VFR traffic under the approach

[Dave Siciliano]

Are you sure? Notice that in the opening post, a pilot who did not have the right of way complained, both here and on the radio, about the presence of an aircraft that did have the right of way.
============================

That is simply not the case Richard, and I've tried to explain that more than once. My communication was directed to tower. The VFR pilot got on there, but I asked tower how this could happen. Between approach and tower, somehow I was sequenced down the approach right onto where the VFR pilot was. Why would approach do this? Why would tower allow it? Yes, I asked how a plane could be there and tower answered it was VFR.

Through this discussion, it's became clear how it could happen. At one point on the approach TIS showed the VFR aircraft 400 feet below me and I was still IMC. How can this happen? Approach alerted me for the first time when the VFR traffic was showing 400 feet below me; I had asked about it before and they said it was VFR traffic, but they did not give me a traffic alert until TIS showed it was 400 feet below where I elected to level out and get in front. Of course approach doesn't know I'm IMC; they did ask and I replied I was IMC.

I was upset when this happened. I didn't blame the VFR pilot; although, I've been accused of that several times. I thought it would be better if the VFR pilot had more situational awareness, but it isn't required. I questioned how it could be allowed to happen before I was visual on the approach where I was responsible for separation. How can I be responsible for separation in controlled airspace when IMC? I thought approach and tower had that responsibility.

I've tried to clarify this before if one reads through the thread.

Best,

Dave

 

[steingar]

I won't comment on the other misguided stuff you've posted here.

But it's very telling that you don't think flying is safe. It probably isn't for someone with your attitude. For others, it's the safest form of transportation out there. It takes a lot of training, the right plane for the mission, and a willingness to learn to achieve this level of safety. You don't appear to have any of these factors working in your favor.

Felix

We're simply offering suggestions that can make us ALL safer. Your "I'm going to stick my middle finger up and my head in the sand" attitude doesn't help anyone, yourself included.

My suggestion was that some IFR procedures can make YOU safer. Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as anyone says "IFR" your finger goes up and your head goes in the sand because you have an unnatural hate towards IFR operations for some reason. I just don't get that.

No, it just means that he was attempting to share some information that you may not have known in regards to making all of us safer. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but Dave is/was the safety officer for a large and successful flying club. He's trying to help you. Pull your head out of the sand and listen.

Some people are touchy.

This is really weird. I usually have a seriously thick skin. I hang out in the Spin Zone all the time, and have only ever once been offended (when a poster unapologetically denigrated my profession). I enjoy the back and forth. I especially enjoy learning from those with more advanced technical knowledge than me. I try to be the first to admit I'm wrong, and I hope I succeed more than I fail.

However, I am just now learning that if there is one thing that will set my pot to boil, it's when individuals designate themselves as arbiters of wisdom. I consider this quite self-righteous and arrogant. Apparently, that makes me quite touchy. And I am really, really steamed. I really don't like beign called a bad pilot. Heck, I don't like being called a bad anything, except maybe liar and speller.

One can never completely avoid risk, unless one chooses not to live. In my world view things like running out of gas, mechanical dysfunction, and accidental encounter with IMC are far more threatening than a mid air collision with a descending IFR aircraft. Midairs are rare. All that other stuff is more common. Thus I arrange my priorities.

This thread has number of individuals who feel that more energy should be put into avoiding a potential midair collision than I do. Perhaps it is more true where they live than where I live. This difference of opinion doesn't make them stupid, or me careless, or anything else. It does not make them better pilots, or me worse. The IFR rating is the only indicator that they may be better pilots.

I will differ violently and vocally with anyone who thinks flying GA is safe. I do apologize for my previous verbiage, I suppose one can believe flying safe if they ignore reality, which many people do. Being unrealistic is not necessarily stupid, and smart people do it all the time.

