Who's busted?

[Dan Luke]

An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
or below 1,700. A few moments after takeoff, the pilot is instructed to
contact Approach but is unsuccessful after several attempts. The
aircraft nears clouds that extend well above and below its altitude and
will break VFR if it continues on its present heading. Still unable to
contact Approach, the pilot turns to maintain VFR and passes close to an
airliner inbound to the Class C airport, causing a loss of separation
incident. Who will suffer a violation, the pilot, the TRACON
controller, or both?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:
> An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
> requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
> aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
> or below 1,700.

Why? It's a class D airport. This should have been immediately questioned.


A few moments after takeoff, the pilot is instructed to
> contact Approach but is unsuccessful after several attempts. The
> aircraft nears clouds that extend well above and below its altitude and
> will break VFR if it continues on its present heading. Still unable to
> contact Approach, the pilot turns to maintain VFR and passes close to an
> airliner inbound to the Class C airport, causing a loss of separation
> incident. Who will suffer a violation, the pilot, the TRACON
> controller, or both?

There is no standard separation between those two. If they missed then
there was no loss of separation. If it happened inside of class C then
the VFR pilot can get dinged for not establishing comm before entering
the class C. The TRACON controller is not a factor.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
> requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
> aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
> or below 1,700. A few moments after takeoff, the pilot is instructed to
> contact Approach but is unsuccessful after several attempts. The
> aircraft nears clouds that extend well above and below its altitude and
> will break VFR if it continues on its present heading. Still unable to
> contact Approach, the pilot turns to maintain VFR and passes close to
> an airliner inbound to the Class C airport, causing a loss of separation
> incident. Who will suffer a violation, the pilot, the TRACON
> controller, or both?
>

How do you know there was a loss of separation? If the VFR departure was
restricted to 1700 or lower, I'd expect the IFR arrival was restricted to
2200 or higher. Did the VFR departure bust his altitude restriction?

Controllers are aware that pilots are required to abide by applicable
regulations regardless of the application of any ATC procedure. The pilot
must do what's required to maintain VFR conditions even if it means acting
contrary to an ATC instruction. So if there's a loss of separation the
controller is going to get most of the blame.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:HnN6c.45280$Cb.642313@attbi_s51...
>
> Why? It's a class D airport. This should have been immediately
> questioned.
>

What's to question? It's a Class D airport next to Class C airspace, so
Class C services are being provided to participating aircraft within 20
miles of the Class C airport.


>
> There is no standard separation between those two.
>

Yes there is. Separation between participating VFR and IFR aircraft in the
outer area is the same as within the Class C airspace proper; target
resolution, 500 feet vertical, or visual.


>
> If it happened inside of class C then
> the VFR pilot can get dinged for not establishing comm before entering
> the class C. The TRACON controller is not a factor.
>

"Unless otherwise authorized by ATC,..." The VFR aircraft's entry was
coordinated with the TRACON. Who do you think issued the beacon code?

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> How do you know there was a loss of separation? If the VFR
> departure was restricted to 1700 or lower, I'd expect the IFR
> arrival was restricted to 2200 or higher.

In this hypothetical incident, I'm assuming that the jet was cleared for
the ILS approach which prescribes an altitude of 1,800 until the FAF.
The VFR aircraft turned toward the ILS final approach course and passed
near enough to the IFR jet to cause the separation deal.

> Did the VFR departure bust his altitude restriction?

No.

> Controllers are aware that pilots are required to abide by
> applicable regulations regardless of the application of any
> ATC procedure. The pilot must do what's required to
> maintain VFR conditions even if it means acting contrary
> to an ATC instruction. So if there's a loss of separation the
> controller is going to get most of the blame.

That's the answer I was looking for, thanks.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> In this hypothetical incident, I'm assuming that the jet was cleared for
> the ILS approach which prescribes an altitude of 1,800 until the FAF.
> The VFR aircraft turned toward the ILS final approach course and
> passed near enough to the IFR jet to cause the separation deal.
>

So what was the purpose of the 1700' altitude restriction then?

