VFR Separation question

tuwood

tuwood

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
363
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name
Display name:
tuwood
I am always watching the skies now that I'm learning to fly and seem to find interesting questions as a result.
I was walking my dog this morning and saw a Cessna flying overhead at ~1500' or so AGL (just a guess). Then I heard a helicopter coming from a different direction and they both essentially turned directly towards each other. I did the wtf and then figured I better get the phone out "just in case", but figured they'd be fine.
Ultimately the Heli was lower than the Cessna, so they cleared by probably 500' or more.
Here's the video:

Anyway my random question from this is in regard to VFR separation. Is there a set distance that we're supposed to maintain separation or is simply that we're supposed to just "maintain separation"?
I did some googling and only found things referencing that we need to maintain separation, but didn't have any set distances other than cloud separation.
Obviously with the east/west VFR altitudes they're set to assist us with 1000' separation, but those aren't really applicable near an airport environment.
 
You will be learning this: VFR traffic is at the 500 foot intervals: 2500, 3500, 4500, where IFR traffic is at the thousands 3000, 4000, 5000. Eastbound traffic uses odd: VFR 5500, 7500, and so on. IFR East 5000,700. West traffic uses even: 4500, 6500 and IFR 4000, 6000.
 
I had something like that just the other day while flying my PA28. ATC advised me of a jet at 3000 ft set to pass over me from my 9 o'clock and instructed me to maintain 2500 ft. It was a big jet too... very strange watching it cross over me like that! But we maintained a safe distance apart. I don't know if there are any set minimums, but I imagine there are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 500 ft.
 
Last edited:
Short answer is it's your job is to "see and avoid..." whether you miss by 100 feet or a mile... you did your job... My club recently installed gtn750 and ADSB... the number of airplanes flashing on the display that I never see has become quite disconcerting ... Keep your head on a swivel and get your passengers to do the same...
 
There is no set distance. Just right of way rules and common practices like how to enter and fly the pattern. If a plane comes close, just avoid it using whatever means you have at your disposal. Most collisions are at or near an airport.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I had something like that just the other while flying my PA28. ATC advised me of a jet at 3000 ft set to pass over me from my 9 o'clock and instructed me to maintain 2500 ft. It was a big jet too... very strange watching it cross over me like that! But we maintained a safe distance apart. I don't know if there are any set minimums, but I imagine there are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 500 ft.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I always feel fairly safe in the Class C airspace I'm training in due to radar and transponder use. Obviously it's still up to me to see and avoid, but it's handy. I'm flying a glass panel too, so I see the traffic alerts on my display and it shows me where everybody is at. I still have a hard time finding them outside though, even when I know where they're supposed to be.
My assumption was that these guys weren't under tower control, but they could have been in contact with departure/approach for flight following.
Here's where I was standing (blue dot) from a chart standpoint. Omaha (KOMA) and Offutt (KOFF) are the two Class C's just to the east.
I was looking to the SW, so the Heli was likely coming from KMLE and the Cessna was coming from the East. I'm guessing he was splitting the two Class C's under the shelf.
IMG_4246.PNG
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I had something like that just the other while flying my PA28. ATC advised me of a jet at 3000 ft set to pass over me from my 9 o'clock and instructed me to maintain 2500 ft. It was a big jet too... very strange watching it cross over me like that! But we maintained a safe distance apart. I don't know if there are any set minimums, but I imagine there are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 500 ft.
Click to expand...
If we're talking separation under positive control, ATC has prescribed altitutude separation: 500ft is minimum for VFR traffic, 1000ft/3mi for IFR traffic.
 
EminiTrader said:
You will be learning this: VFR traffic is at the 500 foot intervals: 2500, 3500, 4500, where IFR traffic is at the thousands 3000, 4000, 5000. Eastbound traffic uses odd: VFR 5500, 7500, and so on. IFR East 5000,700. West traffic uses even: 4500, 6500 and IFR 4000, 6000.
Click to expand...
...with exceptions indicated by 91.159, which would obviously apply to the OP's aircraft sighting based on his estimates of altitude.

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:
(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—
(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or
(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).
(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.
Click to expand...
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I had something like that just the other day while flying my PA28. ATC advised me of a jet at 3000 ft set to pass over me from my 9 o'clock and instructed me to maintain 2500 ft. It was a big jet too... very strange watching it cross over me like that! But we maintained a safe distance apart. I don't know if there are any set minimums, but I imagine there are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 500 ft.
Click to expand...

