Re: Unwelcome IFR Formation Flying

Download ForPilots Logbook today! Forpilots Logbook is the award-winning computerized logbook solution. The software features a simple, easy to use user interface that looks just like a paper logbook, but adds advanced statistics and reporting capabilities. Download ForPilots logbook for free!

Hey Chip.

"Warren Jones" <gum22nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3d89592b$1_4@news.newsgroups.com...
> Bud,
>
> Sounds very legal and proper to me. You are tooling along IFR level at
> 6,000. I assume the twin was also IFR. Dunno about terminal controllers,
> but unless I have separation responsibility between you as an IFR and thge
> twin as a VFR, I am not wasting my breath with "maintain visual separation
> from the Warrior." Why bother, right?
>

Yes, I think this is the right assumption as well.

> So, the twin was probably IFR too. Thus, this twin had to be climbing or
> descending, right? Reason I ask is because not many controllers have the
> balls to go faster in back, merging with two co-altitude IFR aircraft,
> betting on obtaining visual before losing lateral separation. Reason? If
> the twin doesn't report you in sight, instant deal, no plan B,
> decertification, possible near miss, possibly worse, for the ATC man (not
to
> mention you!).

I actually don't know if he was climbing or descending. He was announced
to me seconds before he appeared at my altitude, where he stayed for
a little while. At his handoff, he was told he could expect higher from the
next controller, so I'm assuming he was climbing out on departure to
points east. I can say with reasonable certainty that we did not have
lateral
nor vertical separation even at his handoff. Also, I was not asked to
maintain visual separation. In fact, my next communication with ATC
after my 'in sight' was my own handoff a few moments after his.
I watched him pull away off of V23 to the east and he begin climbing at
about this time.

> This situation sounds to me like a typical departure scenario in busy
> airspace. You are in the way, just a moving road block to the controller
> (no offense).

Hey, I resemble that remark! I explained to the controller that
I would multiply by 1.15 to speed up.....

>The twin needs to get through your altitude either by seeing
> you and doing the visual, or else he has to run past you 1000 feet below
> and/or take a vector. The traffic is climbed to a cardinal vertical just
> below you, overtaking you and converging from the right. The controller
> knows it's VMC. The quickest and easiest form of separation for ATC in a
> radar environment is pilot-to-pilot visual. ATC tells twin to report you
in
> sight. He does. ATC tells him to maintain viusual separation. He does.
> Because he is converging, ATC issues you the traffic as well. You report
> traffic in sight. Sounds all very proper to me. Even if you don't see
him,
> it still sounds like a proper application of either terminal or enroute
> visual separation. A miss is as good as a mile unless you have a wake
> turbulence factor.
>
> Chip, ZTL

From an ATC separation standpoint, I can see how this all hangs together.
Especially after cracking open the FAAO 7110.65.
Thanks for your very clear explanation.

What still bugs me is that he must have climbed up to *very close* to
my altitude before visual separation was established. This goes back
to your remark about the faster-in-back-cojones I suppose.

I just didn't appreciate him *appearing* off my right wing with
such minimal warning. Even if it was valid separation, the
pilot *chose* to close with me, and I personally was not afforded See
and Avoid.

That's what really chaps my hide.

Cheers,

-Bud