Guy descending into me.

[DesertNomad]

Be careful out there.

I was IFR at 10,000' westbound over Mississippi yesterday (in VFR conditions). A Mooney was at 10,500' northbound at my 10-11 o'clock. ATC called the VFR guy and said "Traffic, 3 miles, 1-2 o'clock, 10,000' a Dakota". He called back "looking" and then announced he was starting a descent. He eventually saw me off his left wing.

I had him on ADS-B and finally picked him up visually and he passed behind us about 100' below. ATC called him back and chewed him out... "I told you there was traffic. Why did you descend right into him?!" He replied "you said it was ok to descend". ATC told him that was absolutely not the case and I backed ATC up with a quick. "we didn't hear that either".

Initially when I saw him start down, I was hesitant to climb since he might figure it out and quickly climb back up. I didn't want to meet at 10,250'. I was ready to climb but soon realized I was going to be in front of him. We missed by a bit less than a mile.

I still don't know what he was thinking.

 

[azure]

Be careful out there.

I was IFR at 10,000' westbound over Mississippi yesterday (in VFR conditions). A Mooney was at 10,500' northbound at my 10-11 o'clock. ATC called the VFR guy and said "Traffic, 3 miles, 1-2 o'clock, 10,000' a Dakota". He called back "looking" and then announced he was starting a descent. He eventually saw me off his left wing.

Off his left wing? Sounds like he must have crossed your path if you were at his 1-2 o'clock. If he was at your 10-11 then you should have been at his 10-11. Maybe ATC's call was in error?

In any case, yes, not a wise move on his part if he didn't have you in sight. Glad you didn't trade metal.

 

[rtk11]

Darned good that you had ADS-B. Clearly the other guy didn’t. Glad nothing came of it.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

When I am vfr and atc calls merging traffic; now I tell them I am turning which way do you suggest or I ask for a vector. Too many traffic calls "3mi 12 oclock, 2mi 12oclock, 1mi 12oclock" calls.

 

[Clark1961]

When I am vfr and atc calls merging traffic; now I tell them I am turning which way do you suggest or I ask for a vector. Too many traffic calls "3mi 12 oclock, 2mi 12oclock, 1mi 12oclock" calls.

This situation gets a little too interesting when operating near a Bravo. It finally got to the point where I said that I wasn’t going to be involved with it anymore and flew further from the Bravo if possible. Other times I just explain (couple words) the problem to ATC and ask for a clearance into the Bravo. No sense messing around with traffic ya can’t see or don’t know intentions.

 

[WannFly]

Does it call for a report? Since u guys were closer than 500 ft ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steingar]

I always worry about this sort of thing flying under a Charlie or Bravo. Traffic gets so compressed. Especially bad under the Chicago Bravo on the way to Oshkosh.

 

[mscard88]

On base w/ student this morning and announced base on the Unicom. Look to my left and whoa, a C152 on downwind about to turn base, we were a couple hundred feet below them. Bugged out and told them you were about to descend onto or into us. Said he didn't hear the call. On the ground talked to the pilot AND CFI, said they never saw us! Y'all be careful out there ya yeah

 

[Radar Contact]

This situation gets a little too interesting when operating near a Bravo. It finally got to the point where I said that I wasn’t going to be involved with it anymore and flew further from the Bravo if possible. Other times I just explain (couple words) the problem to ATC and ask for a clearance into the Bravo. No sense messing around with traffic ya can’t see or don’t know intentions.

When I am vfr and atc calls merging traffic; now I tell them I am turning which way do you suggest or I ask for a vector. Too many traffic calls "3mi 12 oclock, 2mi 12oclock, 1mi 12oclock" calls.

I agree with asking ATC for a suggestion and/or bravo clearance. They see them and you don't they should offer you something to avoid. I routinely will vector the aircraft and or climb/descend. The FAA is pushing training hard on this right now. There was a past misunderstanding that controllers shouldn't tell VFR aircraft what to do unless in B/C. They are pushing those that were for some reason under this impression to knock it off and ensure planes (even VFR's) don't get close to each other. It makes me cringe when I hear a controller issuing traffic, traffic, traffic...shut up and do some ATC stuff and keep them apart! Mini rant over.

