Frequency change when departing D

ejensen said:
Sorry missed that. But even taking off is there any requirment for a totally clear rwy? And I mean reg not common sense.
Click to expand...

Why not ask the FAA controllers at AirVenture?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Get outside of the 4 mile circle and turn your radio off if you like, no need to wait or advise.
Click to expand...
If it's a class D, you're obliged to stay in communication until you exit the area. The nominal class D is bigger than a 4 mile circle, and in some cases may not be circular.
The four mile circle only applies to towers that are inside class G or E airspace (wasn't supposed to happen, but the FAA was screwed up on that one).
 
deyoung said:
What instructions does the FAA not want controllers to issue? Sorry if I seem slow here, but I'm not following this assumption.
Click to expand...

The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC.
 
roncachamp said:
The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC.
Click to expand...

5−6−1. APPLICATION
Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver, or when a pilot requests.
b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional service.
 
luvflyin said:
5−6−1. APPLICATION
Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver, or when a pilot requests.
b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional service.
Click to expand...

What is your point?
 
roncachamp said:
What is your point?
Click to expand...

That "The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC" is not correct. It does. There is a lot of controlled airspace where separation of VFR traffic is not required, where ATC may initiate vectoring.
 
luvflyin said:
That "The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC" is not correct. It does. There is a lot of controlled airspace where separation of VFR traffic is not required, where ATC may initiate vectoring.
Click to expand...

Please identify that controlled airspace and state which of the items of paragraph 5−6−1.a. apply.
 
I was taught to always ask for frequency change if not prompted before exiting Class D. Heck, TCL clears you to BHM approach on your downwind departure or whichever you are using.

It depends
 
Mooney Fan said:
Too funny..... Why not vector the IFR aircraft around the VFR traffic? DFW does it all the time!

Click to expand...

To be honest, that’s what I always did. There’s no IFR over VFR priority so if a vector is to be done for “safety” it really should go to the IFR.

We’ve beaten the subject up on POA several times. Steven’s position is that the vector should only be given to VFR in airspace that requires separation. I agree somewhat with that assertion and 7-6-1 a (3) supports that. The problem with all that is the blanket primary purpose if ATC is to “prevent a collision” and vector (ch 5) for “safety.”

Personally when handling VFRs, I treated them as if they were still 1200 guys and not talking to me in that they should be able (within reason) to operate on their own. I wasn’t there to be heavy handed and vector or issue altitude assignments. I was there to make them aware of their surroundings (traffic) and assist in NAV (vectors) upon request. The initiated vector, in my opinion, should only be given at the result of a safety alert. Even then, it’s up to the pilot if they take it or not.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
To be honest, that’s what I always did. There’s no IFR over VFR priority so if a vector is to be done for “safety” it really should go to the IFR.

We’ve beaten the subject up on POA several times. Ron’s position is that the vector should only be given to VFR in airspace that requires separation. I agree somewhat with that assertion and 7-6-1 a (3) supports that. The problem with all that is the blanket primary purpose if ATC is to “prevent a collision” and vector (ch 5) for “safety.”

Personally when handling VFRs, I treated them as if they were still 1200 guys and not talking to me in that they should be able (within reason) to operate on their own. I wasn’t there to be heavy handed and vector or issue altitude assignments. I was there to make them aware of their surroundings (traffic) and assist in NAV (vectors) upon request. The initiated vector, in my opinion, should only be given at the result of a safety alert. Even then, it’s up to the pilot if they take it or not.
Click to expand...

There are many times when I was operating in Class G/E airspace under FF where I am vectored for safety due to traffic which I have not been able to identify. Can't think of any other reason ATC would even give a rip about me VFR. On the other hand, FT Campbell approach gets under my skin when using FF through their MOA in they have you remain 3 miles from their R-3702 A B. If I was squawking 1200, I could fly right along the perimeter. If you need the additional 3 miles, increase the R-area..

