OCTA Separation Minima in IMC
I'm wondering if anyone can provide me with references to indicate what the minimum separation standard is while OCTA in IMC.
At the risk of stating the obvious, OCTA means (now) Class G airspace, and the answer, quite simply is--NONE.
What guidelines various pilots might use, in arranging their operations in Class G is a matter for them. What is it that is so difficult about understanding "uncontrolled", is it the "un" or the "controlled".
The requirements for an aircraft to be given as "traffic" to other IFR aircraft are not "separation standards". Perhaps one of you from AsA might like to expand on the "known traffic" criteria, it's not "any IFR" aircraft within 5 minutes/15 m. etc.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Folks, please remember, being "RPT" in Class G CTAF does not give you any rights or priorities over any other "traffic", and does not exempt you from CAR 166.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled:
Your sarcasm is unhelpful and out of 40 odd replies, you're the only one who hasn't added anything useful.
In the same sense that there are rules to ensure separation from terrain OCTA, I am interested in the subject of separation from other aircraft OCTA. The known traffic criteria have already been listed elsewhere in the thread by a more helpful contibutor.
Your sarcasm is unhelpful and out of 40 odd replies, you're the only one who hasn't added anything useful.
In the same sense that there are rules to ensure separation from terrain OCTA, I am interested in the subject of separation from other aircraft OCTA. The known traffic criteria have already been listed elsewhere in the thread by a more helpful contibutor.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the unfairness there.
I dont think "fairness" should be player when talking about safe separation between aircraft in IMC. The first aircraft to arrive overhead should get the first opportunity to land. If that means 2-3 attempts because the weather is ****e so be it. Obviously is someone stacked above is short of gas then the lower aircraft should arrange separation in the hold and let the low-gas aircraft have a crack.
Leadsled
It was established early in the thread that there is no legislated or even advised minimum separation requirement. Perhaps informing fellow ppruners about what you use would add more to the thread.
WRT the Wagga approach. Stateing first up that I am still hitting the books, I would hope the Lear calls missed, I have taken up the hold at 3000ft awaiting my turn, I would then in turn inform Mr lear driver my whereabouts in relation to the aid...whether I am inbound or outbound or passing the aid. As it is now my approach I would guess that it is now my airspace and the Lear has to keep clear of me. If the lear went missed I would also be taking stock if I should even attempt the approach and use my fuel to bug out to my ALT.
It sounds like common sense to me that any IFR on the SAME approach would be intently communicating their position where there is a conflict such as a missed heading back and climbing through the hold point. After all, it would be no surprise that everyone would be on the same page, so to speak.
EDIT-saying the same thing twice.
ANNNND a plug for ADS-B IN..Dick if everyone had IN in an IFR machine then YES a pilot would be able to maintain his own separation accurately to a distance and elevation with confidence. TCAS cannot do this!
It sounds like common sense to me that any IFR on the SAME approach would be intently communicating their position where there is a conflict such as a missed heading back and climbing through the hold point. After all, it would be no surprise that everyone would be on the same page, so to speak.
EDIT-saying the same thing twice.
ANNNND a plug for ADS-B IN..Dick if everyone had IN in an IFR machine then YES a pilot would be able to maintain his own separation accurately to a distance and elevation with confidence. TCAS cannot do this!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously is someone stacked above is short of gas then the lower aircraft should arrange separation in the hold and let the low-gas aircraft have a crack
Seriously guys, how often does any of this occur?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waren
Low on gas dosen't necessarily mean below mins. Perhaps approaching divert fuel and would like a crack at getting in before needing to divert? I have been #3 in a hold for 35mins with people missing below, so this sort of thing can and does happen.
OZ
Do you realise that if you just waited and held at the hold alt +1000 until the lear has called visual (as is good practice) and landed that there would be no need to communicate your position and try to sort out separation. You would already be separated. Keep it simple stupid is my moto.
Low on gas dosen't necessarily mean below mins. Perhaps approaching divert fuel and would like a crack at getting in before needing to divert? I have been #3 in a hold for 35mins with people missing below, so this sort of thing can and does happen.
OZ
Do you realise that if you just waited and held at the hold alt +1000 until the lear has called visual (as is good practice) and landed that there would be no need to communicate your position and try to sort out separation. You would already be separated. Keep it simple stupid is my moto.
GunDog..agree one hundred percent KISS. The conflict would only occur IF the Lear called missed and would be turning inbound to the aid and climbing to 3000ft...would you keep that in mind until after the Lear called on the ground before you actualy descended to the initial approach altitude, will have to ask instructor on that. My guess would have been my original view, once the Lear left 3000 on descent you could descend to that altitude and hold.
