Class D VFR/IFR separation standards
 

Quick query for ATCOs working in Class D, I was out flying recently with a colleague routeing from Newtownards through Belfast and up towards Portrush. Beautiful day, CAVOK with not much traffic around. We requested a zone transit from Belfast City which we got, we were passed traffic information on a A319 on a 4 mile final runway 22 and I heard the controller passing traffic information to the A319 about us, we were visual with the landing traffic and the controller simply let us continue across the zone - no fuss, no drama, we passed behind the A319 and once through the final approach we were transferred to Aldergrove and were told they had our details. At this stage we were tracking towards Glengormley hoping for a zone transit from Aldergrove to head towards Portrush.

On first contact with Aldergrove we were asked to pass full details and intentions, somewhat surprised we went through the spiel anyway and were then told there was traffic inbound for runway 25 and to remain outside the zone. This we duly did but within a short time we became visual with an Easyjet on our right hand side at least 1000ft above, we reported visual with this traffic to the controller hoping for a transit but were told that we weren`t separated from the Easyjet and a zone transit was not available. my colleague confirmed we were VFR and good visual but there was still no transit forthcoming.

We continued outside Aldergrove airspace, there were no further inbounds and nothing that I could see to prevent transit.

Do Aldergrove now separate VFR against IFR traffic? Why?:confused:

Over-controlling?
TCAS-event 'report-writing avoidance'?
ATCO doesn't understand Class D?
Jobsworth?

Give them a phone call and ask why they are not managing their airspace i.a.w. Class D procedures.

Completely agree with talkdownman. Suggest you ring up EGAA and ask to speak to the SATCO as it would appear one of his controllers is not understanding of the rules within the airspace he is providing a 'service'

When the U.K. airspace re-classification occurred, (sometime in the 1990s I think), our CTR went from 'Rule21' to class D. There was no training, and little guidance from unit management, about handling VFR traffic. Certain procedures, originally designed to keep SVFR and IFR traffic apart, were kept in place as they also helped reducing 'non-standard' IFR routings, and therefore noise.
Is the integration of VFR/IFR traffic taught on the APP or APS course at CATC these days?

this "too busy" thing is getting a bit tiresome ! Bit like "for "security reasons"

MATS Part 1 Section 1 Chapter 5

Control of VFR Flight
5.3 The minimum services provided to VFR flights in Class D airspace are
specified at Section 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 2. Separation standards
are not prescribed for application by ATC between VFR flights or
between VFR and IFR flights in Class D airspace. However, ATC has
a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to
maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective i
s met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to
‘see and avoid’ each other as specified at Section 3, Chapter 1, paragraph 2.

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

5.5 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. VRPs may be established to
assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance
of instrument approach and departure tracks. Where controllers require
VFR aircraft to hold at a specific point pending further clearance, this is
to be explicitly stated to the pilot.

PanPan,
Quick question.Was you're aircraft displaying SSR and Mode C ?

Thanks for the response to date, I think the best bet is to try and speak to someone in Aldergrove over the next few days. I was talking to a controller at Belfast City and he was somewhat bemused but said he wasn`t in the least surprised by anything that Aldergrove do these days. I tried to get him to elaborate but he also said I should try and contact them myself.

The aircraft is full mode s/c equipped and it is working!

That's a pretty standard ATC response. We all do things better than the units next door.

City and Aldergrove have always (well certainly in the past decade or so) behaved differently. Personally, I think City have it right whilst Aldergrove tend to manage the sky like Class C. I does make one wonder whether the regulator is doing it's job properly; there's certainly a lack of standardisation.

Now I am really confused! I got speaking to a controller at Aldergrove and he has said that they are required to separate ALL traffic regardless of weather, types, performance etc. They will not allow for example a microlight in the same sector as an airbus unless they are separated - I`m not sure where their sectors are and I`m not sure if this is a NATS thing or a local unit thing. Either way it seems to be creating a lot of work for the controllers!:eek:

When I explained the scenario I experienced he simply said that even though we could see the big shiny jet we simply were not considered separated in his opinion and therefore wouldn`t get a transit. I asked what if the airbus had been a VFR PA28 and we could each see each other, he said we still wouldn`t be classed as separated.

