Riddle me this, pilots

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:EQf0b.149627$Oz4.41062@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:

In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say
"Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the
right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far?

First of all, I had about fifteen airplanes on frequency. Mentally I was
gearing up for the wad of Atlanta departures that were getting ready to
launch (indeed were beginning to check on freq) and how the weather was
going to impact the departure push. I also had other IFR irons in the fire.
For example, I had two IFR's inbound to JZP and I was blocking for an
approach at 47A (which conflicts with JZP). I was mentally trying to get a
plan working for sequence into JZP while I was making that final
position-relief traffic scan. To me, the VFR target represented a very low
priority traffic call at six miles and 400 feet, especially since I don't
have separation responsibility between IFR and VFR traffic in thsi airspace.
I *do* have an air safety obligation that trumps all of my separation
responsibilities, but at six miles, and even at four miles, I did not
recognize that this situation was going to deteriorate from a routine
traffic situation into an alert situation with co-altitude traffic.

If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?"

I suppose he could have requested a vector at the first or second call. I
was waitng for him to spot the traffic because that's what happens between
VFR and IFR traffic in this airspace. See and avoid.

If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

I didn't believe that the VFR was in the soup until he got co-altitude with
the IFR guy who had reported twice that he was IMC at 7000. I see an
unknown VFR target, I assume the pilot is complying with FAR's. In this
case, I can't prove that he wasn't.


Plus if two aircraft are 2 miles apart and you turn one 90 degrees,
by the time the turn is completed they will have both covered a mile.
My mental image of this is that you're turning a situation where the
two course lines would converge to a sharp point into a situation
where they would converge in a nice rounded corner.


I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless
I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used
"immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to
slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to
turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a
suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a
successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30
degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep
his target from merging with the intruder.

Chip, ZTL





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chip Jones wrote:



I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless
I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used
"immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to
slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to
turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a
suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a
successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30
degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep
his target from merging with the intruder.

Chip, ZTL

I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of
the 7110.65?

wrote in message ...

I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of the 7110.65?


How so?

Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft.

wrote in message ...


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of
the 7110.65?


I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar
identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still
put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still
would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and
all that. :-)

To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue
traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event)
*unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical
minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E),
there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or
does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chip Jones wrote:
Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert.

That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations
like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR
guy will get vectored. It also saves time.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:9VQ0b.210033$Ho3.27525@sccrnsc03...


Chip Jones wrote:
Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without
a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air
safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert.

That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations
like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR
guy will get vectored. It also saves time.


I totally agree, but it requires that you recognize the situation and have
time to deal with it. In my airspace I simply don't have the time to vector
every IFR around potential VFR traffic because I am too busy slinging IFR's
around IFR's or providing other IFR services. The avoidance of the alert to
begin with is indeed better for all concerned IMO, but it is not always
possible because of workload.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chip Jones wrote:


I totally agree, but it requires that you recognize the situation and have
time to deal with it. In my airspace I simply don't have the time to vector
every IFR around potential VFR traffic because I am too busy slinging IFR's
around IFR's or providing other IFR services. The avoidance of the alert to
begin with is indeed better for all concerned IMO, but it is not always
possible because of workload.

Lucky for me I've got nothing but time.

Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as
when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on
top?

Mitch Gossman

"Chip Jones" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ...


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of
the 7110.65?


I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar
identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still
put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still
would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and
all that. :-)

To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue
traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event)
*unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical
minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E),
there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or
does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Mitchell Gossman" wrote in message
om...

Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as
when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on
top?


Yes, see subparagraph c. below:


FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

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. 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 CFR's 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.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-8.

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

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10.
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.