Maintain Visual Separation?

Jax

Senior Analyst
Nov 17, 2010
869
32
28
N90-EWR
BTW..the reason why they don't say that follow = maintain visual separation is because they assume the pilots are not stupid enough to crash into an aircraft they have in sight and following. If you need that to be defined in black and white....then I will point you to my avatar.
 

FM_Weasel

Senior Analyst
Dec 9, 2008
991
7
18
There was a briefing item of sorts that I read a few years ago that did clarify the agency's position on "follow" being enough for separation. I have applied the practice at two terminal facilities without issue, even after the establishment of TARP.

It won't be in the .65, the .65 doesn't say "follow constitutes visual separation" anywhere. Since I can't reproduce the document that I KNOW I read with my own two eyes, I'm going to drop my argument. But I'm going to keep using it until the higher-ups say I can't.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
Well, in my situation, "follow" would make a whole lot more sense, although it is still impossible to get anywhere near the jet. One can indeed " follow" an object that is rapidly moving away. But just like the words "visual separation" the word "follow" conveys nothing about wake turbulence to a pilot.

You have no choice - you must follow the rule book. My job is to convey to pilots that what you say is not necessarily, at this late date, precisely what is happening. Until you change the rule book, I will be teaching that the words "maintain visual separation" do not mean "avoid colliding with" but mean only that the pilot is responsible for wake turbulence separation. That is simple enough.
 

Jax

Senior Analyst
Nov 17, 2010
869
32
28
N90-EWR
If there is wake turbulence involved, we're required to say "caution wake turbulence" as part of the clearance. A visual does not change that requirement.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
The proper response ought to be: "waive the wake turbulence" not " I promise not to hit him". Unfortunately the rule book makes it so that controllers understand, but pilots do not. I will teach it your way, and encourage the FAA to make the readback relate to what is actually going on.
 

The Heatles

Loving Life
Jun 15, 2008
2,172
24
38
Miami, FL
It still means "don't hit him" but can ALSO be used for wake turbulence. It allows you to go closer to another aircraft but can also be used for wake turbulence when "caution wake turbulence" is said along with it.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
That is what makes it so stupid. You cannot hit him - it is impossible as long as the laws of physics apply. You cannot see wake turbulence, and therefore, by the rules of English, you cannot maintain visual separation with the turbulence. Never mind that the words imply no such thing.

The real problem here is that this is well understood by controllers and makes absolutely zero sense to pilots. I will teach it your way. I have no choice. We need to understand each other, especially when your guidance requires you to speak in code.

The words " caution wake turbulence" to a pilot mean exactly that. They do not mean "ok, we have just waived our normal separation rules for you", at least to pilots without continuous access to your rule book.

I can tell I am not making my opinion clear here.
 

unable

Trusted Member
Jan 31, 2013
399
36
28
Over the Rainbow
You can however see where the jet rotates. You should know that this is where wake turbulence begins. Maintaining visual separation means you can see where the jet rotates.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
22
38
You should know enough about wake turbulence characteristics of your local aircraft to know that depending on where they rotate at, you need to adjust your flight path slightly. Or if you don't want to do that, just never report them in sight. The controller will probably clear you to land and hold on the runway for wake turbulence and then he'll call your departure roll after the 3 minutes has elapsed.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
I do know enough about wake turbulence. When I want reduced separation I should be able to ask for it, not be tricked into waiving your separation standards.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
You made me laugh. You are right, in the global scheme of things, this is not a big deal.
 

Roddy_Piper

Resident Knucklehead
Jun 15, 2008
3,339
18
38
Vegas baby
www.myspace.com
Your visual separation while on the downwind is required unless the controller can assure 2 or 3 minutes separation based on the type landing you're looking for. It has nothing to do with you "catching him", it has to do with a wake turbulence requirement.

As for the separation between the jet and the Cessna I would hope they are on diverging courses. If not then it sounds like a bad call. A/C characteristics play a large roll in visual separation
really? your gonna lose credibility here. runway separation is the question. visual is what happens later. still 3, 4.5, 6/full runway.

visual is for successive departures. for arrivals it still depends on actual separation.

doh
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
22
38
really? your gonna lose credibility here. runway separation is the question. visual is what happens later. still 3, 4.5, 6/full runway.

visual is for successive departures. for arrivals it still depends on actual separation.

doh
It's wake turbulence that's the issue. If a large departs the runway and the guy in the pattern wants to do a touch and go, he needs to report the departure in sight so the controller can use "maintain visual and caution wake turbulence" if less than 3 minutes will pass from the time the departure rotates, until the guy in the pattern touches down.

