ATC separate VFR traffic!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIME OUT!
London City Zone....
For those of you who fly in the LCY zone (hello ST/Timothy et al
)
Last month there was an interesting scenario:
LHR on Westerlies
LCY on Easterlies
Helicopter auth'd for low level flights cleared north to south between Vauxhall and London Bridge not above 1500 feet. (could of been not above 2000 feet!)
Traffic Info given to IFR RJ100 at 2000 feet (reply was "got him on TCAS"). TI given to Heli who reported visual. Super Dooper.
RJ100 announces a TCAS climb up to 3000 feet on base leg (Just south of Westminster heading North)
LHR approach profile above this area allows descent to 3000 feet.... Eeeek!!
Fortunately the LHR 747 was at 5200 descending and stopped at 4000.
The moral here is that an IFR can request avoiding action/take TCAS at any time - but from my experience when they get close. In the City Zone there is almost no-where to turn - certainly not climb. We have to guard against that (obviously lots of variables, not least the weather, come into play) but you can see why ATCO's try and build in some safety margin.
Back to the arguing....!
For those of you who fly in the LCY zone (hello ST/Timothy et al
)Last month there was an interesting scenario:
LHR on Westerlies
LCY on Easterlies
Helicopter auth'd for low level flights cleared north to south between Vauxhall and London Bridge not above 1500 feet. (could of been not above 2000 feet!)
Traffic Info given to IFR RJ100 at 2000 feet (reply was "got him on TCAS"). TI given to Heli who reported visual. Super Dooper.
RJ100 announces a TCAS climb up to 3000 feet on base leg (Just south of Westminster heading North)
LHR approach profile above this area allows descent to 3000 feet.... Eeeek!!
Fortunately the LHR 747 was at 5200 descending and stopped at 4000.
The moral here is that an IFR can request avoiding action/take TCAS at any time - but from my experience when they get close. In the City Zone there is almost no-where to turn - certainly not climb. We have to guard against that (obviously lots of variables, not least the weather, come into play) but you can see why ATCO's try and build in some safety margin.
Back to the arguing....!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC_LTN
{removed in credit to TC_LTN}
Are you saying that there is a requirement to look out of the window under IFR? (note that, in typical fashion of poor debating you have taken my quote out of context, removing my comment that there are times when good airmanship dictates looking outside. In further poor debating style you have simply rolled your eyes, without actually bothering to come up with a coherent response). What would you see in IMC, for example? Why look out to the detriment of vital in-cockpit tasks? I see you are an ATCO, so what qualifies you to post on pilots' responsibilities?
I know more about this case than people who assume that a question about VFR flight, assumed in the UK, migt be at night. For example I know that VFR flight is not possible in the UK at night. I can also point out that a typical regional airport with which I am very familiar with class D airspace closes as official night falls at this time of year. That does not make me Crash and Burn.
{removed in credit to TC_LTN}
Are you saying that there is a requirement to look out of the window under IFR? (note that, in typical fashion of poor debating you have taken my quote out of context, removing my comment that there are times when good airmanship dictates looking outside. In further poor debating style you have simply rolled your eyes, without actually bothering to come up with a coherent response). What would you see in IMC, for example? Why look out to the detriment of vital in-cockpit tasks? I see you are an ATCO, so what qualifies you to post on pilots' responsibilities?
I know more about this case than people who assume that a question about VFR flight, assumed in the UK, migt be at night. For example I know that VFR flight is not possible in the UK at night. I can also point out that a typical regional airport with which I am very familiar with class D airspace closes as official night falls at this time of year. That does not make me Crash and Burn.
Last edited by Send Clowns; 28th May 2004 at 11:09.
Watchdog Delta Hotel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here but there in 6 years
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry sc but have to agree with tc
he offered the way other than paper not telling you to do that , and as the pilot in command you are the one who in the first place is the person that has the ultimate duty to provide separation for your aircraft (eg look out the window , tcas etc etc)
regrds maine
he offered the way other than paper not telling you to do that , and as the pilot in command you are the one who in the first place is the person that has the ultimate duty to provide separation for your aircraft (eg look out the window , tcas etc etc)
regrds maine
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns
I will, of course, remove the post if it causes you offence. I simply found it surprising that somebody who teaches other people how navigate in the air appeared to be so unfamiliar with the Rules of the Air and in particular Rule 17. You appear reluctant to accept that regardless of the fact that you are conducting the flight in accordance with an Air Traffic Clearance, that you remain responsible for looking out of the window in order to prevent a collision along with any other means at your disposal.