 

[DesertNomad]

Off his left wing? Sounds like he must have crossed your path if you were at his 1-2 o'clock. If he was at your 10-11 then you should have been at his 10-11. Maybe ATC's call was in error?

In any case, yes, not a wise move on his part if he didn't have you in sight. Glad you didn't trade metal.

I was at his 1-2 o'clock but crossed in front of him before he got to me and he ended up crossing my path behind me (and thus I was off his left wing).

 

[DesertNomad]

Does it call for a report? Since u guys were closer than 500 ft ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We were maybe 100-200' vertically and about 1 mile laterally. I don't know exactly but ATC didn't call me back or ask him to call a number. I don't think it was super close, but he should obviously not started down.

I don't even remember exactly where it was since I flew almost 7 hours yesterday from Chattanooga to Ft. Worth.

 

[dmspilot]

I agree with asking ATC for a suggestion and/or bravo clearance. They see them and you don't they should offer you something to avoid. I routinely will vector the aircraft and or climb/descend. The FAA is pushing training hard on this right now. There was a past misunderstanding that controllers shouldn't tell VFR aircraft what to do unless in B/C. They are pushing those that were for some reason under this impression to knock it off and ensure planes (even VFR's) don't get close to each other. It makes me cringe when I hear a controller issuing traffic, traffic, traffic...shut up and do some ATC stuff and keep them apart! Mini rant over.

I hope you're right. "Targets expected to merge" is a less than helpful piece of information.

 

[Clark1961]

I agree with asking ATC for a suggestion and/or bravo clearance. They see them and you don't they should offer you something to avoid. I routinely will vector the aircraft and or climb/descend. The FAA is pushing training hard on this right now. There was a past misunderstanding that controllers shouldn't tell VFR aircraft what to do unless in B/C. They are pushing those that were for some reason under this impression to knock it off and ensure planes (even VFR's) don't get close to each other. It makes me cringe when I hear a controller issuing traffic, traffic, traffic...shut up and do some ATC stuff and keep them apart! Mini rant over.

There are some other sides to this. I've been about 1,000' AGL and had ATC tell me to descend for traffic. That was really awkward. Things got easier after I called traffic in sight but I've never really forgiven them for telling me to descend into terrain. It is always incumbent upon PIC to ensure safety of flight.

 

[Radar Contact]

There are some other sides to this. I've been about 1,000' AGL and had ATC tell me to descend for traffic. That was really awkward. Things got easier after I called traffic in sight but I've never really forgiven them for telling me to descend into terrain. It is always incumbent upon PIC to ensure safety of flight.

You are absolutely correct about the PIC has to ensure safety. I've never seen or heard a controller do that but I'm not surprised. Just like pilots, all controllers aren't created equally. I use the MVA as the lowest I will assign. Outside of that, if I think lower is safer I would suggest it as a last resort. I try to take care of it way before it gets to that option.

 

[Clark1961]

You are absolutely correct about the PIC has to ensure safety. I've never seen or heard a controller do that but I'm not surprised. Just like pilots, all controllers aren't created equally. I use the MVA as the lowest I will assign. Outside of that, if I think lower is safer I would suggest it as a last resort. I try to take care of it way before it gets to that option.

I think it was a low-time or trainee controller. He was obviously concerned with an IFR approach into a nearby airport and wanted me out of the way.

 

[Velocity173]

I agree with asking ATC for a suggestion and/or bravo clearance. They see them and you don't they should offer you something to avoid. I routinely will vector the aircraft and or climb/descend. The FAA is pushing training hard on this right now. There was a past misunderstanding that controllers shouldn't tell VFR aircraft what to do unless in B/C. They are pushing those that were for some reason under this impression to knock it off and ensure planes (even VFR's) don't get close to each other. It makes me cringe when I hear a controller issuing traffic, traffic, traffic...shut up and do some ATC stuff and keep them apart! Mini rant over.

If the FAA wants to have its controllers take full responsibility of vectoring VFR aircraft in airspace where no specified seperation exists, why not update the .65 to reflect that?
The misunderstanding exists because of statements like these:

6. When requested by the pilot, issue radar vectors to assist in avoiding the traffic, provided the aircraft to be vectored is within your area of jurisdiction or coordination has been effected with the sector/facility in whose area the aircraft is operating.

a. Basic radar services for VFR aircraft must include:
1. Safety alerts.
2. Traffic advisories.
3. Limited radar vectoring when requested by the pilot.