I went back to the guy I spoke to at Belfast City and he said if he applied those rules then City couldn`t function as they simply don`t have the space to operate this way, he said they regularly have helicopter traffic operating over the city centre at 3000 feet with an outbound IFR also going to 3000 feet, traffic information is passed and that`s it.

What happens at other areas??:confused:

VFR / IFR separation standards in class D = pass traffic information.

So...
Confirm VFR?
Transit clearance issued.
VFR pilot reports visual.
See and avoid.
Happy days.

I'd be on the phone to the Manager ATC in the New Year to ask why EGAA controllers aren't operating class D airspace correctly (based on what has been posted by pan x 4)

I wonder if this is specifically a lack of ATCO standardisation as opposed to unit standardisation.

I used to operate in and around Belfast (both airports) quite a lot and I am sure I remember being allowed to self separate with traffic in sight in Aldergrove CTR. I have also spoken to the guys and girls there before about a couple of issues and they have been very friendly.

Quick question,

In the UK do you need 'clearance' to enter Class D airspace VFR? My experience with D is from the US and as VFR traffic you only need to establish two-way com with ATC before you can enter. With that said, in certain extremely busy situations the controller have just told me to stay outside their airspace. No problem to comply in that case.

Yes a clearance is required.

Airspace class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I remember correctly, Class D replaced the U.K.'s 'Special Rules Airspace' and the mnemonic for that was 'COLO'........

CONTACT the relevant ATC Unit.
OBTAIN permission to enter the airspace,
LISTEN out on the appropriate ATC frequency.
OBEY instructions issued by ATC.

Thanks Vortex,

COLO..

Sounds like a good mnemonic, regardless of airspace :\

I work in class C space myself but I feel like you guys are in the wrong here.

Class D space doesn't mean that ATCOs should just give traffic information and hope for the best. A controllers responsibility regardless of airspace classification is to aviod collision and seperate traffic as long as neccesary. If **** hits the fan, 98% of the time the controller will be held responsible for the situation. So you can't really bash a controller for using the airspace wrong. You can always ask about the situation and have a constructive conversation about it, you should however in this situation (the way I've understood it) not call and bash him/her for using the airspace in a faulty manner.

Chro,

I think you are wrong. If it's a Class D zone, then the Class D rules should apply. The controller should not arbitrarily decide he is going to apply Class C rules.

I have to agree that its wrong for an individual controller or unit to decide to apply their own rules in class "D". The rules for class "D" are clearly defined and one should be able to plan to use CAS subject to common sense and not at the mercy of an individual's whim. When the initial Airspace Change Proposal is submitted for class "D" the CAA would judge that the proposal should be accepted on the basis that VFR can reasonably expect to transit under class "D" rules. If the individual controller or unit decide to breach the rules under which the airspace is established the whole section of airspace should be withdrawn and the ATC unit should be forced to resubmit the whole ACP again, including the environmental considerations.

Personally I would write to the SATCO or manager to complain and ask for an explanation in writing and if the answer was unsatisfactory forward the correspondence to the CAA siting a breach of the ACP.

Many yeas ago there was a controller who stated that he would not let anyone other than commercial in HIS airspace ("D") regardless of number of engines or whether they had a transponder, even if there was no traffic and none expected. I understand that the CAA did explain the error of his ways to him.

There is nothing to stop individuals from writing to the CAA or the ATC unit and asking for them to investigate and have the tapes replayed. It might be that there was some traffic on another frequency that made the crossing too difficult. I seem to remember that if transit is refused the controller is supposed to give an estimate of how long it will be till they can give the clearance, was this done on this occasion?

bb

There was no estimate given for a transit clearance, simply a "remain outside controlled airspace". I have chatted to a few local fellow aviators and they are saying the same thing recently regarding transit of the Aldergrove zone, many say now that they don`t even ask but simply turn transponder off and fly along the zone boundary without even telling the controller they are there nor where they are going. If they are coming from the North they simply ignore Aldergrove and freecall City at Ballyclare and get a zone transit from City to go southbound.:ok:

Perhaps this is what Aldergrove are trying to achieve? Continually refuse VFR traffic and at some stage they will simply stop asking to get in?:hmm: This in turn will save them from having to "separate" the traffic.