Again I am sorry. I don't believe that I did suggest that YOU intended to submit paperwork about the incident. All I said was that you appeared to know far more about the incident than the rest of us by quoting the times for official night and the relationship to the closing time at Bournemouth etc.
I then went on to suggest that if, indeed this incident did take place at Bournemouth, would it not have been better sorted out by a phone call to the ATSM at Bournemouth rather than the complainant resorting to threats of paperwork etc. At no time did I suggest that YOU were the complainant simply that you appeared to know a lot more about the incident that had been posted.
My reference to multiple ids was referring to the fact that one of the problems with this entire thread was that it has continually been in the third person. In the original post, C&B refers to a colleague having been involved in the incident and you have continually leapt to the defence of C&B about an incident that supposedly did not involve either of you. I was not referring to use of multiple PPRuNe ID's or suggesting that you were indulging in such a practice - but now you mention it............??????
Yes, I am saying that regardless of the Flight Rules you are operating under or whether or not you are operating under an ATC clearance you are required to use ALL methods at your disposal including looking out of the window (Yes, you can still do it IFR ) to ensure that your aircraft does not collide with another aircraft.
I have gone to exhaustive lengths to quote the entire contents of your post in order that you can not accuse me of simply picking bites out of your contribution.
You move your argument on to talk about IMC. I accept entirely, that there may be little point in using visual reference as a method of discharging your obligations in relation to Rule 17 if you cannot see out of the window. However, the original thrust of this debate was why a VFR flight was apparently being separated from an IFR flight and it is therefore likely that for the VFR flight to be operating in VMC and that the Met. conditions in relation to those being encountered by the IFR flight are likely to also to be VMC and therefore the IFR pilot is obligated under Rule 17 to usual visual separation to prevent collisions along with any other method at his/her disposal.
My qualification to post about a pilot's responsibilities stems from the fact that I am required to know, understand and retain a vast amount of this legislation in order to exercise the privileges of my professional licence. Given the level of understanding of those subjects that I encounter amongst many pilots on a regular basis, I am quite grateful that on occasions, I am able to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with a little of my own and I hasten to say, visa versa.
Most of my argument has centred on the contents of Rule 17. I trust you are not suggesting that Rule 17 has no relevance to the teaching of General Navigation?
I THINK you are saying that you know more about this case than other people? If that is your point then that is exactly what I suggested in the posting you took offence at! I think we are all clear and that it has never been in debate that you cannot fly VFR at night in the UK. A few of the ATCOs involved in the thread, in an attempt to reach a logical explanation, grasped at the "Goodnight" phrase as a suggestion that the flight may have been at or close to official night. You seem very confident that this has no bearing on the debate as does C&B although why the ATCO would have said it or what the precise timings of the event were, have, along with so many of the facts, never been given.
I am beginning to tire of trying to help with this particular scenario particularly when it has become so vitriolic. Perhaps it would be best if we avoided 'what if' debates about potential areas of ATCO/Pilot conflict unless somebody, preferably the original protagonist, is clear about the facts and prepared to post them.
NightNight
I would appreciate if you remove your nasty innuendo and aspertions on my professional character. You make no attempt to justify your slander, you simply post an arrogant sneer and adopt a superior attitude, assuming people will accept that you must be right.
I cannot fathom how on Earth you come by the suggestion that I should do some paperwork. That one is completely bizarre. Surely Crash and Burn would be the person you might discuss paperwork with? You menion multiple IDs, but you make no effort to justify your lazy, fatuous assumption and are completely wrong, as you would realise if you actually read my posts and C&B's. I cannot see the point either of using multiple identities or of your off-the wall accusation that I am doing so.
I then went on to suggest that if, indeed this incident did take place at Bournemouth, would it not have been better sorted out by a phone call to the ATSM at Bournemouth rather than the complainant resorting to threats of paperwork etc. At no time did I suggest that YOU were the complainant simply that you appeared to know a lot more about the incident that had been posted.
