Visual Separation / Traffic

[moonscape]

That these aircraft are VFR is not my concern.
Question: Is it acceptable for a controller (not radar certified) at a VFR tower to advise VFR aircraft to maintain visual separation from each other. OR issue traffic per the clock "1:00, 2 miles", versus ahead and to your right". From what I can find, the 7110 only addresses certified and non-certified equipment, and doesn't mention the rating or ability of the controller. I've been trained that giving these type of clearance is giving a VFR pilot the illusion / false sense of security that they are or have been receiving radar service, something the 7110 does address. Thoughts???

 

[Phanatical]

3-1-6. TRAFFIC INFORMATION​

1. Describe vehicles, equipment, or personnel on or near the movement area in a manner which will assist pilots in recognizing them.
   • EXAMPLE
   • “Mower left of runway two seven.”
   • “Trucks crossing approach end of runway two five.”
   • “Workman on taxiway Bravo.”
   • “Aircraft left of runway one eight.”
2. Describe the relative position of traffic in an easy to understand manner, such as “to your right” or “ahead of you.”
   • EXAMPLE
   • 1. “Traffic, U.S. Air MD Eighty on downwind leg to your left.”
   • 2. “King Air inbound from outer marker on straight-in approach to runway one seven.”
   • 3. “Traffic, Boeing 737 on 2 mile final to the parallel runway, runway two six right, cleared to land. Caution wake turbulence.”
3. When using a CTRD, you may issue traffic advisories using the standard radar phraseology prescribed in para 2-1-21, Traffic Advisories.

7-2-1. VISUAL SEPARATION​

Visual separation may be applied when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

1. Telling VFR aircraft, in D airspace I presume, to maintain visual separation with eachother is unnecessary and in my opinion a waste of words that are only proficient at making a controller feel better about a situation. They are VFR, there is no set separation when they are flying other than don't let them hit (obviously runway sep). Call the traffic and move on, if they look like they are getting too close or can't find eachother control the situation and either sequence them yourself or pull them apart. They are supposed to be flying visually and already maintaining visual separation with eachother without you saying the not so magic words. Say you have an inbound vfr from the north and a vfr outbound going north, you call traffic and they have eachother in sight, do you think they are going to be like "well the controller didn't say maintain visual separation so might as well fly right at this other aircraft" no, they are supposed to visually go by eachother as they are VFR... now if they go right at eachother still, becuase they are pilots probably flying Bananzas or mooneys or SR22s usually , take control and do something about it that's what we are there for.

2. As long as you got the CTRD you can use "radar traffic calls" as you stated, "traffic one o'clock 3 miles eastbound"

 

[kombucha23]

I tend to find “maintain visual separation” is more for legality of two IFR being less than standard separation, and not actually something pilots need to be told when VFR. They’re not going to hit each other just because you didn’t say it. Clarity of instruction does matter, i.e. “pass behind”, “follow”, etc.

Basically agree with the above. If you’re using a CTRD, then you have the ability to separate. So issuing the traffic and shrugging your shoulders if they don’t see each other doesn’t cut it. Issue a control instruction to separate or practice your traffic alert phraseology.

 

[VikerATC]

VFR pilots say it all the time in the DC SFRA “helicopter 1, traffic…”
“roger, we have traffic in sight and will maintain visual”. I cringe every time they say it as it doesnt mean anything. Delta airspace.

 

[rhombus]

You should never say ‘maintain visual separation’ in Class D airspace reference two VFR aircraft. It is their responsibility see and avoid and is redundant, misapplied phraseology.

If you can radar identify an aircraft, use clock traffic calls all day

 

[Phanatical]

You should never say ‘maintain visual separation’ in Class D airspace reference two VFR aircraft. It is their responsibility see and avoid and is redundant, misapplied phraseology.

If you can radar identify an aircraft, use clock traffic calls all day
View attachment 7642

Never say "never".

Class D airspace can exist in a TRSA... in which case issue advisories as stated.

 

[A2J]

That these aircraft are VFR is not my concern.
Question: Is it acceptable for a controller (not radar certified) at a VFR tower to advise VFR aircraft to maintain visual separation from each other. OR issue traffic per the clock "1:00, 2 miles", versus ahead and to your right". From what I can find, the 7110 only addresses certified and non-certified equipment, and doesn't mention the rating or ability of the controller. I've been trained that giving these type of clearance is giving a VFR pilot the illusion / false sense of security that they are or have been receiving radar service, something the 7110 does address. Thoughts???

VFR/VFR call traffic till its in sight or no factor (workload permitting of course)
Visual sep is excessive technically since there is no sep standard for these guys

With a CTRD you may use the 12-hour clock position "radar" traffic call or the "off your left" if you feel it will aid the pilot better. Definitely throw in "pass behind" or "follow" to further help

With the "false sense of radar service" I believe it is in the note after the CTRD section when it talks about informing a pilot of "radar contact" since your primary duty in the tower is visually scanning runways and surface area

All based off working a class D tower

 

[meanjoe]

No separation minima = no visual separation. Say it if you like, but what you’re really saying is “don’t hit ‘em”. When in reality, if in sight, hitting them is illegal. If the intent is to keep one from cutting off the other use something else “pass behind” “follow” etc.

