VFR departure restrictions

[Single Spey]

Would anyone care to comment on the legality of a departure restriction of 2000 ft being given to VFR departures from an airport in Class G airspace?

Apparently this is the SOP at an airport not far from the capital city of the Highlands of Scotland.

[Barnaby the Bear]

Once outside the ATZ if you do not wish to comply with the restriction you legally do not have to (Class G etc). However I suspect the controller and the SOP's have a valid safety reason for restricting you. If you do not wish to comply then inform the controller of your intentions so at the least he may inform the other traffic what you are doing and if not already, what the other traffic is doing that may affect you.
Its a two way thing this aviation stuff.

[tired-flyboy]

Possibly if you were going east from said airport it might be to keep you under a certain approach to a mil airfield where the mighty comet flies!

[Pierre Argh]

Would anyone care to comment on the legality of a departure restriction of 2000 ft being given to VFR departures from an airport in Class G airspace?

Although there is no legal requirement to maintain 2000' once VFR and clear of the ATZ or any other regulated airspace, the point is would you have been allowed departure in the first place if you didn't agree to comply?
Presumably there is other traffic to affect, and it would be quite simple for the Controller to hold you on the ground until that traffic is clear. Such restriction is given in the name of expedition, try to screw ATC by quoting regulations and legality and I suggest you might find yourself having a different arguement whilst still at the holding point?
(If you are unhappy with a restricted departure clearance the Phrase "unable to comply" will suffice)

[WorkingHard]

We all at some point have our doubts about things, pilots as well as controllers but surely it is better to simply ask. I prefer to comply if possible and ask privately after the event. Still may not agree with what I am told but then in the comfort of a telephone call it can be discussed and reasons explained from both sides.

[silverknapper]

Not sure if the original poster was present at the very helpful meeting hosted at the aero club by ATC a few months ago. At it, the controllers held a presentation followed by an individual Q&A session. I found it very helpful. The controllers were at pains to stress that this is not obligatory - BUT if you are unable to comply no problem. your release MAY take longer due to IFR inbounds.
I would be interested to know what your concerns are Single Spey. if you are going en route and terrain clearance is an issue then surely a few minutes at the holding point will be no problem for your safety.
There is, as everywhere, the small minded majority who try to be awkward for the sake of it. "we're in class G" etc etc. Interestingly usually the ones who fly bi monthly. I personally would consider that compliance where possible, and mutual understanding with the controllers would be far preferable to trying to make a point. It is for a reason that this 'restriction' is necessary. If everyone flying VFR were to take a negative attitude to it it may well result in incidents which would lead to further 'restrictions' and perhaps the accelerated introduction of Class D airspace to the highlands.

Any thoughts?

[Single Spey]

silverknapper

All responses acknowledge the authority of ATC within the ATZ BUT

if you are unable to comply no problem. your release MAY take longer due to IFR inbounds.

Why should my departure be delayed by an IFR inbound in Class G airspace? ATC are not there to provide separation. They should pass the traffic information to me and then let me decide on acheiving separation.

There is, as everywhere, the small minded majority who try to be awkward for the sake of it. "we're in class G" etc etc. Interestingly usually the ones who fly bi monthly.

You know nothing about my background in aviation nor how often I fly, nor in what types of aircraft.

I personally would consider that compliance where possible

That is your decision - if you wish to allow ATC to provide you with separation where they have no remit to do so. Perhaps you are also happy to comply with them telling you when to turn onto base leg in the circuit, or when to switch on the pitot heater or, in extremis, when to 'just turn left now' whilst you are etablished at 300 ft on final approach. Personally when operating in airspace where it is MY decision I prefer ATC to pass me the information in accordance with procedures laid down in the Air Navigation Order and then I can make my own decision.

If everyone flying VFR were to take a negative attitude to it it may well result in incidents which would lead to further 'restrictions' and perhaps the accelerated introduction of Class D airspace to the highlands.

You have already effectively conceded the airspace if you accept that ATC are providing separation, but you have not put in place the underlying mechanisms to ensure that everyone knows what the situation is.

What happens if I follow the 2000 ft restriction but then have an AIRPROX with a non-squawking aircraft in the vicinity that is not talking to the ATC unit? Who is responsible? Because I have accepted delegation of my separation to ATC even though I am VFR, am I absolved of any responsibility?

ATSOCAS are defined so that, by and large, all participants understand their responsiobilities. ATSInsideCAS are similarly well defined. I do not believe that individual units should take it upon themselves to mandate changes (ie you may be delayed because of an IFR inbound inside our radar cover unless you accept an altitude restriction) to these procedures.

Finally you seem to see the introduction of Class D airspace as inevitable viz the accelerated introduction of Class D. Why?

