ATC separate VFR traffic!
 

A colleague of mine happened to be called by a particular ATSU via telephone regarding a flight he commanded at a particular regional UK airport.

In short, the controller insisted that even though a flight was operating under VFR rules within Category 'D' airspace, the controller was responsible for separating him from IFR flights. The commander correctly pointed out that the pilot of a VFR flight is responsible for separation provided traffic information is issued in good time and refered to the Air Naviagtion Order.

After this telephone call the Air Naviagtion Order was checked and the commander's understanding was entirely correct. Therefore, if ATC are using one rule book and pilots are using another this might present with an impact on flight safety, so who is correct?

I leave this to all you pleasant people in Towers around the UK to respond.

ATCO makes slight error in ATC shocker!!

So one person has made a slight error... whooopee-do. You have proved a point that the ATCO was wrong in what he is reported to have said.

Just yesterday I can recall at least 12 aircraft not answering the radio, wandering into controlled airspace without authorisation or with terrible RT. Should I rant about the poor airmanship of GA pilots in the UK??

Point here is that we all make mistakes. But not all of us publish others errors in such a bitchy way!

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/cussing2.gif

Perhaps the pilot of the IFR traffic had requested avoidance on the VFR traffic and the controller promptly obliged, thereby applying a degree of separation between the IFR and VFR traffic (which we are obliged to do at the request of the IFR traffic in Class D airspace)

As for making a point of this on here, perhaps Crash and Burn should take time to visit this unit in Class D airspace and talk to the controllers

I'm with B-L on this one if i posted in the GA forum on here every time a ppl holder entered CAS without a clearance, did not comply with a clearance when in Class D airspace, spent so much time on the RT giving me a life history for a FIS etc etc etc then I reckon the GA comunity would not be too happy...

Mistakes happen, learn from it, live with it, only through mutual understanding can we improve the service we provide to the GA community out there.

Posts like this only get backs up and then there will be more complaints of refusal to transit Class D airspace or lack of provision of a service.....

I leave it to you Crash and Burn to pass this on to your colleagues in the GA community

Well said. MAYBE the IFR wasn't happy with Visual seperation against a VFR movement. MAYBE that is why you were being seperated.

This is a typical case of someone knowing a law but not it's application. (as has been discussed on here before). The day that the MATS Pt 1/ANO becomes black and white will never happen! There are so many factors involved.

Why don't you do as suggested and go and chat with the ATCO's and see why they did that. Trying to score points off each other helps no-one.

First of all can I say that I did not think Crash & Burn's question was put in a bitchy way...and Bright-Ling, your reply to a posting that contains a legitimate question at the end does nothing to enhance the professional image of ATCOs - is the little 'knob' symbol at the end your signature?

Crash & Burn

No we are not required to seperate VFR and IFR traffic, but as pointed out the IFR can request traffic avoidance. Even then we do not have to provide standard separation (3miles/1000') we just have to miss them. However, in this day of 'Duty of Care' you will find more ATCOs practising 'defensive' controlling and providing traffic avoidance to the IFRs whether they ask for it or not. There is also a wonderful little phrase somewhere in our manual that says that VFR traffic should be instructed to avoid the areas where IFR traffic is letting down. Usually the easiest way of achieving this is with a quick vector (with the instruction of course to advise if unable to maintain VFR)

As for VFR/VFR all we have to provide is traffic information but even then it is very difficult to sit there and watch two aircraft steaming towards each other at the same level. No matter what the book says these days we live in a blame culture - I can just imagine standing there in front of the Coroner who is saying 'You mean to tell me you sat there in front of a serviceable radar and watched two aircraft collide but you did nothing to try and prevent it? Food for thought.

There's no argument that in Class D, ATC are NOT required to separate IFR from VFR, however, irrespective of airspace classification, ATC has a responsibility to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.

This can sometimes be achieved by requiring VFR flights to accept routes, vectors or not above/not below level restrictions etc....shock, horror, I've even done it in Class G!!!

I suspect from the original post that Crash and Burn's colleague had been in some sort of situation which had given ATC cause for concern but the ensuing conversation has left obviously not clarified the point.

Whilst it might be perfectly legal for a VFR flight to fly up the final approach track 'visual' with the IFR chappie barrelling down the ILS in the opposite direction, it's probably not the ideal situation that most pilots or ATCOs would want to find themselves in.

Being able to quote chapter and verse after the event to cover your @rse is no substitute for airmanship!!

Perhaps C & B would like to shed some more light on the original 'incident'??

When I've been asked this in the past I've always fallen back on the MATS 1. It states the "minimum services" to be provided by ATC unit; in class D that is traffic info between VFR and IFR.

My reading of that: if I decide to separate you (for whatever reason I deem necessary at the time) then it's quite within my authority to do so.

Interesting point 1261 - must admit never looked at it before in the light of the phrase 'minimum services'

There is of course the good old standby on page 1 of the MATS 1...."Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance" Very surprised SRG have not got rid of that one yet !!

Bright-Ling

You've got me worried now! I have several times made postings here as a result of my questioning my and ATCOs' knowledge, and wanting to know the truth. And you, among many others, have been very supportive of this "CRM" approach to us all improving our knowledge, understanding and mutual co-operation.

