VFR target separation

Can someone clear this up for me?

In radar, I'm wondering about the required separation from VFR targets (i'm talking about the ones that just show an unverified altitude). Now if I've got an IFR guy, even though the VFR guy's altitude is unverified, do I still need to keep the IFR guy 500 feet from him or ensure target resolution? (or have visual if I call the traffic and tell him to maintain visual?)

I had someone tell me once that if you call traffic to an IFR guy on that VFR target, and even if he doesn't see the traffic... if he hits him it's not your fault because you called the traffic. Or is this the case if you have like a VFR flight following guy and you call the traffic to him on another VFR target? That would make more sense to me.

Well it depends on the class of airspace. I presently work a class E airspace and am not required to separate VFR aircraft (other than target res). I know that in other airspaces you are required to provide 500 feet sep on vfr aircraft. The one thing to consider is do you want to be the controller that was working when an IFR aircraft crashes into a VFR aircraft. What are you going to say "Well I issued traffic". I can pretty much bet that if this happend you would be considered a contributing factor. Our job is to keep aircraft safe and sometimes that means providing separation even when it may not be required.

Just my .02

AW

Just issue traffic on the unverified a/c until your radar i.d.'d a/c reports the other guy "in sight" or they are no longer a factor to each other. You cannot predict the flight path of the unverified a/c...If the pilot request, you can try and issue a vector around the target...You cannot go by altitude b/c the a/c is unverified...he could have an altimeter dialed in that is way off and actually be a lot lower or higher than indicated on his mode c. The best thing to do is continue to issue traffic or if the pilot requests issue a vector to keep your a/c away.

__________________
Your friendly neighborhood Lawn Gnome

Good answer LG

KR

There's a distinction between what's legal and what's safe.

Legally, you could just issue the traffic. If that VFR pilot who's untagged, unverified, and not talking to you slams into your IFR airplane, that's their fault. That's what VFR means - as the pilot you're responsible for separating yourself from terrain, obstacles, and - most relevant here - other aircraft.

But for safety reasons, I'd attempt to steer the IFR airplane around the target if it looked like it was really going to be an issue. Even if the VFR airplane smacks your IFR airplane, it's still the VFR pilot's fault, but at least you tried to keep the situation from happening. Of course, the VFR pilot's lawyer will try to say "If you hadn't given that vector they wouldn't have hit," to which the counter is "If your client was looking out the window as he was supposed to, they wouldn't have hit."

VFR, IFR, untagged, or whatever, watching two targets merge at the same altitude is not for the faint of heart. I've had it happen once with a VFR flight following target who was climbing and another untagged guy suddenly zoom-climbed from underneath right through his altitude. All I could do was issue traffic as I had no idea where the untagged target was going. Both were showing 5600 feet and there was no "green between". It was the first time I'd seen anything like that and I think I stopped breathing for about 2 sweeps until the targets separated. My guy never saw the other guy. And then it was just "N123, traffic no factor."

__________________
D2 Level Developmental - Pensacola TRACON (P31)
--> My Training Blog

That may be the worst ATC advice ever given.

If you turn ANY airplane "to avoid" a unidentified target, without the pilot's request, and he smacks him, you are toast.

You're going to have to toughen up. You will see many, many targets merge in your career. Especially if you work a coastline.

Well then anytime you want to turn an IFR away from a VFR guy who may be a possible conflict, can't you just always issue the traffic call and then tell him, "Advise you turn to this heading..." etc.?

It can be looked at it the same way if you dont turn the aircraft away from an unidentified aircraft and they crash. If you were investigating a crash and you see that the controller saw the potential conflict and did nothing to keep the airplanes from merging the controller would be considered a contributing factor. If I turn an aircraft to avoid another they are definatly not going to crash into each other. What good controller turns an aircraft to avoid another and they still crash? That person shouldn't be working planes. Nor should the one who says "screw it" lets the targets merge and prays that they dont crash and then says "he was VFR" "I issued traffic". Our job is to separate airplanes whether or not they are VFR or IFR. If you did nothing when you could have you will say "what if I had turned him" for the rest of you life. I for one will always do my best to make sure that targets never merge although I know that it does and will happen.

AW

Just a little link from the ol' .65

2-1-2. DUTY PRIORITY

a. Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as required in this order. Good judgment shall be used in prioritizing all other provisions of this order based on the requirements of the situation at hand.



5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES

a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:

1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.

2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.

3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.

b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.

EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."

"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."

c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.

EXAMPLE-
"Delta One Twenty Three, fly heading two niner zero, vector for traffic. Traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, MD-80 eastbound at flight level three two zero."

d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.

NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.

e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.

NOTE-
The phraseology "Unable RVSM due turbulence (or mountain wave)" is only intended for severe turbulence or other weather encounters with altitude deviations of approximately 200 feet or more.



So yes it says if pilot request vector to avoid, but our duty is to separate airplanes and letting targets merge is not doing a very good job of that. IMHO.

AW

Mr. Brownie--Your .65 (5-1-8 a.) example is for IDENTIFIED aircraft. The original post is a scenerio where nothing is known about the target. It's not even known if it is an aircraft. So any action that you take is a reaction to an assumption.

The target could be a Pitt doing aero work. You turn your guy to a 090 and right after you do, the Pitt whips to a 090 also. Bam, you killed them.

Remember--the VFR pilot must participate in order to be separated (7210.3 Ch11). That is not the case here. You can't force what YOU think is safe on a VFR pilot.

BTW, your "screw it" and other little zingers didn't go unnoticed. I got 'em.

You'll understand a lot more of this as you season.