My reference to multiple ids was referring to the fact that one of the problems with this entire thread was that it has continually been in the third person. In the original post, C&B refers to a colleague having been involved in the incident and you have continually leapt to the defence of C&B about an incident that supposedly did not involve either of you. I was not referring to use of multiple PPRuNe ID's or suggesting that you were indulging in such a practice - but now you mention it............??????
Are you saying that there is a requirement to look out of the window under IFR? (note that, in typical fashion of poor debating you have taken my quote out of context, removing my comment that there are times when good airmanship dictates looking outside. In further poor debating style you have simply rolled your eyes, without actually bothering to come up with a coherent response). What would you see in IMC, for example? Why look out to the detriment of vital in-cockpit tasks? I see you are an ATCO, so what qualifies you to post on pilots' responsibilities? What has this to do with my teaching of General Navigation?
) to ensure that your aircraft does not collide with another aircraft. I have gone to exhaustive lengths to quote the entire contents of your post in order that you can not accuse me of simply picking bites out of your contribution.
You move your argument on to talk about IMC. I accept entirely, that there may be little point in using visual reference as a method of discharging your obligations in relation to Rule 17 if you cannot see out of the window. However, the original thrust of this debate was why a VFR flight was apparently being separated from an IFR flight and it is therefore likely that for the VFR flight to be operating in VMC and that the Met. conditions in relation to those being encountered by the IFR flight are likely to also to be VMC and therefore the IFR pilot is obligated under Rule 17 to usual visual separation to prevent collisions along with any other method at his/her disposal.
My qualification to post about a pilot's responsibilities stems from the fact that I am required to know, understand and retain a vast amount of this legislation in order to exercise the privileges of my professional licence. Given the level of understanding of those subjects that I encounter amongst many pilots on a regular basis, I am quite grateful that on occasions, I am able to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with a little of my own and I hasten to say, visa versa.
Most of my argument has centred on the contents of Rule 17. I trust you are not suggesting that Rule 17 has no relevance to the teaching of General Navigation?
I know more about this case than people who assume that a question about VFR flight, assumed in the UK, migt be at night. For example I know that VFR flight is not possible in the UK at night. I can also point out that a typical regional airport with which I am very familiar with class D airspace closes as official night falls at this time of year. That does not make me Crash and Burn.
I am beginning to tire of trying to help with this particular scenario particularly when it has become so vitriolic. Perhaps it would be best if we avoided 'what if' debates about potential areas of ATCO/Pilot conflict unless somebody, preferably the original protagonist, is clear about the facts and prepared to post them.
NightNight
Guest
Posts: n/a
Send Clowns - You seem concerned that I don't realise the meaning of IFR. I assure you that I most certainly do. I'm afraid it simply means that te flight is complying with certain rules and procedures (namely Rules 28 to 32 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996). It does not absolve the flight from compliance with other rules that might apply (and, in particular, Rule 17). Nor does it absolve the pilot from exercising good airmanship. These points have been well covered, especially by TC_LTN so I won't bother going over the ground again in detail.
In my earlier post I suggested that if some of the scenario was at night, there might be some justification for the controller's response. One of the earlier posts mentioned that the controller said ‘Good night’ – so I felt it might have some relevance. I didn't say it did happen at night.
Maybe I did sound patronising. The original post from Crash and Burn was incorrect - VFR pilots, just like IFR pilots, are responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of whether ATC 'give traffic information in good time'. The post appears to describe someone who thinks that because they can (or they think they can) quote the book of rules they are 'safe' and perhaps in some way better than other professionals. The rules that aviation operate under are not perfect - there are plenty of opportunities to debate the foibles in the legislation and procedures. There’s a time and a place and on the R/T is neither.
You ask why I think the people in the tower have more expertise than he does. Probably because they will have done several years of training before possibly getting many years of practical experience. Controllers are paid to apply the rules so they’re likely to know them fairly well – of course there will be some people who are not professional controllers who know the rules just as well, but they won’t have the practical experience. So I think the odds are stacked in favour of the tower if you want expertise about ATC and separation. If I want to know something about how an aircraft is operated, I ask a pilot – he’s done the training and put in the years of experience for that skill and I recognise that’s where the expertise on operating an aircraft is.
Your comments show that you have as much appreciation of the inter-relationship and responsibilities of airports and ATC as you do of ATC operations.
Oops, there I go, sounding patronising again. Maybe this time I meant it. I guess I’ll leave this here until I’m asked to take it down. Or, then again, if you’re not prepared to take the odd firm rebuke from people who may know more about a subject than you do, perhaps you shouldn’t play.
