After the cold front passed last night, my instrument student and I took off
VFR from FCI, about 11 miles from Richmond Intl (just outside of Class C).
We had just departed 33, climbing though 1200MSL when I spotted traffic in
the distance to the west. On this particular evening, Potomac approach was
bringing in IFR arrivals to RIC down to 2000 right over FCI. The traffic
pattern at FCI is 1200. Upon spotting the traffic we leveled off at about
1400, and turned towards the north. Meanwhile, we just switched over from
CTAF to the Potomac Approach facility, were the controller was pointing us
out to the MD80, who only saw us on TCAS. After the traffic was no longer a
factor, we climbed to 2000, proceeded on course, and requested advisories
from Approach.

After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not calling
him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200 ft because we
have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to get a TCAS RA." I
suspect our initial climb out of the pattern was interpreted by TCAS as
being on a collision course.

I replied, "Roger, we had the traffic in sight and changed our course
accordingly."

The controller replied "fine, but I don't know you had him in sight. Call
us earlier next time."

me: "Roger."

Conditions were good VFR. I think the controller was annoyed that the MD80
had to change his course to avoid traffic. I don't think it's reasonable to
expect us to be contacting approach before we leave the pattern in VFR
conditions. I wasn't going to argue that over the frequency.

Points to Ponder-
-Always scan for traffic
-Follow the Right-of-way rules (my student initially wanted to turn to the
left, but the traffic was proceeding directly towards us)
-ATC knows how to control traffic, but they're not pilots (usually) so they
may not consider operations that don't involve them, i.e. non-towered
pattern operations.
-Airline crews need to practice see and avoid in VFR conditions even if
they're IFR, especially when proceeding over an airport traffic pattern at
1800 AGL.

> After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not
> calling him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200
> ft because we have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to
> get a TCAS RA."

That's ridiculous. They vector traffic 11 miles out right over the
uncontrolled field at nearly TPA and he yells at you for "not calling him
sooner"? He has not a clue some aircraft don't even have radios?

Seems to me HE caused the TCAS RA and was trying to shift the blame.

It's amazing how they drag these airliners in on these loooong low
approaches; it seems unnecessarily risky to me.

Basically my thoughts. If you're going to vector arrivals at 800 above the
TPA of a busy non-towered airport, it should be suprising that your IFR's
will need to deviate for traffic. IFR traffic does not have right-of-way
over VFR traffic.

Normally they're at 3000 crossing FCI and not generally a factor to pattern
ops.

Heck, if I was crossing over an airport 800 ft above the TPA, I'd probably
make a call on CTAF. How come he wasn't on MY frequency? :)

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not
> > calling him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200
> > ft because we have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to
> > get a TCAS RA."
>
> That's ridiculous. They vector traffic 11 miles out right over the
> uncontrolled field at nearly TPA and he yells at you for "not calling him
> sooner"? He has not a clue some aircraft don't even have radios?
>
> Seems to me HE caused the TCAS RA and was trying to shift the blame.
>
> It's amazing how they drag these airliners in on these loooong low
> approaches; it seems unnecessarily risky to me.
>
>

Brad Z wrote:
>
> The controller replied "fine, but I don't know you had him in sight.
> Call us earlier next time."

"Wilco, cancel flight following at this time" then motor along VFR at
2000...all the while wearing an evil grin.

No, you handled it well and the controller was obviously wrong for giving
you any grief whatsoever. If you were there VFR not even talking to him,
he'd've have an even worse time. He needs to re-evaluate his position and
be thankful that you even came on frequency.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:47:10 GMT, "Brad Z" > wrote:

>The controller replied "fine, but I don't know you had him in sight. Call
>us earlier next time."
>
>me: "Roger."
>
>Conditions were good VFR. I think the controller was annoyed that the MD80
>had to change his course to avoid traffic. I don't think it's reasonable to
>expect us to be contacting approach before we leave the pattern in VFR
>conditions. I wasn't going to argue that over the frequency.

Unless you're entering Class B, C or D airspace, as you obviously know,
there's no requirement to contact ATC at all.

I think you should have a talk with the supervisor or QA person at that ATC
facility. It would seem that this particular controller's expectations are
inappropriate, and could lead to some bad outcomes.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Brad Z" wrote
> I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to be contacting approach
> before we leave the pattern in VFR conditions.