[A Lieberman]

Dan Luke wrote:

> An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
> requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
> aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
> or below 1,700. A few moments after takeoff, the pilot is instructed to
> contact Approach but is unsuccessful after several attempts. The
> aircraft nears clouds that extend well above and below its altitude and
> will break VFR if it continues on its present heading. Still unable to
> contact Approach, the pilot turns to maintain VFR and passes close to an
> airliner inbound to the Class C airport, causing a loss of separation
> incident. Who will suffer a violation, the pilot, the TRACON
> controller, or both?

Dan,

Define "well above or below 1700".

If it was me deciding, I'd blame the pilot. Sounds like he launched
into IFR conditions. "Well below" 1700 to me is near or at IFR
minimums. From what you described, sounds like a frontal cloud to be
that thick. Tracon doesn't know what the weather is outside. Nor did
tracon cause the seperation problem. The pilot did.

I personally would switched back to the Delta airspace tower, say I am
doing a 180 back to the airport due to IFR conditions. Both airports
generally work together and the Delta tower would have relayed this to
the Charlie airport approach..

I have the exact "layout" at HKS and JAN.

Once I had troubles reaching JAN when I departed HKS, so I had
recontacted HKS to explain I was working the radio problem and please
relay this to JAN. JAN was kind enough to relay heading instructions
through HKS until I recycled my COM 1 radion (powered it on and off).
Once the radio turned back on, I was able to talk to JAN approach.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> ??
> The TRACON issued the squawk code and takeoff instructions
> which were relayed by the VFR tower. That doesn't count as
> establishing comm?
>

Well, no, it doesn't count as establishing two-way radio communications, but
it doesn't have to. Recall the first sentence of FAR 91.130(a); "Unless
otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft operation in Class C airspace
must be conducted in compliance with this section and §91.129." If the
Class D tower relays a heading and beacon code from the Class C facility,
you are otherwise authorized.

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> So what was the purpose of the 1700' altitude restriction then?

Damfino. It's what you get every time you depart BFM with flight
following.

This question came up because a friend of mine encountered this
situation with the exception of the separation incident. The TRACON
controller (very busy at the time) finally called him up and asked why
he was off his assigned heading. My friend explained, the controller
didn't seem too concerned and told my friend to maintain VFR and proceed
on course. We wondered what would have happened if my friend's
deviation had brought him too near an aircraft flying the ILS 14 into
MOB.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[A Lieberman]

Newps wrote:
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
> > requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
> > aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
> > or below 1,700.
>
> Why? It's a class D airport. This should have been immediately questioned.

Newps,

What you say is not necessarily true.

In my situation (JAN and HKS), JAN approach control worked with HKS to
give me a squawk code and instructed HKS to have me fly runway heading.
Both airports work together in keeping traffic seperated. I never
thought about questioning tower since they coordinated with JAN for my
squawk code.

I make the assumption the fly runway heading was directed by JAN through
HKS until I make contact with JAN. This way, they know what my path
will be until I contact them.

Allen

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> An aircraft departing a class D airport next to class C airspace
> requests VFR flight following and is assigned a squawk code. The
> aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway heading at
> or below 1,700. A few moments after takeoff, the pilot is instructed to
> contact Approach but is unsuccessful after several attempts. The
> aircraft nears clouds that extend well above and below its altitude and
> will break VFR if it continues on its present heading. Still unable to
> contact Approach, the pilot turns to maintain VFR and passes close to an
> airliner inbound to the Class C airport, causing a loss of separation
> incident. Who will suffer a violation, the pilot, the TRACON
> controller, or both?

I certainly don't see anything that the pilot did contrary to FARs.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> The TRACON issued the squawk code and takeoff instructions which were
> relayed by the VFR tower. That doesn't count as establishing comm?

That's an interesting theory, but I wouldn't count on it.

First off, how do you know the tower was acting as a relay for tracon?
It seems reasonable to assume, but you don't really know that.

Second, it doesn't really matter where the instruction came from.
91.130 says you must "establish two-way radio communications with the
ATC facility [...] providing air traffic services". Having an
instruction relayed to you doesn't count as establishing two-way radio
communications.

[Jeff]

the pilot needs to report back to the last station he had communication
with and let them know he was not able to establish communication.
Sometimes, they can give the pilot a new freq. to try or give alternate
instructions.