Our accident record is horrendous, and does not lend itself to the interpretation that flying GA is "safe". However, I would go a bit farther myself because I firmly believe that there are inherent risks in flying relatively fragile craft at high rates of speed. I do not think that absolutely every accident is some form of pilot induced error, sometimes Murphy just takes his share. But I freely admit, that is only my belief.

 

[Palmpilot]

Through this discussion, it's became clear how it could happen. At one point on the approach TIS showed the VFR aircraft 400 feet below me and I was still IMC. How can this happen?

If you previously mentioned that he was only 400 feet below you while you were still in IMC, I overlooked it. If that was the case, it sounds like he was operating illegally unless he was in class G airspace. Even then, if he was over a congested area, one could argue that he violated the minimum altitude rules depending on how far from the airport he was.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Let's not forget one can have liability if full details of something is posted in writing and they committed any wrong. So I'll turn to a very similar event a friend had and provide more detail.

Reflecting back upon this, he was coming down the localizer and at some point before SAMOS, the FAF, did see a plane on TIS below and ahead of him. Of course, he was doing a lot of other things flying single pilot while IMC. This is a busy step-down approach. I had picked up some freezing rain early on near BARET, but was pretty much in rain and light to moderate chop from there down to near SAMOS. Then, just light chop and IMC. Just before SAMOS, he saw on TIS the other plane was 1,000 feet below and in front of him. He called approach and asked what the traffic was below and in front of him. Approach said VFR traffic below; are you still IMC? He replied he was IMC and could he keep descending. Approach said he could descent at his discretion.

He continued down more focused on the other traffic and getting prepared for the next step-down on the approach. At 500 feet above the other plane on TIS, he added power and began to level out. At some point, after that Approach said "traffic alert". He saw 400 feet on TIS as he got his descent checked with the intent of pulling ahead of the traffic below. He was not comfortable descending lower.

Approach asked if he was still IMC. He replied affirmative. Approach told him it would issue missed instructions to standby. He saw he was then ahead of the other traffic on TIS and began to descend again. As he got to about 3,000 feet over the airport, he broke out of instrument conditions and could see the airport below. He called approach to report he was visual as they called him with instructions; they blocked each other's transmissions. He got back on and called VMC; approach asked him to standby to see if tower would take him. They did, and he began a circle to land on the south side of the airport.

That is when he asked tower if they had seen there was VFR traffic below him on the approach. They said they had; it was VFR traffic. That's when he said it would have been nice not to have that traffic right under him on the approach. They didn't respond.

The comment was to question how this could happen when I was IMC; not to berate anyone. He didn't understand how the VFR guy could be right under him while he was IMC and still be cleared to descend. Moreover, he was not happy that approach had warned him so late. They were following the other traffic and should have sequenced him differently; asked him to hold; or told him to expect to make a missed approach. He didn't understand them just letting him descend with traffic that close under him; never happened to him before. Unless, they thought he would be visual by then and could maintain his own visual clearance.

The VFR fella wasn't talking to anyone and may not have ever known he was there. He wasn't required to, but it would have been very helpful if he or she was. It seemed to him the VFR plane wasn't as far below the clouds as he should have been. Even 500 feet would be cutting it close here with my friend coming down over 700 fpm.

Sorry for the disjointed explanation. This came in pieces as I could get it down from him while traveling and getting on here between things.

I didn't bring this up to blame anyone. Just to point out what can happen and that each party should keep this in mind when approaching in these conditions. Sorry I didn't think trough and post it more clearly the first time. As I've said many times, things just don't come through as clearly in an e-mail as in person where we get much more information come through visually. With potential liability issues, you can see why anyone might not want to provide complete details here.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Richard: I had tried to send you a PM but the site stated you weren't accepting them.

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

Dave, It's interesting they didn't respond to you on the VFR traffic they were aware of. Surely, they had been advised some time before this time that you were on the approach and headed their way.

