Minimum seperation between IFR and VFR

[Foxy Loxy]

Some of those questions may be answered here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=327783

Basically, there is no requirement for IFR and VFR traffic to be separated. Traffic info should be passed.

If it had been IMC would the traffic have been allowed to route through the zone only 100ft bellow the SID?

Assuming the traffic was being worked by the same unit, no. IFR separations will apply.

Lastly, how do you know whether the controller on tower and approach frequencies has radar or not?

Tower may have an Aerodrome Traffic monitor (ATM) but are not permitted to use it in the same manner as a radar controller uses radar. (That sounds a bit wishy-washy, sorry. Can't remember the rules off the top of my head)
To answer this point, the clue is in the aerodrome callsign, ie Tower (obvious), Approach (procedural, no radar), Radar (again, self explanatory.)
Whether this is failsafe, I can't be certain. I speak from my own experience only.

I'm sure there are more learned types who can go into more detail than I have here.

Foxy

[Spitoon]

You don't fly with littco do you?

See this thread for a lot of the answer.

In theory you'll know whether the controller has radar from the AIP and the callsign used. Even though the tower controller may have a radar picture in front of him/her, it can usually only be used for very limited things.

[Skyjuggler]

Okay, I'll have a go here to answer, this however is in terms of our laws south of the equator.

There are a number of times that an ATC may be permitted to reduce separation in the "vicinity of an aerodrome", one of the provisors is that both acft have each other in sight, another is if the second acft has the first in sight (and will thus be able to maintain his own separation). I'm not sure which will apply to you more closely. However, having said that it's a little impracticle for the ATC to expect you to maintain your own separation while flying the SID. Of course I don't know the whole story and situation as it happened but from what you've said I feel the ATC may have had a small lapse in judgement.

Once again though, can't point fingers since I don't know the WHOLE scenario.

Hope it helps...

[Grum]

I was flying with littco. How about that, I should have read through the other threads. Hope he didn't blame it all on the captain

Thanks for the replies.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<There are a number of times that an ATC may be permitted to reduce separation in the "vicinity of an aerodrome", one of the provisors is that both acft have each other in sight, another is if the second acft has the first in sight (and will thus be able to maintain his own separation). >

AND - very importantly (and the first proviso in MATS pt 1) - "a) adequate separation can be provided by the aerodrome controller when each aircraft is continuously visible to this controller".

In this respect, there could be no requirement for either pilot to be informed of the other aircraft and it is not required for the pilots to have the other aircraft in sight. Eg Overflying a/c passing over threshold of runway at 90 degrees to the runway at, say, 2000 ft... departing a/c climbing out on runway heading to any altitude. These two are not traffic to each other, even if they are IFR, if they can be clearly seen by the controller.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Can we merge these two threads as they are obviously the same.

In the mean time Grum and littco, I would strongly recommend you both visit ATC at the airport we are discussing, or any other airport in the UK OCAS with a procedural ATSU. Pay special attention when the ATCOs are explaining when they provide separation.

PS. They are not SIDs!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Dizzee.. Agree with what you say. When I worked at Kidlington back in 1971 we had "SIDs" for the IFR training aircraft which they used to join airways. OK, they were only promulgated amongst Kidlington staff but if a visiting pilot had heard ATC clearing someone for an "Enstone SID" (or whatever we called it) he might have been drawn to the wrong conclusion.

[radar head]

Minimum separation between VFR and IFR

The minimum separation required by an IFR flight is standard IFR separation. When a flight is IFR then ATC is responsible for separating this flight from any others. Vertical separation is the simplest and most reliable separation to establish. The VFR aircraft should not be cleared to climb to a level unless the preceeding IFR traffic has reported to be at least 1000ft or 300 meters above that level.Then you will always have your 1000ft vertical no matter what the relative rates of climb are.

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by radar head

The VFR aircraft should not be cleared to climb to a level unless the preceeding IFR traffic has reported to be at least 1000ft or 300meters above that level.

What Mickey Mouse school gave you an ATC licence?

Class 'B' & 'C' - you can climb the VFR to the level the IFR previously occupied when you know the level has been vacated - either by report or by 400ft on mode 'C'

Class 'D' - 'G' Which part of "You don't separate VFR from IFR" do you not understand?

[terrain safe]

The minimum separation required by an IFR flight is standard IFR separation

Only from terrain (see my moniker) not from another aircraft. There is no such thing as standard IFR separation, only the required separation between aircraft based on the airspace they are in, the service being provided and the flight rules the aircraft is flying under.

[BaldEd]

Just to muddy the waters a little from way down here south of the equator.

Most small airports in NZ that are situated either laterally or vertically clear from controlled airspace have SIDs. These SIDs do not provide any separation from VFR or even any IFR traffic operating in that uncontrolled airspace. IFR traffic will be given traffic information on all other IFR traffic but not necessarily on any VFR traffic (the airfield may be out of radar coverage - most are - and the VFR aircraft won't be on any of the radar or procedural controller's frequencies).

