VFR departure restrictions

[reportyourlevel]

I hope that all ATC documents state something like this.
"Nothing in this part precludes a controller from using discretion and
initiative in any particular circumstance where these procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to promote the safe conduct of flight."
Safety is the primary concern.

The UK MATS Part 1 Certainly does:

Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.

This is an interesting debate. Even though this is class G, so no standard separation is applied, the fundamental purpose of an ATC service is to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air. By applying the height stop, the ATCO is fulfilling this responsibility. I would expect that when you are no longer in conflict they will remove the restriction.

ryl

[Chilli Monster]

It's quite simple:

TCAS RA - ATCO has failed

No TCAS RA - ATCO has succeded

So you get requested to restrict climb for a short while to achieve the above - where's the problem? My licence, My livelihood, My ar$e I'm going to cover (which ultimately might be yours too).

I don't have an intimate understanding of Inverness, but they're doing something which we do (Mixed GA / Commercial operation in class 'D') which keeps the traffic moving with minimal co-ordination.

If you want to blame somebody - blame the person who insisted TCAS RA's have to be adhered to even if you can see the traffic involved (but that's not going to happen - is it?)

[bigelz1215]

sorry but I am just a dumb ppl - but as far as I am concerned , i consider ATCO's to be professional enough to keep me away from becoming a major contributor to an aluminium rainshower , legal or not if they request below 2000' i'm sure not going to argue unless I can see cumulus granitus or some other obstruction in the way when I would politely suggest i might initiate a climb. i cannot see the reason people are complaining , c'mon people we are all trying to fly safely in an area which is becoming busier with commercial traffic, anything that keeps all pilots and pax safe is ok by me

[Dont tell um pike]

Did this restriction delay your flight at all ? No
Did this restriction delay the inbound at all ? No
Was safety compromised ? No

Sounds completely reasonable to me. safe , orderly and expeditious
DTUP

[bookworm]

i consider ATCO's to be professional enough to keep me away from becoming a major contributor to an aluminium rainshower , legal or not if they request below 2000' i'm sure not going to argue unless I can see cumulus granitus or some other obstruction in the way when I would politely suggest i might initiate a climb.

And 99% of the time, that's the way it's going to work.

It's the 1% of cases where the ATCO "refuses" your "request" and you're heading towards that gaggle of 6 (or was that 7?) gliders just beneath the cu, when we need to be clear who's responsible for what. Or perhaps that 1% where the delay in your VFR departure caused by enforced separation from the IFR inbound (which you saw at 10 miles) takes you rather closer on the climbout to the CB that's approaching the airfield?

In all cases, the ATCO is, no doubt, trying to be professional and reduce what he or she can see as risk. But sometimes it's only one piece of the picture, and a vital piece is missing.

[bookworm]

TCAS RA - ATCO has failed

How can this possibly be a "failure" when the ATCO is not responsible for, and has no way of guaranteeing, separation?

[BEXIL160]

Interesting thread, viewed by me both as an ATCO and sometime private pilot.....

Ahem, well, I fly from a very pleasant airfield near Salsibury plain, very adjacent to a BIG Army Air Corp base (the biggest grass airfield in the Uk I'm told) and a large R and D airfield with lots of noisy fast pointy things flying into /out of it.

All THREE airfields (four if you count Salisbury Intl) are in CLASS G airspace, not withstanding the MATZs (which presumably Mr. Spey doesn't recognise anyway, because in the Civil world it counts for 'nowt )

Anyway, my point is : we all rub along together quite nicely thank you, with PROCEDURES in Class G (including ALT restrictions) which let everyone, by and large, get on with what they want to do. In relative SAFETY.

Yes we're all in class G, and therefore outside the 4 ATZ's there's no actual compunction to follow the various procedures but...... you'd look a bit silly if you didn't follow them and had a close encounter of the fast jet / helicopter / C130 / VC10 etc etc kind.