I do wonder what the tower could have done differently. Have you considered writing to the tower chief and asking for an explanation of their procedures allowing a VFR to continue with aircraft inbound while IFR in IMC? If nothing else, it might spark a concern for how things are done.

I can't imagine this happening at Austin.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Ken:

I really haven't written it up. I really didn't want to post this much detail here but saw folks kept getting worked up over what I did post. One has to remember, when putting anything like this in writing if it's ever scrutanized by regulatory folks I might have done something wrong and could have a problem. I tried to post enough on here to get a reasonable discussion going being general in nature, but folks kept poking at details <g> Many folks were also pointing fingers and taking offense; that's not the purpose or intent of any of these posts. So, hopefully, relating the story of my friend that had a very similar experience will give everyone enough detail to determine what the danger was and what might have been done by each party to try to avoid this in the future.

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

Ken:

I really haven't written it up. I really didn't want to post this much detail here but saw folks kept getting worked up over what I did post. One has to remember, when putting anything like this in writing if it's ever scrutanized by regulatory folks I might have done something wrong and could have a problem. I tried to post enough on here to get a reasonable discussion going being general in nature, but folks kept poking at details <g> Many folks were also pointing fingers and taking offense; that's not the purpose or intent of any of these posts. So, hopefully, relating the story of my friend that had a very similar experience will give everyone enough detail to determine what the danger was and what might have been done by each party to try to avoid this in the future.

Best,

Dave

I understand. Some did get pretty worked up. A few of those same folks would probably flip out at my airport. Then again, I think it's a trip to share the runway with 737s and MD-80s. It teaches ya to have respect.

 

[kkoran]

Let's not forget one can have liability if full details of something is posted in writing and they committed any wrong. So I'll turn to a very similar event a friend had and provide more detail.

Reflecting back upon this, he was coming down the localizer and at some point before SAMOS, the FAF, did see a plane on TIS below and ahead of him. Of course, he was doing a lot of other things flying single pilot while IMC. This is a busy step-down approach. I had picked up some freezing rain early on near BARET, but was pretty much in rain and light to moderate chop from there down to near SAMOS. Then, just light chop and IMC. Just before SAMOS, he saw on TIS the other plane was 1,000 feet below and in front of him. He called approach and asked what the traffic was below and in front of him. Approach said VFR traffic below; are you still IMC? He replied he was IMC and could he keep descending. Approach said he could descent at his discretion.

He continued down more focused on the other traffic and getting prepared for the next step-down on the approach. At 500 feet above the other plane on TIS, he added power and began to level out. At some point, after that Approach said "traffic alert". He saw 400 feet on TIS as he got his descent checked with the intent of pulling ahead of the traffic below. He was not comfortable descending lower.

Approach asked if he was still IMC. He replied affirmative. Approach told him it would issue missed instructions to standby. He saw he was then ahead of the other traffic on TIS and began to descend again. As he got to about 3,000 feet over the airport, he broke out of instrument conditions and could see the airport below. He called approach to report he was visual as they called him with instructions; they blocked each other's transmissions. He got back on and called VMC; approach asked him to standby to see if tower would take him. They did, and he began a circle to land on the south side of the airport.

That is when he asked tower if they had seen there was VFR traffic below him on the approach. They said they had; it was VFR traffic. That's when he said it would have been nice not to have that traffic right under him on the approach. They didn't respond.

The comment was to question how this could happen when I was IMC; not to berate anyone. He didn't understand how the VFR guy could be right under him while he was IMC and still be cleared to descend. Moreover, he was not happy that approach had warned him so late. They were following the other traffic and should have sequenced him differently; asked him to hold; or told him to expect to make a missed approach. He didn't understand them just letting him descend with traffic that close under him; never happened to him before. Unless, they thought he would be visual by then and could maintain his own visual clearance.

The VFR fella wasn't talking to anyone and may not have ever known he was there. He wasn't required to, but it would have been very helpful if he or she was. It seemed to him the VFR plane wasn't as far below the clouds as he should have been. Even 500 feet would be cutting it close here with my friend coming down over 700 fpm.

