Zone Infringements - why ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warped Factor,
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
The quote is from TC_LTN who included it a few posts back.
The reference I believe is MATS Part 1 but TC_LTN can confirm that I am sure.
No point in trying to comply with the above with regard to level restrictions when the aircraft you are talking to does not have and is not required to have a certified calibrated altimeter.
The only thing that a pilot is required to do in Class D airspace when VFR height wise acording to the ICAO rules is to remain 1000ft befow cloud and that is done using the eyeball not an altimeter. According to the airspace requirements there is no requirement to separate VFR from anything so why issue a level restriction ever unless one part of the CAA told you to?
So as I said, the airworthiness people are allowing aircraft to fly in airspace categories and under flight rules that on the face of it work - you steer clear of cloud and avoid everyone visually - who cares if your altimeter is out by a bit?!. Unfortunately the ATS standards end of the CAA are probably not aware that anyone is allowed to fly with uncertified altimeters and have not made any allowances for that. Not to mention the airspace designers who expect all aircraft to be able to use an accurate altimeter to avoid vertical airspace boundaries.
Don't get hung up on the idea - it is simply another posibility for airspace infringements.
Regards,
DFC
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
The quote is from TC_LTN who included it a few posts back.
The reference I believe is MATS Part 1 but TC_LTN can confirm that I am sure.
No point in trying to comply with the above with regard to level restrictions when the aircraft you are talking to does not have and is not required to have a certified calibrated altimeter.
The only thing that a pilot is required to do in Class D airspace when VFR height wise acording to the ICAO rules is to remain 1000ft befow cloud and that is done using the eyeball not an altimeter. According to the airspace requirements there is no requirement to separate VFR from anything so why issue a level restriction ever unless one part of the CAA told you to?
So as I said, the airworthiness people are allowing aircraft to fly in airspace categories and under flight rules that on the face of it work - you steer clear of cloud and avoid everyone visually - who cares if your altimeter is out by a bit?!. Unfortunately the ATS standards end of the CAA are probably not aware that anyone is allowed to fly with uncertified altimeters and have not made any allowances for that. Not to mention the airspace designers who expect all aircraft to be able to use an accurate altimeter to avoid vertical airspace boundaries.
Don't get hung up on the idea - it is simply another posibility for airspace infringements.
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC,
No hang-ups here apart from when incorrect information about the work I do on a daily basis is propagated.
I'm not involved in the certification of aeroplanes so I don't know what the requirements are for calibrating and certifying altimeters.
I am a licensed atco and atc examiner though and work in Class A and D regularly, and your previous statement that the CAA require me to separate IFR from VFR in Class D (or to pretend it's actually Class C as you put it) vertically by 1,000ft is simply wrong.
There is no such requirement or directive from the CAA, end of story.
WF.
No hang-ups here apart from when incorrect information about the work I do on a daily basis is propagated.
I'm not involved in the certification of aeroplanes so I don't know what the requirements are for calibrating and certifying altimeters.
I am a licensed atco and atc examiner though and work in Class A and D regularly, and your previous statement that the CAA require me to separate IFR from VFR in Class D (or to pretend it's actually Class C as you put it) vertically by 1,000ft is simply wrong.
There is no such requirement or directive from the CAA, end of story.
WF.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wraped Factor,
I can guarantee that your response to a VFR flight making a request to cross your class D zone or CTA through the same area that you are vectoring inbound IFR flights will not be met with an automatic - cleared to cross VFR, traffic information.......
If it is can you let us know where this unique UK CTR/CTA is!
On the other hand if you operate as every other UK CTR then you will perhaps through vertical separation or perhaps through specific routings that ensure some form of lateral separation restrict the profile of the VFR flight to build in some form of separation from the IFR flight.
Separating VFR from IFR is only done in class C or above - thus as soon as you restrict a VFR flight because of an IFR flight and use the words separation, you have left the realms of Cass D.
That is how it is done in practice. It is not my interpretation of anything. It is simply quoting what TC_LTN said above and based on experience. If it is not for separation then please explain why the extended routings, the level restrictions and the "remain outside" delays!
As soon as you mention Special VFR, where you are required to separate that argument falls down.
You are quite correct to say that there is no need for you to know about or even care about aircraft airworthiness certification. You should be able to operate on the basis that the CAA look after your ass in that respect......but it seems that you could place a special VFR flight 1000ft below an IFR flight but have a loss of separation - not the pilot's fault and not your fault. You still have had a loss of separation though.