The SIDs have been established to provide safe climbout routes that are clear of terrain obstacles and will position the aircraft so that it may intercept it's cleared route and controlled entry into controlled airspace. It behoves all pilots operating in the vicinity of these uncontrolled airports to communicate and coordinate their movements.

At controlled airports (CTR/C or CRT/D airspace designation) with CTA/C or CTA/D airspace above, the SID issued, in addition to providing climbout terrain clearance, may also provide positive separation from IFR and VFR traffic. The amount of positive separation though depends on the airspace designation. Radar may or may not be available.

Tower controllers throughout NZ have radar screens but they are limited in what they can do with it - it is just a tool that enables them to see approaching and local traffic that is within radar coverage (not all radar coverage is to ground level). Most tower controllers are not approach controllers as this function is done, in the main, from one central air traffic control centre that is in some cases many hundreds of miles from the actual airfield.

[Grum]

I do apologise for starting a second identical thread. Happy to have it merged.

I've read twice now that we were not flying a SID, but rather a SDR. Surely this standard departure route becomes a SID once you enter A,B or C airspace. To confuse the issue further, the Jepesson plate clearly states 'SID'.

[chevvron]

In the UK civil traffic world, you can only have a SID inside regulated airspace. Outside regulated airspace you get SDR's which do NOT clear you to enter controlled airspace, ( and are not assessed for obstacle clearance) but take you in the correct direction.
In the military world there are SIDs in class G airspace, but once again they do NOT clear you to enter controlled airspace, nor are they (like SDRs) designed to separate you from other traffic. Unlike SDRs they ARE assessed for obstacle clearance

[bookworm]

At what point do I know that it is ATC's responibility to provide separation (understanding that a visual lookout should be carried out always)?

The literal answer to your question is "when you check the class of airspace in which you will be flying". In class A, B or C airspace, you will be separated from VFR traffic. In class D, E, F or G you may not be, though UK ATC tends to do its very best pro-actively to assist in conflict avoidance in class D, even though there's no guarantee.

You were flying in class G airspace, therefore there was absolutely no guarantee of separation.

I've read twice now that we were not flying a SID, but rather a SDR. Surely this standard departure route becomes a SID once you enter A,B or C airspace. To confuse the issue further, the Jepesson plate clearly states 'SID'.

The reason your clearance was limited to 2400 ft was that the class A airspace starts at 2500 ft. I can't speak for Biggin, but at Cambridge where the situation is similar, clearance to enter class A or D is often only given after the aircraft is talking to and identified by TC (either Essex Radar or Stansted Director in my case).

[bookworm]

The AIP entry says...

Dizzee

Since many users, including apparently Jeppesen, don't seem to appreciate the difference between an SDR and a SID, how about getting them to insert a note pointing out the limitations of the SDR compared with a SID (uncontrolled airspace below 2500 ft, no promises regarding obstacle clearance)?

[Dizzee Rascal]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Since many users, including apparently Jeppesen, don't seem to appreciate the difference between an SDR and a SID, how about getting them to insert a note pointing out the limitations of the SDR compared with a SID (uncontrolled airspace below 2500 ft, no promises regarding obstacle clearance)?

I shall certainly make the suggestion to the powers that be, however, I suspect the reply to be something along the lines of "if it ain't broke why fix it" and "it's up to the pilots to know the difference" which are fairly appropriate answers!

Has anyone got a copy of the relevant Jeppesen charts they can send me?

[Big Hilly]

PM me your email address and I'll do so but it won't be until next week now, so maybe someone else can send them in the meantime?

Regards,
BH

[chevvron]

I've been trying for years to convince Jeppesen that a SID is not the same as an SDR as we have a similar problem; they're supposed to have 'fixed' the problem on their charts but they won't send me a copy to verify it; they insist they can only supply a 'full set' if IFR plates costing over £500!

[radarman]

Getting back to the thread title of VFR vs IFR. I have never been happy with the practice of providing traffic information and then sitting back assuming all will be well. At the end of the day, you could well have several tons of aluminium hurtling towards each other at a closing speed of 3 - 400 kts. Can any of the ATC posters to this thread put their hand on their heart and say this situation is OK because I've told them about each other and that's all the book says I have to do? What is the recommended procedure if the VFR guy says he can't see the IFR? Pictures of that PSA 727 going down in flames a few years ago in California haunt me to this day when I have VFR against IFR.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by radarman

What is the recommended procedure if the VFR guy says he can't see the IFR? Pictures of that PSA 727 going down in flames a few years ago in California haunt me to this day when I have VFR against IFR.

A few years ago? That was 1978 and from a quick look it was the IFR guy who lost track of the VFR guy, didn't let ATC know and then hit the VFR from behind. (There seem to be a number of other factors in addition).