VFR On Top: What the hell for?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-C-L
We're talking about different procedures here.
From July 10, an IFR aircraft in Class E airspace, can request to operate VFR-on-top. This essentially changes the service provided by ATC from Separation to Directed Traffic.
The IFR aircraft can then changes levels according to Class G requirements but can only level out at VFR levels.
A VFR aircraft operating VFR on top has nothing to do with ATC, but is simply a term whereby a VFR aircraft is operating above cloud but can still meet position fixing requirements.
It really would have been a lot simpler if the A.R.G. had coined a new phrase for the IFR option.
Cheers.
We're talking about different procedures here.
From July 10, an IFR aircraft in Class E airspace, can request to operate VFR-on-top. This essentially changes the service provided by ATC from Separation to Directed Traffic.
The IFR aircraft can then changes levels according to Class G requirements but can only level out at VFR levels.
A VFR aircraft operating VFR on top has nothing to do with ATC, but is simply a term whereby a VFR aircraft is operating above cloud but can still meet position fixing requirements.
It really would have been a lot simpler if the A.R.G. had coined a new phrase for the IFR option.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCL
Further to Chief Galah. These VFR climb/descent and on top are only available to IFR filed aircraft, not for aircraft which don't meet pilot/aircraft IFR requirements.
The VFR on top you are referring to is for VFR "filed" aircraft to get you from a VMC departure to VMC arrival if you're sure that the conditions at the other end will allow it.
Further to Chief Galah. These VFR climb/descent and on top are only available to IFR filed aircraft, not for aircraft which don't meet pilot/aircraft IFR requirements.
The VFR on top you are referring to is for VFR "filed" aircraft to get you from a VMC departure to VMC arrival if you're sure that the conditions at the other end will allow it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bagot Community
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking about VFR on top for VFR aircraft in any airspace and not particularly for IFR aircraft in Class E.
My VFR on top has all been in Class C, D and G airspace.
I have now become aware that most of the people in this forum are talking about Class E airspace and AIP SUP H23/03 however nowhere does it mention that in the title or the first post.
My VFR on top has all been in Class C, D and G airspace.
I have now become aware that most of the people in this forum are talking about Class E airspace and AIP SUP H23/03 however nowhere does it mention that in the title or the first post.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: On the move
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCL
Not pickin' on you or anything but in my previous post I did elude to the fact that you can climb and descend clear of cloud to be VFR on top.
Anyway. This and the IFR Pickup procedure have been put in place for IFR aircraft not VFR. And from what I understand, it is meant to alleviate the problem of delays in gaining airways clearances into class E when there is conflicting traffic. You are given the traffic and are then expected to negotiate with them, not ATC, for climb and descent through each others levels.
Not pickin' on you or anything but in my previous post I did elude to the fact that you can climb and descend clear of cloud to be VFR on top.
Anyway. This and the IFR Pickup procedure have been put in place for IFR aircraft not VFR. And from what I understand, it is meant to alleviate the problem of delays in gaining airways clearances into class E when there is conflicting traffic. You are given the traffic and are then expected to negotiate with them, not ATC, for climb and descent through each others levels.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhatWasThat
You've got that right!!
otto the grot
Remember, conditions must be VMC, and the aircraft must remain in VMC. If you are anywhere near the southern seaboard today (and for many other past days for that matter), forget it.
This means big headaches for Centre
where there is no radar. Expect delays, because there is no flexibilty in E airspace in IMC. 
I don't think air-air negotiation is envisaged, other than in an emergency. :
I think 5miles has the right idea.
CG
You've got that right!!
otto the grot
Remember, conditions must be VMC, and the aircraft must remain in VMC. If you are anywhere near the southern seaboard today (and for many other past days for that matter), forget it.
This means big headaches for Centre
where there is no radar. Expect delays, because there is no flexibilty in E airspace in IMC. I don't think air-air negotiation is envisaged, other than in an emergency. :
I think 5miles has the right idea.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: On the move
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air to air is what has been indicated Chief.
As 5miles said, in these situations, directed traffic is given in place of separation and you'll have to negotiate with the other traffic as you do in class G.
As 5miles said, in these situations, directed traffic is given in place of separation and you'll have to negotiate with the other traffic as you do in class G.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have both "VFR on top" and "VFR over the top" in Australia?
To be honest, I've forgotten what the difference is between the two
but they have 'em both in the States.
To be honest, I've forgotten what the difference is between the two
but they have 'em both in the States.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We are however, not to approve VFR-on-top, ... if we consider a collision risk exists" somebody said, and this is strangely emphasised in the ATC training program.
If you read the AIP SUP it is plain that what is intended is that if there is conflicting traffic at FL160 you tell the peanut "Climb to FL150, report reaching VFR on top", rather than "Climb to VFR on top." Not some overwhelming responsibility for the ATC to make it work or ban its use.