Overall unless every aircraft is required to have a certified and calibrated altimeter, the CAA can not assume that pilots will not infringe vertical airspace boundaries. Since many uncertified altimeters are in aircraft with no transponder, no one knows how often or to what extent that could be a problem!
Regards,
DFC
I can guarantee that your response to a VFR flight making a request to cross your class D zone or CTA through the same area that you are vectoring inbound IFR flights will not be met with an automatic - cleared to cross VFR, traffic information.......
If it is can you let us know where this unique UK CTR/CTA is!
On the other hand if you operate as every other UK CTR then you will perhaps through vertical separation or perhaps through specific routings that ensure some form of lateral separation restrict the profile of the VFR flight to build in some form of separation from the IFR flight.
Separating VFR from IFR is only done in class C or above - thus as soon as you restrict a VFR flight because of an IFR flight and use the words separation, you have left the realms of Cass D.
That is how it is done in practice. It is not my interpretation of anything. It is simply quoting what TC_LTN said above and based on experience. If it is not for separation then please explain why the extended routings, the level restrictions and the "remain outside" delays!
As soon as you mention Special VFR, where you are required to separate that argument falls down.
You are quite correct to say that there is no need for you to know about or even care about aircraft airworthiness certification. You should be able to operate on the basis that the CAA look after your ass in that respect......but it seems that you could place a special VFR flight 1000ft below an IFR flight but have a loss of separation - not the pilot's fault and not your fault. You still have had a loss of separation though.
Overall unless every aircraft is required to have a certified and calibrated altimeter, the CAA can not assume that pilots will not infringe vertical airspace boundaries. Since many uncertified altimeters are in aircraft with no transponder, no one knows how often or to what extent that could be a problem!
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC,
I may or may not apply a route or altitude restriction to VFR traffic transitting the zone depending on the circumstances but this will not be to necessarily achieve either 1,000ft of vertical or 3nm of lateral separation because most of the time it won't.
The point I took issue with was your claim that the CAA required me to separate IFR from VFR by 1000ft in Class D by treating the airspace as psuedo Class C.
They don't and I don't.
Why does the argument fall down? The separation rules for SVFR, where all traffic must be separated, are clearly stated and are a totally different set of circumstances.
WF.
I may or may not apply a route or altitude restriction to VFR traffic transitting the zone depending on the circumstances but this will not be to necessarily achieve either 1,000ft of vertical or 3nm of lateral separation because most of the time it won't.
The point I took issue with was your claim that the CAA required me to separate IFR from VFR by 1000ft in Class D by treating the airspace as psuedo Class C.
They don't and I don't.
As soon as you mention Special VFR, where you are required to separate that argument falls down.
WF.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Interesting to know that you have vast experience of EVERY CTR on the UK. Well done you.
Yes, traffic information has to be given - but that also has to be given to the IFR departure - which means calling the Tower Controller, who has to give it to the outbound IFR. ALSO remember that the IFR can request Traffic Avoidance if so desired.
Take the LCY Zone for example - off runway 28 the IFRs turn right routeing intitially up the Lea Valley area. This is where all the singles ask to be routed south bound - and the zone boundary is only 4nm away from the runway. (Not many get refused - and if they do it is more about the workload of the tower controller.)
Because of the short distance, a VFR flight may be held initially outside so that the IFR may get the Traffic Info - but not for separation purposes.
DFC - I have said this before about you. A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS. You are probably an expert in your own field - but stay in it and stop pontificating about something you clearly do not know lots about.
P.S. What has this got to do with the original topic?? EVEN if the majority of the Altimeters in the UK are wrong, Zones (by their definition) have a base level on the SFC. Therefore, zone busts are almost exclusively on a lateral basis.
On the other hand if you operate as every other UK CTR then you will perhaps through vertical separation or perhaps through specific routings that ensure some form of lateral separation restrict the profile of the VFR flight to build in some form of separation from the IFR flight.
Yes, traffic information has to be given - but that also has to be given to the IFR departure - which means calling the Tower Controller, who has to give it to the outbound IFR. ALSO remember that the IFR can request Traffic Avoidance if so desired.
Take the LCY Zone for example - off runway 28 the IFRs turn right routeing intitially up the Lea Valley area. This is where all the singles ask to be routed south bound - and the zone boundary is only 4nm away from the runway. (Not many get refused - and if they do it is more about the workload of the tower controller.)
Because of the short distance, a VFR flight may be held initially outside so that the IFR may get the Traffic Info - but not for separation purposes.
