VFR On Top: What the hell for?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Colonel. Having seen both sides of the fence I remember being told out in the Archifield training area that as long as you see them move they are gunna miss you. The ones that look like a black speck on the screen are the bad ones as your paths are going to cross. TCAS may help this but with all of the complaining from various bodies in aviation about radio and transponder carriage, I am sure TCAS mandating is a long way off.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just perused the latest crash comic. Page 60, IFR operation in Class E.
VFR-on-top
Intriguing.
The VFR-on-top diagram has a neat ATC-pilot dialogue pane. From what I can gather, the aircraft is at nine thousand (assuming standard hemispherical IFR level) and wants to climb above the cloud layer. ATC clears him to a non-hemispherical IFR level of FL120. When in VMC, the pilot reports, "VFR-on-top, FL115" and ATC responds "maintain VFR-on-top".
Never any reference to a clearance to a specific VFR level by ATC.
Intriguing.
VFR climb and descent.
The diagram shows the little C210P? at nine thousand, and he wants FL110. He can't wait for a positive passing with the opposite direction DHC8 that's full of fare paying passengers, all expecting that AsA and CASA will keep them safe. In the example, the Dash 8 is traffic "...one zero thousand, 12 o'clock, 7 miles". I figure, with the closing rates, positive passing will occur in a little over one minute. But Bloggs can't wait. So up he goes at a thousand foot a minute.
The Dash 8 crew have got a small hope of seeing him. The front on profile of the C210P is difficult to pick up in the background haze, and below the nose. It's early morning and obviously at Bloggs' level he's eastbound and into the sun. He's turned around to stop the kids from fighting and is only alerted by their pointing fingers and gaping mouths at the beautiful big plane, filling the windscreen.
Is all this worth it for a piddling one minute's wait?
The Regulator says this is OK.
But it's not OK if I can't produce my license/medical on demand at the console, because it's in the draw three feet away.
Now, that is UNSAFE.
CG
VFR-on-top
Intriguing.
The VFR-on-top diagram has a neat ATC-pilot dialogue pane. From what I can gather, the aircraft is at nine thousand (assuming standard hemispherical IFR level) and wants to climb above the cloud layer. ATC clears him to a non-hemispherical IFR level of FL120. When in VMC, the pilot reports, "VFR-on-top, FL115" and ATC responds "maintain VFR-on-top".
Never any reference to a clearance to a specific VFR level by ATC.
Intriguing.
VFR climb and descent.
The diagram shows the little C210P? at nine thousand, and he wants FL110. He can't wait for a positive passing with the opposite direction DHC8 that's full of fare paying passengers, all expecting that AsA and CASA will keep them safe. In the example, the Dash 8 is traffic "...one zero thousand, 12 o'clock, 7 miles". I figure, with the closing rates, positive passing will occur in a little over one minute. But Bloggs can't wait. So up he goes at a thousand foot a minute.
The Dash 8 crew have got a small hope of seeing him. The front on profile of the C210P is difficult to pick up in the background haze, and below the nose. It's early morning and obviously at Bloggs' level he's eastbound and into the sun. He's turned around to stop the kids from fighting and is only alerted by their pointing fingers and gaping mouths at the beautiful big plane, filling the windscreen.
Is all this worth it for a piddling one minute's wait?
The Regulator says this is OK.
But it's not OK if I can't produce my license/medical on demand at the console, because it's in the draw three feet away.
Now, that is UNSAFE.
CG
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief:
For VFR-on-top, ATC doesn't have to specify any level in approving this procedure.
A level would only be specified if ATC considers a level restriction is appropriate.
"maintain VFR-on-top" clears the pilot to operate at any VFR level in Classs E airspace in VMC.
VFR climb and descent:
I agree this scenario does tighten the sphincter, but how is it any different if the 2 aircraft are in class G today, and the Centurion driver wants climb?
Blue skies, you'll need 'em
For VFR-on-top, ATC doesn't have to specify any level in approving this procedure.
A level would only be specified if ATC considers a level restriction is appropriate.
"maintain VFR-on-top" clears the pilot to operate at any VFR level in Classs E airspace in VMC.
VFR climb and descent:
I agree this scenario does tighten the sphincter, but how is it any different if the 2 aircraft are in class G today, and the Centurion driver wants climb?
Blue skies, you'll need 'em
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stamp of approval; hmmmm.
Each ATC (with the exception of the group nerd, most have them) needn't and doesn't undertake his own reseach or spend hours investigating the safety of the standards & procedures set before him by those with the duty to do so. We just apply the procedures.
If we encounter something that doesn't seem to work or pan out the way procedures say they will (such as separating aircraft by distance reports in a particular way, but subsequently see a bit less than expected on the radar...) there are ways of reporting this that are difficult for anybody to sweep under the carpet. We are required to do this.
Many moons ago towers would not approve intersection departures, now they do. It can be demonstrated that an intersection departure involves more risk than using the full length, but pilots & ATC can justify this (before the Coroner if neccessary) as the actions of a reasonable person.
The same applies here. I follow the procedures that somebody else has established as safe and I am protected by the deep pockets of that somebody.
Each ATC (with the exception of the group nerd, most have them) needn't and doesn't undertake his own reseach or spend hours investigating the safety of the standards & procedures set before him by those with the duty to do so. We just apply the procedures.
If we encounter something that doesn't seem to work or pan out the way procedures say they will (such as separating aircraft by distance reports in a particular way, but subsequently see a bit less than expected on the radar...) there are ways of reporting this that are difficult for anybody to sweep under the carpet. We are required to do this.
Many moons ago towers would not approve intersection departures, now they do. It can be demonstrated that an intersection departure involves more risk than using the full length, but pilots & ATC can justify this (before the Coroner if neccessary) as the actions of a reasonable person.
The same applies here. I follow the procedures that somebody else has established as safe and I am protected by the deep pockets of that somebody.