Be careful around those big jets. A Cessna 150 that was hangared across from me was pretty much destroyed by wake turbulence from a jet. The pilot landed it all right, but the insurance company totaled it.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I had something like that just the other day while flying my PA28. ATC advised me of a jet at 3000 ft set to pass over me from my 9 o'clock and instructed me to maintain 2500 ft. It was a big jet too... very strange watching it cross over me like that! But we maintained a safe distance apart. I don't know if there are any set minimums, but I imagine there are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 500 ft.
Click to expand...

500 feet below a big jet? Don't do that again. You risk a wake turbulence encounter.

Especially if you're in a high wing and can't see it.
 
If you're not in class B there's no VFR-to-VFR separation, period. I've had ATC not tell me about a twin that I certainly would have struck (I was particularlly looking for him as the Zaon was chirping away). We were converging ant near right angles, same altitude. Closest I've come enroute.
 
Depends on where you are. If you're talking VFR vs VFR separation is provided only in TRSAs and class B while receiving basic radar service (FF).

Other airspace D / E surface areas apply separation for SVFR vs SVFR / IFR and class C will provide separation for VFR vs IFR. It varies but you're usually looking at either visual sep, 500 ft vertically or 1.5 miles horizontally.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
500 feet below a big jet? Don't do that again. You risk a wake turbulence encounter.
Especially if you're in a high wing and can't see it.
Click to expand...

PA28 is low wing. As for don't do that again - I did exactly what I was instructed to do by ATC, although I know I can always refuse to do that. I was exiting traffic pattern heading north and he was entering from the west. I was right at 2400 ft and, according to ATC, he was 3000. I fly on the heels of these jets almost every time I go up and ATC always keeps us adequately separated (while advising about wake turbulence). It's a very busy airport. If I had thought it wasn't safe, I would have requested to descend and/or change my heading. I imagine ATC would have advised the same if they also thought it was unsafe.
 
MAKG1 said:
500 feet below a big jet? Don't do that again. You risk a wake turbulence encounter.

Especially if you're in a high wing and can't see it.
Click to expand...

Depends. 500 ft directly below isn't an issue. Did it all the time in Bagram looking up at the bellies of C-5s, C-17s, IL-76, etc.

Now, 500 ft below and a couple miles behind them? Look out.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
PA28 is low wing. As for don't do that again - I did exactly what I was instructed to do by ATC, although I know I can always refuse to do that. I was exiting traffic pattern heading north and he was entering from the west. I was right at 2400 ft and, according to ATC, he was 3000. I fly on the heels of these jets almost every time I go up and ATC always keeps us adequately separated (while advising about wake turbulence). It's a very busy airport. If I had thought it wasn't safe, I would have requested to descend and/or change my heading. I imagine ATC would have advised the same if they also thought it was unsafe.
Click to expand...

The first time you encounter a wake, I think you'll change your tune a bit....

If you were indeed directly below, that's probably OK.

But ATC absolutely will tell you to do something unsafe. Not intentionally, but they don't have all the variables. I've certainly gotten instructions to fly into clouds while VFR. I've had Tower instruct me to cut off another airplane (it appeared to be tail number confusion). I've been "cleared" to take off into a flock of geese.

"Unable" should be part of your vocabulary.
 
MAKG1 said:
The first time you encounter a wake, I think you'll change your tune a bit....

If you were indeed directly below, that's probably OK.

But ATC absolutely will tell you to do something unsafe. Not intentionally, but they don't have all the variables. I've certainly gotten instructions to fly into clouds while VFR. I've had Tower instruct me to cut off another airplane (it appeared to be tail number confusion). I've been "cleared" to take off into a flock of geese.

"Unable" should be part of your vocabulary.
Click to expand...


Oh, ATC has already told me to do a couple unsafe things. Such as land on top of another plane (mistiming + busy day + training new ATCer). Of course, they've also had my back numerous times as well. To determine good calls vs bad, I employ a little trick I learned years back called "using my best judgement." It keeps me alive.
 
That video doesn't look uncomfortably close. I've been intentionally close to other airplanes and unintentionally as well. The required separation is only such that we don't swap paint. I mean, if there was a reason to of some kind and it was coordinated ahead of time, even that'd be legal.
 
mkosmo said:
That video doesn't look uncomfortably close. I've been intentionally close to other airplanes and unintentionally as well.
Click to expand...
Same here. A lot closer. Watched a Cessna cross about 50 feet directly overhead - got a nice view of the tires through my skylight. I doubt that he/she ever saw me.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Same here. A lot closer. Watched a Cessna cross about 50 feet directly overhead - got a nice view of the tires through my skylight. I doubt that he/she ever saw me.
Click to expand...

