Who's busted?

"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" 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" 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)

"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?

"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)

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

Oops. Should have said the ILS 32.

"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'.

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.

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.

"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)