Reduced Seperation....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced Seperation....
... in the vicinity of aerodromes. Specifically the "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" part of it.
What do we reckon "following" means?
Does crossing behind another aircraft on a perpendicular track constitute following?? Or does it apply strictly to following on the same course??
I'm curious as to the type of situation you'd use this as opposed to the other 2 options in the reduced sep. rules?
This might only apply to UK ATCO's, I'm not sure. However it would be interesting to know if there are similar rules elsewhere.
What do we reckon "following" means?
Does crossing behind another aircraft on a perpendicular track constitute following?? Or does it apply strictly to following on the same course??
I'm curious as to the type of situation you'd use this as opposed to the other 2 options in the reduced sep. rules?
This might only apply to UK ATCO's, I'm not sure. However it would be interesting to know if there are similar rules elsewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typically, in a parallel runway situation with an aircraft establishing on runway A and an aircraft behind establishing on runway B, the aircraft at the back maybe asked to report the one ahead in sight. When this is achieved the pilot may be instructed to provide his own separation. That way, standard separation is no longer required and spacing can be drastically reduced. Until the requirements for this separation are achieved, full IFR separation must be applied.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, ofcourse HD, cheers for that.
Was pretty amazed while observing the TEAM stuff being done by the LL guys and gals this morning actually. They're allowed 2 miles diagonally anyway aren't they?
Was pretty amazed while observing the TEAM stuff being done by the LL guys and gals this morning actually. They're allowed 2 miles diagonally anyway aren't they?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced separation is also very handy for shifting SVFR flights!
I'll make sure to get clarification from my mentors at work, however I'm interested in different opinions.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for the response. What if we look at it from a radar point of view though?
Say for whatever reason your colleague in the tower wasn't happy with providing the separation (it's a bit misty). Only 2 of the 3 reduced sep. rules are now left to play with. The IFR lander is with tower and the SVFR crosser is with you on radar, visual with the other and happy he can keep his own separation. If the "following" rule is legitimate for this scenario surely this would be the most expeditious way of getting him across without having to phone tower to check with the IFR if he's visual and happy or waiting till he's landed?
Obviously it's better if they're both on tower's frequency for them to sort out however I've experienced a few tower controllers reluctant to work a crosser. Hence my desire to try and get the rules fully understood!
Say for whatever reason your colleague in the tower wasn't happy with providing the separation (it's a bit misty). Only 2 of the 3 reduced sep. rules are now left to play with. The IFR lander is with tower and the SVFR crosser is with you on radar, visual with the other and happy he can keep his own separation. If the "following" rule is legitimate for this scenario surely this would be the most expeditious way of getting him across without having to phone tower to check with the IFR if he's visual and happy or waiting till he's landed?
Obviously it's better if they're both on tower's frequency for them to sort out however I've experienced a few tower controllers reluctant to work a crosser. Hence my desire to try and get the rules fully understood!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you start "real" training everything will become clearer. If it's "misty" a VFR or SVFR flight may not be operating. In CAS SVFR flights must be provided with IFR separation, hence if one needs to pass another IFR or SVFR flight either vertical or horizontal separattion must be provided. Remember, the question of wake turbulence separation maybe a factor.. Local instructions may overrride certain rules with "deemers". E.g. helicopters operating SVFR on defined routes maybe separated visually when the pilots see each other.
I think you should discuss the questions you have raised on PPRuNe with your training officers and accept what they say..
I think you should discuss the questions you have raised on PPRuNe with your training officers and accept what they say..
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading an article on eurocontrol website concerning 'visual own separation' and the result wasnt in favor of it.
I personally dont accept it,ie i never report other traffic insight during a parallel approach...
In anyways always follow your TRaffic resolution!
I personally dont accept it,ie i never report other traffic insight during a parallel approach...
In anyways always follow your TRaffic resolution!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you should discuss the questions you have raised on PPRuNe with your training officers and accept what they say.
