Separation of VFR in G and E airspace
 

Could any ATC's in US or Europe explain the responsibility you believe falls on you in G or E airspace with respect to unidentified VFR radar returns which have not requested and are not getting any type of ATC service?

Until now I have understood that in Australia, VFR are not receiving any ATC service or surveillance. We are now being told differently and I don't know how you provide a service to an aircraft you are not in communication with?

Just wondering how this is dealt with elsewhere.

Dont' you guys have telepathy courses dunnunda ?:D Because that might be useful to provide any service to someone you don't have in contact...
In fact, I can think of one case of providing a service to a VFR not in contact, and that would be to have military activity stopped if you see that someone (with a transponder) is entering a restricted or danger area. That's the kind of service the guy in the plane might appreciate especially if they 're firing some missiles or shells...;)

If we talk about some Vfr in E or G airspace that contacts you, you owe him flight information service (not control) and alert service, and that would be in theory weather, active zones, volcanic activity, ... traffic information being still recommended even on unreported traffic that you've detected ! Trouble is that the last point would probably create a false sense of security ( and actually of control) from the vfr point of view. One would probably think that the controller has everybody in contact, which is definitely untrue, but if you don't signal traffic that you have seen, your responsability might be engaged...

FIS to VFR traffic
 

As a PPL not an ATC, I'm not entirely sure what the original poster is asking.

You really don't have a responsibility to somebody you are not in contact with and who is going about his lawful business without any desire to talk to you..

The responsibility is to those you ARE in contact with to give them information (this needs to be carefully worded to avoid any implications of them being under ATC control and salvation as was made clear by Eva San) so they can avoid banging into the ones who are visible to you but not talking to you.

The rules in "uncontrolled" airspace are very much see and be seen .... but it is nice when somebdy with radar can see a bit further and help out.

DGG

One thing that needs to be remembered is that Class E is Controlled Airspace and therefore VFR flights in contact are provided with a control service.

We as controllers will pass traffic information on all known traffic and anything else we see on the radar the duty of separation from ALL traffic rests with the pilot of the aircraft.

In Class G airspace a Flight Information Service is the best a VFR pilot in contact with ATC can expect and again we will pass traffic information on all known traffic (if no radar is available) or all observed traffic (if radar is available).

Again responsibility for separation rests with the pilot of a VFR or IFR aircraft (if the latter is receiving anything other than a Radar Advisory Service in the UK)

Here in Australia, it appears that our fearless leaders have lost their nerve on the introduction of E and G airspace. We have been informed that we have a duty of care in this airspace to provide traffic alerts to any targets we think may be on a collision course, regardless of the fact that they are VFR, not requesting a service, not radar identified and not in communication with the controller.

I am at a loss. If they are saying that see and avoid for VFR in this class of airspace is unacceptably risky they need to reclassify the airspace. Instead, they have decided to keep the airspace classifications and dump the responsibility on the individual ATC working the position if a mishap occurs.

Armageddon out of here!!!

The only thing that caniplay left out was that traffic calls to identified aircraft within G or E airspace is on a time permitting basis.

How can you issue traffic to aircraft not on frequency (not radar identified)? From what I'm told, down under you guys have huge tracks of airspace without any radar coverage, so how can your management expect you to issue traffic on VFR aircraft that is within those large areas?

Mike
NATCA FWA

In Denmark when flying in G og E airspace and being in contact with FIS, I sometimes get informations on unidentified aircrafts.

The phrases would often be like
"O-XX I have unidentified VFR-traffic at your 10-o'clock 3 miles out, unconfirmed altitude xxxx feet".

I don't think our FIS is required to issue such informations, but if they got the "dot on the screen" and the time to tell me about it - I surely appreciate it.