A few of the other guys say they have also made contact with Aldergrove and the Safety card had been played straight away.:ugh:

bad bear, you say :Presumably then, you would accept the corollary that if a pilot breaches the same airspace rules by infringing it without a clearance, his licence should be withdrawn & he should be forced to resubmit an application & resit an examination ?

Within these roles definitions we always have a human factor, which is valid for the controller too. If that poor little fellow feels unsafe to maintain collision prevention and smooth flow of traffic, we should help him. A kind letter to his superior asking wether there was something in the air not obvious to us, which can always be the case, will support clarification. And if tat poor li'l controller is overstrained on that chair and mike, we should help getting him the right job for his skills, don't we?

CH you are correct, but my personal experience is that the default procedures used at Aldergrove are different to those employed by City. It would be interesting for the Mats Pt2s to be compared; oh, shouldn't the CAA be doing that? :(

Other lines of enquiry would possibly include CHIRP, or even GATCO?

My own view is that if a pilot accidentally infringes airspace his CFI should make sure his navigating skills are retaught and the pilot has a navigation flight test. If the infringement is intentional then the CAA's legal department usually deal with the issue, and rightly so.

off watch, what action should be taken if a controller (or unit) deliberately and premeditatedly refuses to obey the rules of class "D" by continually refusing reasonable requests? Again my view is that if an individual controller disregards the rules his SATCO should deal with him, and if the SATCO doesn't, then the CAA should take action against the individual and the SATCO.

I normally check the arrivals and departures board as part of my preflight planing if I hope to transit CAS ( I know there will be the occasional freighter or biz jet in addition to those movements). In the case of Aldergrove I see there are around 4 departures and 4 arrivals per hour today at the max and would hope that level of activity would mean VFR transits could be accommodated easily.

Airport Departures and Arrivals

It might be that the MATS pt 2 (which is confidential) needs to have the section on VFR transits "reviewed".

pan*4, might be worth getting the local pilots to try asking for clearances rather than going round every time and reporting every refusal to the CAA so that the full extent of the problem moves from rumour to fact. If you get a refusal it might also be worth asking "how long will I have to wait for a transit?"



bb

Routine evaluation of local application of nats service standards
 

Reasonable, but what about those that have no connection with a flying club or school e.g private owners ? Personally, I think your remedy should be applied to all. Judging by the large number of infringements still reported every month in the CAA Digest, the current system is not working too well.

Agreed - but if the only complaints are on pprune, nothing is going to change.
IMHO the rot set in when "duty of care" was put in the mix - no good an ATCO saying "I was obeying the rules" anymore, hence I believe the "better safe than sorry" mentality has crept in to cover that.

Already covered in MATS Pt 1 :
Joining and Overflying Aircraft
1.100
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.

The rules are very clear for class D and haven't been applied correctly. Write to the unit and ask for an explanation - there may well be a perfectly valid reason for refusing transit though if i were to tell a pilot 'remain outside controlled airspace' i would state the reason and an estimate of delay.
There may well be the 'fear of getting the blame' or 'fear of an airprox report' factor in the decision should anything go wrong which, dare i say, i have noticed creeping into controllers conversations in more recent years( i cannot speak for anyone at Aldergrove).

There are varying attitudes between units in applying the rules (down to management regimes / risk perception?), two adjacent south coast airports are well known for doing this differently to each other.

Update: I have got speaking to another Aldergrove controller today and they have confirmed to me that 5 miles separation is "required" between Mr VFR Puddle Jumper and Mr IFR Airbus. This is required not only between aircraft operating in the Aldergrove zone but also within the TMA which is class E!:ugh:

Somebody somewhere is rewriting the rules.:confused: