Beware VFR traffic in USA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware VFR traffic in USA
Hi all, I'm posting this in the hope of getting some response from some of our friends over the water:
Any comments?
The other night we were climbing out of LAX between Sebby and DAG on the SID cleared to 17000 feet.. Passing 16500feet (in altitude capture) the controller told us that we had traffic 1000 feet above us. I naively assumed that this meant they were at 18000 feet. The TCAS symbol briefly disappeared and then returned as a TA rapidly followed by a full descend RA. The other aircraft was in fact at 17500 and we were within 500 feet vertically and 1nm horizontally.
After it all died down we ascertained that it was a Be200 at 17500 feet and VFR at night! The controller seem very blase about pointing an aircraft with 300 people on board at traffic over the built up area of LA.
After a discussion with ATS at BA it transpires that this is permitted as they are outside controlled airspace.
After it all died down we ascertained that it was a Be200 at 17500 feet and VFR at night! The controller seem very blase about pointing an aircraft with 300 people on board at traffic over the built up area of LA.
After a discussion with ATS at BA it transpires that this is permitted as they are outside controlled airspace.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Only in America", as they say. One of their freedoms not yet removed. In Canada, on an airway or other controlled airspace, above 12,500, that Beech 200 would have been IFR. We see the odd American VFR cross our border above 12,500 without even an active flight plan
! But that is another issue...
! But that is another issue...
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What comments are you looking for?
It was legal. The ATC would have to report the TCAS RA.
Perhaps both ATC and the pilot were remiss in not clarifying the altitude of the other aircraft, each assuming the other understood what was meant.
Lessons learned, and hopefully stored for future reference.
It was legal. The ATC would have to report the TCAS RA.
Perhaps both ATC and the pilot were remiss in not clarifying the altitude of the other aircraft, each assuming the other understood what was meant.
Lessons learned, and hopefully stored for future reference.
Be200 at 17500 feet and VFR at night!
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the rest of the world is out of step with the USA again.It seems that you could have been better briefed before operating Stateside.
The controller's call was 100% clear; 16500 plus 1000 equals 17500; I retired several years ago but IIRC TCAS does not take altitude capture into account so would have assumed a climb through the cleared level
The controller's call was 100% clear; 16500 plus 1000 equals 17500; I retired several years ago but IIRC TCAS does not take altitude capture into account so would have assumed a climb through the cleared level
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I´m sorry.....using "1000ft above" when giving traffic to a/c that is climbing is poor craftmanship. Mode C reads where the aircraft was some seconds ago.
King Air crossing x to x at 17500ft VFR would have been more appropriate IMHO.
King Air crossing x to x at 17500ft VFR would have been more appropriate IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But to muddy the waters, in theory outside controlled airspace at night in the UK the King Air could still be doing exactly the same thing on a basic service. IFR/VFR is of little consideration outside CAS in the UK since the new ATSOCAS procedures came in.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And "13500 feet below your cleared level " if it was traffic climbing through the King Airs level on their way to 310? 
(yeah I know the bit about mistaking it for a clearence but really....)
(yeah I know the bit about mistaking it for a clearence but really....)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Used to be the Beer Store, now the dépanneur
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada, on an airway or other controlled airspace, above 12,500, that Beech 200 would have been IFR.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
left bass:
transmiting the altitude of traffic is a good procedure if it is done within the rules and with common sense. Such as " aircraft? traffic two o'clock southbound, king air, vfr, 17,500....maintain 17,000" clear, concise, and restates basic restriction to maintain seperation at end.
transmiting the altitude of traffic is a good procedure if it is done within the rules and with common sense. Such as " aircraft? traffic two o'clock southbound, king air, vfr, 17,500....maintain 17,000" clear, concise, and restates basic restriction to maintain seperation at end.
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The joys of Class E airspace."
And that just about sums it up.
Used to hear some crazy stories in Florida - particularly from low-hours students trying to break altitude records in 172s, and thinking that "uncontrolled airspace" was as safe as houses.
Got me thinking about whether a "max alt sustained" meter was available for insertion into light/sport machines - and for inserting into said student after it was read and found to be excessive.
Farrell
And that just about sums it up.
Used to hear some crazy stories in Florida - particularly from low-hours students trying to break altitude records in 172s, and thinking that "uncontrolled airspace" was as safe as houses.
Got me thinking about whether a "max alt sustained" meter was available for insertion into light/sport machines - and for inserting into said student after it was read and found to be excessive.
Farrell
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slatch - what is the separation standard in Class E between a VFR and an IFR? I thought the whole point of Class E is that you didn't need to separate, just pass traffic. Otherwise it would be Class C.
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Germany
VFR at night is allowed, but we have to provide seperation between IFR and NVFR flights in controlled airspace. Typically we issue a NVFR clearance to proceed not above a certain altitude or flight level and keep the IFR traffic at least 1000ft above (or vice versa).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points,
What I'm concerned at is that the controller thought it was OK (not just legal) to point a large aircraft at another with only 500 feet of vertical separation. This WILL result in an RA, which is a serious manoever and (in my case) only ever seen in the simulator despite 20,000 hours on 747, 757,767,777 in worldwide operations. It produces a lot of red on the PFD and aural alerts and requires prompt action involving autopilot and autothrottle disconnect and manual manoevering. There is no discretion.
This could all have been avoided by either/both a clearance to 16000 feet or a vector.
What I'm concerned at is that the controller thought it was OK (not just legal) to point a large aircraft at another with only 500 feet of vertical separation. This WILL result in an RA, which is a serious manoever and (in my case) only ever seen in the simulator despite 20,000 hours on 747, 757,767,777 in worldwide operations. It produces a lot of red on the PFD and aural alerts and requires prompt action involving autopilot and autothrottle disconnect and manual manoevering. There is no discretion.
This could all have been avoided by either/both a clearance to 16000 feet or a vector.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: At work!!!
Age: 41
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just legal here
What the controller did was completely legal here in the US in Class E airspace. As long as you have green in between or if traffic appears to merge most likely you will use 500 feet separation ( or 1000 if heavy is above). On the other hand you might be lucky that the King air was receiving services form the ATCer....cuz the king air could be out there talking to no one!!!!
Granted the traffic call was not in the appropriate form that i have to admit and it could and did leave a certain confusion.
But on separation legalities the controller is clear. Even if i think a climbing jet towards another aircraft separated by when level of 500 feet at high speed will in a large number of times call for a RA.
Don't blame the controller but bring it up to the ones that submit the rules that we follow. That is why they get paid the big decision bucks.......with no idea of how the system works!!!
Granted the traffic call was not in the appropriate form that i have to admit and it could and did leave a certain confusion.
But on separation legalities the controller is clear. Even if i think a climbing jet towards another aircraft separated by when level of 500 feet at high speed will in a large number of times call for a RA.
Don't blame the controller but bring it up to the ones that submit the rules that we follow. That is why they get paid the big decision bucks.......with no idea of how the system works!!!