What Mike says;

However, if we do have the time to give advisories as we call it here in the US. We have the duty to give what we call traffic alerts if we feel that targets will merge and try to provide separation (targets not touching). It's one of those things that we are supposed to provide a safety service if we can. If you see two VFR's who you are not talking to and they are going to merge, <shrug> Oh well, be careful out there. It doesn't matter what class of airspace that they are in if you are giving advisory services. Now that said, it is still ALWAYS the pilots responsibility to see and avoid (IFR or VFR)...

regards

Scott

Scott

Could you clarify for me. In the US, are you only meant to give a traffic alert to merging targets if you know who at least one of them are, or are you expected to reach out into the ether and try to identify one of them so you can give an alert?

We are only required to issue traffic to the aircraft that we are talking to and have identified. If two VFR aircraft are about to converge and are not known to be on the frequency or have been radar identified there is no requirement that we reach out and broadcast a general traffic warning.

I do make one exception. We have a military low altitude route that runs through our airspace. If I see military aircraft usually A10 Warthogs (I haven't identified them and they are not on my approach frequency) in the VR route that are converging with another VFR aircraft (also not on frequency) I will broadcast on 243.0 (UHF Guard) that they have traffic. I do this because the pilots are already busy as all get out flying low level, and the route is near several of our satelite airports.

Mike
NATCA FWA
(A80 on Sept 5th)

Class E airspace is controlled airspace, right. But in class E airspace only IFRs are controlled and not VFRs ! How could a controller control a VFR traffic that can transit without calling !
I'm sorry but VFR traffic is controlled in E airspace only in airfield circuit !
That means that when a VFR calls you in E airspace you shouldn't give him any control instruction (except again in the circuit), you can watch him, provide info and alert and that's it. If he request assistance, you can provide guidance but normally under any circumstances no orders should be issued. That is the way I see it, but maybe I'm wrong.

Eva,

You are partially correct, one key to working a VFR is that you shouldn't vector the aircraft (or any aircraft) if it is below your minimum vectoring altitude, if it is, then when necessary you suggest headings.

Mike
NATCA FWA

Maybe it's the case for U in the US, but not where I work (France).

This vectoring point (above safe altitude) has nothing to see with the class of airspace. Of course I will never give radar vectors below minimum safe radar altitude.
-As far as IFR are concerned I can give vectors in E airspace as long as I'm above the minimum altitude. And that's kind of stoopid because I don't know if there's VFR traffic or not, but because as someone said as E airspace is controlled, I've the right to do it even if it's not really recommended: how would an IFR pilot know the kind of airspace he's in, if he's under radar vectoring...and then watch out for possible traffic.

- But radar vectors for VFR in E or G airspace above or below (of course) the safe alttitude is not allowed for us. I can only suggest a track to join a point or a heading to avoid a traffic, but only suggest !

I agree with Eva San, not that I work any Class E anymore (HALLELUJAH!!!), but back in OZ, you would never ever vector VFR traffic above or below LSALT. They are flying visually, so if you make them fly a heading ie. Via instruments, how do they continue to fly visually. Also the attitude in Oz is they are VFR in E, so they do not ever recieve a control service. If they want a control service they file as an IFR, otherwise, if they are on frequency they will get traffic information on other traffic, full stop, end of story.

We frequently vector VFR traffic in class E airspace for practice ILS approaches, however they are informed that all headings and levels are advisory and that they are responsible for their own terrain clearance and should report if at any time they are unable to remain in VMC.

The element of a control service within class E airspace doesn't necesarily mean vectoring, for us it tends to be restricting the aircraft to not above a particular level, that way they can do what they want and I can safely drop IFR traffic on top safe in the knowledge that the known VFR traffic will be level separated (even though there is no requirement to do anything other than pass traffic information to the IFR and VFR on each other).

See this last post raises all of my concerns with Class E in one go. All the books say, you shall not separate VFR from IFR in Class E. You willnot provide a control service to VFR in Class E. So instead you have some ATC's in some parts of the world, suggesting headings, and I guess suggesting separation. Caniplaywithmadness, when you restrict a VFR off to a certain level to drop the IFR down, what happens if the VFR doesn't comply. Have they failed to follow a control instruction, or have they just disregarded a suggestion. If the IFR and VFR get unreasonably close due to the VFR not complying by your instruction/request/suggestion, have you had a breakdown of separation, or since by the very definition of E airspace, is it impossible to have a breakdown of separation between VFR and IFR, since they are not to be separated in the first place.