 

[Skyrys62]

Be careful searching for this thread title...no telling what sites you might end up on.

 

[Radar Contact]

If the FAA wants to have its controllers take full responsibility of vectoring VFR aircraft in airspace where no specified seperation exists, why not update the .65 to reflect that?
The misunderstanding exists because of statements like these:

6. When requested by the pilot, issue radar vectors to assist in avoiding the traffic, provided the aircraft to be vectored is within your area of jurisdiction or coordination has been effected with the sector/facility in whose area the aircraft is operating.

a. Basic radar services for VFR aircraft must include:
1. Safety alerts.
2. Traffic advisories.
3. Limited radar vectoring when requested by the pilot.

I hear you. I don't think the idea is for ATC to take full responsibility to separate all VFR a/c at all times. There are no separation standards listed anywhere anyway. I just want to avoid a collision. What you listed is the minimum that basic radar service must provide VFR aircraft.

In the radar section it says:
VFR aircraft not at an altitude assigned by ATC may be
vectored at any altitude. It is the responsibility of the pilot
to comply with the applicable parts of CFR Title 14.

This is what I use when I vector a VFR to avoid another aircraft that they don't see. When controllers just sit back and do the traffic, traffic, traffic thing, it can give you a bit of tunnel vision and other things that need attention may be missed. If I know 2 VFR's are wired and they get within a proximity I think warrants it (different based on angles and speeds) I will issue a turn something like this. "N123, traffic 12 o'clock, two miles, opposite direction, same altitude, if you don't see them turn right heading xxx". Then I can move on to other pressing matters knowing they aren't going to hit. As soon as the conflict is resolved I go back and say traffic no factor resume own nav.

No real defined way of doing it, the FAA is just trying to get the word out that controllers should do something to help if able.

 

[Hank S]

I hear you. I don't think the idea is for ATC to take full responsibility to separate all VFR a/c at all times. There are no separation standards listed anywhere anyway. I just want to avoid a collision. What you listed is the minimum that basic radar service must provide VFR aircraft.

In the radar section it says:
VFR aircraft not at an altitude assigned by ATC may be
vectored at any altitude. It is the responsibility of the pilot
to comply with the applicable parts of CFR Title 14.

This is what I use when I vector a VFR to avoid another aircraft that they don't see. When controllers just sit back and do the traffic, traffic, traffic thing, it can give you a bit of tunnel vision and other things that need attention may be missed. If I know 2 VFR's are wired and they get within a proximity I think warrants it (different based on angles and speeds) I will issue a turn something like this. "N123, traffic 12 o'clock, two miles, opposite direction, same altitude, if you don't see them turn right heading xxx". Then I can move on to other pressing matters knowing they aren't going to hit. As soon as the conflict is resolved I go back and say traffic no factor resume own nav.

No real defined way of doing it, the FAA is just trying to get the word out that controllers should do something to help if able.

That sounds great! But I've never had it happen to me, and haven't noticed heating it on the radio.

For me, it's usually been the controller calling out traffic to me and the other guy, with distance decreasing. One time in particular, I was at 5500 msl, right at the top of the haze layer, and neither I nor the other guy crossing from my left could see each other. When we passed 2nm (I was going NE, the other guy was headed East or SE), after ATC talked to both of us and closing speed of 4nm/min or higher, I responded "leaving 5500 for 7500" just to get away.

 

[mscard88]

That sounds great! But I've never had it happen to me, and haven't noticed heating it on the radio.

For me, it's usually been the controller calling out traffic to me and the other guy, with distance decreasing. One time in particular, I was at 5500 msl, right at the top of the haze layer, and neither I nor the other guy crossing from my left could see each other. When we passed 2nm (I was going NE, the other guy was headed East or SE), after ATC talked to both of us and closing speed of 4nm/min or higher, I responded "leaving 5500 for 7500" just to get away.

You can always request a turn for avoidance. Radar Contact of course is a pilot, but most controllers are not. I always felt I had an advantage as a controller because I was a pilot. I'm sure @Radar Contact feels the same way.

 

[Zeldman]

I hope you're right. "Targets expected to merge" is a less than helpful piece of information.