I don't think the explanation that "I was VFR and exercising my rights in Class G" would cut much ice at the subsequent board of enquiry (or inquest ) Any barrister would have a field day.

The phrase "Duty of Care" doesn't only apply to controllers, pilots should be aware of the implications also.

Never met an ATCO that delayed traffic (IFR or VFR) for anything other than SAFETY reasons. Percieved or actual. Doesn't matter. They have YOUR safety at heart.

Back to gazing at the low stratus.......

rgds BEX

[Vino Collapso]

I hope the postings from some of the flying fraternity on this forum do not represent the opinions of the flyers who are not lurkers and posters. If they do then we are all doomed.

The worn out old cry of 'I know my rights' will only serve to marginalise GA even further than it is now.

[Chilli Monster]

How can this possibly be a "failure" when the ATCO is not responsible for, and has no way of guaranteeing, separation?

Because you do the best you can, with the tools and methods available, without relying on the safety net.

It may not be a failure in your eyes - Professionalism means the individual regards things differently, especially if you could have prevented it.

[bratbaak]

Single Spey when providing a RAS controllers have to attempt to achieve 5 miles or 3000 ft separation between non-participating aircraft, the moment you do not accept a request for not above 2000ft you become non-participating and hence a problem. As already asked why do you need to refuse this unless for terrain or awkwardness. As you argued about ATCO instructions on a previous thread how would you feel if a first cross country solo was allowed to depart up to any level and ended up in an airprox or worse, when a simple not above 2000ft would have kept everyone safe and moving. You queried how this request constitutes traffic info it doesn't because if one is not above 2000ft and the other at 3000ft they are not traffic. As stated before everyone avoids each other, everyone keeps moving towards where they want to be, what exactly is your problem with this? As for the, well what if I have an airprox with someone below 2000ft question, this negates your stance of we are all capable of seeing and avoiding so just let us get on with it and if you have seen it and the only way to avoid is to climb then either ask, if time, or act and tell us why, believe it or not we are trying to avoid collisions happening as much as you.

[055166k]

Single Spey

A question for clarity if I may?
Once outside the ATZ do you leave the frequency or do you still expect to receive some kind of service? What service..if any...would that be, and how do you interpret your responsibilities to other airspace users?
A scenario might be that the approach controller will issue a descent clearance which takes into account all known and relevant traffic that is complying with a "not above" restriction. Perhaps the controller's worload in such case may remove the need to transmit a string of traffic information on VFR traffic which does not wish NOR IS REQUIRED to comply in the type of airspace you describe. Can you guarantee in all circumstances that you would spot IFR traffic descending through cloud with sufficient time to avoid, particularly from behind and above?

[silverknapper]

SS
Having read through some of your previous posts, I can only come to the same conclusion as Roffa - you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder with regards to ATC. Quotes like

but there are a growing number who seem to believe that posession of a little yellow book gives them authority which in reality they do not have

only serve to support this.
Whilst most of what you post is technically correct, it is your a lack of what I can only describe as situational empathy coupled with a lack of airmanship that quite frankly worries me.
At this meeting I mentioned previously ( which I'm sure would be beneficial to us to know if you attended so that we know exactly how much you know about the situation, and indeed if you are a pro active member of the GA community who is voicing a general opinion) ATC were at pains to stress that their sole priority is to shift traffic in a SAFE and expeditious manner. They are not trying to inconvenience anyone, but enhance safety. If you were at the meeting perhaps you should have voiced your concerns there. It was part of an open consultation process, and if there were reasoned objections at the time perhaps there would be alterations to the original plan.
Remember this 'restriction' is a REQUEST. If you don't wish to comply then tell them. Technically you are well within your rights, if somewhat devoid of an ability to think of the bigger picture.
Since the introduction I have made countless VFR and IFR flights, public transport and GA, from INV and not once have I heard this request being made. If everyone cooperates then goodwill will prevail
Your argument about Airprox is a poor one. there have been many incidents in the past, VFR vs VFR, IFR vs IFR and IFR vs VFR. Hence the introduction of both radar and this procedure, to improve SAFETY. With the best will in the world not every PPL is on the ball with a sharp scan and good situational awareness. As Kiltie correctly points out ATC are NOT providing separation, but trying to avoid conflictions. If you are at not above 2000' VFR and cannot manage to see and avoid then perhaps you should have stayed on the ground that day.
With the current concerns over GA's future at INV I would think that working in harmony would be the best possible way to secure the future of GA at INV. Although with people with your attitude about bring on Class D.
I look forward to you enlightening us as to your flying activities. Perhaps it would let us understand your position better.

