ATC of Near-Miss over BOS

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.

I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
arguement nicely.

Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules? It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation? i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

--
Guy Elden Jr.

Darn good question. I'll take a stab with no claims of being an expert:
I believe that once either target calls the other in sight, they are
technically under VFR separation. According to
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0707.html#7-7-3, the minimum
separation is 500 feet vertically. But once one or both call each other in
sight, even the 500 ft. minimum may be out the window and it's a matter of
swapping paint or not. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html#7-2-1
explains the phraseology but this may be as far as it goes from a legal
standpoint.

The answer may be found in other regs (i.e. Part 121)

Marco Leon

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote in message
ps.com...
Marco Leon (at) wrote:
Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.

I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the
air
arguement nicely.

Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules? It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation? i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

--
Guy Elden Jr.

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote in message
ps.com...

Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules?


Yes.



It looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation?


No.



i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide separation?


No.

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
if both planes respond to the
controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules?

Yes.


It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation?

No. Although you can still have a near miss if one of the pilots felt
the other got too close.


i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

None whatsoever.

It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation?

No. Although you can still have a near miss if one of the pilots felt
the other got too close.

If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other in
view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a near
miss?


i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

None whatsoever.

That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably sure I'll *keep*
site of the traffic.

- Andrew

That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably
sure I'll *keep* site of the traffic.

Same here... as soon as I catch sight of the traffic, and call it out
to ATC, it just becomes part of my regular scan between instruments and
outside. I also try to remember to continue to scan for other
unexpected traffic, but definitely keep checking back at least every
few seconds so I don't lose sight of the plane.

I'm relieved that the consensus seems to be that calling out traffic
eliminates the IFR separation, because that's the way I've thought it
works for a while now (I think my instructor explicitly told me so a
couple of years ago tho). Case in point as to why this is a good thing:
I was flying for a night checkout at a flying club I recently joined,
and while transiting near a Class D airport (Westchester County, NY),
ATC called out traffic 9 o'clock descending from 4000 to 3000. I was at
2500, VFR flight following. Since I was in the way, ATC couldn't clear
the guy down for approach into Westchester, but I knew that as soon as
I called the traffic out that he'd be able to clear him down. I
couldn't get a word in edgewise, and by the time I could, he was
already passing overhead, so my call was "... traffic in sight no
factor", which was immediately followed by ATC call to the other plane
to descend pilot's discretion.

I think this is an important thing for pilots to understand, since some
may operate under the assumption that separation services will still be
provided even if they call out "traffic in sight". (Which they might be
- unless ATC says "maintain visual separation").

--
Guy

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote in message
ups.com...

I'm relieved that the consensus seems to be that calling out traffic
eliminates the IFR separation, because that's the way I've thought it
works for a while now (I think my instructor explicitly told me so a
couple of years ago tho).


Reporting the traffic in sight does not eliminate standard IFR separation.
The assignment of visual separation eliminates the need for standard IFR
separation, the pilot must report the traffic in sight before visual
separation can be assigned.



Case in point as to why this is a good thing:
I was flying for a night checkout at a flying club I recently joined,
and while transiting near a Class D airport (Westchester County, NY),
ATC called out traffic 9 o'clock descending from 4000 to 3000. I was at
2500, VFR flight following. Since I was in the way, ATC couldn't clear
the guy down for approach into Westchester, but I knew that as soon as
I called the traffic out that he'd be able to clear him down. I
couldn't get a word in edgewise, and by the time I could, he was
already passing overhead, so my call was "... traffic in sight no
factor", which was immediately followed by ATC call to the other plane
to descend pilot's discretion.


It appears to me if you're at 2500 MSL in the vicinity of HPN you're in
Class E airspace and no separation would be provided by ATC.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

site

Yikes. Sight.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other
in
view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a
near
miss?


They both reported seeing the other, but only the LJ was instructed to
maintain visual separation. The MD80 pilot apparently felt the LJ came too
close.