The aircraft remains IFR.
This is different to VFR aircraft being able to fly and navigate over cloud for part of their flight.
We continue to feed your details to the Toll Collectors.
If you need an autopilot to use IFR, you need it to use VFR on top.
I have no idea why anybody would use it.
This procedure is being implemented so that any operator who is financially hurt by the carpeting of Australia in E airspace and the delays involved in continuing the current practice of blue-sky separation can be told by Dick, Winstun and Bik - grow up, this is how it happens in goober land. Equip your aircraft with the new super-separation tool - WINDOWS (not by Microstuffed).
If you read the AIP SUP it is plain that what is intended is that if there is conflicting traffic at FL160 you tell the peanut "Climb to FL150, report reaching VFR on top", rather than "Climb to VFR on top." Not some overwhelming responsibility for the ATC to make it work or ban its use.
The aircraft remains IFR.
This is different to VFR aircraft being able to fly and navigate over cloud for part of their flight.
We continue to feed your details to the Toll Collectors.
If you need an autopilot to use IFR, you need it to use VFR on top.
I have no idea why anybody would use it.
This procedure is being implemented so that any operator who is financially hurt by the carpeting of Australia in E airspace and the delays involved in continuing the current practice of blue-sky separation can be told by Dick, Winstun and Bik - grow up, this is how it happens in goober land. Equip your aircraft with the new super-separation tool - WINDOWS (not by Microstuffed).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
karrank:
If F150 is assigned due conflicting traffic at F160, this is not applying the intended flexibility of the procedure in class E airspace. This is simply what happens in any controlled airspace, and ATC is still separating.
It is when the pilot reports established VFR-on-top that ATC must decide whether to clear the aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top and give appropriate traffic; or deny the clearance because that same traffic presents a collision risk.
The same limitations apply to VFR climb/descent.
Blue skies, you'll need em.
If F150 is assigned due conflicting traffic at F160, this is not applying the intended flexibility of the procedure in class E airspace. This is simply what happens in any controlled airspace, and ATC is still separating.
It is when the pilot reports established VFR-on-top that ATC must decide whether to clear the aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top and give appropriate traffic; or deny the clearance because that same traffic presents a collision risk.
The same limitations apply to VFR climb/descent.
Blue skies, you'll need em.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 5miles
If VFR-on-top is approved then, depending on the direction of travel, the available VFR levels are (because the VFR traffic has to be at one of these) -
F145 - defeats the purpose, really.
F155 - gets a good look at the traffic at F160, or
F165 - wouldn't be approved I imagine because it would
mean climbing thru' the traffic you are separating from
in the first place!
CG
F145 - defeats the purpose, really.
F155 - gets a good look at the traffic at F160, or
F165 - wouldn't be approved I imagine because it would
mean climbing thru' the traffic you are separating from
in the first place!
CG
Last edited by Chief galah; 3rd Jul 2003 at 18:28.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right 5miles. The point is the aircraft starts out "really" IFR, and stays so until he reports "VFR on top" and we clear him to "maintain VFR on top". The fact the pilot doesn't tell me what level he is climbing to means I HAVE to restrict him if something is in the way. Once my aircraft assigned FL150 has broken through and been so cleared he can cruise at any VFR level he likes appropriate for his direction of flight.
Once he is VFR on top (sh*t, I hate that phrase), yes Galah, if he was heading west he might want to stay at FL145, but he can climb to FL165 if he wants to.
The goobers are very stern (in the book anyhow) about standard levels. VFR stay at the appropriate VFR level or don't fly. Above 3000 agl IFR stay at the appropriate IFR level, unless if they ask really nice they may get the opposite IFR level. I don't know why, but we don't have the same proscription. If you heart yearns to fly at FL165 we can approve it. Probably a hole left over from Dick's previous half-baked efforts to sell us E airspace.
Once he is VFR on top (sh*t, I hate that phrase), yes Galah, if he was heading west he might want to stay at FL145, but he can climb to FL165 if he wants to.
The goobers are very stern (in the book anyhow) about standard levels. VFR stay at the appropriate VFR level or don't fly. Above 3000 agl IFR stay at the appropriate IFR level, unless if they ask really nice they may get the opposite IFR level. I don't know why, but we don't have the same proscription. If you heart yearns to fly at FL165 we can approve it. Probably a hole left over from Dick's previous half-baked efforts to sell us E airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
karrank
What I was alluding to is that the en-route controller must approve the procedure. If he has been separating the two aircraft, IFR, by 1000', is he going to approve the change to VFR when he knows the aircraft is simply going to climb thru' the other?
In a radar environment one would think the situation will resolve itself quickly enough to be of little restriction to both partys, in separation mode, without going through the more complicating and less safe procedure of VFR climb. Will the pilot ask you to advise him when he is 5 miles clear of the other traffic???!!!!
