Who's busted?

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)

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.

"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.

"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?

"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?

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

"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.

"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)

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