Seperating IFR/VFR in Class
 

Hello

How would an aerodrome controller seperate IFR from VFR (and vice versa) in an ATZ environment in Class C Airspace?

For example if the controller had aircraft in the circuit (under VFR) - and inbounds on the ILS (under IFR) - How would he ensure the separation between the two?

Thanks

Circuit traffic is sight at all times otherwise its an IFR circuit.

Hold circuit (orbit) until reduced separation in vicinity of aerodrome can be applied.

"can VFR (orbiting) see the inbound IFR xxx distance + position?"

If yes give instructions to rejoin.

If not continuing orbiting.

Assuming you have separate APP RAD and ADI, otherwise you are looking at procedural.

Inbound reports established on LLZ so you know where he is and then clear for approach to report the OM or 4ILS/D.

You advise the inbound that you have circuit traffic holding at ..... AND you can see the traffic at all times.


If you cannot maintain visual contact with the circuit traffic (marginal WX) then you hold IFR, ground the VFR circuit traffic and then allow the IFR to make an approach.

Where you have separate APP RAD and ADI then you still must tell the inbound IFR that you have circuiting traffic and what you are doing with it to ensure separation.
Remember IFR from IFR
and IFR from VFR

VFR gets traffic info.

All described in Paragraph 7-8-1 of JO 7110.65

Soaringhigh, no it's not. It's in 7-2-1, read the OP. As Looking says, rules are all well and good, the key is how they are applied.

learnatc, while I'm not familiar with operating in Class C IFR v VFR separation, I am familiar with Class A IFR v SVFR separation, albeit the SVFR traffic is rotary. Close in to the airport, where a visual circuit would be, it is all based on tower controller applying visual separation, in that s/he must have the IFR traffic and the SVFR traffic visual at all times. There is a visual helicopter crossing procedure we use, and there are weather limits set to ensure that the controller is visual with the IFR inbounds by the time they get to 3nm out (i.e. inside radar separation). If the weather is worse than this and a helicopter still has to cross the airfield, we would provide a gap in the inbound stream to ensure 3nm radar separation at all times.

We also are able to use geographical separation in a limited sense, where the SVFR traffic is north of a particular line feature that it itself is to the north of the airport (and thus north of the approaches/climbouts).

We give local traffic information as we are applying reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome so yes we tell the inbound IFR where the traffic is.

In Class "C"
IFR are separated from VFR and VFR are separated from IFR while getting traffic info only on other VFR flights.

You don't tell an aircraft how you are separating it from another. Can you imagine how much R/T that would take?

HD, you would if it wasn't obvious to the aircrew. Done it a number of times to avoid confusion. Having a good air picture is essential on both sides of the mic. I understand you wouldn't do it all the time, however it does have its place.

Arigato,

Showa.

Pass traffic information, yes, but not how you are doing it! C'mon...

Some airfields use separate circuits for IFR traffic on circling approaches, and VFR traffic - e.g. Cannes has an IFR circling approach (1800') above the VFR multi-engine circuit (1500') and the VFR SEP circuit at 1000'. Cannes also has a helicopter circuit on an intersecting runway making four separate traffic flows to manage.

HD I don't want to turn this into a p!ssing contest, however just beacuse you have never done something or have seen it done doesn't make it incorrect. I appreciate you have many more years than my measly 20 in the industry and I appreciate your opinion but I'd ask you to be a little more open minded than the constant comparison you seem to make with how you did things and how everyone else is in some way incorrect if it's not done your way. It does get predictably boring.

Regards.

Showa Cho. I find it extraordinary how people on here take umbrage at the simplest statements but I am sorry if I have upset you as that is the last thing I would wish to do. Experience is an important factor on how we carry out our tasks, which is why I offer mine on PPruNe.

There seemed to be confusion which I tried to clear up. I have worked at international airports, a busy (very) training airfield and a run-down tip of an airfield and I have never, ever, told a pilot how I am providing separation. Traffic information - yes, of course, a million times - but how and why does one tell a pilot how one is providing separation? You might just as well ask a pilot how he reduces speed!

I get HD's point completely.

Maybe you mean the same thing Showa but interpretation of each others posts is lost on a written forum?

As HD says, by all means, in fact always pass TI. i.e. "Bigjet 123 cleared localiser Rwy27, rotary wing traffic orbiting to the north"*

That, in effect, is informing the pilots how you are achieving separation.

*forgive any anomalies in App phraseology; I'm an area controller who has not controlled at an aerodrome for nigh on twenty years but when I did, it was a very busy aerodrome with a mixture of fast jet/slow piston/rotary using multiple runways at the same time, therefore the notion of separating and passing TI is relevant.

HD,

Did you never say something like: "XXX Traffic information, blah blah blah, I have you both in sight"?

I say that regularly, especially if it's quite far out.

When using the geographical separation using the M4 motorway, and speaking to a UK crew (BA/Virgin), I'll add that the helicopter traffic is remaining north of the M4, or that it is two miles north of the climbout/approach and no further south.

Or when inbound traffic queries low-level traffic beneath them over London, I explain that it's a vertically separated helicopter route.

I guess these are explaning to the pilot how he's separated from other traffic.

HD no offence taken or intended nor am I upset. As Gonzo has stated there are times where it is appropriate to provide that level of information. Granted these situations are rare. Sweeping generalisations like 'you don't tell' and 'c'mon' would indicate that you don't accept it can/does/should happen. Clearly it does and it has its place in some circumstances. Just a difference of opinion which leads to healthy discussion. Cheers.