Off radar, will controllers use flight plan tracks to approve the VFR procedure? If the tracks indicate the aircraft will remain segregated (but without a procedural standard), will there be less reluctance for the procedure?
One other thing comes to mind is, if a pilot is pushing for climb, can he elect "IFR pick-up" instead of "VFR climb"? This doesn't require controller approval and forces all partys into the spin cycle.
CG
In a radar environment one would think the situation will resolve itself quickly enough to be of little restriction to both partys, in separation mode, without going through the more complicating and less safe procedure of VFR climb. Will the pilot ask you to advise him when he is 5 miles clear of the other traffic???!!!!
Off radar, will controllers use flight plan tracks to approve the VFR procedure? If the tracks indicate the aircraft will remain segregated (but without a procedural standard), will there be less reluctance for the procedure?
One other thing comes to mind is, if a pilot is pushing for climb, can he elect "IFR pick-up" instead of "VFR climb"? This doesn't require controller approval and forces all partys into the spin cycle.
CG
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galah,
There are occasions when the ATC will be delighted to approve this, when two aircraft are obstructing each other (and could do so with the blunt instrument of procedural separation for up to 20 minutes.)
We have the ability to apply restrictions to the guy cleared VFR on top, to avoid the workload of passing multiple traffic, sep with holding patterns etc, but the idea is passing traffic in blue skies is as good as passing traffic in G. I personally will use it (at pilot request) without qualms in the case you posit.
Flight Plan Tracks are no more than a graphical representation of what we used to read off strips. We are aware that just because the green boxes have passed, the aircraft may not have. I would not base any decisions on the passing of the boxes, especially not when the decision to let somebody go VFR on top could have been made by somebody 2 sectors ago.
IFR Pick up only works before the guy has a clearance. Can't use it once he has, even if he asks for it.
There are occasions when the ATC will be delighted to approve this, when two aircraft are obstructing each other (and could do so with the blunt instrument of procedural separation for up to 20 minutes.)
We have the ability to apply restrictions to the guy cleared VFR on top, to avoid the workload of passing multiple traffic, sep with holding patterns etc, but the idea is passing traffic in blue skies is as good as passing traffic in G. I personally will use it (at pilot request) without qualms in the case you posit.
Flight Plan Tracks are no more than a graphical representation of what we used to read off strips. We are aware that just because the green boxes have passed, the aircraft may not have. I would not base any decisions on the passing of the boxes, especially not when the decision to let somebody go VFR on top could have been made by somebody 2 sectors ago.
IFR Pick up only works before the guy has a clearance. Can't use it once he has, even if he asks for it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman,
If grey between two Flight plan tracks is not enough to be assured that " a collision risk does not exist" what is?
passed by 2 minutes?
5 maybe?
The way I see it, the only way a controller can assess a collision risk is by the existence of an appropriate IFR seperation standard. If the standards are too conservative (and I agree that in some cases they are) then they need to be changed.
If no standard exists - a collision risk does. If a pilot wishes to take total responsibility for this risk thats OK by me but everyone needs to understand that ATC wont be the police on this. If a citation driver wants to do something foolish and climb thru a bunch of conflicting traffic I should not be the one responsible for any consequences.
My concerns about the confusing nature of this procedure appear to be supported by the lack of understanding shown by some posts. I am comforted by the fact that most PROFESSIONAL pilots will recognise this procedure for the nonsense it is and ignore its existence.
If grey between two Flight plan tracks is not enough to be assured that " a collision risk does not exist" what is?
passed by 2 minutes?
5 maybe?
The way I see it, the only way a controller can assess a collision risk is by the existence of an appropriate IFR seperation standard. If the standards are too conservative (and I agree that in some cases they are) then they need to be changed.
If no standard exists - a collision risk does. If a pilot wishes to take total responsibility for this risk thats OK by me but everyone needs to understand that ATC wont be the police on this. If a citation driver wants to do something foolish and climb thru a bunch of conflicting traffic I should not be the one responsible for any consequences.
My concerns about the confusing nature of this procedure appear to be supported by the lack of understanding shown by some posts. I am comforted by the fact that most PROFESSIONAL pilots will recognise this procedure for the nonsense it is and ignore its existence.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello WWT
The "collision risk" quote was from a previous post, not a position I'm burning to defend. No mention of this as a criteria in the AIP SUP, but is sorta implied in the ATC brief. In my presentations I have indicated they are referring to 2.3 a (i) in the SUP.
Once a flight is maintaining VFR on top, I don't give a buggar about separation. There is no separation (erm, except holding patterns ) until some magical knowledge is acquired by me that the weather is bad. Then I separate again...
A pilot may make the decision not to participate in this, or the other visual wonders of this age, but this will not prevent it being done to them by OTHER pilots.
By the way Galah, radar is almost as likely to reveal an "OH! F*CK!!