EDIT Do see your point tho, However, would that mean if the Lear climbs to 3000 to the aid, they can keep going until they land or bug out for the ALT?
EDIT Do see your point tho, However, would that mean if the Lear climbs to 3000 to the aid, they can keep going until they land or bug out for the ALT?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gundog
In that case mate, youve just gone some way to contradict yourself.
Compare these 2 statements you posted:
and:
Not sure where youre going with this. Low on gas? Declare it. If not, take your place in the queue. If that means diverting coz you didnt bring hold fuel then so be it.
Compare these 2 statements you posted:
I dont think "fairness" should be player when talking about safe separation between aircraft in IMC. The first aircraft to arrive overhead should get the first opportunity to land.
Low on gas dosen't necessarily mean below mins. Perhaps approaching divert fuel and would like a crack at getting in before needing to divert?
I dunno Dick, that just sounds like plain stupidity on someone's behalf (be it the Baron or the SAAB). Why would anyone, with any common sense, commence an instrument approach in completely the opposite direction to someone who's already doing an approach?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waren
First aircraft gets first crack every time. However, they might have enough airmanship or good manners to allow an aircraft with enough fuel for 1 approach only and a divert if MAP to go first. Assuming the first aircraft was fat for gas.
"VXX, i'm approaching my divert fuel do you mind if i go next".
You can speak in pain language with your fellow aviators to sort out whats happening. It's not that difficult.
First aircraft gets first crack every time. However, they might have enough airmanship or good manners to allow an aircraft with enough fuel for 1 approach only and a divert if MAP to go first. Assuming the first aircraft was fat for gas.
"VXX, i'm approaching my divert fuel do you mind if i go next".
You can speak in pain language with your fellow aviators to sort out whats happening. It's not that difficult.
muffman - the purpose of the 1000ft is just to provide breathing room for the lower aircraft. Once the lower aircraft has attained this altitude he can manuevre out of the hold and climb to a higher altitude, go to an alternate or retry the approach. If he decides not to try the approach again the higher aircraft can either commence the approach from 1000ft, which is generally achievable, or descend in the hold and pass the IAF at desired height. The only issue i see with the higher aircraft commencing the approach first comes back to the iniatial argument, if he then goes round where does he go?
ozbusdriver - giving the preceding aircraft room to manuevre in the event of missed approach is good airmanship. If you descend on top of them they will be forced into either climbing through your altitude with only minimal time to ascertain your position via radio or maintain a height below a lowest safe/MSA. The holding aircraft is only governed by a minimum altitude and can easily maintain a height above it with no effort.
If all else fails just slow down en-route so the other guy gets there well ahead then there's no holding and you may save some fuel, why the rush?
ozbusdriver - giving the preceding aircraft room to manuevre in the event of missed approach is good airmanship. If you descend on top of them they will be forced into either climbing through your altitude with only minimal time to ascertain your position via radio or maintain a height below a lowest safe/MSA. The holding aircraft is only governed by a minimum altitude and can easily maintain a height above it with no effort.
If all else fails just slow down en-route so the other guy gets there well ahead then there's no holding and you may save some fuel, why the rush?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah ok whatever. Cant be bothered any more.
What about airmanship and manners from the numpty who didnt bring hold in the first place fuel like everybody else did?
It's not that difficult
Im off for a beer
Laters
What about airmanship and manners from the numpty who didnt bring hold in the first place fuel like everybody else did?
It's not that difficult
Laters
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTDK said...
He doesn't doc, the missed approach should take him clear of the hold and allow someone else to have a go, nowhere that I am aware of does it automatically position you back in the hold, just the opposite actually, it may (usually does) take you through the holding pattern on the missed approach though.
To re-enter the hold is your decision after you have carried out the missed approach, re-evaluated your fuel status, your options, then you may consider a return.
The point I was concerned with is that most procedures are designed as if there is only one a/c at the location because most missed approaches seem to fly you through where the next a/c would be holding especially if the pilot in charge had adopted the "I'm next so get outta my way i'm coming in" attitude and wasn't using common sense and staying above the (potential) missed approach.
I still find it hard to accept that the aircraft at the bottom of the holding stack gets to fly the approach/missed approach and arrive back at the bottom of the stack where it can stooge around until it feels like having another go!
To re-enter the hold is your decision after you have carried out the missed approach, re-evaluated your fuel status, your options, then you may consider a return.
The point I was concerned with is that most procedures are designed as if there is only one a/c at the location because most missed approaches seem to fly you through where the next a/c would be holding especially if the pilot in charge had adopted the "I'm next so get outta my way i'm coming in" attitude and wasn't using common sense and staying above the (potential) missed approach.