I therefore find your outburst well out of character, and rather OTT. Would you do me the favour of re-reading the original posting and re-visit whether Crash and Burn was being unnecessarily bitchy, or just checking with those of you who know more than him whether his understanding is correct?

I would hate to think that we have to walk on egg shells here :( :O

MATS PT 1 states what you have to do. Unfortunately if there is an incident then you will be damned. If you do right then you do wrong. SRG will be down your throat, god bless them. If you are workiing VFR traffic then get rid of them to a LARS unit. Personally, I do not think that professional ATC units should work VFR traffic. This is my opinion and not an insult. Remember the rules VFR keep a good look out, if you want to work ATC then obey.
Sorry, don't want to be rude'
ILS

So what option would you go for?

a) Have them blunder into your zone (I'm guessing it's Class 'D' just north of Sheffield) and arrive without talking to anyone; or

b) Make your zone IFR arrivals only and keep the VFR's out.

If you weren't being serious the comment would actually be quite amusing :D

Care to re-phrase?

Maybe you should come and sample the joys of working IFR/VFR in a class 'G' environment, without the protection that CAS gives you - I wonder how long your attitude would last then ;)

Bit of a sweeping statement ILS119.5
What about those units which have to work traffic outside CAS to vector aircraft to land, and yes we are professional ATC units doing that. I have absolutely no issue working VFR traffic, i use the Class D airspace option of traffic information and sometime apply separation, depends on the situation at the time.
Everything in MATS 1 and 2 is a minimum as has already been stated, i would hate to see the traffic info only used in Class D taken away it is often to our benefit.
I control and often sit in GA aircraft doing the Rt listening to units doing their level best to be rude to GA pilots and treating them all as incompetent, bearing in mind how many of us ATCOS fly ( I am not a pilot but a willing passenger )i find it incredible that at some places a "them and us" situation still seems to exist.
Yesterday I got a great service from both Cardiff and Bristol, but the moment i ventured further SE bound the standard dropped considerably and the attitude towards GA was that you are a pain in the butt.
More interaction between the two groups without all this confrontation would be of benefit to all.

Meaning that LARS units are unprofessional?

Golly, there are depths to the ATC character I had never seen before!

Don't worry Timothy - I'm sure we can arrange a visit from graduates of "Chilli's School of Tact and Diplomacy" to alter his outlook ;)

I am sure I have pasted these few paragraphs before but doubters should read them and then they should understand why ATCOs indulge in bottom covering when working IFR v VFR traffic;


Control of VFR Flights

Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.

Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.

For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.

You have to love a post that starts with "a colleague of mine".....immediately it is second hand information.

I'm more than a little interested in which "ATSU" you refer to, and what the traffic situation was. Was there going to be an infringment towards an approach path or climb-out? The ANO definition is there, however there may be daily situations where accomodating this may be unfeasible. Please feel free to disclose where it was and who knows, there may be somebody floating around here who might be able to give you the other side of things.

P.S. B-L, taking those congeniality pills again dude? :p

Interesting responses, I thank you all!
 

Thanks for the input chaps.

I am alarmed that an ATCO would automatically respond with a comment of '...bitchy comment...'. If an ATCO feels that the relationship between Pilots and ATCOs is similar to a 'them against us' routine, I suspect that particular ATCO has issues and should seek professional help. All the ATCO’s I have met around the world are brilliant people and I am sure the view expressed within this threat is not a majority opinion.

Thanks to those who have confirmed 'the way things should be', you are too kind!
:cool:

Do ATC have C.R.M. or similar as a matter of interest?

professional controllers should not work VFR!
wish some one had suggested that before I sat down in APC this morning-does that include the poor bloke lost in the birmingham zone today?, and just which agency should the probably close to a hundred transits we spoke to be talking to?
we were very busy with our own traffic this morning, but I like to think that we also provided a good service(professionaly) to most of the aircraft that called-despite the shortage of 'bums in seats'-my licence says air traffic controller-there is no addition that says IFR only

All ATC should work all traffic. Look at the way the yanks do it; a decent service that takes GA seriously.

A couple of things really. Firstly I used to be an ATCO, and after 20 years of working in the business(15 years flying for BA) I feel I know what I am talking about rather than having some of you make sarcastic comments. The idea of transferring VFR a/c to LARS units was because these units are paid to handle the traffic. There is no doubt as to the professionalism of the unit, but if the unit is getting paid to provide the service then what's wrong with that. I have spent many years flying both professionally and for a hobby and believe me I have always received a good service from most ATC Units. There is no obligation to work VFR outside CAS unless you are providing a LARS. I agree that each unit should provide the best service available but what about the commercial/financial constraints which are placed on ATC Units? It must be to provide the best service to the airport's own scheduled a/c. The airport does not make any money from providing services to other a/c. Also there is no "them and us", everybody is treated the same as far as I'm concerned.
I think the whole isue comes down to the type of airspace. I only fly Class A now which is good for me. But for the aviators who don't then maybe different.
Off to bed now, MCO in the morning.
Take care