In my earlier post I suggested that if some of the scenario was at night, there might be some justification for the controller's response. One of the earlier posts mentioned that the controller said ‘Good night’ – so I felt it might have some relevance. I didn't say it did happen at night.
Maybe I did sound patronising. The original post from Crash and Burn was incorrect - VFR pilots, just like IFR pilots, are responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of whether ATC 'give traffic information in good time'. The post appears to describe someone who thinks that because they can (or they think they can) quote the book of rules they are 'safe' and perhaps in some way better than other professionals. The rules that aviation operate under are not perfect - there are plenty of opportunities to debate the foibles in the legislation and procedures. There’s a time and a place and on the R/T is neither.
You ask why I think the people in the tower have more expertise than he does. Probably because they will have done several years of training before possibly getting many years of practical experience. Controllers are paid to apply the rules so they’re likely to know them fairly well – of course there will be some people who are not professional controllers who know the rules just as well, but they won’t have the practical experience. So I think the odds are stacked in favour of the tower if you want expertise about ATC and separation. If I want to know something about how an aircraft is operated, I ask a pilot – he’s done the training and put in the years of experience for that skill and I recognise that’s where the expertise on operating an aircraft is.
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?
Oops, there I go, sounding patronising again. Maybe this time I meant it. I guess I’ll leave this here until I’m asked to take it down. Or, then again, if you’re not prepared to take the odd firm rebuke from people who may know more about a subject than you do, perhaps you shouldn’t play.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never intended to say that there are no circumstances when you should look out of the window. I was merely trying to suggest that IFR traffic cannot guarantee separation by looking out of teh window, and you have read too much emphasis into what I said. As I said there is no requirement to look out for most of a flight - it is perfectly legal to fly when all you would see is white emptiness. How can "see and avoid" responsibility be given to a pilot who may be just coming out of IMC on an instrument approach? That is absurd 
Have you guys ever shot an ILS or NDB approach? Going visual is quite an intense workload.
In class D airspace (which is the area of discussion remember) the IFR traffic will be under radar control. They have priority on the approach (at least that is how it is worked here) and VFR traffic is given procedural separation and responsible for keeping clear. That is certainly how it works here. The points mentioned about the IFR traffic seeing VFR and complying with traffic rules just don't come into play.
Spitoon
If you read the original post then you would see that the flight was VFR and Crash and Burn lives in the UK. If you have the knowledge you claim of UK air law then you would realise that it cannot possibly have been at night.
"The original post from Crash and Burn was incorrect - VFR pilots, just like IFR pilots, are responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of whether ATC 'give traffic information in good time'"
Since that is exactly the point Crash and Burn was making, I am really confused at how you conclude his post was incorrect. He was making the point that in class D airspace the pilot of a VFR flight and not the controller is responsible for collision avoidance
He is a professional pilot. He judged that he could keep to his responsibility in the weather situation. ATC decided to take responsibility that was not theirs, and refuse permission to fly in the circuit, as far as I can see due to weather. Since ATC have no authority to close an airport due to weather (I know that this was not the situation, but I think that the point is relevant) and were unilaterally taking on responsibility that is not theirs, I think C & B is correct in his complaint.
"You ask why I think the people in the tower have more expertise than he does. Probably because they will have done several years of training before possibly getting many years of practical experience"
What is Crash and Burn's background then? It may well be a higher degree of training than theirs is, and much more experience. I know instructors who have been in the aviation business for decades, some who are themselves controllers, some instruct controllers, some who have other aviation experience flying or on the ground. Who are you to arrogantly judge that a controller you don't know has more experience than a pilot you don't know? In fact of all the flight instructors and controllers I know and work with, most of the pilots have more aviation experience than most of the controllers, some far more*.
Just because you are a controller, don't assume that pilots know nothing.
If airport authorities are happy to allow their personnel to ban the customers from using the facilities without sound reason then the airport seems to be poorly run.
LTN
I must apologise for one thing: I had, yes, slipped in my memory of the original post, and forgotten that the flight had not been Crash and Burn's own. However we are comparing his judgement and his friend's with that of a controller, as both seem to disagree with the decision.
