Reduced Seperation....
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SVFR traffic is fixed wing crossing the landing threshold you should have vertical separation. If SVFR helicopters cross behind landing traffic without vertical the controller will have both in sight so the requirements are satisfied.
what's the fixed or rotary wing distinction got to do with SVFR separation?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal tender... nothing in the book but would you cross a fixed wing over the threshold without vertical? Blowed if I would!
de facto. OK, I accept what you say. In 31 years of working parallel approaches I never had a pilot refuse separation so it came as some surprise.
de facto. OK, I accept what you say. In 31 years of working parallel approaches I never had a pilot refuse separation so it came as some surprise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
rice.and.pea, I don't know if this will be of any help but in case it is, here goes....
First the basics - IFR and SVFR flights have to be separated in some way. MATS Part 1 provides a variety of different separations (your Part 2 may authorise some more) - the game is to have at least one of these separations in place at all times.
When you are providing radar services you separate aircraft by a minimum of 3NM (or whatever else is specified for the equipment and airspace). In the vicinity of an aerodrome you are allowed to reduce the separation in certain circumstances. The rules say:
If I understand the example you have given correctly you are providing 3 mile separation on radar between crossing traffic and an aircraft on final and you want the crossing traffic to go behind the lander (maybe at right angles to the approach?).
In this case I don't believe you can really say that the crosser is following the lander because, amongst other things, the tracks are diverging.... particularly after the approaching aircraft has landed! So option C can't be used. Option B is out because the pilots of the landing aircraft are not going to be able to see the crosser behind them. Which leaves option A - which is the one which is most useful in this particular situation. All it needs is the tower controller to be able to see the crosser and watch it as it passes through the approach. But if you have an uncooperative TWR or the weather conditions are such that TWR cannot see the crosser then you will have to find one of the other separations in the book to apply.
The 'one aircraft following another' option is particularly useful if you are working in a zone with a lot of SVFR flights and you have perhaps three or four at the hold waiting to go or maybe a couple holding outside CAS wanting to land. In this case, let's use the departures as the example, you can clear the first one out in the normal way and the subsequent aircraft each to follow the one in front of it - now all you have to do is hope that the first one doesn't get lost!
Hope this helps... a bit, but least!
First the basics - IFR and SVFR flights have to be separated in some way. MATS Part 1 provides a variety of different separations (your Part 2 may authorise some more) - the game is to have at least one of these separations in place at all times.
When you are providing radar services you separate aircraft by a minimum of 3NM (or whatever else is specified for the equipment and airspace). In the vicinity of an aerodrome you are allowed to reduce the separation in certain circumstances. The rules say:
In the vicinity of aerodromes, the standard separation minima may be reduced if:
a) adequate separation can be provided by the aerodrome controller when each aircraft is continuously visible to this controller; or
b) each aircraft is continuously visible to the pilots of other aircraft concerned and the pilots report that they can maintain their own separation; or
c) when one aircraft is following another, the pilot of the succeeding aircraft reports that he has the other aircraft in sight and can maintain own separation.
a) adequate separation can be provided by the aerodrome controller when each aircraft is continuously visible to this controller; or
b) each aircraft is continuously visible to the pilots of other aircraft concerned and the pilots report that they can maintain their own separation; or
c) when one aircraft is following another, the pilot of the succeeding aircraft reports that he has the other aircraft in sight and can maintain own separation.
In this case I don't believe you can really say that the crosser is following the lander because, amongst other things, the tracks are diverging.... particularly after the approaching aircraft has landed! So option C can't be used. Option B is out because the pilots of the landing aircraft are not going to be able to see the crosser behind them. Which leaves option A - which is the one which is most useful in this particular situation. All it needs is the tower controller to be able to see the crosser and watch it as it passes through the approach. But if you have an uncooperative TWR or the weather conditions are such that TWR cannot see the crosser then you will have to find one of the other separations in the book to apply.
The 'one aircraft following another' option is particularly useful if you are working in a zone with a lot of SVFR flights and you have perhaps three or four at the hold waiting to go or maybe a couple holding outside CAS wanting to land. In this case, let's use the departures as the example, you can clear the first one out in the normal way and the subsequent aircraft each to follow the one in front of it - now all you have to do is hope that the first one doesn't get lost!
