Visual Separation

[julietoscar]

I have a question about using visual and wanted to get people's thoughts.

Scenario: N123 is climbing to 8,000, requesting 11,000. N456 is crossing at 9,000, and will pass about a mile behind. N456 reports N123 in sight, would you instruct them to maintain visual, and then climb N123 even if N123 never got N456 in sight? In the past I've only done it if the aircraft I'm climbing or descending through another had them in sight.

 

[AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise]

I have a question about using visual and wanted to get people's thoughts.

Scenario: N123 is climbing to 8,000, requesting 11,000. N456 is crossing at 9,000, and will pass about a mile behind. N456 reports N123 in sight, would you instruct them to maintain visual, and then climb N123 even if N123 never got N456 in sight? In the past I've only done it if the aircraft I'm climbing or descending through another had them in

I have a question about using visual and wanted to get people's thoughts.

Scenario: N123 is climbing to 8,000, requesting 11,000. N456 is crossing at 9,000, and will pass about a mile behind. N456 reports N123 in sight, would you instruct them to maintain visual, and then climb N123 even if N123 never got N456 in sight? In the past I've only done it if the aircraft I'm climbing or descending through another had them in sight.

I would not apply visual separation like that, but I have seen an older controller do that. According to the P65 I think you can make An argument the rule has been applied correctly in that situation, but I don’t think the rule is meant to be applied that way nor do I believe it is an intelligent way to apply the rule. You’d be telling an aircraft it is okay to climb through another aircrafts altitude without the climbing aircraft having the level aircraft in sight. Doesn’t sound safe or smart to me.

 

[32andBelow]

How is the level aircraft suppose to avoid in the climbing aircraft? Just pick to either deviate or change altitude?

 

[Mike Kilo]

How is the level aircraft suppose to avoid in the climbing aircraft? Just pick to either deviate or change altitude?

He posted that the aircraft will naturally pass behind the level aircraft. So no deviation will be needed. They are just asking about the legality of that aircraft being issues the visual sep instead of the climbing aircraft and whether you would do it.

 

[the inquirer]

I’d do it all day long. Whenever you tell an aircraft to maintain visual separation, you are clearing them to maneuver to miss the other plane. If he needs to move, you prolly won’t even notice it on the scope since it will be a very small turn.

 

[ebk2992]

7110 makes no indication as to which aircraft has to have the other in sight. Supposed to tell them if the targets appear likely to merge on converging courses. Not ideal to run them at each other and ask the pilots to bail you out. I just use it to break 3 miles when it's safe and operationally more efficient. In the scenario given you may not even need visual for very long because once the other aircraft is through the flight path you would have divergence and you could be however close you wanted and it wouldn't matter

 

[julietoscar]

7110 makes no indication as to which aircraft has to have the other in sight. Supposed to tell them if the targets appear likely to merge on converging courses. Not ideal to run them at each other and ask the pilots to bail you out. I just use it to break 3 miles when it's safe and operationally more efficient. In the scenario given you may not even need visual for very long because once the other aircraft is through the flight path you would have divergence and you could be however close you wanted and it wouldn't matter

In this actual situation we don't have 3 mile airspace, so 5 miles is actually a decent amount of time to wait to climb the aircraft. It required me to make a point out to an approach sector. I would have climbed them when the other ac had them in sight but I second guessed the rule.

 

[ZAUBJP]

There are instances when even though it may be legal, it isn’t necessarily a good (or safe) idea to use visual separation. In the previous example it is a correct application of the rule and appeared to be safe. Remember also that the pilot always has the final say on whether or not he can accept a clearance to maintain visual separation.

 

[Phanatical]

I feel like “are you able to maintain visual separation with that aircraft?; maintain visual separation with that aircraft” should be sufficient.

 

[MJ]

Perfectly legal. 7-2-1 d covers the second part of your question.

(ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.

 

[DankVectorz]

How is the level aircraft suppose to avoid in the climbing aircraft? Just pick to either deviate or change altitude?

thing almost always look much much MUCH closer on the scope then they do from the cockpit. I’ve had plenty of traffic alerts given to me where I’m like “that guy? Pfft no factor”.

 

[32andBelow]

thing almost always look much much MUCH closer on the scope then they do from the cockpit. I’ve had plenty of traffic alerts given to me where I’m like “that guy? Pfft no factor”.

Yah I use it all the time I just never really understood how the level guy is supposed to “miss” the guy on approach or climbing out or whatever

 

[Phanatical]

Yah I use it all the time I just never really understood how the level guy is supposed to “miss” the guy on approach or climbing out or whatever

Once they have advised they have that aircraft in sight and will maintain visual separation with that aircraft, the liability is on them to provide such separation.

 

[32andBelow]

Once they have advised they have that aircraft in sight and will maintain visual separation with that aircraft, the liability is on them to provide such separation.

Yah but what if they descend below the Mia or something

 

[ManBearPig]

Legal yes. But, we did have an eLMS a couple years ago that went over this scenario. Jet climbed into a P28A or something while the P28A had visual. Near mid air. I don't use the visual of a steady state aircraft (straight and level) when I have a guy turning or climbing around them. I only use the guy who is already planning on turning or changing altitudes. More safe IMO.

 

[julietoscar]

Legal yes. But, we did have an eLMS a couple years ago that went over this scenario. Jet climbed into a P28A or something while the P28A had visual. Near mid air. I don't use the visual of a steady state aircraft (straight and level) when I have a guy turning or climbing around them. I only use the guy who is already planning on turning or changing altitudes. More safe IMO.

That's kind of my thinking too because the one who is going to move will do so at their discretion. Not like they're just cruising and then the other aircraft gets way closer than they expected and they have to scramble

 

[Dolan]

Legal and not even sketcky

 

[Phanatical]

If they are using visual separation, in theory they could be within inches of each other and still be legal.

 

[32andBelow]

If they are using visual separation, in theory they could be within inches of each other and still be legal.

I mean they can hit and it’ll still be legal. But then we won’t be allowed to do it anymore

 

[wand_waver]

Is it legal yes. Is it smart…eh depends. You’re putting the separation on the pilot to climb either behind or even in front of the other aircraft. To me it’s much safer to use altitude separation until courses cross. That way there is no question (on ATC and pilot side) about if this will work.