Question

[long final]

wondered if anyone could clarify something for me.

Night VFR in the circuit under ATC instruction.

Q - does ATC have the responsibility for conflict avoidance or is the responsibility still with the pilot?

(I know ultimately the pilot keeps out of the way whatever if conflict is imminent - the question is about book responsibility )

Regards
Long Final

[GT]

The pilot - always.

[eyeinthesky]

ATC are supposed to separate SVFR from SVFR at night in a control zone until/unless they have visual contact. I can't remember what the situation is in the same control zone if they start flying circuits. Ultimately of course you should keep your eyes open!

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[long final]

agree, and am well aware VFR always the pilot, but the visual contact issue is the key I think in my situation.
Not wanting to got into too much detail, but if in the situation ATC give a call regarding a/c reporting non visual ( a/c may well have given ATC inacurate position )and I happen to end up with the a/c 50ft above me in opposing direction.(I am downwind at the time) I would like to know who is in error, or why the situation happenend in the first place.

[Noggin]

There is no such thing as VFR at Night in the UK. You are either IFR or SVFR.

[long final]

thanks for the definition noggin, any advise re the question?

[eyeinthesky]

Radar vectors when VFR (or SVFR) are dodgy, as complying with the vector might put you IMC. Don't forget also that SVFR exempts you from the IFR height restrictions (Rule 21, I think it is, but not Rule 5) and if you are being radar vectored you must be at or above the relevant MSA in the Radar Vectoring Area. Most ATCOs would I think steer clear of offering R/Vs to VFR/SVFR for this reason, whether day or night. You would be daft to accept them as well, as it might put you in a situation you are not qualified to handle.

Class of airspace: Assume we are talking about Class D or Class A. My original comments about responsibility for separation then apply.

Ref the question about ending up 50ft apart: Difficult, but ultimately SVFR is a see and avoid clearance, so it will be the pilot's responsibility if you get that close. If you report not visual with called traffic I would hope ATC would do something before you got that close!! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif




------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[Noggin]

According to the AIP Standard separation is provided between SVFR Flights however, there are a number of exceptions. See the AIP Page:http://www.ais.org.uk/uk_aip/pdf/enr/20102.pdf.

There is also an explanation in CAP 413 Par 7.5

[PA7]

LF, As a civil a/c technically you are not flying under VFR at night. To comply with IFR below 3000' only the minimum height rule applies.
In class G airspace ATC will pass traffic information on other IFR flights and information such as vortex recomended spacings. It is up to you as the pilot to position yourself accordingly behind that traffic. You may be instructed to take up an orbit in the downwind leg so as to retain visual reference with the airfield.

ATC is responsible for issuing information and instructions to a/c under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between a/c flying in, and in the vicinity of the ATZ.

[Chilli Monster]

LF

Sounds to me like the other pilot screwed up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and not knowing where he was. In that case although it's ATC's responsibility to apply a separation standard (in this case reduced in the vicinity of the circuit by usual visual separation) I don't feel they can be held totally responsible for the other guys inability.

You might get a better and fuller answer if you could give a few more details - what type of airspace was this in (CTR or ATZ in class 'G'). Was it a proper ATC service or was it FISO or even A/G. (Night flying goes on at these airfields too). At the end of the day you need a full story for a complete answer

CM

[This message has been edited by Chilli Monster (edited 26 March 2001).]

[long final]

Sorry I havn't answered anyone's responses in the last few days, been away, but very quickly....

Having read all the comments - CM, full ATZ service - quite a busy airport really - no-one would like to hear what I would have crashed on if we had made contact - ( or perhaps they should? - another subject! ), I think, having considered the comments, the conflicting a/c was not exactly where he reported. Had he been, a left orbit would not have left him turning on downwind oposite.

At the time of posting I was probably just about to hang anyone ( it was not a pleasant experience ), I think CM made the best point, and that really it was just an error of airmanship, but it has made me read up on some issues I wasn't clear on - must be of some good! It also made me all too aware that two aircraft in oposing directions come together VERY quickly! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Regards
LF

ps - this may be a very silly question ( but I really dont know ), should this situation have been reported to anyone?

[Lew Ton]

It's difficult to comment without the full facts but on the face of it if the other chap was going the wrong way downwind it sounds like the problem was all his.

Did you speak to ATC afterwards? Ringing up in a reasonable tone (i.e. don't lose your rag however you feel justified) should be received in the same way and you may learn of other factors that were not apparrent at the time. But do say if you were unhappy with the situation. At the very least I would expect the other pilot to be 'spoken to'.

As for reporting, if you feel at any time that you were in danger of collision then it is available to you to file an Airprox report. It is then investigated by the authorities.