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 joys of Class E airspace.

"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:confused: ! But that is another issue...

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.

In of itself I don't see the need for the exclamation point. This is ops normal, safe and flexible for the operator who chooses to use the option.

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

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. :}

VFR is prohibited at night in the UK..... sensibly.

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.

M609

It's not a great practice to transmit the level/altitude of Aircraft A to Aircraft B where they constitute traffic for each other.

Agreed. "500' above your cleared level" is what I'd say.

And "13500 feet below your cleared level " if it was traffic climbing through the King Airs level on their way to 310? :ok:

(yeah I know the bit about mistaking it for a clearence but really....)

I don't know how anyone could think this is safe.

Legally not required, you can be VFR in class B above 12,500 up to but not including the floor of class A...

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.

"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

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.

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).

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.

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!!!