can i comply
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Here's what MATS Pt 1 has to say:
c) The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot. There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors.
I struggle to work out how the second sentence is consistent with the first. Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
Pilotho - Whilst not wanting to speak for anyone else, I think what the majority of GA (General Aviation) pilots would say is that in anything but CAS (Controlled Airspace) then CAT (Commercial Air Transport) should not be assumed to have priority and any necessary deviations for any aircraft should be requested not instructed. Give reasons if appropriate.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
c) The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot. There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors.
I struggle to work out how the second sentence is consistent with the first. Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?
I struggle to work out how the second sentence is consistent with the first. Why would there be "tactical planning" if it were not for separation, and why would a pilot request vectors if not for separation from traffic the controller has on his tube but the pilot hasn't seen?
As for a pilot requesting vectors, how about vectors to a field if the pilot was lost?
On the general subject of the thread:
Interestingly, we (and others) heard on the radio that GA traffic were having difficulty maintaining VMC and asking for an alternate routing. This was denied them, as by that point the safe route would have taken them into the ATZ.
When I called to to say I would be passing clear of the ATZ on the safe side, the ATCO refused that too
When I called to to say I would be passing clear of the ATZ on the safe side, the ATCO refused that too
There is no requirement for a pilot to accept vectors
FFF
---------------
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
Bookworm's quote:
In any case, where safety is concerned, the correct thing to do is to tell the controller what you are doing and why (e.g. "routing to the east of your ATZ to maintain VMC"). Where such action would take you inside controlled airspace without a clearance, I would leave it until an absolute last resort - but outside controlled airspace, I don't see that the controller could complain.
FFF
---------------
In any case, where safety is concerned, the correct thing to do is to tell the controller what you are doing and why (e.g. "routing to the east of your ATZ to maintain VMC"). Where such action would take you inside controlled airspace without a clearance, I would leave it until an absolute last resort - but outside controlled airspace, I don't see that the controller could complain.
FFF
---------------
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 1
From: On the wireless...
I never said it wasn't. What isn't helpful is controllers reversing the rules in Class G for their own convenience. Until they get their Class D they shouldn't pretend it is. Small wonder that pilots get confused.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 1
From: On the wireless...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 407
Likes: 9
From: UK
Of course you are not legally obliged to follow ATC instructions outside CAS, but IMHO it is common sense to do so, and ATCOs CAN EXPECT YOU TO DO SO unless you say. From another part of MATS Pt 1 (CAP493, Manual of Air Traffic Services), Section 1.4.2 p157:
[My emphasis.] Of course you could get into a long debate with the ATCO about the instruction not being legally binding, but for me discretion is the better part of valour, where valour might mean being hit by a 737.
1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise. Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
I've several times bimbled over Kent, talking to Manston, and been asked (politely) to restrict my climb or to adjust my heading to avoid inbound B747 or similar - this in the open FIR. I've always complied (sometimes including telling them that will make me IFR, but happy to do that).
The quid pro quo is that I've then received an excellent RIS for the next part of my trip. No harm done, everyone happy.
I think Manston's radar is u/s at the moment anyway
The quid pro quo is that I've then received an excellent RIS for the next part of my trip. No harm done, everyone happy.
I think Manston's radar is u/s at the moment anyway
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
From: South East
Basically, you are responsible for the safety of your aircraft. If you are not happy because it may put you at risk, ie cloud etc. Then tell the ATCO.
As was said before, the ATCO would not ask you to do anything just for the hell of it.
If you are in contact with an ATSU, the controller will assume you will comply with his/her instructions. As VFR, 'YOU' are responsible for separation from IFR traffic once traffic info. has been passed in class G. But the ATCO may give routing instructions to deconflict you.
Even IFR traffic in class G do not 'have' to comply with ATC, but they would be ill-advised not to if receiving a service from an Approach control or RADAR unit (ie FIS, RIS, RAS)
remember, outside CAS 'Although these services are advisory in nature as the airspace is not controlled, participating flights are expected to comply with ATC instructions'*
*ENR 1.1 GENERAL RULES
ENR 1.1.2 CLASS G AIRSPACE
As was said before, the ATCO would not ask you to do anything just for the hell of it.
If you are in contact with an ATSU, the controller will assume you will comply with his/her instructions. As VFR, 'YOU' are responsible for separation from IFR traffic once traffic info. has been passed in class G. But the ATCO may give routing instructions to deconflict you.
Even IFR traffic in class G do not 'have' to comply with ATC, but they would be ill-advised not to if receiving a service from an Approach control or RADAR unit (ie FIS, RIS, RAS)
remember, outside CAS 'Although these services are advisory in nature as the airspace is not controlled, participating flights are expected to comply with ATC instructions'*
*ENR 1.1 GENERAL RULES
ENR 1.1.2 CLASS G AIRSPACE
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
An ATCO shouldn't vector VFR traffic in any case without specifically requesting the pilot to advise if they are unable to maintain VMC. I'd be particularly careful in case the VFR pilot was be a low-hours student who is unused to radar vectors, and may then become unsure of position etc. If you operate in the FIR it is essentially up to both pilots to see and avoid each other (unless the IFR is on a RAS, in which case he should be vectored to remain clear of observed traffic). Outside CAS you're entitled to do pretty much what you want, as long as you comply with the ANO...
However, were you operating in the vicinity of a published instrument approach outside CAS? If you peruse the books of AIRPROX reports, there have been several over the years in which VFR traffic has done so, and come into sometimes very close proximity to IFR traffic on a procedure at least noted on the AIP charts (albeit often without radar monitoring). Given the danger to both aircraft on these occasions, and the subsequent investigation and general stress for the pilot(s), a radar vector away from the approach sounds like a much less stressful option (obviously subject to my first sentence, and that routeing not then putting you towards cloud or terrain). Can't remember where a reminder was published about this, think it was featured in a GASIL some time back.
However, were you operating in the vicinity of a published instrument approach outside CAS? If you peruse the books of AIRPROX reports, there have been several over the years in which VFR traffic has done so, and come into sometimes very close proximity to IFR traffic on a procedure at least noted on the AIP charts (albeit often without radar monitoring). Given the danger to both aircraft on these occasions, and the subsequent investigation and general stress for the pilot(s), a radar vector away from the approach sounds like a much less stressful option (obviously subject to my first sentence, and that routeing not then putting you towards cloud or terrain). Can't remember where a reminder was published about this, think it was featured in a GASIL some time back.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Given the danger to both aircraft on these occasions, and the subsequent investigation and general stress for the pilot(s), a radar vector away from the approach sounds like a much less stressful option (obviously subject to my first sentence, and that routeing not then putting you towards cloud or terrain).