No OJTI worth their salt would have a problem explaining anything and helping you to check it out for yourself in the relevant documents. Also, don't accept the reasoning that "we've done it that way since before you were born, lad" - it simply doesn't cut it. If your OJTI refuses to help you check or gets annoyed with you not simply accepting their point of view, get another one before you waste any more of your training time. Imagine being asked on your board why you did something or other and the only answer you could give was "John said so". Your examiner will be inking his FAIL stamp before you've finished speaking.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<I personally dont accept it,ie i never report other traffic insight during a parallel approach...
In anyways always follow your TRaffic resolution! >>
How do you manage operating into busy airfields with parallel runways?
In anyways always follow your TRaffic resolution! >>
How do you manage operating into busy airfields with parallel runways?
Once an aircraft is behind the lateral axis of the traffic you are separating it from, it can be deemed to be "behind" it for the purpose of applying the separation. It does not have to be following the same track.
Otherwise you'd never be able to integrate traffic joining from base with traffic joining via a long final.
You must maintain horizontal separation until you have visual. In practice, the aircraft (VFR) joining from the side holds (if required) at a point separated from the instrument final until either the controller has both a/c in sight, or the holding a/c reports sighting the preceding and able to follow.
Subsequent aircraft on the ILS, if they are clos-ish, are then a factor. The moment the VFR aircraft leaves the separated sector to join the circuit, the tower controller must be able to also visually separate it from any following traffic on the ILS. If this is not possible, the joining VFR a/c should be integrated into the landing stream by the approach controller, who will then use the appropriate separation (usually radar) until the aerodrome controller agrees to provide it (usually once the second aircraft is sighted). Obviously both controllers should be reasonably certain that it will work; that the set-up won't require a go-round.
Otherwise you'd never be able to integrate traffic joining from base with traffic joining via a long final.
You must maintain horizontal separation until you have visual. In practice, the aircraft (VFR) joining from the side holds (if required) at a point separated from the instrument final until either the controller has both a/c in sight, or the holding a/c reports sighting the preceding and able to follow.
Subsequent aircraft on the ILS, if they are clos-ish, are then a factor. The moment the VFR aircraft leaves the separated sector to join the circuit, the tower controller must be able to also visually separate it from any following traffic on the ILS. If this is not possible, the joining VFR a/c should be integrated into the landing stream by the approach controller, who will then use the appropriate separation (usually radar) until the aerodrome controller agrees to provide it (usually once the second aircraft is sighted). Obviously both controllers should be reasonably certain that it will work; that the set-up won't require a go-round.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tarq57, the post I've been waiting for, thank you. The crosser would in fact be holding at deemed separated points (from final approach) before being instructed to cross.
Approach radar.
And HD, thanks for the advice. Any query I post on here will no doubt always be put past my instructors too. Why not also make use of this forum for a bit more help though?!
Is your post referring to a tower controller applying the separation or an approach radar controller applying the separation?
And HD, thanks for the advice. Any query I post on here will no doubt always be put past my instructors too. Why not also make use of this forum for a bit more help though?!
It may be peculiar to NZ, but it's basically a form of reduced separation where one aircraft is sighted by the controller, and the position and intentions of the other can be ascertained by radar or other means. A few provisos etc.
Don't think too much about it, don't want to provide you with red herrings at training stage, if it's not applicable where you work.
Don't think too much about it, don't want to provide you with red herrings at training stage, if it's not applicable where you work.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you manage operating into busy airfields with parallel runways?
'visual own separation' is at pilot discretion only.
If under IFR flight plan, I have the right to be provided legal separation guidance by ATC.
If i accept the own separation, ATC is not required to provide separation anymore and I dont accept it.
TCAS(as an extra tool to aid in separation(vortex) is not appropriate so far as it doesnt provide deceleration information of the aircraft you are visual with.
I have operated many years in busy airspace around the world during parallel approaches and never was I told off by not accepting a own visual separation.(undirectly by not having the traffic in sight).
My preference, thats all