Hope this helps... a bit, but least!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an excerpt from AC90-23F...this should get things going...
Per FAA AC 90-23F;
12. PILOT RESPONSIBILITY.
a. Government and industry groups are making concerted efforts to minimize or eliminate the hazards of trailing vortices. However, the flight disciplines necessary to ensure vortex avoidance during VFR operations must be exercised by the pilot. Vortex visualization and avoidance procedures should be exercised by the pilot using the same degree of concern as in collision avoidance.
b. Pilots are reminded that in operations conducted behind all aircraft, acceptance of instructions from air traffic control (ATC) in the following situations is an acknowledgment that the pilot will ensure safe takeoff and landing intervals, and accepts the responsibility for providing wake turbulence separation.
(1) Traffic information,
(2) Instructions to follow an aircraft, and
(3) The acceptance of a visual approach clearance.
c. For operations conducted behind heavy aircraft, ATC will specify the word “heavy” when this information is known. Pilots of heavy aircraft should always use the word “heavy” in radio communications.
d. Heavy and large jet aircraft operators should use the following procedures during an approach to landing. These procedures establish a dependable baseline from which pilots of in-trail, lighter aircraft may reasonably expect to make effective flight path adjustments to avoid serious wake vortex turbulence.
(1) Pilots of aircraft that produce strong wake vortices should make every attempt to fly on the established glidepath, not above it; or, if glidepath guidance is not available, to fly as closely as possible to a “3 to 1” glidepath, not above it.
There are several very deciding issues on responsibilities in this order…
#1 Every pilot is responsible for wake turbulence avoidance in accepting ATC commands.
#2 Every pilot is responsible for their respective wake turbulence.
#3 Every pilot is responsible for the wake created by the aircraft in front of them.
Per FAA AC 90-23F;
12. PILOT RESPONSIBILITY.
a. Government and industry groups are making concerted efforts to minimize or eliminate the hazards of trailing vortices. However, the flight disciplines necessary to ensure vortex avoidance during VFR operations must be exercised by the pilot. Vortex visualization and avoidance procedures should be exercised by the pilot using the same degree of concern as in collision avoidance.
b. Pilots are reminded that in operations conducted behind all aircraft, acceptance of instructions from air traffic control (ATC) in the following situations is an acknowledgment that the pilot will ensure safe takeoff and landing intervals, and accepts the responsibility for providing wake turbulence separation.
(1) Traffic information,
(2) Instructions to follow an aircraft, and
(3) The acceptance of a visual approach clearance.
c. For operations conducted behind heavy aircraft, ATC will specify the word “heavy” when this information is known. Pilots of heavy aircraft should always use the word “heavy” in radio communications.
d. Heavy and large jet aircraft operators should use the following procedures during an approach to landing. These procedures establish a dependable baseline from which pilots of in-trail, lighter aircraft may reasonably expect to make effective flight path adjustments to avoid serious wake vortex turbulence.
(1) Pilots of aircraft that produce strong wake vortices should make every attempt to fly on the established glidepath, not above it; or, if glidepath guidance is not available, to fly as closely as possible to a “3 to 1” glidepath, not above it.
There are several very deciding issues on responsibilities in this order…
#1 Every pilot is responsible for wake turbulence avoidance in accepting ATC commands.
#2 Every pilot is responsible for their respective wake turbulence.
#3 Every pilot is responsible for the wake created by the aircraft in front of them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Spitoon. I think you're probably right. I know it must sometimes be hard for the writers and editors of these books to explain the rules clearly however it can be annoying when something slightly ambiguous like this turns up.
HD. Why do you have a problem with me posting such a question on these forums? The header for this particular area of PPrune says...
I know I'm not a pilot, but I'm pretty sure I'm fulfilling the asking about obscure topics part. I'm also pretty sure I stated in my first post in this topic that I'm applying this to the UK but would be interested to hear from people overseas. If a thread's getting a bit clogged up for you can't you just leave it to others to discuss?
HD. Why do you have a problem with me posting such a question on these forums? The header for this particular area of PPrune says...
A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.
