Separation of VFR in G and E airspace
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad,
Our frequencies are published on the charts and airport directories. Just because an aircraft may be listening to the frequency when they are flying through your airspace (and have not reported on frequency) does not mean that you are required to broadcast in the blind that, "hey who ever you are out there 20 SW of ZZZ you have traffic".
For one the altitude has not been verified, so you don't really know if they are at that altitude.
If they called on frequency requesting advisories then yes you should provide traffic calls, but if they have not then NO.
Mike
Our frequencies are published on the charts and airport directories. Just because an aircraft may be listening to the frequency when they are flying through your airspace (and have not reported on frequency) does not mean that you are required to broadcast in the blind that, "hey who ever you are out there 20 SW of ZZZ you have traffic".
For one the altitude has not been verified, so you don't really know if they are at that altitude.
If they called on frequency requesting advisories then yes you should provide traffic calls, but if they have not then NO.
Mike
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has that ever been tested in a court of law? Or do you have a law that specifically limits liability? ie. Has the family of a dead airman (midair, under radar coverage) ever sued over duty of care?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge, duty of care has not been an issue in any atc incidents here. The test, according to our legal eagles, is 'the actions of a reasonable person.'
What they are suggesting is that a reasonable person would not sit in front of a radar screen and watch two targets merge without trying to intervene. The ramifications of this on an operational and staffing level are staggerring.
I am not convinced that the people putting this stuff out understand the definition or the intent of G and E airspace. The waters keep getting muddier.
What they are suggesting is that a reasonable person would not sit in front of a radar screen and watch two targets merge without trying to intervene. The ramifications of this on an operational and staffing level are staggerring.
I am not convinced that the people putting this stuff out understand the definition or the intent of G and E airspace. The waters keep getting muddier.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government gets sued all the time. They are the ones with the big pockets and even if there is NO REASON what so ever for the suit it is brought, for if anything to get companies to settle out of court before the legal bills really start to pile up. Our crappy form of litigation that we have here which allows this supports lawyers making money over frivilous law suits.
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Badarse- I was referring to the States. I realise that is the fear in oz, but was looking for the US experience.
Thanks Scott. You indicate this has happened.
Then there is the spectre of criminal charges, as in Scotland.
Thanks Scott. You indicate this has happened.
Then there is the spectre of criminal charges, as in Scotland.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris;
Only if found criminally negligent by not following documented procedures. I can't think of any event in near history where the controller was found criminally neglegent over here. There is a law that provides for "federal" air traffic controllers to be held from harm from civil charges. We had one air carrier try to hold a controller neglegent (NTSB didn't agree with the airline.) to protect themselves in coming litigation, however the judge rightly threw the civil complaint against the controller out and let the one against the govt. stand (by the way the airline lost that one, and they lost a LOT of ground with controllers.).
regards
Scott
Only if found criminally negligent by not following documented procedures. I can't think of any event in near history where the controller was found criminally neglegent over here. There is a law that provides for "federal" air traffic controllers to be held from harm from civil charges. We had one air carrier try to hold a controller neglegent (NTSB didn't agree with the airline.) to protect themselves in coming litigation, however the judge rightly threw the civil complaint against the controller out and let the one against the govt. stand (by the way the airline lost that one, and they lost a LOT of ground with controllers.).
regards
Scott
"by the way the airline lost that one, and they lost a LOT of ground with controllers"
Sounds familiar. An acquaintance who is center controller has a vendetta against one of the major box carriers. Seems he sent Christmas presents that never arrived at the destination, never found. This was in the late 80's. To this day he penalizes them.
Sounds familiar. An acquaintance who is center controller has a vendetta against one of the major box carriers. Seems he sent Christmas presents that never arrived at the destination, never found. This was in the late 80's. To this day he penalizes them.