Pierre Argh

Presumably there is other traffic to affect, and it would be quite simple for the Controller to hold you on the ground until that traffic is clear. Such restriction is given in the name of expedition, try to screw ATC by quoting regulations and legality and I suggest you might find yourself having a different arguement whilst still at the holding point?

If the conflict would occur outside CAS then the controller should inform me about the traffic and not restrict my flight as it is not his responsibility to provide separation. If he wishes to hold me for this reason is he willing to pay for the additional cost of my flight? To paraphrase your coment, may I suggest that if ATC try to screw pilots by acting outside their remit they might find themselves having a discussion with CAA SRG.

[Roffa]

Single Spey, you do seem to have a bit of an anti-ATC bias for some reason. I'd be curious to know why?

Anyway, here's what the good book says...

Approach Control

Outside Controlled Airspace

1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA, from the time and place at which:

a) arriving aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until control is transferred to aerodrome control;

b) departing aircraft are taken over from aerodrome control until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner;

c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise. Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.

You can work with the system, or against it. The choice is yours...

[Single Spey]

Roffa

Not biased at all against ATC. However I am against ATC making decisions which are outside their remit and which pilots do not realise they have the option to disregard. I am aware of many occasions when ATC have instructed pilots to manoeuvre when they should be passing traffic info and letting the pilot decide on the separation/manoeuvre to be applied. Controllers on the whole do a wonderful job 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. Unfortunately a proportion of users of Class G airspace are not aware of this and do not have the knowledge to challenge these instructions. As a result I believe that they are becoming less capable as pilots. Being Pilot in Command relies to a very large degree on assimilating information and making decisions. This skill is not being developed where the decision making process is devolved to other agencies when it should not be.

[Single Spey]

Roffa

The good book also says:

3 Control of VFR Flights

3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other.

I do not consider having an SOP departure altitude restriction to be passing sufficient traffic information. Fair enough for each departure to pass specific traffic info with the necesary instruction - again this allows the pilot to decide in conjunction with ATC.

[Riverboat]

Single Spey, I fully agree with your post. No disrespect at all to ATC - fine bunch of people, mostly - but it is important that the balance is kept.

Everything you have written makes sense. (Unlike Silverknapper, which is complete rubbish.)

[bookworm]

Under a RAS in class G airspace from a controllers point of view, the fact that you are VFR is of little difference if say the commercial aircraft gets a TCAS climb. They have then failed to provide a RAS and the paperwork involved from the pilot and controller when a TCAS climb is initiated just causes more headaches.

So in order to avoid your headache, you're passing the problem to Single Spey.

It's not the role of ATC in class G to ensure that TCAS equipped aircraft avoid RAs. It's similarly impossible to guarantee standard separation from other aircraft in class G, and the loss of standard separation under a RAS is not a "failure to provide" the RAS. Such a guarantee is not possible in the absence of an air traffic control service.

If your airport wants to provide greater protection for commercial users of that airport than is provided for in class G airspace, there is a well defined procedure for an application for controlled airspace which means that due process ensures the cost-benefit for all airspace users is considered.

[Pierre Argh]

SS - whilst not disputing the facts of your response to my post, it is a fact that ATC have to provide separation (as you agree). This remit is achieved, as far as you are concerned, by ATC giving you traffic information; but any IFR Traffic is entitled to separation and acheiving this may require repositioning, which has to be done before they can allow you to depart into confliction. If there are multiple IFR tracks, of course, this may take time and is probably going to be unexpeditious for all concerned (?) - so the simple answer for the Controller is to seek your compliance.

Regarding the point you make about conflictions you might encounter - an ATC service is available to VFR as well (as you undoubtedly know) - if the airfield is busy (probably why the restriction is applied) then why not ask for a RIS until clear of the immediate area?

Sorry if my use of the word "screw" wound you up - it was not my intent, simply trying to say that I'm sure ATC are only trying to do their job, and help out all their users, but when busy that isn't always easy and a little cooperation, understanding and trust is always welcome.

Finally, as I believe you are talking about a Mil Airfield (?) I regret to inform you SRG have no remit to take issue in their operation - they might make representation to Air Command but I doubt, when the safety card is played as it would inevitably be, the matter would go much further? (Incidently, presumably you have elected to fly into said Military Base - are you aware that in doing so you agree to comply and accept Military procedures and practices?)

[Pierre Argh]

Bookworm says

If your airport wants to provide greater protection for commercial users of that airport than is provided for in class G airspace, there is a well defined procedure for an application for controlled airspace which means that due process ensures the cost-benefit for all airspace users is considered.

and is therefore presumably aware that in order for an application for Regulated Airspace (a more accurate term I think) there are a number of loops to jump through - one of the most significant is meeting the minimum number of passengers shifted. Close to my home, Exeter and Plymouth are both commercial airports handling significant numbers of passenger flights, with only an ATZ to protect them. It's not quite as simple as you make out?