I've had two times when I could count the rivets out the window on the other aircraft... would prefer not to repeat either time again, if at all possible.

The video doesn't bother me at all, other than the "sensationalist" title on it at YouTube.
 
Yeah, for sure it ultimately wasn't really that close. As it was playing out though, it "looked" very uncomfortable from the ground. They were both flying relatively parallel paths and I stopped to watch them both. Then the Cessna turned to the left in a direct intercept path to the heli. They were a good half mile or more apart when I saw them converging rapidly and that's when I got very uncomfortable hoping that one or the other saw each other. Then after they passed it was obvious they were plenty clear and it wasn't that big of a deal.
 
tuwood said:
Then after they passed it was obvious they were plenty clear and it wasn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble understanding why post it then? Why title it as you did when it clearly wasn't? If anything, you're feeding the scared-of-GA folks and doing a disservice to GA.
 
I titled it as a "VFR Separation question" because I wondered what the separation was supposed to be. I'm not sure where that was doing a disservice to GA.
I often like to frame my questions with as much context as possible versus simply asking "what's the separation supposed to be".
If you're referring to the youtube video it's an unlisted video so the only people seeing it are people in the context of this thread where I linked it.
 
As a pilot in training, I used to cringe at what was apparently safe distances; today, 500' separation does not bother me. I'm more bothered by the occasional aircraft passing of my nose that most likely doesn't even know I'm there, and I have to take evasive action. I once had a C172 or 182 pass of my nose around 4500', guy had like full flaps in, no idea what he was doing and i'm not sure he knew either.

A few flights ago I was headed to KFCI, had a large commercial jet leaving Richmond right in front of me, controller vectored me around him (not sure why, I'm going all of 110 knots), and when the controller told him he had 500' vertical separation he said "only 500'?!"...it made me laugh, as he was below me, off my nose, going much faster, and the size of a few barns end to end...if I can't miss that I probably shouldn't be flying.
 
tuwood said:
If you're referring to the youtube video it's an unlisted video so the only people seeing it are people in the context of this thread where I linked it.
Click to expand...
That's what I was referring to. This is a public forum.
 
tuwood said:
If you're referring to the youtube video it's an unlisted video so the only people seeing it are people in the context of this thread where I linked it.
Click to expand...

mkosmo said:
That's what I was referring to. This is a public forum.
Click to expand...

This site is nearly instantly indexed by Google, and searching any topic mentioned here as a Google search will usually show a link to here in the top-ten. Trying to "hide" something here, even a link to an "unlisted" video, is total folly. Just lettin' ya know... go try it on a few topics and see... probably hit your video link in a single search ...
 
denverpilot said:
This site is nearly instantly indexed by Google, and searching any topic mentioned here as a Google search will usually show a link to here in the top-ten. Trying to "hide" something here, even a link to an "unlisted" video, is total folly. Just lettin' ya know... go try it on a few topics and see... probably hit your video link in a single search ...
Click to expand...

I guess I'm still struggling to understand where this topic is a disservice to GA. Is it the name of the youtube video that you guys are worried about?
Not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to understand. :)
Assuming that's the case I changed the name of the video for you.
 
tuwood said:
I guess I'm still struggling to understand where this topic is a disservice to GA. Is it the name of the youtube video that you guys are worried about?
Not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to understand. :)
Assuming that's the case I changed the name of the video for you.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else but I found the name kinda silly. It reads like one of the many sensationalist "headlines" in "news" articles.

I'm not hung up on it or anything though. In the second post, I was just explaining the futility of thinking anything posted here isn't going to be found in a lot of Google searches right away. Google loves this place.
 
denverpilot said:
I can't speak for anyone else but I found the name kinda silly. It reads like one of the many sensationalist "headlines" in "news" articles.

I'm not hung up on it or anything though. In the second post, I was just explaining the futility of thinking anything posted here isn't going to be found in a lot of Google searches right away. Google loves this place.
Click to expand...

ok, makes sense and I get it. Yeah certainly wasn't going for sensational. Kind of important to make the video public on google if that's my goal. lol
I actually uploaded it from my cellphone and I was still thinking it was pretty close after watching it with my naked eye in realtime. However, after I watched the video I realized it wasn't very close at all and then posed the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top