Whenever I hear that, I fight the urge to click the mic and say, "hold my beer".....

 

[azure]

This is a related question for @Radar Contact or @mscard88 or any other ATCers out there. I have, when VFR, at least a couple of times been given an assigned altitude when in Class E below the DTW Bravo shelf. I understand that if given such an instruction the pilot is required to comply and that if a controller gives it, it is probably to avoid an unsafe situation such as wake turbulence from heavies passing above. My question is whether this is specifically spelled out in the .65 as a TRACON controller's duty; whether it is specifically disallowed; or whether the .65 is silent on it.

 

[mscard88]

Approach can give you an assigned altitude as long as it's in their airspace. If below or outside the Class B so you have the option to decline. @Radar Contact can address it better as he's a current controller at ORD. I left ATC in '88.

 

[Velocity173]

I hear you. I don't think the idea is for ATC to take full responsibility to separate all VFR a/c at all times. There are no separation standards listed anywhere anyway. I just want to avoid a collision. What you listed is the minimum that basic radar service must provide VFR aircraft.

In the radar section it says:
VFR aircraft not at an altitude assigned by ATC may be
vectored at any altitude. It is the responsibility of the pilot
to comply with the applicable parts of CFR Title 14.

This is what I use when I vector a VFR to avoid another aircraft that they don't see. When controllers just sit back and do the traffic, traffic, traffic thing, it can give you a bit of tunnel vision and other things that need attention may be missed. If I know 2 VFR's are wired and they get within a proximity I think warrants it (different based on angles and speeds) I will issue a turn something like this. "N123, traffic 12 o'clock, two miles, opposite direction, same altitude, if you don't see them turn right heading xxx". Then I can move on to other pressing matters knowing they aren't going to hit. As soon as the conflict is resolved I go back and say traffic no factor resume own nav.

No real defined way of doing it, the FAA is just trying to get the word out that controllers should do something to help if able.

I used to use a tiered approach to giving VFR traffic on FF and only used a suggested heading if necessary.

“Mooney 345, Traffic 12 o’clock, 7 miles, maneuvering, altitude indicates 5,500.”
Not in sight- “Mooney 345, traffic now 12 o’clock, 4 miles, maneuvering, suggest you turn left heading 360.”
Still no sight and not taking the vector- “Mooney 345, traffic alert 12 o’clock, 2 miles, altitude indicates 5,500, advise you turn left immediately heading 360.” Sometimes with throw in a little non standard phraseology with “targets appear likely to merge.”

I guess the FAA came out with guidance years ago on when to vector VFR aircraft but I don’t understand why they just don’t update the .65. Remove the whole “pilot request” and “suggested headings” and under basic radar services add “vector to avoid the development of an imminent situation.”

 

[Matthew K]

Guy descending into me.

Was it consensual?

 

[Velocity173]

This is a related question for @Radar Contact or @mscard88 or any other ATCers out there. I have, when VFR, at least a couple of times been given an assigned altitude when in Class E below the DTW Bravo shelf. I understand that if given such an instruction the pilot is required to comply and that if a controller gives it, it is probably to avoid an unsafe situation such as wake turbulence from heavies passing above. My question is whether this is specifically spelled out in the .65 as a TRACON controller's duty; whether it is specifically disallowed; or whether the .65 is silent on it.

In airspace where separation doesn’t exist for VFRs, you really shouldn’t be getting an assignment. The .65 mentions VFR altitude assignments but in TRSAs, Cs and Bs.

In the real world though, sometimes an assignment is necessary. I used to only give altitude assignments to VFR aircraft as an alternative. For instance, I’ve had aircraft operating around the initial for the overhead and at the initial altitude. Playing chicken with a PA28 and F-18s doing 350+ kts ain’t gonna happen. So, you tell them “Cherokee 345, I need need you at or above 3,000 in your area for traffic, or I’ll have to terminate radar service.” Or, sometimes you have an aircraft on FF transitioning a class D at low altitude that will interfere with tower’s pattern. So, “Cherokee 345, I need you at or above 2,000 in the class D or you can navigate around it at your present altitude.”

So, the altitude assignment thing isn’t explicitly authorized for basic radar services, but the primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision as well.

