Beware VFR traffic in USA
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: france
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by elcrusoe
...Don't blame the controller but bring it up to the ones that submit the rules that we follow...
Originally Posted by malcolmf
...All it requires is for the FAA to say that all IFR traffic should be separated from known VFR traffic by 1000 feet...
Originally Posted by malcolmf
...Simple...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York , USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
malcolmf, so let me get this correct...
You want the FAA to change the separation standards so that IFR aircraft are to be separated by 1000' from VFR aircraft? Is this correct? So the controller should've stopped your climb at 16,500', a non-IFR altitude? That doesn't make much sense.
What the controller did in the example you gave was 100% legal and correct. He/she could've issued the traffic using better phraseology. i.e. 'N123, traffic 12 o'clock and 4 miles, northeast bound, vfr, 17,500'. The way he/she issued you traffic is not good practice. Actually, I've never heard anyone (except trainees) issue traffic that way to a climbing/descending aircraft.
Also, as was mentioned earlier, you were obviously in VMC. With all due respect malcolmf, it's still YOUR responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Not because you are on an IFR flight plan and in radar contact with ATC, but because you are in VMC conditions. Pilots are taught this from the very beginning of their flight training.
And before you ask, yes I'm a current controller as well as a current Flight Instructor. I work in a busy Class B airspace. Thus, we have our fair share of IFR and VFR aircraft.
Just because your TCAS 'spooked' you, for whatever reason, doesn't mean you can put the blame on the controller or the way aircraft are separated here in the states.
You want the FAA to change the separation standards so that IFR aircraft are to be separated by 1000' from VFR aircraft? Is this correct? So the controller should've stopped your climb at 16,500', a non-IFR altitude? That doesn't make much sense.
What the controller did in the example you gave was 100% legal and correct. He/she could've issued the traffic using better phraseology. i.e. 'N123, traffic 12 o'clock and 4 miles, northeast bound, vfr, 17,500'. The way he/she issued you traffic is not good practice. Actually, I've never heard anyone (except trainees) issue traffic that way to a climbing/descending aircraft.
Also, as was mentioned earlier, you were obviously in VMC. With all due respect malcolmf, it's still YOUR responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Not because you are on an IFR flight plan and in radar contact with ATC, but because you are in VMC conditions. Pilots are taught this from the very beginning of their flight training.
And before you ask, yes I'm a current controller as well as a current Flight Instructor. I work in a busy Class B airspace. Thus, we have our fair share of IFR and VFR aircraft.
Just because your TCAS 'spooked' you, for whatever reason, doesn't mean you can put the blame on the controller or the way aircraft are separated here in the states.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MalcolmF
Read your posts again. They contained the question why would the controller aim an aircraft at another knowing there would be an RA. Trying to recall my training, I can't ever recall being trained on what exactly would cause an RA, either a vertical or lateral tolerance, only how to react to one. I highly suspect the controller wasn't aware there would be an RA. I have dozen of times, cleared IFR traffic to 500 feet above or below a VFR aircraft and don't ever recall an RA in those instances. As for a "simple" solution from FAA, I love your sense of humor. Use 1000 feet vs. 500 feet (500 feet isn't a standard now), but you need a lateral (radar) requirement to go with it. If the folks at SOCAL or most anywhere else had to separate from uncontrolled VFR targets, it would result in banning VFR &/or regulation (and more fees) so it's very unlikely to happen in the US. Very strong general aviation lobby, probably right behind the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbys.
In class E, the US controllers don't provide a standard separation from VFR aircraft. They do provide traffic advisories and safety alerts when they judge they are warranted to prevent a collision. ( A "safety alert" is an advisory suggesting the pilot climb/descend/ and/or turn right/left. )
So I just told you US controllers don't separate from VFRs in class E, yet I said earlier in the post I climbed to 500 feet above/below VFR traffic. It only implies a conscience and it's based on best available information on verified or unverified mode C readout. As you can see many controllers seem to be using the VFR pilots cruising altitude +500 feet as a 500 foot vertical separation standard, but it's not a controller requirement/standard. The "less than 500 feet and less than a mile" proximity is OK with the FAA with a VFR aircraft involved.
From my experience I'd conclude the controller didn't know an RA would occur because this situation happens frequently and rarely generates an RA. I also noted that the TCAS "blinked" and can't help wonder if what happened then wasn't like a GPS "recalculates" and it lost track of the situation.
Hope you fly another 20,000 hours and never have another. (But only if you want.)
In class E, the US controllers don't provide a standard separation from VFR aircraft. They do provide traffic advisories and safety alerts when they judge they are warranted to prevent a collision. ( A "safety alert" is an advisory suggesting the pilot climb/descend/ and/or turn right/left. )
So I just told you US controllers don't separate from VFRs in class E, yet I said earlier in the post I climbed to 500 feet above/below VFR traffic. It only implies a conscience and it's based on best available information on verified or unverified mode C readout. As you can see many controllers seem to be using the VFR pilots cruising altitude +500 feet as a 500 foot vertical separation standard, but it's not a controller requirement/standard. The "less than 500 feet and less than a mile" proximity is OK with the FAA with a VFR aircraft involved.
From my experience I'd conclude the controller didn't know an RA would occur because this situation happens frequently and rarely generates an RA. I also noted that the TCAS "blinked" and can't help wonder if what happened then wasn't like a GPS "recalculates" and it lost track of the situation.
Hope you fly another 20,000 hours and never have another. (But only if you want.)
