Separation from airspace

NUWATC Rookie

Let me set the stage with all the facts then ask my question.

-The airspace i work is class charlie and it extends surface to 9k. Seattle Center owns everything else.... imagine that they own surface to the moon and release 9k and below to us. That being said there is no gray area from 9001 to 9999. They just straight up own it.

-I was always under the impression you separate from adjacent airspace vertically by, IFR 1k, VFR 500 feet. Meaning if i handed an aircraft off at 9k and released him for climb out of the vertical limits of my airspace they could give that aircraft a turn, if he is IFR only after he reached 10k.

- Fact is the 7110 doesn't cover it. It only talks about separation laterally from other airspace. meaning they could climb an aircraft and almost immediately turn him, this obviously has great potential to be hazardous.

Can someone just tell me I'm wrong and that this is a different manual that covers this and that they can not do that?

DairyCreamer Senior Member Elsewhere

I won't just tell you that you're wrong per your request, but I will try to show you the details. Let's learn something here.

First... check out 7110.65 2-1-14 and 2-1-15. Excellent reading. Here's a link: Chapter 2. General Control

Before we move on, I think your example needs clarification.

Let's stipulate the following:

* ABC Center owns the world (and rightfully so, glory be to the center).
* XYZ Apch is delegated SFC-90 by ABC Center (how benevolent).
* XYZ Apch is delegated a 35 NM radius from their radar antenna (truly generous).
* XYZ Apch contains a Class C area with a top at 40, 10 NM radius.
* Radar is in use at all facilities.

Given the above:

Since the omnipotent and benevolent center rightfully delegated airspace 90 and below, then for VFR purposes, center owns 9000.00000001' and above.

For VFRs, I know of no requirement to separate VFR aircraft from approach control airspace, and if you say remain clear of Class C airspace for whatever reason, they can run right up to the boundary as tight as they want, be it a foot vertically or laterally. Maybe not safe, but legal. May he be smitten... well, not really, but still.

The approach controller would need to separate VFR from IFR by either 500' vertical and/or target resolution (tgt res applies to a broadband system), Reference 7110.65 7-8, Class C Services.

For IFR aircraft, the thought process changes.

First, I disagree entirely that the .65 doesn't cover this. Per 4-5-1, IFR Vertical Separation, "Separate instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft using the following minima between altitudes:," then apply the proper separation as listed. For this scenario, 1000' is fine.

Given an IFR scenario, the block of 9001' to 9999' MSL isn't really owned by anyone since only 90 and 100 are assignable altitudes (per 4-5-2). Since approach owns 90 and below, for IFR purposes, center really only owns 100 and above in contrast to VFR. Ergo, approach and center aircraft are always separated vertically. This is truly a heavenly arrangement by the beloved and omnipresent center.

If center were to properly allow an aircraft to fly at something less than 100, then some form of transfer of radar identification (e.g., point out) or airspace blocking would need to occur, otherwise, they are not upholding their end of the bargain of 1000' separation between altitudes (in this case, airspace). We, of course, know that a center would never violate the laws of their own universe, and proper coordination would always be dutifully applied.

So... back to 2-1-15, Control Transfer. Part 'c' explicitly states "Assume control of an aircraft only after it is in your area of jurisdiction unless specifically coordinated or as specified by letter of agreement or a facility directive." So, since the center controller owns 100 for IFR purposes, they can't exercise control of that aircraft until it reaches 100, not just out of 9001' MSL. If center tried to turn them before they reached 100, they are violating this section.

Anyway... that's my take on it. Comments, concerns, criticism welcome.

BTW... I know I stipulated a lot more than needed for what I talked about. I put the other stuff in there in case anyone wanted to talk explicitly about radar standards or the Class C itself since the original example was kinda vague.

~Nate

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

when u say u "released him for climb" are u saying that ZSE asked for control and u gave it to them? if so, they can turn immediately. u don't really need to release the aircraft for a climb since u don't own the airspace that the aircraft will climb into. maybe the verbiage u used is what's confusing u. i'm just guessing by the way your question is worded.

i would hope the ZSE controller would wait for the turn after entering their own airspace with approved separation. ie NWA188 climb and maintain FL230, leaving 1-0 thousand cleared direct MSP. (hello, NWA188 are u there?? NWA188 wake up) anyway, sorry for the NWA jab...those pilots on that flight annoy me.

most LOAs will spell out what kind of control the receiving facility has at point of handoff. is there something in the NUW/ZSE LOA that covers control for turns? i would expect it's in there somewhere.

airspace separation is only defined by lateral standards as u mentioned. however, u cannot enter another controllers airspace by less than IFR vertical separation even if u own the 999 feet that separates the 2 airspaces.

garlandatc Junior Member

I have administrated D, B, E and special use airspace. I have not worked C. But from what I gather just because you own up to 9000 that is still only 4000ft. So your field elevation is approximately 5000 ft agl. I’m guessing so let me know if I am mistaken. It must be reasonably busy around your facility. You are not providing IFR handling/radar services. Correct. This is what I see. In C, IFR has to be separated from VFR only within the confines of C airspace. And as normal you are responsible to alleviate all potential conflicts prior to completing a handoff. In this case once the aircraft climbs out of C it enters E. Now separation rules change. Regardless you’re protecting for the aircraft while in C and all aircraft in C have to have operating mode Cs. I mention this because Mode Cs stick out and aid as a common aide in situational awareness between you and the controllers of adjacent airspace. When the aircraft leaves C then Approach (it should be) provides services based on a different priority. There is no separation from C airspace on top in regards to VFR aircraft but to IFR rules still apply. App should know of all IFR operations and that separation rests with them regardless. Like I said I have never worked Charlie. But I do have some experience with TRSA. I don’t see an issue with the turns while climbing into E.

