to have a "tin plate thy ass" ethic creeping into their day to day work. Air NoServices rightly highlights an occurence that happen in Australia in their new airspace. The controller did exactly what he was trained for and came under major criticism for it by some **** during a radio interview. And (I hate to bring this up again), look at the farce that our military friend had to endure last year.
It's been highlighted already, but ATC separation is not outlined in the ANO. Now, we have established already that standard ATC separation is not required in Class D airspace. But, we're not going to sit there and watch events unfold that may lead to questions being asked at a later stage (especially when paperwork starts). Also, IMHO with the advent of TCAS I believe that situations where IFR/VFR may be getting in situations where RAs are occuring. And that ain't good.
It's been highlighted already, but ATC separation is not outlined in the ANO. Now, we have established already that standard ATC separation is not required in Class D airspace. But, we're not going to sit there and watch events unfold that may lead to questions being asked at a later stage (especially when paperwork starts). Also, IMHO with the advent of TCAS I believe that situations where IFR/VFR may be getting in situations where RAs are occuring. And that ain't good.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi Timothy,
I think your questions deserve a new thread. I know that in many places there is a personel shortage thus controllers working double screens, or in areas they normally don't work (and sometimes may not even have the licence for).... Ueberlingen is only one example of what CAN happen.
Other problems I have heard of is no follow-up training, no proper manuals about changes, etc. .... and the reason? lack of money as usual...
So, start up a new thread and see what echo you get.... I'm not a ATCO myself so it's not for me to start it..... sorry. For me it's pure interest since I know many that are and I'd like to compare their complaints to yours.
Westy
I think your questions deserve a new thread. I know that in many places there is a personel shortage thus controllers working double screens, or in areas they normally don't work (and sometimes may not even have the licence for).... Ueberlingen is only one example of what CAN happen.
Other problems I have heard of is no follow-up training, no proper manuals about changes, etc. .... and the reason? lack of money as usual...
So, start up a new thread and see what echo you get.... I'm not a ATCO myself so it's not for me to start it..... sorry. For me it's pure interest since I know many that are and I'd like to compare their complaints to yours.
Westy
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW1950
I don't want to get a reputation for ATC bashing, thank you!
I am totally on-side regarding ATC and pilots forming one team, I have many friends who are ATCOs and/or FISOs, I (as WCollins) wrote an article in Flyer a few months ago saying that there is no problem with Class D penetration...yesterday I flew a charity flight and half the units I spoke to greeted me by name.
I don't want to change any of that!
I will leave it to an ATCO to ask the question in a new thread.
Timothy
I don't want to get a reputation for ATC bashing, thank you!
I am totally on-side regarding ATC and pilots forming one team, I have many friends who are ATCOs and/or FISOs, I (as WCollins) wrote an article in Flyer a few months ago saying that there is no problem with Class D penetration...yesterday I flew a charity flight and half the units I spoke to greeted me by name.
I don't want to change any of that!
I will leave it to an ATCO to ask the question in a new thread.
Timothy
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi again Timothy,
I agree completely... sorry, I didn't realise you weren't one ...
No, we SHOULD be a team! also between IFR and VFR pilots. When I read some of the bashing that goes on here and in other forums (and I don't mean JetBlast ) then I wonder sometimes... why? We all have enough to hassel with in regards to new regs, citizens against plane noise, etc.,... why do we also fight among ourselves? 
Westy
P.S. if I sound a bit
it's because a very young know-it-all pilot tried to tell me off today....his attitude was very insulting and my flying friends that witnessed it are ALL on my side and shook their head at this idiot's manners he made a number of enemies today , but it sure spoiled my day ... eh, sorry again
I agree completely... sorry, I didn't realise you weren't one ...
No, we SHOULD be a team! also between IFR and VFR pilots. When I read some of the bashing that goes on here and in other forums (and I don't mean JetBlast
) then I wonder sometimes... why? We all have enough to hassel with in regards to new regs, citizens against plane noise, etc.,... why do we also fight among ourselves? Westy
P.S. if I sound a bit
it's because a very young know-it-all pilot tried to tell me off today....his attitude was very insulting and my flying friends that witnessed it are ALL on my side and shook their head at this idiot's manners he made a number of enemies today , but it sure spoiled my day ... eh, sorry again
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like any industry, we have people on both sides who don't understand the rules, misinterpret them, or are just plain incompetent. Only by talking about the things such people do will we increase the understanding and knowledge on both sides.
For those who can't participate in such debates and discussions without resorting to insults or casting aspersions, then please don't bother.
I can only hope that the 'attitude' displayed by some is left at home when they commit aviation - ground or air based.
PS ... UK ATCOs DO tend to over control VFR flights. I suppose the benefit of being an old ATC hand when I fly means that I tend to know the rules inside out and can use that to my advantage if ATC get too above their station
For those who can't participate in such debates and discussions without resorting to insults or casting aspersions, then please don't bother.
I can only hope that the 'attitude' displayed by some is left at home when they commit aviation - ground or air based.
PS ... UK ATCOs DO tend to over control VFR flights. I suppose the benefit of being an old ATC hand when I fly means that I tend to know the rules inside out and can use that to my advantage if ATC get too above their station
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say as well to add that many units are " culture " driven, i.e. we have always done it this way.
It only takes one or two people to start changing that culture for good or bad. Having experienced working at a unit where even a RIS was a big deal and now working at one where we do RIS and RAS without a second thought and use Class D to its maximum effect to allow zone transits I have seen it from both sides.