" situation as resolve it with tracking-by-black-line and nav-by-GPS.
The "collision risk" quote was from a previous post, not a position I'm burning to defend. No mention of this as a criteria in the AIP SUP, but is sorta implied in the ATC brief. In my presentations I have indicated they are referring to 2.3 a (i) in the SUP.
Once a flight is maintaining VFR on top, I don't give a buggar about separation. There is no separation (erm, except holding patterns
) until some magical knowledge is acquired by me that the weather is bad. Then I separate again...A pilot may make the decision not to participate in this, or the other visual wonders of this age, but this will not prevent it being done to them by OTHER pilots.
By the way Galah, radar is almost as likely to reveal an "OH! F*CK!!
" situation as resolve it with tracking-by-black-line and nav-by-GPS.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman
My point about the radar is that the need to resolve a separation problem cannot be that great to require the "VFR" procedures. Surely a pilot can wait a short time for radar separation to be ensured, without forcing the issue by wanting to use "VFR..."
As a non-radar procedure, it'll probably work OK, when you know the aircraft won't get within cooee of each other.
But won't you get a little edgy when you know the tracks will be in close proximity? Duty of care and all that?
The whole concept escapes me really. Is it meant to be used as a means for more efficient airspace management, or for some vague notion that a pilot is free to exert his (and on behalf of his paying pax) right to free flight???
I have a feeling the flying community think that utilising "VFR..." procedures will incur lower charges. We don't seem to be getting much info on that point.
CG
My point about the radar is that the need to resolve a separation problem cannot be that great to require the "VFR" procedures. Surely a pilot can wait a short time for radar separation to be ensured, without forcing the issue by wanting to use "VFR..."
As a non-radar procedure, it'll probably work OK, when you know the aircraft won't get within cooee of each other.
But won't you get a little edgy when you know the tracks will be in close proximity? Duty of care and all that?
The whole concept escapes me really. Is it meant to be used as a means for more efficient airspace management, or for some vague notion that a pilot is free to exert his (and on behalf of his paying pax) right to free flight???
I have a feeling the flying community think that utilising "VFR..." procedures will incur lower charges. We don't seem to be getting much info on that point.
CG
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you mean track..... or did you mena track???
Spodman and Galah
I suspect you just talked 'past' each other on the non-radar issue.
Galah asked:
Spodman said:
I think Galah is talking about the track being the flight planned route (i.e. what the aircraft is tracking – and the normal meaning of the word ‘track’ for aviators over the last millennium), whereas Spodman is using track in the TAAATS sense to describe what - in radar terms - used to be called a 'blip', 'target' or various other terms. (I knew that calling the blips 'tracks' would bite us in the nether regions one day. D'Oh!!)
Short answer to Galah's question seems to be:
1) If the flight planned routes are segregated (but not procedurally separated, then the procedure should be no problem.
2) If Flight plan symbols (i.e. the graphical representation of an individual aircraft’s position in a non-radar environment) become segregated (but not separated) then it is not as simple. As Spoddie said, just because the symbols have passed, it does not mean that the aircraft have passed.
If I’m wrong, and each of you was talking about the same thing, then please dismiss this as the ramblings of a pedantic fool.
I suspect you just talked 'past' each other on the non-radar issue.
Galah asked:
Off radar, will controllers use flight plan tracks to approve the VFR procedure? If the tracks indicate the aircraft will remain segregated (but without a procedural standard), will there be less reluctance for the procedure?
Flight Plan Tracks are no more than a graphical representation of what we used to read off strips. We are aware that just because the green boxes have passed, the aircraft may not have.
Short answer to Galah's question seems to be:
1) If the flight planned routes are segregated (but not procedurally separated, then the procedure should be no problem.
2) If Flight plan symbols (i.e. the graphical representation of an individual aircraft’s position in a non-radar environment) become segregated (but not separated) then it is not as simple. As Spoddie said, just because the symbols have passed, it does not mean that the aircraft have passed.
If I’m wrong, and each of you was talking about the same thing, then please dismiss this as the ramblings of a pedantic fool.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: On the move
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I’m wrong, and each of you was talking about the same thing, then please dismiss this as the ramblings of a pedantic fool.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
otto
Somewhat overly harsh.
Maaate
I sorta meant both. After all I have done up to ............MODVLE VI from memory.
What intrigues me the most is that a controller is clearing, authorising, rubberstamping, giving his blessing, for a pilot to operate in totally the opposite manner that the controller is there for in the first place.
Go figure
CG
Somewhat overly harsh.
Maaate
I sorta meant both. After all I have done up to ............MODVLE VI from memory.
What intrigues me the most is that a controller is clearing, authorising, rubberstamping, giving his blessing, for a pilot to operate in totally the opposite manner that the controller is there for in the first place.
Go figure
CG