Dan Luke wrote:

> "Newps" wrote:
>
> > > The aircraft is cleared for takeoff and instructed to fly runway
> > > heading at or below 1,700.
> >
> > Why? It's a class D airport. This should have been immediately
> > questioned.
>
> I get this instruction every time I depart BFM with VFR radar service
> from MOB TRACON.
>
> > If it happened inside of class C then the VFR pilot can get dinged
> for
> > not establishing comm before entering the class C. The TRACON
> > controller is not a factor.
>
> ??
> The TRACON issued the squawk code and takeoff instructions which were
> relayed by the VFR tower. That doesn't count as establishing comm?
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)

[Dennis O'Connor]

Yup, he did nothing wrong... I always return to tower frequency if I did not
get a reply within a reasonable time on any new frequency I am given...
Maybe the tower gave me the wrong frequency... Maybe ATC just had a
lightning strike... Who knows - but you do know who you just talked to and
he has telephone links, etc..

And, I suggest having all of the listed departure and approach frequencies
for that facility, scribbled on your knee board prior to take off, just in
case...

BTW, if the request was for VFR flight following, why was the pilot in the
soup at 1700 agl? <rhetorical question>
denny

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message > I certainly don't see
anything that the pilot did contrary to FARs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's an interesting theory, but I wouldn't count on it.
>
> First off, how do you know the tower was acting as a relay for tracon?
> It seems reasonable to assume, but you don't really know that.
>

What other possible source is there?


>
> Second, it doesn't really matter where the instruction came from.
> 91.130 says you must "establish two-way radio communications with the >
ATC facility [...] providing air traffic services". Having an
> instruction relayed to you doesn't count as establishing two-way radio
> communications.
>

Review the first sentence of 91.130.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Lets not start counting the angels on the the head of a pin here...
Controllers do not give out squawk codes and headings that they do not have
the authority for - if the D-controller gives has a squawk code to give you
for leaving his airpace, he got it from the C-controller for that
airspace...

[Dan Luke]

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
> BTW, if the request was for VFR flight following, why was
> the pilot in the soup at 1700 agl? <rhetorical question>

Well, I'll answer it anyway: It's pretty common down here on the bay for
aircraft departing the area to have to duck and dodge to maintain VFR.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Dan Luke" wrote:
> too near an aircraft flying the ILS 14 into
> MOB.

Oops. Should have said the ILS 32.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Damfino. It's what you get every time you depart BFM with flight
> following.
>

I'd wager the local MVA is 2200'.

[A Lieberman]

Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> Lets not start counting the angels on the the head of a pin here...
> Controllers do not give out squawk codes and headings that they do not have
> the authority for - if the D-controller gives has a squawk code to give you
> for leaving his airpace, he got it from the C-controller for that
> airspace...

Isn't this what I said? Taken from prior post....

>>In my situation (JAN and HKS), JAN approach control worked with HKS to
>>give me a squawk code and instructed HKS to have me fly runway heading

Allen

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Separation between participating VFR and IFR aircraft in the
> outer area is the same as within the Class C airspace proper; target
> resolution, 500 feet vertical, or visual.

Can you tell me a little more about what that means? Does "or visual" mean that
adequate clearance exists when both planes have visual contact and miss each
other?

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

A Lieberman wrote:
>
> If it was me deciding, I'd blame the pilot. Sounds like he launched
> into IFR conditions.

Dan later said the airport is BFM. That's on Mobile bay. Cloud conditions are
usually odd along coastlines.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can you tell me a little more about what that means? Does "or visual"
> mean that adequate clearance exists when both planes have visual
> contact and miss each other?
>

Only one aircraft has to sight the other one to use visual separation, the
other one just has to be informed that visual separation is being used.
There is no minimum distance in visual separation, it's whatever the pilot
is comfortable with.

[Dan Luke]

>
> I'd wager the local MVA is 2200'.
>
I'll try to find out.

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> Dan later said the airport is BFM. That's on Mobile bay. Cloud conditions
> are usually odd along coastlines.

A while back, I departed a beautiful and otherwise-clear ACK right into a
big mucking cloud sitting on runway heading. The VFRers were taking a
quick turn to stay VMC, but I used this as a good excuse to get my wife
into the clouds for the first time (but brief enough that she'd no need to
be concerned).

[I needn't have worried. Her major concern was getting the trip on video.]

- Andrew