[agent007]

Well said Silver the meeting was most informative and well received by all that were there that night. The procedures seem to be working well when the radar is working, and if you are willing to accept the not above 2000feet there seems to be seldom any delay. It is as stated a request an not an instruction which is soon lifted by the radar controlers ASAP.

[flower]

It is ironic that a procedure brought in to facilitate the movement of GA and not hold them on the ground is picked upon by some as a problem. Many airports use similar procedures to allow a free flow of VFR traffic out of and into zones.

[PPRuNe Radar]

TCAS RA - ATCO has failed

Not necessarily. The ATCO 'clears' 2 aircraft to levels which are 'separated'. Both pilots comply but TCAS predicts that they will come close (due to closure rates, or inappropriate rates of climb or descent) and issues an RA. And the ATCO has failed ??????

[Chilli Monster]

There will always be the RA's caused by traffic closure speeds - you'll never get around them. However, they are in the minority and so I feel my original statement probably holds for 90% of RA's.

The "defensive" controlling exercised by Inverness is a way to cut this down.

Having said that - I've seen an RA where a VFR had the IFR in sight, the IFR had the VFR in sight, the VFR was going to pass behind and below and STILL the IFR had to go-around due to the RA generated.

Nobody had failed there, and nobody had done anything wrong - but policy is still an RA must be followed - so reducing the RA possibility has to be the way to go in these types of circumstances.

[DFC]

Chilli,

The RA has to be followed because the traffic you see may not be the one that is generating the RA and it is unsafe to delay the reaction while trying to figure out exactly what is happening.

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

The RA has to be followed because the traffic you see may not be the one that is generating the RA and it is unsafe to delay the reaction while trying to figure out exactly what is happening.

Which was exactly the situation which caused the San Diego mid air, which was one of the main drivers behind TCAS / ACAS.

[bookworm]

Mixed in with this basic philosophy are a whole list of other ingredients, including the rules of RAS, flight priorities, "Duty of care", and heaven forbid, the application of our own common sense! It is, I guess the duty of care principle where we could leave ourselves open to attack.

earthey

I imagine my posts have come across as unsympathetic to the ATCO who simply wants to "do the right thing" -- I'm not. In the same way that you're making the point that "it's not as simple as that", I'm making a similar point that because the ATCO only has a limited part of the risk-management picture, "doing the right thing" by issuing instructions in class G has the potential of making things less safe, and that for the pilot it isn't simply about the freedom to do what he wants, but also about the ability to manage his risk. I have no doubt, for example, that as discussed in this thread ATC at Southend issued instructions in what was perceived as the best interests of safety, with tragic results.

The "ATC duty of care" interpretation that is now pervasive is one of the worst things that has happened to aviation safety in recent years. The blurring of responsibility for risk management between pilot and ATC seems to have done nothing for safety and has just raised stress levels.

[Eric T Cartman]

bookworm wrote :"
The "ATC duty of care" interpretation that is now pervasive is one of the worst things that has happened to aviation safety in recent years. The blurring of responsibility for risk management between pilot and ATC seems to have done nothing for safety and has just raised stress levels"

Bravo - IMHO this is the most sensible post I've seen in the whole forum for a long while !