ATC will sometimes give pilots the instruction to
maintain visual separation from nearby traffic.
I have a couple questions about this:
This is mostly focused on IFR traffic, but how different would VFR be? The situation could be that ATC clears you for a certain maneuver, and other traffic interferes.
It is my understanding that for IFR traffic the controller would expect that there would be no conflict, but things don't always go as planned.
ATC will use radar to judge how far apart planes are, in absence of ATC (uncontrolled airspace) it is purely scanning the sky and paying attention this is called See and Avoid and is always in force even during IFR.
If a pilot notices he is on a collision course with another plane he may do anything in his power to avoid said collision. For many planes there is TCAS an automated system to help pilots avoid collisions by issuing a climb or descend command to the pilot if collision is near. If such a command happened then the pilot MUST follow it to minimize chance of collision and notify ATC.
Visual separation is addressed specifically in the AIM (see below). It is an ATC instruction sometimes given when the pilot reports another aircraft in sight. ATC is then able to instruct the pilot to "maintain visual separation" from the other aircraft, and it doesn't matter if they are IFR or VFR.
Then it becomes quite simple:
Standard radar separation no longer applies since the pilot has accepted separation responsibility from the one specific aircraft that the clearance applies to. This allows ATC to let aircraft fly more efficient routes (not having to turn to avoid the other aircraft) and also lets more aircraft land in a given amount of time because they can be closer together on final.
Pilots have to use good judgement as to how close they get to the other aircraft, but it is done visually. They can use any tools at their disposal to help (TCAS, asking ATC how far away they are, etc.) but it all comes down to "that looks good enough for me".
Section 5. Pilot/Controller Roles and Responsibilities
1. Acceptance of instructions to follow another aircraft or to provide visual separation from it is an acknowledgment that the pilot will maneuver the aircraft as necessary to avoid the other aircraft or to maintain in‐trail separation. Pilots are responsible to maintain visual separation until flight paths (altitudes and/or courses) diverge.
2. If instructed by ATC to follow another aircraft or to provide visual separation from it, promptly notify the controller if you lose sight of that aircraft, are unable to maintain continued visual contact with it, or cannot accept the responsibility for your own separation for any reason.
3. The pilot also accepts responsibility for wake turbulence separation under these conditions.
b. Controller. Applies visual separation only:
1. Within the terminal area when a controller has both aircraft in sight or by instructing a pilot who sees the other aircraft to maintain visual separation from it.
2. Pilots are responsible to maintain visual separation until flight paths (altitudes and/or courses) diverge.
3. Within en route airspace when aircraft are on opposite courses and one pilot reports having seen the other aircraft and that the aircraft have passed each other.
More info is here:
a. Visual separation is a means employed by ATC to separate aircraft in terminal areas and en route airspace in the NAS. There are two methods employed to effect this separation:
1. The tower controller sees the aircraft involved and issues instructions, as necessary, to ensure that the aircraft avoid each other.
2. A pilot sees the other aircraft involved and upon instructions from the controller provides separation by maneuvering the aircraft to avoid it. When pilots accept responsibility to maintain visual separation, they must maintain constant visual surveillance and not pass the other aircraft until it is no longer a factor.
NOTE- Traffic is no longer a factor when during approach phase the other aircraft is in the landing phase of flight or executes a missed approach; and during departure or en route, when the other aircraft turns away or is on a diverging course.
b. A pilot's acceptance of instructions to follow another aircraft or provide visual separation from it is an acknowledgment that the pilot will maneuver the aircraft as necessary to avoid the other aircraft or to maintain in-trail separation. In operations conducted behind heavy jet aircraft, it is also an acknowledgment that the pilot accepts the responsibility for wake turbulence separation.
NOTE- When a pilot has been told to follow another aircraft or to provide visual separation from it, the pilot should promptly notify the controller if visual contact with the other aircraft is lost or cannot be maintained or if the pilot cannot accept the responsibility for the separation for any reason.
c. Scanning the sky for other aircraft is a key factor in collision avoidance. Pilots and copilots (or the right seat passenger) should continuously scan to cover all areas of the sky visible from the cockpit. Pilots must develop an effective scanning technique which maximizes one's visual capabilities. Spotting a potential collision threat increases directly as more time is spent looking outside the aircraft. One must use timesharing techniques to effectively scan the surrounding airspace while monitoring instruments as well.
d. Since the eye can focus only on a narrow viewing area, effective scanning is accomplished with a series of short, regularly spaced eye movements that bring successive areas of the sky into the central visual field. Each movement should not exceed ten degrees, and each area should be observed for at least one second to enable collision detection. Although many pilots seem to prefer the method of horizontal back-and-forth scanning every pilot should develop a scanning pattern that is not only comfortable but assures optimum effectiveness. Pilots should remember, however, that they have a regulatory responsibility (14 CFR Section 91.113(a)) to see and avoid other aircraft when weather conditions permit.