DFC - I have said this before about you. A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS. You are probably an expert in your own field - but stay in it and stop pontificating about something you clearly do not know lots about.
P.S. What has this got to do with the original topic?? EVEN if the majority of the Altimeters in the UK are wrong, Zones (by their definition) have a base level on the SFC. Therefore, zone busts are almost exclusively on a lateral basis.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALSO remember that the IFR can request Traffic Avoidance if so desired
Now that is my field! and having passed through most of the UK Zones, I have yet to be given traffic information on a VFR flight that was restricted to 1000ft below my cleared level. Personally, I don't think it is necessary. However, it is ATC who have restricted the VFR guy when Class D specifically says - no separation. The restriction on the VFR flight is not the fault of the Commercial Operator - so stop whinging that VFR flights are getting restricted because of the rise in comercial flights at XXX regional.
- You blame us for VFR delays and we blame you for all delays!
As for traffic avoidance - you should remember that Traffic Avoidance and separation are two totally separate things. If are required to separate us then we expect a minimum of the required separation. Traffic avoidance - which we request from you on VFR flights (not the other way round) smply means that we will not collide.
Can't think of when we last got VFR traffic info in the Manch or Gatwick CTR/CTA (ClassD) unless it was an infringement! Either there is none or we simply are not told?
The link with the original post is that;
a) By operating more restrictive practices than Class D requires (Pseudo Class C) ATC force many VFR flights to route round the edge increasing the posibility of an infringement and increasing the posibility of collisions at choke points. and;
b) There is little point in looking at Zone infringements without looking at the many CTA infringements as well. If one simply wanted to stop zone infringements then one could simply cruise at CTA levels and then bust the CTA - no more zone infringements but lots more CTA infringements.
c) When ATC restrict a VFR flight to 1000 below our cleared level, we don't get traffic info. We also don't expect that aircraft to be a great deal closer to us than the pilot is aware of simply because the CAA allows the pilot to use an altimeter he picked up as a local junk yard sale and still has bullet holes from world war 2. That is an infringement of the rules for Class D zones!
and while I am at it,
d) The UK VMC minima in a Class D zone is an "infringement" in it's self by allowing VFR flights (UKVMC) to come very close to an IFR flight in cloud. The ICAO VMC criteria does not allow that to happen.
Regards,
DFC
PS, You are probably correct to say that I have not been to every CTR in the UK. Last time I was at one places they were an SRZ! Have you worked in an SRZ Brightling? Do you remember the ruels for those?
Now that is my field! and having passed through most of the UK Zones, I have yet to be given traffic information on a VFR flight that was restricted to 1000ft below my cleared level. Personally, I don't think it is necessary. However, it is ATC who have restricted the VFR guy when Class D specifically says - no separation. The restriction on the VFR flight is not the fault of the Commercial Operator - so stop whinging that VFR flights are getting restricted because of the rise in comercial flights at XXX regional.
- You blame us for VFR delays and we blame you for all delays!
As for traffic avoidance - you should remember that Traffic Avoidance and separation are two totally separate things. If are required to separate us then we expect a minimum of the required separation. Traffic avoidance - which we request from you on VFR flights (not the other way round) smply means that we will not collide.
Can't think of when we last got VFR traffic info in the Manch or Gatwick CTR/CTA (ClassD) unless it was an infringement! Either there is none or we simply are not told?
The link with the original post is that;
a) By operating more restrictive practices than Class D requires (Pseudo Class C) ATC force many VFR flights to route round the edge increasing the posibility of an infringement and increasing the posibility of collisions at choke points. and;
b) There is little point in looking at Zone infringements without looking at the many CTA infringements as well. If one simply wanted to stop zone infringements then one could simply cruise at CTA levels and then bust the CTA - no more zone infringements but lots more CTA infringements.
c) When ATC restrict a VFR flight to 1000 below our cleared level, we don't get traffic info. We also don't expect that aircraft to be a great deal closer to us than the pilot is aware of simply because the CAA allows the pilot to use an altimeter he picked up as a local junk yard sale and still has bullet holes from world war 2. That is an infringement of the rules for Class D zones!
and while I am at it,
d) The UK VMC minima in a Class D zone is an "infringement" in it's self by allowing VFR flights (UKVMC) to come very close to an IFR flight in cloud. The ICAO VMC criteria does not allow that to happen.
Regards,
DFC
PS, You are probably correct to say that I have not been to every CTR in the UK. Last time I was at one places they were an SRZ! Have you worked in an SRZ Brightling? Do you remember the ruels for those?