It is all very grey to me. This is the reason why in Australia, where the ATC's there, believe they are following the ICAO guidelines by not separating and just providing a traffic information service to VFR's on known IFR's are getting called criminally negligent for not stepping and positively separating the aircraft.

A couple of other questions. Do you ever turn an IFR or level off an IFR to "separate" him from an unverified, unidentified VFR paint in E airspace. Finally do you feel safely protected from litigation if you vector/suggest a turn to a VFR and that VFR, does the turn, is thrown off by the turn, loses track of their VFR tracking and hits a mountain. The book is pretty clear in saying that you will not provide a control service to VFR and they are supposed to be tracking purely by visual means, and not under guidance, even quasi guidance of a radar controller, and I would be a little nervous that lawyers would have a field day on that one.

AirNoServices:
I'll tell you what happens in one of the very few pieces of Class E in the UK, where I fly VFR regularly and IFR occasionally. The airspace in question is part of the Scottish TMA and extends from 1500 or 2500 ft up to 6000ft, all around the boundary of the Edinburgh Control Zone (Class D).
When we're outbound from Edinburgh VFR we get a clearance not above 2000ft. IFR inbounds are routinely cleared to 3000ft crossing over the top of us and they are always given traffic info on us. We are normally transponder-equipped and squawking 7000 but even if no transponder the clearance and procedure is the same.
When we clear the zone we are in Class E airspace and in theory we could manoeuvre and climb unrestricted and without saying anything to Edinburgh Approach, but usually if Approach has IFR inbounds they'll say "report if you wish to climb above 2000ft". If you say you do want to climb, some controllers will ask you to maintain 2000 for the moment due to IFR inbound at 3000. It's a grey area because one might argue that by acknowledging that request one is agreeing to comply, even though we are only receiving a Flight Information Service. We could legally climb VFR to whatever altitude we wanted without telling Approach, but common sense usually prevails. Approach do however get the occasional unknown aircraft flying into the airspace VFR - again, quite legally - and causing mayhem with inbound IFR traffic.
My limited experience in the US is that in equivalent airspace, controllers will not try to maintain 1000ft/3nm separation between VFRs and IFRs and will rely on the crews seeing and avoiding each other. In the UK they wouldn't do that.
Having said all that, this Class E airspace is about to be abolished because of an airprox a couple of years ago between a 737 and a microlight both of which were operating quite legally in that Class E airspace.

Class E airspace has been eliminated in NZ because of the legal can of worms that would be opened if an IFR hit a VFR and people died.

AirNoService

In the US we do not suggest headings to VFR's if we think that they are going to hit someone, we issue a traffic alert and give them an instruction. If they are in class E airspace and getting advisories from us then they are REQUIRED to obey the ATC instruction. Now that said, if they are really stupid, they can cancel advisories and do what they please. We are then not obligated to do anything with the VFR who we are not working, but we are going to be obligated to give a traffic alert to the IFR pilot who appears that the targets are going to merge at same altitude. But again we are not going to give them a thousand feet and three or five miles depending on who is working them. We only have to not trade paint.

It works quite well and is rather simple. As to pilots knowing where they are at, well they are required to know where they are at and what level of service is being afforded. But again in the US that is pretty simple and straight forward.

regards

Scott

Here in Australia, we are about to return to the practice of including ATC frequencies onto the VFR charts and suggesting that VFR aircraft transiting E or G airspace monitor the appropriate ATC frequency when possible. There is concern that this practice imposes a duty of care on ATC to reach out to any aircraft in his airspace if it appears to be in proximity to another, regardless of whether the aircraft is identified, has previously asked for a service, and may or may not be listening.

How do VFR aircraft in USA or Europe (or elsewhere) know what ATC frequency to call for radar advisory service when flying in G or E airspace?