 

[azure]

Approach can give you an assigned altitude as long as it's in their airspace. If below or outside the Class B so you have the option to decline. @Radar Contact can address it better as he's a current controller at ORD. I left ATC in '88.

Interesting, thanks. I didn't know the pilot had the option to decline if below the Bravo. "A pilot may not operate an aircraft in a manner contrary to any ATC instruction" (paraphrased)... and I vaguely recall that this was the subject of a Chief Counsel opinion a few years back.

 

[azure]

In airspace where no separation doesn’t exist for VFRs, you really shouldn’t be getting an assignment. The .65 mentions VFR altitude assignments in TRSAs, Cs and Bs.

In the real world though, sometimes an assignment is necessary. I used to only give altitude assignments to VFR aircraft as an alternative. For instance, I’ve had aircraft operating around the initial for the overhead and at the initial altitude. Playing chicken with a PA28 and F-18s doing 350+ kts ain’t gonna happen. So, you tell them “Cherokee 345, I need need you at or above 3,000 in your area for traffic, or I’ll have to terminate radar service.” Or, sometimes you have an aircraft on FF transitioning a class D at low altitude that will interfere with tower’s pattern. So, “Cherokee 345, I need you at or above 2,000 in the class D or you can navigate around it at your present altitude.”

This didn't resemble any of those, it was more like an instruction to a VFR aircraft inside the Bravo, or even an IFR instruction: "Nxxxxx, climb and maintain 3500" (where the Bravo begins at 4000).

 

[Radar Contact]

Interesting, thanks. I didn't know the pilot had the option to decline if below the Bravo. "A pilot may not operate an aircraft in a manner contrary to any ATC instruction" (paraphrased)... and I vaguely recall that this was the subject of a Chief Counsel opinion a few years back.

My understanding is that you can't just say nope (unless you are an emergency or trying to maintain cloud clearance). You can request to terminate your flight following though.

 

[Radar Contact]

This didn't resemble any of those, it was more like an instruction to a VFR aircraft inside the Bravo, or even an IFR instruction: "Nxxxxx, climb and maintain 3500" (where the Bravo begins at 4000).

My understanding is that this is fine. It should be done for a reason and I would hope they would have told you why. In your case you received a hard altitude (as opposed to maintain 3500 or below, etc) and therefore shouldn't be assigned a heading as well. To reiterate, I can (if needed) assign you either a vector or a hard altitude but not both and as long as you are receiving radar services, you have to comply. At anytime you want to cancel you can.

The idea is not to over-control VFR's (although I hear and receive that sometimes while flying) but to prevent a collision as Velocity mentioned.

 

[FlySince9]

AOPA "The Big Sky" seminar... Monroe, NC, Monday March 19th... ATTENDING!

 

[Bill]

My understanding is that you can't just say nope (unless you are an emergency or trying to maintain cloud clearance). You can request to terminate your flight following though.

This is what I was taught. If you're on FF, you must obey the controller instructions even if you're outside his airspace. If you don't like it, cancel FF.

 

[azure]

My understanding is that this is fine. It should be done for a reason and I would hope they would have told you why. In your case you received a hard altitude (as opposed to maintain 3500 or below, etc) and therefore shouldn't be assigned a heading as well. To reiterate, I can (if needed) assign you either a vector or a hard altitude but not both and as long as you are receiving radar services, you have to comply. At anytime you want to cancel you can.

The idea is not to over-control VFR's (although I hear and receive that sometimes while flying) but to prevent a collision as Velocity mentioned.

Thanks for the clear explanation!

 

[mscard88]

Interesting, thanks. I didn't know the pilot had the option to decline if below the Bravo. "A pilot may not operate an aircraft in a manner contrary to any ATC instruction" (paraphrased)... and I vaguely recall that this was the subject of a Chief Counsel opinion a few years back.

If you are below the lateral dimensions of Class B then you aren't in Class B airspace, but you are within the 30 veil of Class B. You can fly VFR underneath a Class B without talking with approach correct? If you're flying under Class B airspace you need to keep your airspeed 200 kts or below is the only requirement. You don't need to talk to Air Traffic Control to fly here, you just need to keep your speed down. So if ATC assigned you an altitude and you're NOT in Class B, you could decline it. They may terminate radar service on you though. Perhaps not wise as they are issuing that for a reason obviously and should tell you the reason.