For even more information, there is an entire section of the Air Traffic Control job aid which the controllers use about visual separation.
ATC will sometimes give pilots the instruction to maintain visual separation from nearby traffic. I have a couple questions about this: There is a related question here about traffic separation. Is the required separation in this case different, and how can they judge this? (I would like a bit more detail for this specific case than was provided on the answer there) Normally pilots will follow their flight plan and ATC instructions. What actions should pilots take to maintain separation? I mean, obviously whatever is necessary, but is there any standard method? Should they anticipate
I enjoy tracking air traffic at my local KORD. I listen on LiveATC and use my private virtual radar setup to get "real-time" traffic info. I understand which instructions need to be read back by the pilots per this question however on more than one occasion I don't hear read back on critical vector info on departure, despite the visual confirmation of instruction (pilot making proper vector and speed adjustments). I tend to notice this with bigger birds (777,747,340), however smaller regional jets almost always promptly read back. Questions: Is there an alternative way of ATC
how Airbus and Boeing made their design decisions, but rather see if there has been performed a study on what interface is preferred by pilots, eventually differentiating among private/commercial pilots...Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection of the stick will command a certain rate, releasing it will make the system maintain the current attitude. See the Airbus Normal control law. direct control: a deflection of the yoke will directly
In class D and E airspace, there is no separation between IFR and VFR traffic. However, most airspace in the United States below 18,500 feet MSL is class E airspace, which is exactly where non-pressurized aircraft cruise when flying IFR. My question is not about regulation (that's perfectly clear: no separation between IFR/VFR) but I'm curious to learn how safe it actually is when cruising at 10,000 feet in VMC on an IFR flight plan while in class E airspace. I'm pretty sure many pilots will be on autopilot without taking too much notice of what's happening outside but according
I'm from Brazil, and here we use the West/East rule, so we use an odd flight level when we fly between 0/360 - 179, and when we fly between 180 - 359 we fly in an even flight level. But what should you do in other countries? Where I can find those rules? I've heard that in Europe it's totally different, and that in some countries in Asia they use meters, instead of feet. Where can I find this information?
What does ATC do when there is an emergency? This could be a tower or an ARTCC being evacuated or otherwise unusable. How do they decide whether to close the airport/airspace? What do they do with the traffic, whether they do or don't close? On this related question, it turned out that Newark closed because of smoke in the tower. Another user posted an interesting anecdote about another tower being evacuated, so I thought it warranted a question.
It's easy to go online and look at prices of a Cessna 172, but what are some examples of how to breakdown the real world costs of ownership? how much other maintenance should you plan for? How much does an engine overhaul cost? Insurance hangar etc.. It would be great to also get some typical costs and ranges, since some element are more predictable than others. Obviously the costs... for the structure of the costs to start making a plan for cost analysis and diligence. For example, with an IFR aircraft, what costs are involved with keeping it current?
In a full motion Level C or D simulator like those used by the airlines and for jet type ratings: How should a pilot log the simulator time in their logbook? I.e. Can you log: Total Time Instrument Time Time in Type Cross Country Time Night Time Landings (including night landings) Dual given/received Anything else?
, traffic pattern if visual, missed approach if on instruments), but doesn't say anything about the appropriate pilot phraseology. I couldn't find any reference in the AIM (chapter 4 section 2) either. (I also often hear just "missed approach", which I suppose would be appropriate when checking back in with approach, but not with the tower, although feel free to clarify that for me as well) ...The use of the phrase "going around" is specified by ICAO Doc 4444 as the phrase to use when we're aborting the landing and heading for another lap in the traffic pattern if we're on a visual
Looking at the paths of the same flight on two different days, I noticed they flew very different paths. Short Path:1 YAY N184B TOPPS ENE PARCH1 Long Path:1 NIBAX G462 TUMAK UL602 ORSOL UL602... REGHI UN480 ETIKI NATD DOVEY LACKS BERGH L454 OWENZ CAMRN CAMRN4 I asked a similar question in the past. This is what I want to know: What are the reasons which can cause a commercial flight to change its path mid-route? How it is planed and executed? I am sure the captain is the final authority on this, but who else is informed? 1Route Source: FlightAware. P.S.: I could not understand