 

[32andBelow]

What you guys are thinking about is a safety alert. if you think your guy is about to have a midair then issue a safety alert

 

[GR]

VFR pilots say it all the time in the DC SFRA “helicopter 1, traffic…”
“roger, we have traffic in sight and will maintain visual”. I cringe every time they say it as it doesnt mean anything. Delta airspace.

Not sure why you cringe, they say it in the Class B where VFR/IFR separation is required. Them having traffic in sight and providing visual separation is a correct application of the rule so long as it is approved by the controller

 

[moonscape]

You should never say ‘maintain visual separation’ in Class D airspace reference two VFR aircraft. It is their responsibility see and avoid and is redundant, misapplied phraseology.

If you can radar identify an aircraft, use clock traffic calls all day
View attachment 7642

My point is I am not a radar controller. By issuing traffic per the clock is misleading the pilot he is getting radar service.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

My point is I am not a radar controller. By issuing traffic per the clock is misleading the pilot he is getting radar service.

The pilots per the .65 and the AIM should know that if they have not been issued "radar contact" from the controller they are not being given radar services. Them thinking it to be radar services is a non issue

 

[moonscape]

The pilots per the .65 and the AIM should know that if they have not been issued "radar contact" from the controller they are not being given radar services. Them thinking it to be radar services is a non issue

Key word is SHOULD. But I Disagree. Most of the time these are low-time pilots who are just beginners. Believe me, I know from experience, they think they are getting radar service.

 

[Termine]

Is it acceptable for a controller (not radar certified) at a VFR tower to advise VFR aircraft to maintain visual separation from each other.

If there is some other required separation which will not be maintained, you can use pilot-applied visual separation instead. So:

• If the other aircraft is IFR, and the aircraft are in Class B, Class C, or TRSA airspace.
• If the other aircraft is VFR, and the aircraft are in Class B or TRSA airspace.
• If a larger-weight-class aircraft is departing a runway prior to a lower-weight-class aircraft performing a touch-and-go.

Besides those specific scenarios there is no "separation" provided to VFR aircraft. Once the VFR aircraft reports the traffic in sight, they are responsible for not smashing into that traffic. You have no other "separation" which you must provide, therefore it does not make sense to tell the pilot to "maintain visual separation" in lieu of any other approved separation.

OR issue traffic per the clock "1:00, 2 miles", versus "ahead and to your right".

Yes, this is allowable per 7210.3 10–5–3b2 and 7110.65 3–1–9b2, provided

1. You are using a CTRD, and
2. The aircraft you are issuing the advisory to has been radar identified (7110.65 2–1–21a).

Now the question becomes: Has the aircraft you are talking to been radar identified? If they were handed off from Approach, then yes. If they were not, you must definitively establish radar identification in accordance with 7110.65 5–3–2 or 5–3–3 (which you are allowed to do per 7210.3 10–5–3b1 and 7110.65 3–9–1b1). Technically when you do this you are supposed to tell the pilot "radar contact" (7110.65 5–3–7a), but the Note at the end of 3–9–1b negates this for the exact reason you said: the application of radar services cannot be assured, because your primary duty is to scan the runways.

 

[Phanatical]

If there is some other required separation which will not be maintained, you can use pilot-applied visual separation instead. So:

• If the other aircraft is IFR, and the aircraft are in Class B, Class C, or TRSA airspace.
• If the other aircraft is VFR, and the aircraft are in Class B or TRSA airspace.
• If a larger-weight-class aircraft is departing a runway prior to a lower-weight-class aircraft performing a touch-and-go.

Besides those specific scenarios there is no "separation" provided to VFR aircraft. Once the VFR aircraft reports the traffic in sight, they are responsible for not smashing into that traffic. You have no other "separation" which you must provide, therefore it does not make sense to tell the pilot to "maintain visual separation" in lieu of any other approved separation.


Yes, this is allowable per 7210.3 10–5–3b2 and 7110.65 3–1–9b2, provided

1. You are using a CTRD, and
2. The aircraft you are issuing the advisory to has been radar identified (7110.65 2–1–21a).

Now the question becomes: Has the aircraft you are talking to been radar identified? If they were handed off from Approach, then yes. If they were not, you must definitively establish radar identification in accordance with 7110.65 5–3–2 or 5–3–3 (which you are allowed to do per 7210.3 10–5–3b1 and 7110.65 3–9–1b1). Technically when you do this you are supposed to tell the pilot "radar contact" (7110.65 5–3–7a), but the Note at the end of 3–9–1b negates this for the exact reason you said: the application of radar services cannot be assured, because your primary duty is to scan the runways.

What this guy said.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

Key word is SHOULD. But I Disagree. Most of the time these are low-time pilots who are just beginners. Believe me, I know from experience, they think they are getting radar service.

What radar services do you believe that they are thinking you're giving them?

 

[32andBelow]

My point is I am not a radar controller. By issuing traffic per the clock is misleading the pilot he is getting radar service.

Now with ADSB I’ll issue traffic to non identified VFR aircraft if I feel like they are in a dangerous situation. A lot of pilots that you aren’t talking too are monitoring. Doesn’t mean I’m giving them radar services.

 

[Dolan]

Key word is SHOULD. But I Disagree. Most of the time these are low-time pilots who are just beginners. Believe me, I know from experience, they think they are getting radar service.

Nope. 2-1-21. Has nothing to do with a radar qual and the pilot does not give one hoot how you obtained the information on the traffic they're in conflict with