It may be in this case that IFR traffic was making visual approaches. However if the weather was marginal for training circuits I would suggest that it may also be that IFR traffic was making instrument approaches, which in some cases precludes good visual separation. Even when the runway becomes visual workload can prevent sufficient lookout. That is why traffic in the circuit here is not allowed to start on base leg until visual with any instrument traffic. The IFR traffic is absolved from rule 17 by being under radar control service not by being IFR, and by the priority being set by ATC.
The Gen Nav syllabus is, I am afraid, very academic and relates primarily to long-range navigation. Air law was in fact never a good subject of mine, I was pointing out that the pilot is not required to look out from practical experience not the letter of the law: I know that at times nothing useful can be seen, or what can be seen can even be confusing and detrimental to flight safety. I know that flight in these circumstances is still legal, therefore there can be no requirement to look out until approach minima are reached.
*No intended criticism of the experience or professionalism of controllers down here. I appreciate they do a great job integrating the GA traffic with a busy international airport. I do know some very experienced instructors.
Have you guys ever shot an ILS or NDB approach? Going visual is quite an intense workload.In class D airspace (which is the area of discussion remember) the IFR traffic will be under radar control. They have priority on the approach (at least that is how it is worked here) and VFR traffic is given procedural separation and responsible for keeping clear. That is certainly how it works here. The points mentioned about the IFR traffic seeing VFR and complying with traffic rules just don't come into play.
Spitoon
If you read the original post then you would see that the flight was VFR and Crash and Burn lives in the UK. If you have the knowledge you claim of UK air law then you would realise that it cannot possibly have been at night.
"The original post from Crash and Burn was incorrect - VFR pilots, just like IFR pilots, are responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of whether ATC 'give traffic information in good time'"
Since that is exactly the point Crash and Burn was making, I am really confused at how you conclude his post was incorrect. He was making the point that in class D airspace the pilot of a VFR flight and not the controller is responsible for collision avoidance
He is a professional pilot. He judged that he could keep to his responsibility in the weather situation. ATC decided to take responsibility that was not theirs, and refuse permission to fly in the circuit, as far as I can see due to weather. Since ATC have no authority to close an airport due to weather (I know that this was not the situation, but I think that the point is relevant) and were unilaterally taking on responsibility that is not theirs, I think C & B is correct in his complaint.
"You ask why I think the people in the tower have more expertise than he does. Probably because they will have done several years of training before possibly getting many years of practical experience"
What is Crash and Burn's background then? It may well be a higher degree of training than theirs is, and much more experience. I know instructors who have been in the aviation business for decades, some who are themselves controllers, some instruct controllers, some who have other aviation experience flying or on the ground. Who are you to arrogantly judge that a controller you don't know has more experience than a pilot you don't know? In fact of all the flight instructors and controllers I know and work with, most of the pilots have more aviation experience than most of the controllers, some far more*.
Just because you are a controller, don't assume that pilots know nothing.
If airport authorities are happy to allow their personnel to ban the customers from using the facilities without sound reason then the airport seems to be poorly run.
LTN
I must apologise for one thing: I had, yes, slipped in my memory of the original post, and forgotten that the flight had not been Crash and Burn's own. However we are comparing his judgement and his friend's with that of a controller, as both seem to disagree with the decision.
It may be in this case that IFR traffic was making visual approaches. However if the weather was marginal for training circuits I would suggest that it may also be that IFR traffic was making instrument approaches, which in some cases precludes good visual separation. Even when the runway becomes visual workload can prevent sufficient lookout. That is why traffic in the circuit here is not allowed to start on base leg until visual with any instrument traffic. The IFR traffic is absolved from rule 17 by being under radar control service not by being IFR, and by the priority being set by ATC.
The Gen Nav syllabus is, I am afraid, very academic and relates primarily to long-range navigation. Air law was in fact never a good subject of mine, I was pointing out that the pilot is not required to look out from practical experience not the letter of the law: I know that at times nothing useful can be seen, or what can be seen can even be confusing and detrimental to flight safety. I know that flight in these circumstances is still legal, therefore there can be no requirement to look out until approach minima are reached.
*No intended criticism of the experience or professionalism of controllers down here. I appreciate they do a great job integrating the GA traffic with a busy international airport. I do know some very experienced instructors.
Last edited by Send Clowns; 28th May 2004 at 11:19.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and VFR traffic is given procedural separation and responsible for keeping clear.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The IFR traffic is absolved from rule 17 by being under radar control service not by being IFR...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United we stand, divided we crash and burn!