Sorry for the disjointed explanation. This came in pieces as I could get it down from him while traveling and getting on here between things.

I didn't bring this up to blame anyone. Just to point out what can happen and that each party should keep this in mind when approaching in these conditions. Sorry I didn't think trough and post it more clearly the first time. As I've said many times, things just don't come through as clearly in an e-mail as in person where we get much more information come through visually. With potential liability issues, you can see why anyone might not want to provide complete details here.

Best,

Dave

I think much of the frustration stems from false expectations. ATC doesn't separate IFR traffic from VFR traffic in Class E airspace. They issues advisories and, if a controller is aware of of a conflict that, in his opiniion constitutes an imminent threat, issues a safety alert. This is really no different that if someone was flying IFR enroute and ATC issues traffic on a VFR target. If the controller starts to suck up his seat cushion, he can issue a an safety alert or if the pilot wants, he can request avoidance vectors. If ATC had to separate IFR from VFR everywhere, the system would simply break down.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In most cases, an IFR flight's altitude is only restricted by a minimum altitude

Not true - For most of the flight, altitudes are assigned, period. Exceptions would be things like a cruise clearance, or "descend at pilot's discretion" type stuff.

On approaches, you are correct that most of the altitudes listed are minimum altitudes, but that also doesn't clear you to climb to infinity on the approach, either. In fact, I'm not quite sure what it allows, really - I would guess that you either can't climb once you've descended, or you can climb only to the highest altitude listed on the approach course, or to a certain altitude above the airport... Anyone know the answer to this?

I agree. Our focus should be on how everyone, whether operating VFR or IFR, can do the best possible job of accident avoidance.

Bingo.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The comment was to question how this could happen when I was IMC; not to berate anyone. He didn't understand how the VFR guy could be right under him while he was IMC and still be cleared to descend.

A simple, but common misunderstanding of ATC's job.

ATC separates IFR traffic from IFR traffic. Period. Everything else is "as workload allows" or "at controller discretion" yadda yadda yadda but not required. If a controller sees a VFR aircraft on their scope, they are going to assume that the VFR aircraft has the proper cloud clearance requirements, and thus they don't need to issue a traffic alert to the IFR aircraft 500 feet above, because theoretically the fact that there's a VFR aircraft 500 feet below the IFR guy says that the IFR guy should be in the bottom of the clouds, or in the clear.

So, a VFR aircraft that doesn't obey the cloud clearance requirements really circumvents the safety of the system, doubly so if they're not talking to anyone. I really wish this were emphasized to private students.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

However, I am just now learning that if there is one thing that will set my pot to boil, it's when individuals designate themselves as arbiters of wisdom. I consider this quite self-righteous and arrogant. Apparently, that makes me quite touchy. And I am really, really steamed.

Who designated anyone an "arbiter of wisdom?" We're all pilots, sharing good ideas, that some people including yourself want to reject simply because they're somehow associated with the letters "IFR."

I've noticed this "anti-IFR" resentment in a number of VFR pilots, and I simply do not understand it. I also don't understand why there are a few IFR pilots who look down on VFR pilots. It just seems to me that there are a much higher number of the former. What's the deal here? Why do some VFR-only pilots have this reaction to anything designated "IFR"?

This thread has number of individuals who feel that more energy should be put into avoiding a potential midair collision than I do.

Well... I don't fly with under an hour reserve, I file and fly IFR when conditions warrant, and I have some level of trust in the mechanical soundness of the planes that I fly. I don't put a lot of energy into not running out of gas, because it's simple to not run out of gas - Always have a sufficient reserve, period. Always check your fuel quantity before takeoff. Easy. Statistically, the pilot population as a whole runs out of gas more than they run into other airplanes. I'm not gonna run out of gas unless there's a mechanical malfunction.