I digress
 
Mooney Fan said:
There are many times when I was operating in Class G/E airspace under FF where I am vectored for safety due to traffic which I have not been able to identify. Can't think of any other reason ATC would even give a rip about me VFR. On the other hand, FT Campbell approach gets under my skin when using FF through their MOA in they have you remain 3 miles from their R-3702 A B. If I was squawking 1200, I could fly right along the perimeter. If you need the additional 3 miles, increase the R-area..

I digress
Click to expand...

Yeah I think most controllers are going to keep you 3 nm from the boundary while IFR. I think they’re misinterpreting the order in that they believe they have “separation responsibility” for you as a non participating VFR. Really, you’re a non participating aircraft but they don’t provide separation responsibility for you in class G or E. You should be able to run the border just as if you were 1200 talking to no one. Now IFR? 3 miles laterally or 500 ft vertically.
 
roncachamp said:
Please identify that controlled airspace and state which of the items of paragraph 5−6−1.a. apply.
Click to expand...

That airspace would be just about everywhere. There is so little uncontrolled airspace left above 700/1200 AGL that it's hardly worth considering. The parts of it where separation of VFR aircraft is required, Class B, C and TRSA's is a small percentage of controlled airspace. Don't know what you mean by "which terms," it all applies.
 
Velocity173 said:
To be honest, that’s what I always did. There’s no IFR over VFR priority so if a vector is to be done for “safety” it really should go to the IFR.

We’ve beaten the subject up on POA several times. Ron’s position is that the vector should only be given to VFR in airspace that requires separation. I agree somewhat with that assertion and 7-6-1 a (3) supports that. The problem with all that is the blanket primary purpose if ATC is to “prevent a collision” and vector (ch 5) for “safety.”

Personally when handling VFRs, I treated them as if they were still 1200 guys and not talking to me in that they should be able (within reason) to operate on their own. I wasn’t there to be heavy handed and vector or issue altitude assignments. I was there to make them aware of their surroundings (traffic) and assist in NAV (vectors) upon request. The initiated vector, in my opinion, should only be given at the result of a safety alert. Even then, it’s up to the pilot if they take it or not.
Click to expand...

I tended to vector the VFR if there was a situation where one of them needed a vector. Reason being the VFR was usually just someone getting flight following and not on any kind of route assignment. They could turn at anytime without saying anything. I'd sometimes tell them to advise before make any turns and/or altitude changes if it looked like there might be a developing situation. 7-6-1 a. says:

7−6−1. APPLICATION
a. Basic radar services for VFR aircraft must include:

Must include.

3. Limited radar vectoring when requested by the pilot.

In other words, if they ask for it, you gotta do it. You can't say I don't wanna, I don't believe in vectoring VFR's, I think there might be some kind of rule against it. Unlike what they did to that Kingair in the skit in your post #206. I'm still crackin up over that.
 
Mooney Fan said:
I was taught to always ask for frequency change if not prompted before exiting Class D...
Click to expand...

Not everything people are taught is correct. From AIM 4-3-2a:

"In the interest of reducing tower frequency congestion, pilots are reminded that it is not necessary to request permission to leave the tower frequency once outside of Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas."
​
It depends
Click to expand...

This is true. For example, when flying IFR in controlled airspace, pilots are required to "ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency." (91.183)
 
Palmpilot said:
Not everything people are taught is correct. From AIM 4-3-2a:

"In the interest of reducing tower frequency congestion, pilots are reminded that it is not necessary to request permission to leave the tower frequency once outside of Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas."
​


This is true. For example, when flying IFR in controlled airspace, pilots are required to "ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency." (91.183)
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, I was asking for a change 'before' exiting Class 'D' so AIM 4-3-2a does not apply
 
Just more useless chit chat on the radio...

It seems pilots have been trained to make useless radio calls and expect someone to respond to their voice. Incomplete potty training, I guess.

You should be thinking two steps ahead of the aircraft and not be concerned with events behind you.
 
zaitcev said:
I was at Redbird Dallas Executive (RBD) on Saturday and the tower again neglected to clear me to change away from their frequency. For some reason, some towers aren't that interested. Santa Fe (SAF) always says "frequency change approved". I know for a fact that both RBD and SAF have radars, so that's not the difference between the two. I was not on VFR FF, if this makes a difference. Am I supposed to request a frequency change, or should I just slink away quietly?
Click to expand...