There appears to be a division between the ANO, MATS part 1 and certain opinions posted on this thread. If I knew how to, I would like to start two polls, one for pilots who think VFR implies separation is given by controllers and another poll for controllers for the same reason.
The original post was intended to clarify ‘common practice’ regarding one particulars controller’s insistence to separate VFR traffic from IFR traffic. Since then, I have found a wonderful reference to ‘withholding a clearance’, where controllers cannot withhold a clearance because they just feel like it, instead they can delay it on safety grounds. If particular controllers are interpreting the ANO and MATS part 1, as in the case I was describing where no traffic existed, yet they felt they couldn’t cope, then their manager should address this issue. However, if the aerodrome authority wishes to impose a restriction or there is a particular safety reason, then please say, it is a great teaching tool to explain to students how ‘things’ works.
In my numerous years of flying in and through various countries I have found ATC to be extremely professional but in every profession, ‘there’s always one’. No doubt you chaps and chapesses can recall when pilots have over stepped the mark, if so please add them onto this thread. You have ‘Send clowns’ and I to comment, at least he seems to appreciate exactly what I was getting at right from the start, well done!
V1 rotate!
The original post was intended to clarify ‘common practice’ regarding one particulars controller’s insistence to separate VFR traffic from IFR traffic. Since then, I have found a wonderful reference to ‘withholding a clearance’, where controllers cannot withhold a clearance because they just feel like it, instead they can delay it on safety grounds. If particular controllers are interpreting the ANO and MATS part 1, as in the case I was describing where no traffic existed, yet they felt they couldn’t cope, then their manager should address this issue. However, if the aerodrome authority wishes to impose a restriction or there is a particular safety reason, then please say, it is a great teaching tool to explain to students how ‘things’ works.
In my numerous years of flying in and through various countries I have found ATC to be extremely professional but in every profession, ‘there’s always one’. No doubt you chaps and chapesses can recall when pilots have over stepped the mark, if so please add them onto this thread. You have ‘Send clowns’ and I to comment, at least he seems to appreciate exactly what I was getting at right from the start, well done!
V1 rotate!
Let's try one more time - nothing absolves the pilot from complying with Rule 17. By complying with an ATC clearance which includes an order of landing, the pilot is complying with Rule 17 - he is not absolved from it. And it makes no difference whether the flight is VFR, IFR or Special VFR.
"Notwithstanding that the flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft."
While the measures may include delegation of separation to ATC in circumstances where such delegation is reasonable, the pilot of an IFR flight is most definitely required to conform to the remainder of Rule 17 in the same way as a VFR flight.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am being rather unclear in the field outside my core area. Apologies. I did not really mean that it was absolved from compliance with the rule, just that if given priority over traffic approaching from the right (i.e. an aircraft on an instrument approach given priority by ATC over traffic on a right base) then it is absolved from compliance with that particular part of rule 17, giving way to traffic approaching from the right.
If that is not the case, then ATC here at Bournemouth have been getting the rules wrong for the 3 years I have been flying here. (Note I am not intending to say controllers here are a danger - I have stated several times that I think they do a good job. What I am saying is that all traffic is required to comply with ATC instructions and clearances, which, as far as I am aware, take precidence over the usual crossing rules).
Bookworm
Yes, "...all possible...". My whole point was that sometimes nothing beyond compliance with clearance is possible.
If that is not the case, then ATC here at Bournemouth have been getting the rules wrong for the 3 years I have been flying here. (Note I am not intending to say controllers here are a danger - I have stated several times that I think they do a good job. What I am saying is that all traffic is required to comply with ATC instructions and clearances, which, as far as I am aware, take precidence over the usual crossing rules).
Bookworm
Yes, "...all possible...". My whole point was that sometimes nothing beyond compliance with clearance is possible.
Last edited by Send Clowns; 31st May 2004 at 12:25.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns
Regarding your point that, for an a/c operating IFR between take-off and DH/MDA, there is no requirement to look out of the window....other posts have challenged this. If you fly IFR airways into Glasgow or Edinburgh you will, during intermediate approach, fly through Class E airspace (Belfast too I believe?). You'll be aware of the fact that VFR a/c can operate here without transponders, radios or ATC clearances - and it is for this exact reason that the airspace speed limit of 250kt cannot be lifted here by ATC. Both IFR and VFR pilots are required to "see and be seen" and both have a duty to avoid other conflicting traffic, some of which might not show on radar (ie a 737 and a microlight 2 years ago which got too adjacent at 4,000').