I guess that makes it MORE likely that if I'm gonna have an accident, it's gonna be a mid-air as opposed to running out of gas. There aren't a whole lot of them, but I've seen enough airplanes up close in the air (and NOT seen other ones that have been less than a mile from me and called as traffic by ATC) to know that most of the safety record WRT mid-airs is pure luck. And I'm not much for relying on pure luck.

I will differ violently and vocally with anyone who thinks flying GA is safe.

It's as safe as we make it. Sure, there are mechanical failures, but the vast majority of GA accidents are pilot error. I feel MUCH safer in an airplane where I have some control than in a car with a bunch of raving idiots within feet of me. In an airplane, I think the worst mechanical issue I've had was a flat tire and I've never had a pilot-related issue, whether the pilot was me or someone else. On the road... Yikes.

It also depends on your definition of "safe." Safe is relative. You could say that being alive is unsafe, because you have a 100% chance of dying from it. Compared to a great many other activities, flying *IS* safe.

You may now "differ violently and vocally." Maybe in a new thread.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not true - For most of the flight, altitudes are assigned, period. Exceptions would be things like a cruise clearance, or "descend at pilot's discretion" type stuff.

You're right. I should have specified approaches in relation to my comments.

On approaches, you are correct that most of the altitudes listed are minimum altitudes, but that also doesn't clear you to climb to infinity on the approach, either. In fact, I'm not quite sure what it allows, really - I would guess that you either can't climb once you've descended, or you can climb only to the highest altitude listed on the approach course, or to a certain altitude above the airport... Anyone know the answer to this?

There was a long discussion about this on the red board, in relation to early missed approaches. The resolution of the controversy, which required getting a couple of FAA departments to talk to each other, was that after passing the FAF, if the FAF altitude is an "at or above" altitude, you are free to climb to the altitude specified on the applicable missed approach segment. However, if the FAF altitude is a hard (at) altitude, then you can't climb above the FAF altitude until reaching the MAP.

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=752012&postcount=127

You are, of course expected to continue to the MAP before turning off the approach course, as specified in AIM 5-4-21b.

 

[Palmpilot]

Richard: I had tried to send you a PM but the site stated you weren't accepting them.

Best,

Dave

That's because I prefer to avoid private discussions of public message board topics.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There was a long discussion about this on the red board, in relation to early missed approaches. The resolution of the controversy, which required getting a couple of FAA departments to talk to each other, was that after passing the FAF, if the FAF altitude is an "at or above" altitude, you are free to climb to the altitude specified on the applicable missed approach segment. However, if the FAF altitude is a hard (at) altitude, then you can't climb above the FAF altitude until reaching the MAP.

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=752012&postcount=127

You are, of course expected to continue to the MAP before turning off the approach course, as specified in AIM 5-4-21b.

Interesting... Thanks!

 

[gismo]

There was a long discussion about this on the red board, in relation to early missed approaches. The resolution of the controversy, which required getting a couple of FAA departments to talk to each other, was that after passing the FAF, if the FAF altitude is an "at or above" altitude, you are free to climb to the altitude specified on the applicable missed approach segment. However, if the FAF altitude is a hard (at) altitude, then you can't climb above the FAF altitude until reaching the MAP.

You are, of course expected to continue to the MAP before turning off the approach course, as specified in AIM 5-4-21b.

And there are exceptions to that. I remember one approach in California that requires a pilot to descend on the ILS glideslope to the DA before executing a missed approach. This is due to the fact that the approach runs under the approach to a large airport (LAX?) and both are used simultaneously.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Dave, It's interesting they didn't respond to you on the VFR traffic they were aware of.

He was still talking to approach, not tower, at the time he was inbound and noticed the traffic on TIS.

I got down to where he was 1,000 feet under me and So Cal gave me a traffic alert.