I do not care if you change freqs if you are not going to be sent to departure for radar service.

Once you have left the class d you no longer have a requirement to talk to ATC if you have no other business with them, that is. I do t care if you change and you don’t need my permission unless we are doing something for you. For example, let’s say I am issuing traffic to you on an inbound aircraft 10 south of the field. I start issuing traffic about the time you get four from the field. You don’t see the traffic so I issue it again this time as a safety alert. But I get no response because you switched freqs right in the middle of us doing some business. That’s irritating. Other than that I don’t care. Notice that this does not violate the rule to never change freqs without permission. That rule applies when you are supposed to be on freq.

Also, I personally will never say freq change approved because you don’t need my permission and I don’t need to waste airtime giving you approval to do something you don’t need my approval for. After you leave the class d AND we have no further business! You can stay on my freq till doomsday for all we care.

Tex
 
"I was taught to always ask for frequency change..." Another example of an instructor passing along incorrect information.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
"I was taught to always ask for frequency change..." Another example of an instructor passing along incorrect information.

Bob
Click to expand...

I ask for a frequency change if I'm still in the delta and want a frequency change, other wise no.
 
roncachamp said:
The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC.
Click to expand...

About four years ago, after a controller argued with a complaining outbound carrier who did not receive appropriate safety alerts from him and whom the controller almost ran into a descending King Air because the controller took no action to separate the two because of the see and avoid VFR rule, the FAA issued command instructions to all facilities via national order, that 2-1-1 included the requirement to issue whatever vectors or instructions necessary to keep two airplanes apart regardless of the airspace separation requirements. I had to personally brief all personnel on that. So, ATC will initiate evasive maneuvers to keep two planes apart regardless of airspace if necessary under 2-1-1.

Or, at least, they’re supposed to.

Tex
 
bobmrg said:
"I was taught to always ask for frequency change..." Another example of an instructor passing along incorrect information.

Bob
Click to expand...

And that is true as stated. I’m refering to having left the Delta with no continuing radar service. There is no requirement to be on frequency......UNLESS.....UNLESS!!!!!!!

....ATC(tower) is still giving you some form of service such as getting you past inbound traffic, or you have been told to remain on freq, etc.

Notwithstanding that, your relationship with the tower is over when you leave the Delta or Charlie, and no further comment is necessary. As a co troller I do t expect to hear from you again....I don’t have anything else for you ( except as stated above) and you don’t need my permission to change so I don’t expect you to even ask. Most do but it’s unnecessary by rule which is what the question was about.

I hear a lot of newbie controllers tell SVFR departures when that they have left the class D and to maintain VFR. Another example of unnecessary verbiage.

Tex
 
Dave S. said:
About four years ago, after a controller argued with a complaining outbound carrier who did not receive appropriate safety alerts from him and whom the controller almost ran into a descending King Air because the controller took no action to separate the two because of the see and avoid VFR rule, the FAA issued command instructions to all facilities via national order, that 2-1-1 included the requirement to issue whatever vectors or instructions necessary to keep two airplanes apart regardless of the airspace separation requirements. I had to personally brief all personnel on that. So, ATC will initiate evasive maneuvers to keep two planes apart regardless of airspace if necessary under 2-1-1.

Or, at least, they’re supposed to.

Tex
Click to expand...

Then why even have the safety alert (traffic) procedures in the .65 then?
 
Velocity173 said:
Then why even have the safety alert (traffic) procedures in the .65 then?
Click to expand...

Because the controller damn near ran a RJ and a King Air together and did nothing about it but issue traffic...never escalated it to a Safety alert until it was too late...then argued that under 2-1-6 nothing more than the advisory is required and that the RJ has the responsibility in VFR conditions to see and avoid...that the controller had done his duty. THEN he got into a raging debate ON AIR with a ****ed off captain that it was the captains fault.

A significant MOR was filed by ATC as required, Washington got ahold of it and they issued the new guidance. God help the controller who runs two together because he did nothing to put green between two planes and claims he did his duty under 2-1-6.