Obviously if you're in IMC then VFR traffic will be unlikely to be encountered (and certainly not at night). But if you're IFR in VMC conditions in Class E, under radar control, then you might as well be flying in the open FIR when it comes to head-in-cockpit time.
With the two airports mentioned above totalling over 200,000 ATMs per year this is quite a significant issue!
Regarding your point that, for an a/c operating IFR between take-off and DH/MDA, there is no requirement to look out of the window....other posts have challenged this. If you fly IFR airways into Glasgow or Edinburgh you will, during intermediate approach, fly through Class E airspace (Belfast too I believe?). You'll be aware of the fact that VFR a/c can operate here without transponders, radios or ATC clearances - and it is for this exact reason that the airspace speed limit of 250kt cannot be lifted here by ATC. Both IFR and VFR pilots are required to "see and be seen" and both have a duty to avoid other conflicting traffic, some of which might not show on radar (ie a 737 and a microlight 2 years ago which got too adjacent at 4,000').
Obviously if you're in IMC then VFR traffic will be unlikely to be encountered (and certainly not at night). But if you're IFR in VMC conditions in Class E, under radar control, then you might as well be flying in the open FIR when it comes to head-in-cockpit time.
With the two airports mentioned above totalling over 200,000 ATMs per year this is quite a significant issue!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NudgingSteel
In the UK you have to struggle a bit and eventually come up with PF/PH, but you only have to look across the channel to France to find a land where nearly all lower airspace is Class E.
In the UK you have to struggle a bit and eventually come up with PF/PH, but you only have to look across the channel to France to find a land where nearly all lower airspace is Class E.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread baffles me!
Every ATCO I have dealt with over the past five years has been positive, friendly, and helpful. I've only rarely been refused a request, and then it's been for good reason (and explained).
I've also learned a lot from TC_LTN, Vintage ATCO, Warped Factor, and others - and that has made me a safer pilot, I'm sure. I'm grateful to them, and proud to call them friends. Nowadays I get a kick out of hearing a friendly/familiar voice on the radio.
But something about the anonymity of e-mail and posting on a forum such as this seems to bring out the worst in some folks (no names!), and leads to friction. Slanging isn't going to improve things - can't we agree to disagree civilly, without lobbing rocks over the keyboard?
The "searchers after truth" sometimes come across as if they were sniping, when that may not have been their intention (or perhaps it was). I suppose academic debate is like that. Somehow, we need to find a way to say "this is not an attack, I'm just trying to educate myself".
The most important thing I've learned from this particular forum is how much I don't know.
Every ATCO I have dealt with over the past five years has been positive, friendly, and helpful. I've only rarely been refused a request, and then it's been for good reason (and explained).
I've also learned a lot from TC_LTN, Vintage ATCO, Warped Factor, and others - and that has made me a safer pilot, I'm sure. I'm grateful to them, and proud to call them friends. Nowadays I get a kick out of hearing a friendly/familiar voice on the radio.
But something about the anonymity of e-mail and posting on a forum such as this seems to bring out the worst in some folks (no names!), and leads to friction. Slanging isn't going to improve things - can't we agree to disagree civilly, without lobbing rocks over the keyboard?
The "searchers after truth" sometimes come across as if they were sniping, when that may not have been their intention (or perhaps it was). I suppose academic debate is like that. Somehow, we need to find a way to say "this is not an attack, I'm just trying to educate myself".
The most important thing I've learned from this particular forum is how much I don't know.
Last edited by Keef; 31st May 2004 at 00:31.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SVFR clearances which will open an even greyer area.
A laudable attitude, to be commended, but underlining the discrepancy between the rules, what the aviation community require of the rules and day to day practicalities.
...and no, I am not going to say exactly where or what, because I want the loop-hole kept open!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NudgingSteel
You seem to have made the mistake in assuming I meant that it is never necessary to look out of the window. I specifically said that was not what I was saying in my original post. The point I was making was that it cannot be necessary to look out of the window if flying IFR under IMC.