I can't use just use 6,000 feet of runway separation if an RJ departs and a Cessna wants a touch and go right after. I need the 6,000 feet AND visual separation (or 3 minutes.) This would apply to any aircraft over 12,500 lbs departing in front of pattern traffic doing options.

If some facility is requiring pilots to report departing traffic in sight before a LANDING clearance is issued, than the facility is overdoing it.
 

be2atc

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2011
295
1
18
Corinth, Tx
That's the great thing about our industry. Due to some non-controlling, paper pushing, ivy league law dog changing our stupid manuals on a monthly basis, we always learn something. I've only been doing this since 97, but even back then, the 7110 was about 1/3 of the size it is now. Ridiculous.
 

TimShady

Senior Analyst
Mar 12, 2009
887
5
18
33
Chicago
So where in there does it say that saying "follow" means that visual separation is applied? You can CLEAR THE A/C FOR THE APPROACH when he has the a/c or the field in sight, but nowhere does it say that visual separation is applied. Even the section directly our of chapter 7 says specifically "instruct the a/c to maintain visual separation". I'm not arguing that you can't say follow. I say follow all the time, but that doesn't allow me to let them go less than my minimum required separation.

AGAIN... 7-2-1 says



Just show me ONCE where it says that "follow" is the same thing as "maintain visual separation". Just 1 thing in the 7110.65 that says that is all im asking for. Even #3 of your own post says "Radar separation must be maintained until visual separation is provided"
I'm just curious, do you work Miami Approach? It just seems like they would use follow on visual approaches all day and not worry about radar sep at that point. If you don't do it, there must be people there that do and you said you've never heard of it before.

c. Clear an aircraft for a visual approach when:
1. The aircraft is number one in the approach
sequence, or
2. The aircraft is to follow a preceding aircraft
and the pilot reports the preceding aircraft in sight and
is instructed to follow it, or
NOTE−
The pilot need not report the airport/runway in sight.
3. The pilot reports the airport or runway in sight
but not the preceding aircraft. Radar separation must
be maintained until visual separation is provided.

If you read that section in context, it seems obvious that you don't need radar sep for part 2 since it specifically clarifies that you DO in part 3. I've never heard anyone say you still need radar sep using part 2 of this paragraph. In all honesty I think you should ask around about this because it might make your job a little bit easier.
 

The Heatles

Loving Life
Jun 15, 2008
2,172
24
38
Miami, FL
Tim, that section is the requirement to clear the aircraft for the approach, no where does it relieve you of any separation requirement. The a/c must have the airport in sight to be cleared for the visual approach. If it cant find the airport but has another airplane going to the airport in sight then it can follow the airplane ahead and be cleared for the approach. It tells you to instruct them to follow the other aircraft because they don't have the airport in sight. That's the only way they are going to find the airport. That is what that section says... nowhere does it say that you no longer need separation. That's my only argument with this whole debate.

And Roddy, I love you brother, but you're wrong... visual separation for a guy in the pattern is only about the wake turbulence. Also successive departures MUST HAVE 6000' and airborne (or 3000' or 4500' depending on type), regardless if visual separation is applied or not.
 

bob44zw

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
108
1
18
Just think about how much I have learned. I had no idea why the tower thought I was a factor to that King Air. Now I have the full story, and can share it with others who may be puzzled.

On the 7110 - sorry you folks are being deluged with rules and legal interpretations. You are not alone. I just invented an "after takeoff" checklist for a Piper J-3 Cub! Required by something the FAA calls a PTS.

There are half as many non- airline flights today compared to 1977, and I am sure there are way more folks engaged in writing and interpreting rules. Hey, I recently filled out an accident report for a flat tire on a taxiway - no other damage, and fixed in 20 minutes. The person getting me to fill out the forms said they had to go to the NTSB.

Our airport will have magnetic strips for entry next month. Airport management will be able to track how often I peepee. Will we all have to "fall in" and march to our airplanes?