That’s why.

Tex
 
Dave S. said:
Because the controller damn near ran a RJ and a King Air together and did nothing about it but issue traffic...never escalated it to a Safety alert until it was too late...then argued that under 2-1-6 nothing more than the advisory is required and that the RJ has the responsibility in VFR conditions to see and avoid...that the controller had done his duty. THEN he got into a raging debate ON AIR with a ****ed off captain that it was the captains fault.

A significant MOR was filed by ATC as required, Washington got ahold of it and they issued the new guidance. God help the controller who runs two together because he did nothing to put green between two planes and claims he did his duty under 2-1-6.

That’s why.

Tex
Click to expand...

Well that controller didn’t comply with a proper safety alert then. A safety alert is supposed to be a tiered approach. Issue the traffic, the pilot doesn’t request a vector, oh well. Issue the traffic again with a safety alert and an “advised” heading.

Also, I take it the King Air was VFR? Well nothing preventing the controller from initiating a vector to the carrier that was most certainly IFR. The system works, the controller screwed up. Either that or a Captain complaining about something that’s a non event.
 
Last edited:
Bureaucratic knee-jerk is a fact of life, sadly. :(
 
Let’s review....

First 2-1-21 based on “when proximity MAY diminish”. Then

2-1-26 when the two are in “unsafe proximity”

Then

2-1-1 requiring ATC to “PREVENT a collision”

In that order of escalation.

The FAA made it clear that they expect controllers to do everything possible to prevent a collision including issuing vectors when the pilots fail to do it themselves.

It wasn’t a non event. It was a SIGNIFCANT event under the MOR system. That pushes it to the VP of air traffic. And just like any go around of an air carrier requires an MOR ( because of that airline who went around on his own then blamed it on ATC) the FAA is determined to not have any air carrier events not dealt with.

Tex
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
Let’s review....

First 2-1-21 based on “when proximity MAY diminish”. Then

2-1-26 when the two are in “unsafe proximity”

Then

2-1-1 requiring ATC to “PREVENT a collision”

In that order of escalation.

The FAA made it clear that they expect controllers to do everything possible to prevent a collision including issuing vectors when the pilots fail to do it themselves.

Tex
Click to expand...

Yeah and it sounds like the controller in that case didn’t apply a tiered approach or “escalation” to the situation. No need for the FAA to send out a memo on that.

Nothing prevents a controller from initiating a vector to an IFR aircraft. The problem is with controllers these days, is most will initiate a vector to a VFR based on 2-1-1. Controllers need to look at a VFR under flight following as a 1200 code but offering the services in ch7 based in “Basic Radar Services.” That is to vector only upon pilot request. They should let the VFR aircraft do their thing and vector the IFR based on 2-1-1.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah and it sounds like the controller in that case didn’t apply a tiered approach or “escalation” to the situation. No need for the FAA to send out a memo on that.

Nothing prevents a controller from initiating a vector to an IFR aircraft. The problem is with controllers these days, is most will initiate a vector to a VFR based on 2-1-1. Controllers need to look at a VFR under flight following as a 1200 code but offering the services in ch7 based in “Basic Radar Services.” That is to vector only upon pilot request. They should let the VFR aircraft do their thing and vector the IFR based on 2-1-1.
Click to expand...
In the SFO area, I've noticed that some controllers do it as you describe, and some give so many vectors to VFR aircraft that I might as well be IFR. I never know which style I'm going to get.
 
Many controllers do 2-1-21 skip 2-1-6 and start vectoring under 2-1-1.

Or they wait so long to issue traffic under 2-1-21 that it becomes a safety alert under 2-1-6 and panic vector to stop a collision or loss of separation.