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

@ garlandatc

i think the 5000 feet comes from the confines of the class C, not that the airport is 5000'MSL. he's in seattle, so i'm guessing their pretty close to sea level anyway. they own up to 9000', and their class C goes up to 5000'.

anyway, the OP was asking if they own up to 9000' and Seattle Center above them owns ABOVE 9000'...can the Center turn an IFR aircraft at 9001' because ZSE technically owns ABOVE 9000'.

meatasaurusx Trusted Member Chi-town

In a situation like this, there should be an LOA with Seattle Center that specifically defines when control of an aircraft is released to the Center and what type of control they have. It would be potentially hazardous for them to just arbitrarily turn and climb an aircraft when it could be less than 1000 feet from the top of your airspace. I do believe that there is something in the .65 that does say if another control facility (in this case the center) accepts a handoff, the aircraft has been shipped, and they are expected to climb the aircraft out of your airspace but they can't, they are supposed to tell you.

MikeATC Retired FAA, NATCA Member Nashville TN

To put it simply, unless your LOA with the center states they can turn the aircraft within your airspace then "NO" they can not turn the departure until it is above your airspace unless they coordinate otherwise. I've worked Class C airspace since 94 and the rule has never changed.

DairyCreamer Senior Member Elsewhere

I must be chopped liver, or at the very least, invisible. I seem to be the only one that has bothered to at least try and quote the book in a meaningful fashion.

@roddy:

First, agreed that the release for climb is unnecessary, though I'm sure you'd agree that releasing for climb is not the same as releasing for turns.

Again, I disagree that airspace separation is only defined by lateral standards. Per 4-5-1, IFR Vertical Separation ""Separate instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft using the following minima between altitudes:" That quote doesn't specify only 1000' from other aircraft, but from "altitudes." As such, if the center specifically delegated approach 90 and below, then center has an obligation per this line to separate IFR aircraft from that altitude by no less than 1000', aka 10,000' MSL. This could also apply to any ad-hoc airspace blocked by one controller or another.

Let's assume that there is no part of the LOA between center and approach that delegates control for turns. Not all approach controls have this, and certainly out here at ZAB, we don't have that power between us and our RAPCONs.

I agree with your clarification of the question in your 2nd post.


@garland:

First, I think Roddy clarified the dimensions of the problem... that's what I tried to clarify in my stipulations in my 1st post.

Why do you say "you are not providing IFR handling/radar services?" That makes no sense. As an approach control, he best be providing services to all IFR aircraft.

I disagree 100% with your statement that IFR/VFR are only separated specifically within Class C airspace. Reference 7110.65 7-8-1, Class C Services - Terminal, and the P/CG's definition of "Outer Area," approach controllers provide Class C services (including the defined separation standards) out to 20 NM and up to the top of approach control airspace.

Within the Class C and Outer Area, sep rules for IFR/VFR are the same. Beyond 20 miles, ok, sure, I will give you that is just standard Class E airspace. There aren't formal separation standards for VFR/IFR at that point; However, traffic alerts (among other things) are still required per 7-6-1, Basic Radar Service to VFR Aircraft.


@meat:

I will look at the ZSE/NUW LOA when I get to work later this afternoon, but for the generalized example, let's pretend there aren't any conditions releasing control between the facilies within the transferring controller's airspace. It isn't always desired or necessary to have an LOA release any control to an aircraft while within the confines of the transferring controller's airspace, and without an LOA specification, the .65 rules on the matter.

Also, within the .65, the reference you are looking for regarding delaying taking an aircraft out of the transferring controller's strata is (for radar) 5-4-6.h/i.


@mike:

I think the technicality in the question lies in the whole "within your airspace" part. The OP is concerned that 9001 is technically out of approach control's airspace, and while that is correct from an absolute standpoing, considering the aforementioned arguments about a minimum of 1000' separation between IFR aircraft and "altitudes," center can't legally/safely turn someone until out of 100 without coordination or an LOA stating otherwise.


~Nate

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

I agree there is a difference between the 2. My point was that releasing control for climb is unnecessary, which is why his statement about it made me wonder if ZSE might've called and asked for control during the one specific instance he is talking about. He might've assumed the control he released was for climb only, not realizing "your control" meant the ZSE controller could've turned the airplane early...legally.

Your not invisible Nate. We posted about the same time. After I read your awesome post, I deferred...until I read garlandatc's random post.

DairyCreamer Senior Member Elsewhere

Yah... I know we posted about the same time at first, no worries at all. I just kinda wanted to say chopped liver :-D

~Nate