...But that's getting away from SS's point

[Kiltie]

Why are you trying to be coy about the fact that it is INVERNESS that have introduced this system SingleSpey?

I have never been passed a VFR altitude restrictive CLEARANCE nor INSTRUCTION by Inverness ATC. They phrase it as a REQUEST to which I am usually able to happily comply. You (quite innocently I expect) state that ATC are providing you with SEPARATION. This is not the case. INV ATC are merely trying to reduce the likelihood of passing avoiding action to IFR flights.

Roll on Class D as Silverknapper implies. I have had too many instances emerging out of IMC on the approach to have a VFR aircraft pass too close for comfort. VFR transit through Class D, in particular to the draft design I have seen for Inverness, is no great hardship.

From your rebuke it would seem you have taken Silverknapper's remarks personally Singlespey. Perhaps if you chose to tell us in what capacity you use INV we may be able to convince you to be somewhat more open minded. Personally I have operated in and out of INV for 18 years in commercial turboprops, jets and private aircraft, twice last week IFR and the day before yesterday VFR.

Riverboat - I have read silverknapper's post over and over again and I can't work out why you consider it "complete rubbish." It may not be an exhaustive explanation but it certainly seems sensible.

Playing the game with local ATC cuts good favour in the long run; waving the rule book around is best left to stand off when all else fails.

[bookworm]

and is therefore presumably aware that in order for an application for Regulated Airspace (a more accurate term I think) there are a number of loops to jump through - one of the most significant is meeting the minimum number of passengers shifted.

But who's in the better position to understand the overall cost-benefit of mandating air traffic control services to particular classes of user: the Directorate of Airspace Policy, or an individual ATCO? I think the name gives it away.

[bookworm]

earthey

I appreciate your measured response to my rather provocative post.

Regardless of he rules, it is worth remembering that these are still lumps of metal full of people, and it is taking a big gamble to simply hope some of the VFR aircraft "see" the conflict.

But that's not your gamble. That's a gamble that is shared in responsibility between DAP, SRG, the airline and the crews involved. And the problem with imposing your solution on your view of the risk management picture, is that your view of that picture is often incomplete, particularly in class G airspace. As SS says:

What happens if I follow the 2000 ft restriction but then have an AIRPROX with a non-squawking aircraft in the vicinity that is not talking to the ATC unit? Who is responsible? Because I have accepted delegation of my separation to ATC even though I am VFR, am I absolved of any responsibility?

That is the essence of the issue. If someone has responsibility for risk management, they also have to have appropriate power to control the risk (and not just the risk that you can see, the whole risk picture). If you allow ATC to give instructions to and place restrictions on aircraft outside controlled airspace, you take the necessary control away from the pilot, despite the pilot still having the responsibility.

[DFC]

Single Spey,

You need to understand what a pile of crap RAS can be if there is other traffic about. Here is an example which demonstrates what I mean;

ABC123 a commercial pax flight in inbound from the south in IMC descending and receiving a RAS from a nearby military airfield. About 8nm from the overhead, ATC say "ABC123 avoiding action turn right heading 090 unknown traffic left to right 12 o'clock 7 miles.

After several avoiding action turns, and now getting further from the destination, the pilot questions ATC regarding the unknown and ATC respond that; they are probably in the circuit at the destination but to get any closer we would have to cancel RAS (against company policy when IMC in UK Class G).

With that kind of service, you can see why commercial companies put such pressure on aerodrome authorities (and thus ATC) to ensure that such stupid reasons for delay do not happen.

I can see your point and I agree totally that Class G should not be operated as Class C. However, simply when flying in the UK think of it as Class C without the known traffic environment!

Personally, I am far more worried about the pilot who departs VFR and then enters cloud just outside the ATZ cause they have an IMC rating and want to get on top.

The whole problem is that for many reasons there is no trust between sections of the team.

Perhaps in this case, it would have been better for ATC to simply provide traffic information and advice as per MATS 1- B737 inbound from...descending to 3000ft not above 2000ft until clear of that traffic Report the traffic in sight.

Regards,

DFC

[Pera]

ATC have an inbuilt pucker factor when it comes to aircraft getting too close together. Regardless of the strict application of the rules they will apply separation or segregation when necessary. The rules often don't keep up with the changing traffic dynamics.
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.

[ShyTorque]

If you allow ATC to give instructions to and place restrictions on aircraft outside controlled airspace...

Then it is no longer "outside controlled airspace". ATC cannot, by definition do so. They can try, but a pilot is under no obligation to comply in those circumstances.