As a controller, and pilot, I agree. You did nothing wrong here. Even
if you had an IFR clearance and release and you were VFR dodging
traffic in the pattern on departure, you can't be expected to just leave
CTAF and blast through everyone else just because you're IFR.

> I wasn't going to argue that over the frequency.

Good idea. You'll rarely win, it's better to call in later if you feel
the need. But in most cases you'll just get a supervisor who rarely
works traffic and he will either smooth it over with you and never
say anything to the controller - which solves nothing. Or he'll be
the kind who has it out for pilots and grill you on regs or want a
tape pulled just looking for anything to bust you on. I've had both
types of supes. I used Potomac alot on a couple of days recently,
mostly IFR with multiple approaches, including Dulles. I was
pleasantly surprised by their service, that's why I was interested
in this thread. I worked with multiple sectors (freqs) at different
days and times, so I got different crews. I didnt go in with high
expectations with the ADIZ and all, and being a relatively new
facility I'm sure theres bugs to iron out. But they were one of the
better facilities on my 5,000nm trip, and I got flight following or
was IFR the entire time, so I worked with lots of facilities on
that trip.

Anyway, that sounds like a dangerous procedure bringing them
in like that, and like someone else said, I may have just said
"cancel request" and leave frequency. But don't turn off
the radio, you might be surprised to hear him ask you NOT
to leave and come back, hehe. He doesn't want RA's going off
with his traffic if he can help it.

Chris

File a Nasa report.. wont hurt anything.. and IF a tape review causes
someone to get a hard-on for you.. then it may help you as well.

Then call the sup for the facility and ask for clarification.. and if
that is a practice that they want routinely then they need to issue a
letter or notice.

Dave

Brad Z wrote:

> After the cold front passed last night, my instrument student and I took off
> VFR from FCI, about 11 miles from Richmond Intl (just outside of Class C).
> We had just departed 33, climbing though 1200MSL when I spotted traffic in
> the distance to the west. On this particular evening, Potomac approach was
> bringing in IFR arrivals to RIC down to 2000 right over FCI. The traffic
> pattern at FCI is 1200. Upon spotting the traffic we leveled off at about
> 1400, and turned towards the north. Meanwhile, we just switched over from
> CTAF to the Potomac Approach facility, were the controller was pointing us
> out to the MD80, who only saw us on TCAS. After the traffic was no longer a
> factor, we climbed to 2000, proceeded on course, and requested advisories
> from Approach.
>
> After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not calling
> him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200 ft because we
> have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to get a TCAS RA." I
> suspect our initial climb out of the pattern was interpreted by TCAS as
> being on a collision course.
>
> I replied, "Roger, we had the traffic in sight and changed our course
> accordingly."
>
> The controller replied "fine, but I don't know you had him in sight. Call
> us earlier next time."
>
> me: "Roger."
>
> Conditions were good VFR. I think the controller was annoyed that the MD80
> had to change his course to avoid traffic. I don't think it's reasonable to
> expect us to be contacting approach before we leave the pattern in VFR
> conditions. I wasn't going to argue that over the frequency.
>
> Points to Ponder-
> -Always scan for traffic
> -Follow the Right-of-way rules (my student initially wanted to turn to the
> left, but the traffic was proceeding directly towards us)
> -ATC knows how to control traffic, but they're not pilots (usually) so they
> may not consider operations that don't involve them, i.e. non-towered
> pattern operations.
> -Airline crews need to practice see and avoid in VFR conditions even if
> they're IFR, especially when proceeding over an airport traffic pattern at
> 1800 AGL.
>
>

In article <ONwJc.61657$WX.41886@attbi_s51>,
Brad Z > wrote:
>After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not calling
>him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200 ft because we
>have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to get a TCAS RA."