Dave's lucky he got a traffic alert on VFR traffic; in class E airspace, it's "workload permitting" for the controller--he's not required to separate IFR traffic from VFR traffic except INSIDE Class C and B airspace.

There was nothing wrong with Dave asking the tower about it, but not sure how they could have responded, other than explaining that the VFR traffic could be where it was. They certainly couldn't have alerted Dave of the traffic--he wasn't even talking to KSEE tower when the traffic became an issue--he was still with SoCal.

In any case, this experience is a learning experience for all. Dave did no wrong--he didn't accuse the VFR pilot of being "in the wrong place"--he simply inquired on the radio, to the tower, "how could that happen", and I think he knows the answer to that now, even if the tower didn't elucidate on the matter.

Fly safe, y'all (and, hopefully, without getting your panties in a bunch!). :smile: I know Dave personally, as do many on this board--I can assure you he meant no "harm" or "ill will" towards the VFR pilots.

 

[Diana]

I know Dave personally, as do many on this board--I can assure you he meant no "harm" or "ill will" towards the VFR pilots.

I consider Dave to be a gentleman and a kind person and did not feel that he was being condescending. I have the impression that Dave cares very much about being safe.

This has been an interesting thread and a learning experience to read. That could have been me out there flying into the airport in question with my one radio and not much else. I have an instrument rating that I don't utilize, but it does give me more awareness of the possibility of other kinds of traffic near an airport.

 

[steingar]

Who designated anyone an "arbiter of wisdom?" We're all pilots, sharing good ideas, that some people including yourself want to reject simply because they're somehow associated with the letters "IFR."

I was called a bad pilot and told I had my head under the sand because I had a difference of opinion with some of the other pilots. That is arrogance. Telling me I should get my head out of the sand to listen to your pearls of wisdom is condescension.

 

[Larryo]

All,

This has been an interesting thread.

Now, ATC and tower's responsibility is not to separate IFR and VFR but it is their obligation not to run them together.

At the time Dave was over the marker, the VFR was 1000 ft below, and when it was 400 feet below, Dave was really close to the class D airspace ring. At that point it would have been totally irresponsible for the VFR to call in that late, and also pretty late to call in even 8 miles out.

Now, legal or not, it's prudent to NOT descent onto known traffic..... it's hard on the paint.

Dave had clearance into the class D and the VFR did not. It's a first come, first served basis, not whose lower for this situation.

I would have done what Dave did, and I would have been concerned, too.

I'm not taking a VFR vs. IFR stance (I'm VFR most of the time), but what's right and the intent of the regs.

 

[Chairboy]

Dave had clearance into the class D and the VFR did not.

What's 'clearance into class D'?

 

[KennyFlys]

What's 'clearance into class D'?

He was cleared for the approach and the tower was aware of his being inbound by prior arrangement with TRACON.

 

[Chairboy]

That's quite a bit different, especially in this context:

Dave had clearance into the class D and the VFR did not. It's a first come, first served basis, not whose lower for this situation.

 

[kkoran]

Now, ATC and tower's responsibility is not to separate IFR and VFR but it is their obligation not to run them together.

I'm not sure what the difference is. What do you mean by "not to run them together"?

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm not sure what the difference is. What do you mean by "not to run them together"?

This should answer your question...

The basic idea is in red with several caveats thrown in afterward. But, note the portion in blue.

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic, and to provide support for National Security and Homeland Defense. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and minima in this order except when: ​

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or: ​

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order. ​

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement, FAA directive, or a military document, or: ​

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling, fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-2]FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 1-1-9, Procedural Letters of Agreement.[/SIZE] ​

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency has been declared. ​

[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]FAAO JO 7110.65, Chapter 10, Emergencies.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-8, Merging Target Procedures.[/SIZE]​

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was called a bad pilot and told I had my head under the sand because I had a difference of opinion with some of the other pilots. That is arrogance. Telling me I should get my head out of the sand to listen to your pearls of wisdom is condescension.