 

[azure]

If you are below the lateral dimensions of Class B then you aren't in Class B. I mean, you can fly VFR underneath a Class B right without talking with approach correct? If you're flying under Class B airspace you need to keep your airspeed 200 kts or below is the only requirement. You don't need to talk to Air Traffic Control to fly here, you just need to keep your speed down. So if ATC assigned you an altitude and you're NOT in Class B, you could decline it. They may terminate radar service on you though. Perhaps not wise as they are issuing that for a reason obviously and should tell you the reason.

My understanding is that as long as you are receiving radar services from them, you are obliged to comply with any instructions they give you, even if you're in airspace (Class E) where you aren't required to be talking to them. The fact is, you are talking to them and they've given you an instruction. Another poster way back when (Cap'n Ron, I think) went so far as to argue that you can't even cancel flight following to avoid having to comply, though you could comply and then cancel in order to keep from receiving any further instructions. I think this is carrying the argument a little too far, but I'm not certain. I do agree, probably not wise to decline even if it's legal to do so, as there is probably a safety-related reason for the instruction.

 

[mscard88]

My understanding is that as long as you are receiving radar services from them, you are obliged to comply with any instructions they give you, even if you're in airspace (Class E) where you aren't required to be talking to them. The fact is, you are talking to them and they've given you an instruction. Another poster way back when (Cap'n Ron, I think) went so far as to argue that you can't even cancel flight following to avoid having to comply, though you could comply and then cancel in order to keep from receiving any further instructions. I think this is carrying the argument a little too far, but I'm not certain. I do agree, probably not wise to decline even if it's legal to do so, as there is probably a safety-related reason for the instruction.

Sure you would comply with ATC instructions if receiving an altitude or vector, but if VFR you can decline the service also as you mentioned. Yes, I don't agree with not being able to cancel FF at any point. ATC issues something to you and you don't want to fly it, you can decline radar service and go on your way. I've done it many times and observed other pilots do it when I was flying with them. Just like an IFR clearance, if you don't want the service then you could cancel IFR and go on your way VFR.

I think we're all saying the same thing Azure, just a little differently lol.

 

[denverpilot]

It seems to me the failure here is in noticing the VFR saying they’re going to descend. Once that was heard, either the command to not descend or a vector to move the IFR needed to happen. Not “hey why did you do that, VFR” after the targets passed.

If there’s a general not wanting to manhandle the VFRs then manhandle the IFR but get everyone away from each other.

It’s Air Traffic Controller, not Air Traffic Wish-He-Didn’t-Do-That-er.

 

[azure]

Sure you would comply with ATC instructions if receiving an altitude or vector, but if VFR you can decline the service also as you mentioned. Yes, I don't agree with not being able to cancel FF at any point. ATC issues something to you and you don't want to fly it, you can decline radar service and go on your way. I've done it many times and observed other pilots do it when I was flying with them. Just like an IFR clearance, if you don't want the service then you could cancel IFR and go on your way VFR.

I think we're all saying the same thing Azure, just a little differently lol.

Yeah, I think we (you and I) agree. You can get out of complying by declining the service. I've never personally done it though, largely because I always realized there was probably a good reason for the instruction.

 

[mscard88]

Yeah, I think we (you and I) agree. You can get out of complying by declining the service. I've never personally done it though, largely because I always realized there was probably a good reason for the instruction.

I've done it if what they wanted me to do would delay me or whatever reason. Even IFR a few times (have to cancel IFR of course). Not a big deal, they'll terminate radar service and you go on your merry way.

 

[danhagan]

It makes me cringe when I hear a controller issuing traffic, traffic, traffic...shut up and do some ATC stuff and keep them apart! Mini rant over.

I really appreciate this ... had the above issue and you responded in another thread that I should have gotten the supervisor on the horn (he took over for a female after the event - explaining he couldn't give an "avoidance vector to a FF AC for those that didn't see the other thread I had the sun directly in front of me).

If I know 2 VFR's are wired and they get within a proximity I think warrants it (different based on angles and speeds) I will issue a turn something like this. "N123, traffic 12 o'clock, two miles, opposite direction, same altitude, if you don't see them turn right heading xxx".

Again, glad you're out there and hope the other controllers do the same. Good work!