"Roger, what are your operating initials so I can ask for you by name?"

hehe

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:<ONwJc.61657$WX.41886@attbi_s51>...
> After the cold front passed last night, my instrument student and I took off
> VFR from FCI, about 11 miles from Richmond Intl (just outside of Class C).
> We had just departed 33, climbing though 1200MSL when I spotted traffic in
> the distance to the west. On this particular evening, Potomac approach was
> bringing in IFR arrivals to RIC down to 2000 right over FCI. The traffic
> pattern at FCI is 1200. Upon spotting the traffic we leveled off at about
> 1400, and turned towards the north. Meanwhile, we just switched over from
> CTAF to the Potomac Approach facility, were the controller was pointing us
> out to the MD80, who only saw us on TCAS. After the traffic was no longer a
> factor, we climbed to 2000, proceeded on course, and requested advisories
> from Approach.
>
> After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not calling
> him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200 ft because we
> have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to get a TCAS RA." I
> suspect our initial climb out of the pattern was interpreted by TCAS as
> being on a collision course.

Brad,

Kudos to you for not getting into it on frequency, but IMO I would
strongly consider filing an ASRS on this, not because YOU did anything
wrong, but because the controller needs to understand that *if he is
going to vector IFR traffic 800 ft above a non-towered airport, the
IFR traffic *is* going to get TCAS alerts and need to deviate. Around
here, at least, it's pretty standard to overfly the airport 500 ft
above TPA then descend to TPA.

And you're absolutely right, IFR traffic does not have priority over
VFR traffic in VMC -- see and avoid applies to both.

Sounds to me as though some controllers need to be educated, and I
hear that the ASRS forms really do get reviewed.

You might consider calling Approach, too, though I'm not sure how
much good that does long after the event.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:


but because the controller needs to understand that *if he is
> going to vector IFR traffic 800 ft above a non-towered airport,


There's no vectoring going on 800 feet above an uncontrolled field. The
MVA is always at least 1000 agl.

I think Sydney meant 800ft above the traffic pattern of a non-towered field.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Snowbird wrote:
>
>
> but because the controller needs to understand that *if he is
> > going to vector IFR traffic 800 ft above a non-towered airport,
>
>
> There's no vectoring going on 800 feet above an uncontrolled field. The
> MVA is always at least 1000 agl.
>

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:<BkHJc.86409$a24.57049@attbi_s03>...
> I think Sydney meant 800ft above the traffic pattern of a non-towered field.

Yes, thank you Brad. That's what I meant, I just left out "TPA".
Me bad, not proofing for sense.

The point is, in the situation you described, the controller chewed
your butt for not getting on his freq. faster and getting off the
CTAF, in a situation where I think safety was best served by what
you did: staying on CTAF until you climb above TPA at the airport.
If the controller doesn't want to hear big iron telling him about
TCAS alerts and deviating for them, he needs to change his procedures
so as not to vector big iron around 800 ft above TPA at a small
airport.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:

> Kudos to you for not getting into it on frequency, but IMO I would
> strongly consider filing an ASRS on this, not because YOU did anything
> wrong, but because the controller needs to understand that *if he is
> going to vector IFR traffic 800 ft above a non-towered airport, the
> IFR traffic *is* going to get TCAS alerts and need to deviate. Around
> here, at least, it's pretty standard to overfly the airport 500 ft
> above TPA then descend to TPA.

How would filing an ASRS help the controller understand?

FWIW, a fellow club member had a real nasty ATC encounter recently. Inside
the FAF in IMC, the pilot was given a frequency change to something not on
the plate (the tower of an airport near the untowered field where landing
was intended). And just to make things really nasty, the tower operator
(accurately, as it happens) thought that the pilot should be with approach.

This was brought to the QA person at TRACON, who "fixed things" so that it
won't happen again. Supposedly, some LOA (letter of agreement) "got lost".

> Sounds to me as though some controllers need to be educated, and I
> hear that the ASRS forms really do get reviewed.

At that level of detail? The controller in Brad's example would receive a
phone call?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message ne.com>...
> Snowbird wrote:
> > Kudos to you for not getting into it on frequency, but IMO I would
> > strongly consider filing an ASRS on this, not because YOU did anything
> > wrong, but because the controller needs to understand that *if he is
> > going to vector IFR traffic 800 ft above a non-towered airport, the
> > IFR traffic *is* going to get TCAS alerts and need to deviate. Around
> > here, at least, it's pretty standard to overfly the airport 500 ft
> > above TPA then descend to TPA.

> How would filing an ASRS help the controller understand?