No - I firmly believe that your refusal to learn something that can save your butt as a VFR pilot simply because it has anything to do with IFR is practically the definition of "head in the sand."

 

[kkoran]

This should answer your question...

The basic idea is in red with several caveats thrown in afterward. But, note the portion in blue.

But it doesn't. First, the VFR aircraft wasn't talking to ATC and, therefore, was not "operating in the system". Second, the intent of "The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system..." is those aircraft for which ATC has a responsibility to separate. The approach controller issued a safety alert for the VFR traffic (which he is required to do only if he is aware of the conflicting traffic and perceives it to be a threat). I interpret Larryo's "it is their obligation not to run them together" to mean that he thinks ATC is somehow responsible for putting the two aircraft together.

 

[KennyFlys]

But it doesn't. First, the VFR aircraft wasn't talking to ATC and, therefore, was not "operating in the system". Second, the intent of "The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system..." is those aircraft for which ATC has a responsibility to separate. The approach controller issued a safety alert for the VFR traffic (which he is required to do only if he is aware of the conflicting traffic and perceives it to be a threat). I interpret Larryo's "it is their obligation not to run them together" to mean that he thinks ATC is somehow responsible for putting the two aircraft together.

ATC can be responsible ONLY for traffic that is participating whether it is mandatory or not. Dave was given an alert for traffic that was not participating. If this VFR traffic had intent to enter the Class Delta, he SHOULD have been talking to that tower. You just don't mosey up to the edge of the airspace and then call. It's not appropriate, it's not according to the standards established in the AIM and it's dang sure not safe.

Sorry, but any VFR aircraft that bumps up against a towered airspace, busy or not, is asking for trouble.

 

[kkoran]

ATC can be responsible ONLY for traffic that is participating whether it is mandatory or not. Dave was given an alert for traffic that was not participating. If this VFR traffic had intent to enter the Class Delta, he SHOULD have been talking to that tower. You just don't mosey up to the edge of the airspace and then call. It's not appropriate, it's not according to the standards established in the AIM and it's dang sure not safe.

Sorry, but any VFR aircraft that bumps up against a towered airspace, busy or not, is asking for trouble.

What does that have to do with Larryo's statement--"Now, ATC and tower's responsibility is not to separate IFR and VFR but it is their obligation not to run them together"?

 

[KennyFlys]

What does that have to do with Larryo's statement--"Now, ATC and tower's responsibility is not to separate IFR and VFR but it is their obligation not to run them together"?

I would take his words as wrongly stated or grossly misunderstood.

I posted the purpose of ATC from 7110.65S to clarify, not to locate a dead horse.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Had an interesting talk with a good friend that recently retired from the AF as a Major General. He was chatting about their UAVs (unmanned portable vehicle) and how everything is headed that way. He believes the technology is there today to do this with commercial flights.

I mentioned there were still some airspace issues that needed to be worked out before those could function properly. I can hear approach telling me that is a remotely piloted vehicle under/over me now <g>. How would they maintain visual clearance?

Best,

Dave

 

[Chairboy]

Better cameras than they have now, I imagine. Fix a number of cameras then synthetically stitch them together as needed for a remote pilot wearing a special helmet that tracks head motion.

 

[Palmpilot]

He was chatting about their UAVs (unmanned portable vehicle) and how everything is headed that way. He believes the technology is there today to do this with commercial flights.

Personally, I would never ride in an aircraft whose pilot did not have as much to lose as I did.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Personally, I would never ride in an aircraft whose pilot did not have as much to lose as I did.

He made the comment that it will probably never happen in our lifetime for the reason you mention. Younger folks raised with things like that occurring will get all the benefit <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[Trapper John]

Personally, I would never ride in an aircraft whose pilot did not have as much to lose as I did.

Yes, it's creepy enough riding on the automated trams/trains at ORD, DFW, etc.