You seem to have made the mistake in assuming I meant that it is never necessary to look out of the window. I specifically said that was not what I was saying in my original post. The point I was making was that it cannot be necessary to look out of the window if flying IFR under IMC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
He suggested a way and I said "great, but that breaks the SVFR rules". He replied "Oh we try and be flexible about SVFR rules, providing safety is maintained."
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a quick annswer, without checking the books (ie similar to real life, if given an SVFR clearance in flight):
ATC are responsible for separation of SVFR from IFR and other SVFR traffic. There should be no VFR traffic to separate from.
Pilot accepting SVFR clearance is responsible for terrain separation and navigation. He therefore must remain in SVFR weather or better; the specific minima vary from zone to zone, and according to pilot's rating.
Am I right??
AA.
ATC are responsible for separation of SVFR from IFR and other SVFR traffic. There should be no VFR traffic to separate from.
Pilot accepting SVFR clearance is responsible for terrain separation and navigation. He therefore must remain in SVFR weather or better; the specific minima vary from zone to zone, and according to pilot's rating.
Am I right??
AA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for your answer AA. I thought I would ask the question rather than launch into what I thought the answer is.
I agree that ATC provide separation from IFR and SVFR flights but - in some classes of airspace - I think it is possible for other flights to be operating VFR. The choice of flight rules is based on in flight weather conditions (mainly the visibility). An aircraft that is transiting through the airspace may be able to conduct the flight under VFR - the only person who can decide whether the weather conditions and his or her licence priviledges will permit it. In this case ATC is not required to provide any separation for or between the VFR flights although, as this thread has illustrated, many controllers will build in some 'space' between flights.
ATC cannot issue a SVFR clearance to a departing aircraft if the visibility is less than 1800m or the cloud ceiling is less than 600ft. I guess the argument is that if the weather is worse that this the pilot cannot comply with the clearance and stay legal.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services says that the pilot's responsibilities are:
So I assume that Timothy's post about breaking the SVFR rules must relate to the pilot's responsibilities listed above.
I know that some ATC units issue SVFR clearances that are all but illegal for the pilot to comply with - typically when they route over a built up area. But it is up to the pilot to determine whether the flight can be conducted legally!!!!!
I can understand why Timothy thinks it's laudable that ATC is flexible but is it right for ATC to offer a clearance that the pilot likes but might lure the unwary into breaking the law?
Is that a loop-hole?
I agree that ATC provide separation from IFR and SVFR flights but - in some classes of airspace - I think it is possible for other flights to be operating VFR. The choice of flight rules is based on in flight weather conditions (mainly the visibility). An aircraft that is transiting through the airspace may be able to conduct the flight under VFR - the only person who can decide whether the weather conditions and his or her licence priviledges will permit it. In this case ATC is not required to provide any separation for or between the VFR flights although, as this thread has illustrated, many controllers will build in some 'space' between flights.
ATC cannot issue a SVFR clearance to a departing aircraft if the visibility is less than 1800m or the cloud ceiling is less than 600ft. I guess the argument is that if the weather is worse that this the pilot cannot comply with the clearance and stay legal.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services says that the pilot's responsibilities are:
a) must comply with ATC instructions;
b) is responsible for ensuring that his flight conditions enable him to remain clear of cloud, determine his flight path with reference to the surface and keep clear of obstructions;
c) is responsible for ensuring that he flies within the limitations of his licence;
d) is responsible for complying with the relevant low flying restrictions of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations (other than the 1500 feet rule);
e) is responsible for avoiding aerodrome traffic zones unless prior permission for penetration has been obtained from the relevant air traffic control unit.
b) is responsible for ensuring that his flight conditions enable him to remain clear of cloud, determine his flight path with reference to the surface and keep clear of obstructions;
c) is responsible for ensuring that he flies within the limitations of his licence;
d) is responsible for complying with the relevant low flying restrictions of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations (other than the 1500 feet rule);
e) is responsible for avoiding aerodrome traffic zones unless prior permission for penetration has been obtained from the relevant air traffic control unit.
I know that some ATC units issue SVFR clearances that are all but illegal for the pilot to comply with - typically when they route over a built up area. But it is up to the pilot to determine whether the flight can be conducted legally!!!!!
I can understand why Timothy thinks it's laudable that ATC is flexible but is it right for ATC to offer a clearance that the pilot likes but might lure the unwary into breaking the law?
Is that a loop-hole?