As an instructor I would always want to know why a controller sk
roncachamp said:
The ATC order does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of, or assignment of altitudes, to VFR aircraft operating in airspace where the separation of VFR aircraft is not required by ATC.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

Any airport where sequencing of VFR arrivals under LOAs you are allowed to vector for sequence...in E and even G airspace (both of which requires no separation of VFR). And,assignments of altitudes as long as the altitude assigned is not below the MVA at the location. For example...in E airspace 15 miles from an airport with a 4.6 nm class d around it I need to vector for sequencing and the MVA is 2000 ft. Let’s say the plane is at 2200. I can say fly heading such and such and assign a hard altitude if I like of say...maintain 2200. Let’s say the plane is below the MVA at 900 agl. I could say. Maintain at or below 2000 (let’s say for separation from another VFR the controller doesn’t want you to get close to) since that is not an altitude below the MVA.

By the way, don’t let the “uncontrolled airspace means ATC exercises no control” myth fool you. I just gave you an example where that is not true.

If you are in contact and receiving radar service from ATC then ATC can vector you because you are on that freq either because you requested the service or are required to be either procedurally or by rule. In either case ATC now controls you and their instructions must , by rule be complied with. In fact ATC is required to assume that, if you call for service. you always desire at least basic radar service ( which include vectoring for several reasons), and in TRSAs and outer Class C areas separation and possibly sequencing, simply by making contact. In those cases you must decline service specifically but then what would be the point of calling ATC?

Tex
 
luvflyin said:
I tended to vector the VFR if there was a situation where one of them needed a vector. Reason being the VFR was usually just someone getting flight following and not on any kind of route assignment. They could turn at anytime without saying anything. I'd sometimes tell them to advise before make any turns and/or altitude changes if it looked like there might be a developing situation. 7-6-1 a. says:

7−6−1. APPLICATION
a. Basic radar services for VFR aircraft must include:

Must include.

3. Limited radar vectoring when requested by the pilot.

In other words, if they ask for it, you gotta do it. You can't say I don't wanna, I don't believe in vectoring VFR's, I think there might be some kind of rule against it. Unlike what they did to that Kingair in the skit in your post #206. I'm still crackin up over that.
Click to expand...

The king air was 42 miles south northbound descending for landing. The RJ just departed south southbound to IAH climbing high. The controller started issuing traffic when they were 30 miles apart and closing. Traffic to one. Traffic to the other. Then again. No joy. More traffic. Closer and closer. More traffic. No joy.
Until they were seven miles apart on a collision course closing at 400 kts. The controller, without ever issuing a safety alert, took evasive immediate vectors to get them from hitting. The RJ pilot got very mad and I can see why. The controller watched this situation get worse and worst for 40 miles.

He became an air traffic observer and forgot to be an air traffic controller. Then claimed he acted correctly in the face of 2-1-6 and 2-1-1.

Tex
 
Dave S. said:
The king air was 42 miles south northbound descending for landing. The RJ just departed south southbound to IAH climbing high. The controller started issuing traffic when they were 30 miles apart and closing. Traffic to one. Traffic to the other. Then again. No joy. More traffic. Closer and closer. More traffic. No joy.
Until they were seven miles apart on a collision course closing at 400 kts. The controller, without ever issuing a safety alert, took evasive immediate vectors to get them from hitting. The RJ pilot got very mad and I can see why. The controller watched this situation get worse and worst for 40 miles.

He became an air traffic observer and forgot to be an air traffic controller. Then claimed he acted correctly in the face of 2-1-6 and 2-1-1.

Tex
Click to expand...

Won’t be long before controllers really do become observers. The majority of what they provide I can get in my cockpit.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the SFO area, I've noticed that some controllers do it as you describe, and some give so many vectors to VFR aircraft that I might as well be IFR. I never know which style I'm going to get.
Click to expand...

Well if you’re in the B or one of the Cs out there, they have separation criteria so it’s understandable to vectors or altitude assignments. Outside of that, they’re probably just being heavy handed and not wanting to give a slight offset vector to their IFR traffic.

Whenever I ditch my MEDEVAC call sign I get vectored all over while VFR. The vast majority of the time separation isn’t even close to being an issue. A lot of inefficiency these days.
 
Yeah more and more of some of the duties will become automated like traffic information especially with ADS-B starting.

But it will be a Ling time before the judgement and separation duties will be replaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top