Trapper John

 

[gismo]

I'm not sure what the difference is. What do you mean by "not to run them together"?

The difference is that while a tower controller isn't specifically tasked with separating traffic in the air, they can and do give instructions to traffic inside the class D which will affect the paths of aircraft. I believe that Larry is saying that those instructions shouldn't create a hazard by directing two airplanes to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time. And example would be directing two airplanes to turn final onto the same runway from opposite sides when the two planes were about the same distance from the final approach course. I don't think this applies to Dave's original scenario since it appears that the VFR pilot below the approach wasn't being sequenced by the tower when Dave had his "encounter".

 

[kkoran]

The difference is that while a tower controller isn't specifically tasked with separating traffic in the air, they can and do give instructions to traffic inside the class D which will affect the paths of aircraft. I believe that Larry is saying that those instructions shouldn't create a hazard by directing two airplanes to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time. And example would be directing two airplanes to turn final onto the same runway from opposite sides when the two planes were about the same distance from the final approach course. I don't think this applies to Dave's original scenario since it appears that the VFR pilot below the approach wasn't being sequenced by the tower when Dave had his "encounter".

I think it is clear that Larry's comment was made with regard to the original scenario and not just something he threw in. I'd still be interested in knowing what Larry meant, because everyone else can only guess what he meant.

 

[EdFred]

OK, so I think this is what I've gathered from all the posts.

The VFR aircraft was outside of the class D
Dave's plane was IMC and the TIS said the VFR craft was less than 400' below him
The VFR aircraft didn't contact tower until ~6 miles from the airport?

If those assumptions are correct then in my opinion 91.113(g) does not apply. No contact/2 way comms with tower, you aren't on approach to land. You are simply on a vector to the airport.

Seems like the VFR aircraft was less than 500' below the clouds.

Waiting until the last second to contact the tower?

Sounds like 3 strikes against the VFR pilot.

 

[Steve]

There are Fire Scout UAV's flying routinely in and out of Trent Lott (KPQL) airport in Pascagoula, MS. They fly them out in the Gulf for flight testing.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-8.html

Had an interesting talk with a good friend that recently retired from the AF as a Major General. He was chatting about their UAVs (unmanned portable vehicle) and how everything is headed that way. He believes the technology is there today to do this with commercial flights.

I mentioned there were still some airspace issues that needed to be worked out before those could function properly. I can hear approach telling me that is a remotely piloted vehicle under/over me now <g>. How would they maintain visual clearance?

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

OK, so I think this is what I've gathered from all the posts.

The VFR aircraft was outside of the class D
Dave's plane was IMC and the TIS said the VFR craft was less than 400' below him
The VFR aircraft didn't contact tower until ~6 miles from the airport?

If those assumptions are correct then in my opinion 91.113(g) does not apply. No contact/2 way comms with tower, you aren't on approach to land. You are simply on a vector to the airport.

Seems like the VFR aircraft was less than 500' below the clouds.

Waiting until the last second to contact the tower?

Sounds like 3 strikes against the VFR pilot.

Ed:

I'm not sure the VFR aircraft wasn't talking to tower at SAMOS (which is seven miles from the threshold and the FAF). Approach was busy and I didn't hear him talking to tower at that point; although, tower was on com 2. I think that's one reason I made the comment to tower that I did. Thought they might have been talking to the VFR fella but didn't know and they didn't tell me. Wondered why they hadn't asked him to work with me when I was descending, but, your facts could have been the case. Also, if the VFR guy was on tower, thought he'd like to know what happened.

How much should I be using TIS to maintain traffic separation? Doesn't work a lot of places and I wouldn't even know where the VFR traffic was except for the traffic alert from approach at 400 feet. He did seem to be close to bases, but there could have been a ragged bottom or something. Yes, I did see 400 feet the last I looked before the plane had leveled out. Who knows, I might have been right in the bottoms, but I couldn't tell.

Best,

Dave