wake turbulence separation for touch-n-go

that was sarcasm right?

and when I went through this summer the academy said you do have to say maintain visual separation.

the only way for an aircraft to have visual separation on another is
1. u call traffic, pilot sees the traffic, pilot told to maintain visual separation
2. u call traffic, pilot sees the traffic and says will maintain visual separation, controller says visual separation approved.

so the only way to use visual separation in lieu of the 3 minute wake turbulence is to do one of the 2 things above.

__________________

You didn't miss anything, I'm just to busy arguing to think sometimes...I never separate a small+ from a small+ anwyay...

I will check the the most current separation CBI tomorrow, and tell what number it is, and what it says regarding the visual separation stuff.

CBI is Runway Separation 57093 Series 21
__________________________________________________ __________
For following in the pattern they had:

C- N245TA (small Cessna), traffic D-C nine on base leg, report traffic in sight.

P- N5TA traffic in sight.

C- N5TA Follow the D-C nine, caution wake turbulence , runway one two cleared for touch and go.

P- N5TA cleared touch and go.
__________________________________________________ _________
For small in pattern with Heavy departing same runway they had:

C- N5TA heavy C five departing runway one two, report traffic in sight.

P- N5TA traffic observed.

C- N5TA caution wake turbulence, runway one two cleared for touch and go.

P- N5TA cleared touch and go.
__________________________________________________ _______

Asked sup, they said they didn't give a crap what the CBI said, you have to say, maintain visual separation, in both cases.
__________________________________________________ ________

Apparently there is a difference between visual separation 7-2-1 of the 7110.65 and visual spacing 3-8-1 of the 7110.65.

In the AIM 5-5-12 VISUAL SEPARATION, it says:

5-5-12. Visual Separation

a. Pilot.

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.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Who the hell knows for sure, but according to the AIM, CBI and the example in the 7110.65 which lacks phraseology of the maintain visual separation part, it's possible that when you tell someone "number 8 follow", and they read back "traffic in sight", then all you may need at that point is just the caution wake turbulence, and not the maintain visual separation because when the pilot accepts instructions to follow another aircraft (AIM rule 1 above) the pilot also accepts responsibility for wake turbulence separation (AIM rule 3 above). But I don't usually care what the AIM or CBI's say, cause they don't mean crap when you argue with AT.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Having said all of that, I don't see how the second example in the CBI works since you don't tell pilots to follow an aircraft that is departing, and they can't follow someone that is on the ground taking off.

So if the second example in the CBI is wrong, then that calls the whole dam thing into question. I hate thoes stupid things anyway. They are constantly wrong, and AT always says the same thing....we only follow the 7110.65, not the CBI's.

THEN WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THEM?

i'd have to agree with the sup on this one.

not for both instances though, just the second instance.

__________________

I think I agree with you Roddy. In the case where you have a small doing a touch and go behind a small plus or large doing a touch and go, then you can just say follow and then caution wake turbulence. But for the case where you have a small doing touch and go after small plus or large departure, then "maintain visual separation" is required.

I did this at least 10 times today, and told the pilot to maintain visual separation every time, I don't care what the CBI says.

100% agree. gotta say maintain visual separation or else there is no visual separation and u need the 3 minutes.

thanks for the CBI insight, which i think is usually worthless.

__________________

wow! i read all six pages of this thing and blood is about to shoot out of my eyes...lol. a lot of reading but it was fun. i would say maintain vis behind the large departure.

Jesus, CagedCabMonkey, you found the right CBI in less than one day? You must really want that "top research assistant position in my contracting company startup" I mentioned. I didn't realize FAA new hire pay was so bad, and I kinda promised that position to a coworker! Of course, I myself was looking for the CBI in the Visual Separation CBIs...

Seriously though, I doubt the CBI is wrong. CBI's may be mind-numbingly boring, but it's very rare for an OE to slip by the vetting process at OKC Academy. If it happens, it would be because a disk wasn't updated to the latest 7110.65.

There is an FAA ftp website that covers 7110.65 interpretations, and when I get time I will try to find an exact match to this discussion. (Working six days a week doesn't leave much of it). The 130 interpretations I got years ago weren't enough, apparently.

I did, however, get a mini-interpretation that covers a similar situation, same principle. Two IFR's, the second one gets the first one in sight, told to follow, no need to say "maintain visual separation" plus get a readback, etc. And if you don't need to tell two IFRs to "maintain visual separation," you shouldn't need to tell a VFR Cessna.

VisSep_Interp.pdf

I was trained in the 80's to never tell a VFR ACFT to "maintain visual separation," but that was when most terminal controllers started at VFR towers. With the contracting out of level one's and a few level two's in the early 90's, many controllers started out at big IFR airports instead. Then they try to adapt that "Big City" type of controlling to other situations where it doesn't need to be used. And like black mold at Atlanta Center, it just spreads and spreads

different situation. two ifrs and one told to follow doesn't need to say maintain visual separation, because your gonna follow it up with cleared visual approach. that clearance implies the assumption to maintain visual separation because he has to follow him and should never get too close...if he is gonna in fact follow him.

i think this still applies today. a lot of tower controllers misinterpret what visual separation is. visual separation allows you or the pilot to reduce separation to less than a required minimum by visual means. 2 VFR aircraft requires no separation at all, since they are VFR. hence, between 2 VFR aircraft you should never be saying "maintain visual separation" yet time and again you will hear it said. why are they maintaining visual separation? there is no separation standard between 2 VFR aircraft (in most situations) so it's pointless to say it

however, when your dealing with a S doing a touch and go behind a departing S+/L/H then you are allowed to let the pilot provide his own visual separation behind the departing aircraft instead of using the 3 minutes.

again:
the only way for an aircraft to have visual separation on another is
1. u call traffic, pilot sees the traffic, pilot told to maintain visual separation
2. u call traffic, pilot sees the traffic and says will maintain visual separation, controller says visual separation approved.

__________________