Well, it seems to me that there are two general principles here,
one of which the controllers at that facility (most non-pilot
controllers?) may not be aware of at all, and the other of which
he may only be aware of peripherally (as in, it was mentioned
at some point, but may not be part of their world view).

The two principles I see are:
1) Within 5 miles of a non-towered airport and 1500 AGL, the safest
thing for GA pilots is to monitor CTAF and focus on see-and-avoid.
They should not be expected to initiate contact with ATC at
this point.
2) All aircraft, IFR and VFR, are expected to practice see-and-avoid
in VMC

A correllary of point 2) is that if it's a problem for the controller
to have the planes he's sequencing respond to TCAS alerts, don't
take them within 1000 ft of the TPA for a non-towered airport.

I see these as potentially systemic problems, caused by lack of
understanding, on one side of the mic, of all the factors which
affect safety on the other side of the mic.

My understanding is, it's exactly these sorts of problems that the
ASRS system was designed to look into and communicate about. Some
people I respect in the FAA tell me it works, though I imagine like
everything else there is variation depending on the individuals
involved.

> > Sounds to me as though some controllers need to be educated, and I
> > hear that the ASRS forms really do get reviewed.

> At that level of detail? The controller in Brad's example would receive a
> phone call?

I'm not sure what you mean by "at that level of detail" -- as explained
above, I see the situation as a potentially systemic problem where there
may be more than one controller who thinks a GA pilot who has filed IFR
ought to be on his freq. ASAP after takeoff, and they need to understand
that the GA pilot is going to have other necessary safety concerns whilst
in the vicinity of the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport, and plan
accordingly.

I don't think the specific controller needs a phone call, though
the facility would probably get one from me, in which as politely
as possible I explain what my safety concerns are immediately after
takeoff from a non-towered airport. If it were local I would offer
a ride to anyone interested to sort of see the issues from the "other
side of the mic".

Thanks for all the replies. I've started planning a trip to Potomac Tracon
with my students so that they can get a better understanding of how the
system works. I think I will add this scenario to our list of questions for
the tour. As long as homeland security doesn't upgrade us to orange, we
will have a chance to chat with the controllers that work the Richmond
sector.

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:ONwJc.61657$WX.41886@attbi_s51...
> After the cold front passed last night, my instrument student and I took
off
> VFR from FCI, about 11 miles from Richmond Intl (just outside of Class C).
> We had just departed 33, climbing though 1200MSL when I spotted traffic in
> the distance to the west. On this particular evening, Potomac approach
was
> bringing in IFR arrivals to RIC down to 2000 right over FCI. The traffic
> pattern at FCI is 1200. Upon spotting the traffic we leveled off at about
> 1400, and turned towards the north. Meanwhile, we just switched over from
> CTAF to the Potomac Approach facility, were the controller was pointing us
> out to the MD80, who only saw us on TCAS. After the traffic was no longer
a
> factor, we climbed to 2000, proceeded on course, and requested advisories
> from Approach.
>
> After the controller gave us a squawk code, he chewed us our for not
calling
> him sooner. "You should call us before you reach about 1200 ft because we
> have arrivals from the west and you caused a MD80 to get a TCAS RA." I
> suspect our initial climb out of the pattern was interpreted by TCAS as
> being on a collision course.
>
> I replied, "Roger, we had the traffic in sight and changed our course
> accordingly."
>
> The controller replied "fine, but I don't know you had him in sight. Call
> us earlier next time."
>
> me: "Roger."
>
> Conditions were good VFR. I think the controller was annoyed that the
MD80
> had to change his course to avoid traffic. I don't think it's reasonable
to
> expect us to be contacting approach before we leave the pattern in VFR
> conditions. I wasn't going to argue that over the frequency.
>
> Points to Ponder-
> -Always scan for traffic
> -Follow the Right-of-way rules (my student initially wanted to turn to the
> left, but the traffic was proceeding directly towards us)
> -ATC knows how to control traffic, but they're not pilots (usually) so
they
> may not consider operations that don't involve them, i.e. non-towered
> pattern operations.
> -Airline crews need to practice see and avoid in VFR conditions even if
> they're IFR, especially when proceeding over an airport traffic pattern at
> 1800 AGL.
>
>