I am as much at fault sometimes not knowing a detail as well as i should. Ideally an expanded LARS service would help , however funding and a lack of ATCOs means it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
It only takes one or two people to start changing that culture for good or bad. Having experienced working at a unit where even a RIS was a big deal and now working at one where we do RIS and RAS without a second thought and use Class D to its maximum effect to allow zone transits I have seen it from both sides.
I am as much at fault sometimes not knowing a detail as well as i should. Ideally an expanded LARS service would help , however funding and a lack of ATCOs means it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while not totally related to the present topic-is the kind of person now being attracted/recruited to ATC part of the problem?
by and large those of us who have been at the coal face for a while got into the job because we were enthusiasts-ex assistants perhaps, or had failed the selection at Biggin Hill!
we had a background in aviation-heaven forbid perhaps we were spotters!-the point being we had what might be called aviation mindness-do the direct entrants, with a degree perhaps, who come into ATC because it sounds good and the pay is very competitive at an early age have the same basic grounding,
what would my course have said if they were asked to learn the difference between a PA28 and a 747?
(or maybe I'm just an old git looking through rose tinted specs')
by and large those of us who have been at the coal face for a while got into the job because we were enthusiasts-ex assistants perhaps, or had failed the selection at Biggin Hill!
we had a background in aviation-heaven forbid perhaps we were spotters!-the point being we had what might be called aviation mindness-do the direct entrants, with a degree perhaps, who come into ATC because it sounds good and the pay is very competitive at an early age have the same basic grounding,
what would my course have said if they were asked to learn the difference between a PA28 and a 747?
(or maybe I'm just an old git looking through rose tinted specs')
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon - IFR, in case you did not realise, means "Instrument Flight Rules". This means that no, for most of the flight there is no requirement to look out of the window. There may be times when the pilot is too busy to do so. There may be times when looking out of the window gives a view of white emptiness, or even a rather disorienting view of part of the world (gives the leans). There may be other times when good airmanship dictates that the pilot look out. After take off, and until decision altitude/minimum descent height is reached though there is not a requirement to maintain a lookout.
Since we are considering VFR flight in the UK how can any of the flight possibly be at night? Why do you have the idea that it was at night (since night is now from 2128, and Bournemouth at least is closed from 2130, night circuits in similar airports seem an unlikely assumtion)?
I agree I muddled the terms separation and collision avoidance. However, the point I made stands: ATC have no requirement to provide my aircraft with separation. They don't do so, I am often far closer to IFR traffic than ATC could possibly guide me.
You sound extremely patronising towards Crash and Burn. Nothing he has posted suggests he is a "********". How do you know the people in the tower have more expertise than he does? Who is he if you know they do? He in fact seems to have saved a controller from some paperwork that would have meant a rocket up his arse. Can you imagine the airport authorities who pay the controller being happy about losing the landing fees for a set of circuits and annoying a flight school that is a paying customer and provides more paying customers?
AirNoServicesAustralia
You seem to have the whole issue the wrong way round. ATC are not being criticised for offering separation. They are being criticised for insisting on giving separation that is not required or being asked for; for not allowing a pilot who can legally arrange his own collision avoidance to do so. There has been no suggestion that the aircraft was at risk of collision.
M609 Not quite right - in class C airspace there is separation given between VFR and IFR atraffic. That is not the same as avoidance action being offered to IFR.
Jerricho
The scenario was not that the controller was expected to let events unfold to a dangerous level. It was suggested he should accept a professional pilot's (not a flight instructor, not a basic PPL) judgement that he could safely fly circuits in the given weather, which was legal for VFR flight.
Since we are considering VFR flight in the UK how can any of the flight possibly be at night? Why do you have the idea that it was at night (since night is now from 2128, and Bournemouth at least is closed from 2130, night circuits in similar airports seem an unlikely assumtion)?
I agree I muddled the terms separation and collision avoidance. However, the point I made stands: ATC have no requirement to provide my aircraft with separation. They don't do so, I am often far closer to IFR traffic than ATC could possibly guide me.
You sound extremely patronising towards Crash and Burn. Nothing he has posted suggests he is a "********". How do you know the people in the tower have more expertise than he does? Who is he if you know they do? He in fact seems to have saved a controller from some paperwork that would have meant a rocket up his arse. Can you imagine the airport authorities who pay the controller being happy about losing the landing fees for a set of circuits and annoying a flight school that is a paying customer and provides more paying customers?
AirNoServicesAustralia
You seem to have the whole issue the wrong way round. ATC are not being criticised for offering separation. They are being criticised for insisting on giving separation that is not required or being asked for; for not allowing a pilot who can legally arrange his own collision avoidance to do so. There has been no suggestion that the aircraft was at risk of collision.
M609 Not quite right - in class C airspace there is separation given between VFR and IFR atraffic. That is not the same as avoidance action being offered to IFR.
Jerricho
The scenario was not that the controller was expected to let events unfold to a dangerous level. It was suggested he should accept a professional pilot's (not a flight instructor, not a basic PPL) judgement that he could safely fly circuits in the given weather, which was legal for VFR flight.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR, in case you did not realise, means "Instrument Flight Rules". This means that no, for most of the flight there is no requirement to look out of the window.
A French accident (or maybe Airprox) report that came out over the last few weeks specifically blamed the IFR crew for not keeping a look-out in IFR in Class E airspace.
Of course the IFR pilot/crew is obliged to use all possible means to avoid a collision and looking out of the window can only help!
Timothy