Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies

[BACONATOR]

Why "in an emergency"? TACAIR flies form IFR all the time (as I'm sure you know, obviously) and there's no issue. If both aircraft have visual and comms, what's the issue?

When I first read article this I thought it was bullshit. After all, the controller and the crew were just trying to help an aircraft that might be in distress.

After I thought about it, though, I get the point. It's one thing to have a single seat aircraft "sneak up" and do unbriefed comm-out form off a NORDO aircraft, but what if the "NORDO aircraft" suddenly turns? We shouldn't be risking passengers for this (albeit an extremely small risk).

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't jets on the same flight plan as a section? I've obviously got no experience IFR as a section, so I'm more asking but sort of assuming. Same flight plan as a section is a bit different from a dissimilar joinup without comms of civil aircraft on separate (not to mention IFR/VFR) flight plans...

 

[wink]

If still talking about this as a formation, consider FAR91.111. Yes it says no form without a brief. But is also says no form if carrying passengers for hire.

 

[Catmando]

FWIW......
I can't count the number of times I have been cleared for Takeoff right behind the airliner ahead as he begins his TO roll. Tower will ask, "Report departing aircraft in sight." When you do, you are cleared for takeoff with the advisory, "Maintain visual sight." So the two pax carrying airliners are roughly a half-mile to less than a mile apart. Is that formation? No. Is it legal? Yes.

Also, airliners are often launched or arrive simultaneously on parallel runways, sometimes very close together like SFO within a few hundred feet. Certainly close enough to see the guy in the other cockpit. Is that formation? No, but it is damn close. Is it legal? Yes, it is pretty routine.

 

[BACONATOR]

FWIW......
I can't count the number of times I have been cleared for Takeoff right behind the airliner ahead as he begins his TO roll. Tower will ask, "Report departing aircraft in sight." When you do, you are cleared for takeoff with the advisory, "Maintain visual sight." So the two pax carrying airliners are roughly a half-mile to less than a mile apart. Is that formation? No. Is it legal? Yes.

Also, airliners are often launched or arrive simultaneously on parallel runways, sometimes very close together like SFO within a few hundred feet. Certainly close enough to see the guy in the other cockpit. Is that formation? No, but it is damn close. Is it legal? Yes, it is pretty routine.

Sounds like a VERY technical question. Are they on a visual approach (still an IFR clearance)? Are they technically cancelled IFR and now proceeding VFR on final to a landing? Who knows? Are there separate rules for separation for aircraft on approach? I mean, as a helo bubba, I am not an IFR expert, to be sure. But I remember in flight school, calling tower for IFR release behind another TH-57 and having to wait for the appropriate clearance from the bird ahead of me departing before I could go.... any ATC folks here to clear this up?

 

[wink]

Cat is right to point out there are different separation rules for different phases of flight, weather and altitudes. But there most certainly are rules. Point is, our unfortunate airmen (controllers are airmen too) seem to have broken the separation rules for that phase of flight, at that altitude, in that weather. Maybe the answer would have been to declare an emergency so the Capt had authority to deviate from FARs. NORDO light civil aircraft are fairly common though. Emergency deviation might be hard to justify.

 

[Gatordev]

That's a good question. I'd be interested in a definite answer. I was going to say, if you're IFR, regardless of VMC or not, the separations are required. See and avoid is required when VMC, sure, but that doesn't allow them to narrow the minimum separation. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I think that's what you were asking.

While you still have the bubble, you are still required to maintain separation via "see and avoid" if you are visual. That's why Center/Approach will call out traffic while you are IFR, even if you're IMC, and why they expect you to respond with "IMC at this time."

Jim is on the right track. With mixed IFR and VFR traffic, it's not as black and white as the "I'm IFR, therefore I have a bubble." Add in distance from the radar site and radar resolution, things get more complicated.

 

[yak52driver]

That's a good question. I'd be interested in a definite answer. I was going to say, if you're IFR, regardless of VMC or not, the separations are required. See and avoid is required when VMC, sure, but that doesn't allow them to narrow the minimum separation. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I think that's what you were asking.

The only thing I can add is that when I'm filed IFR but in VMC conditions on Part 135 charters, if other traffic is involved once I'm visual on the other aircraft center has let me descent or climb when I've requested it. This has included airliners flying into/out of places like ORD and MSP. If I'm not visual on the other aircraft ATC won't let me change altitude until they have proper separation on their scopes.

 

[ATCS]

Let me splain it!! First and foremost. The idea of running an intercept vector on a suspected nordo aircraft is a little less than a good idea. Why would you place that many unsuspecting people (folks in the back) in danger? Secondly, from a purely ATC position, the process was not carrieid out correctly. Just because the pilot of the aircraft says he has the other iarcraft in sight does not meet the requirements of FAA order 7110.65T for visual seperation. The controller must use the "phrase that pays". MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPERATION, prior to losing standard radar seperation ( in this case, 3NM or 1000' vertical seperation). That was not done. And last but not least, this is a job for highly skilled miitary pilots, not SWA captains with paying passengers in the back. Here by ends the air traffic lesson of the day. Be safe

 

[yodaears]

And last but not least, this is a job for highly skilled miitary pilots, not SWA captains with paying passengers in the back. Here by ends the air traffic lesson of the day. Be safe

Where do you think a lot of those SWA captains come from? Possibly from the ranks of the highly skilled military aviator? Not that I agree with this situation in general, just saying that these guys may have had the backgrounds to feel marginally comfortable with this unusual task. That being said, they should have used that background and experience to recognize a lose-lose situation when it presented itself. Live and learn.

 

[ATCS]

I totally agree with you that many airline pilots have military experience and the SWA pilot very well may have that kind of background. The bottom line here is, it is a military function to perform these kind of request, not a comercial air carrier. The unfortunate thing is that everyone must of had good intentions.

 

[MasterBates]

Well, we don't exactly have hundreds of F-16s on strip alert like in the cold war either.

Remember how far away the nearest interceptors were on 9/11?

 

[gotta_fly]

Well, we don't exactly have hundreds of F-16s on strip alert like in the cold war either.

Remember how far away the nearest interceptors were on 9/11?

Wait... The Cold War is over?

Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk.

 

[jollygreen07]

Wait... The Cold War is over?

Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk.

Your SDO letter has been pulled. May God have mercy on your soul.