ATC of Near-Miss over BOS

Bob Moore wrote:
john smith wrote

The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
visual separation.....and separation is separation.
One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".



The fellow who wanted to file the near miss sure sounded petulant, didn't he?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Peter R. wrote:

Given the unprofessional comment made by the Dash-8 pilot, it seemed to me
that after calling traffic in sight, both pilots went heads down in
preparation for landing and the TCAS alert shocked them back outside.

Someone with whom I fly occasionally likes to tell ATC of traffic in sight
whenever it's in sight. I'll refrain if, for some reason, I'll be unable
to maintain visual separation (ie. I'm about to lose site of the other
aircraft over the wing).

I don't want to be responsible for visual separation from something I cannot
see.

Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're both
IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.

Problem? Good idea?

- Andrew

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.

If I remember correctly, the Learjet agreed to stay at 5000 ft even though
they called the other target in sight. If they passed through 5000 ft
anyway, it would have been their "bad" for presenting wrong expectations
then subsequently lying about it in an attempt to C-Y-A. The AAL pilots
would then have every right to be ****ed off.

Marco Leon
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
om...
Bob Moore wrote:
john smith wrote

The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
visual separation.....and separation is separation.
One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".



The fellow who wanted to file the near miss sure sounded petulant, didn't
he?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"john smith" wrote in message
. ..

The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.


Was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he was cleared
higher?

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_%IPe.41$fP.32@trndny08...

You're right. Looks like he climbed right through the MD-80 altitude.


Which is fine if he did so only after visual separation was in use and he
was cleared higher.

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

Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're
both
IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.


Visual separation can be used for VFR traffic where VFR traffic is provided
separation, such as Class B or Class C airspace or TRSAs.

"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.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

A few months ago I overheard something similar on Syracuse, NY's ATC feed.
A regional Dash-8 was being vectored north around the airport for an
approach while a student and instructor were flying some practice
maneuvers
just north of the airport. Normally the instructional flight would have
been many miles further north, but there were low clouds in this
designated
practice area.

The instructional flight was given a restriction to maintain at or below
2,000 feet and the Dash-8 was told to maintain 2,500 feet. ATC called the
C172 traffic for the Dash-8 and the pilot of the Dash-8 replied he had
traffic in sight.

A moment later, the Dash-8 pilot called ATC to report that he was
responding to a TCAS alert. He then made an unprofessional comment
directly to the C172 stating that there was no way they were at their
required altitude. ATC responded that through this entire event the C172
was at the altitude to which they were originally restricted.

Given the unprofessional comment made by the Dash-8 pilot, it seemed to me
that after calling traffic in sight, both pilots went heads down in
preparation for landing and the TCAS alert shocked them back outside.


Was the Dash-8 instructed to maintain visual separation after reporting the
C172?

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.