 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ZSU approach controller questioned facility's interpretation of required separation between IFR and SVFR aircraft within class C airspace.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 791167 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200805 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sju.airport |
| State Reference | PR |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Flight Phase | ground : maintenance |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : approach |
| Experience | controller time certified in position1 : 7 |
| ASRS Report | 791167 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | FAA |
| Primary Problem | FAA |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : zsu.artcc |
Narrative:
I investigated a complaint from the sju tower about SVFR operations. The controller(south) had IFR and SVFR inside class C airspace cleared for the approach. There are many interps. Mine; following written portions of order 7110.65S; is that separation between SVFR and IFR is 500 ft below and non radar separation laterally. Meaning that you cannot have an IFR and an SVFR inside the same surface airspace at the same time. Management interpretation is that you can use radar separation (3 mi) in between. IFR and SVFR in sequence to land. Some controllers think that you can even tell an SVFR to follow or maintain visual separation from another SVFR or IFR inside the same airspace (depending on who is training you could receive different interpretation/instructions). The investigation is still ongoing and I cannot teach/brief this item because of the difference of opinions. In reality; I could be wrong but I think is unsafe to have for an SVFR in front of an IFR aligned to land the same runway when the SVFR can actually reverse its course to stay out of the clouds. Until we receive interpretation; this event can occur many times over.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZSU APCH CTLR QUESTIONED FAC'S INTERPRETATION OF REQUIRED SEPARATION BETWEEN IFR AND SVFR ACFT WITHIN CLASS C AIRSPACE.
Narrative: I INVESTIGATED A COMPLAINT FROM THE SJU TWR ABOUT SVFR OPS. THE CTLR(S) HAD IFR AND SVFR INSIDE CLASS C AIRSPACE CLRED FOR THE APCH. THERE ARE MANY INTERPS. MINE; FOLLOWING WRITTEN PORTIONS OF ORDER 7110.65S; IS THAT SEPARATION BTWN SVFR AND IFR IS 500 FT BELOW AND NON RADAR SEPARATION LATERALLY. MEANING THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE AN IFR AND AN SVFR INSIDE THE SAME SURFACE AIRSPACE AT THE SAME TIME. MGMNT INTERP IS THAT YOU CAN USE RADAR SEPARATION (3 MI) IN BTWN. IFR AND SVFR IN SEQUENCE TO LAND. SOME CTLRS THINK THAT YOU CAN EVEN TELL AN SVFR TO FOLLOW OR MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM ANOTHER SVFR OR IFR INSIDE THE SAME AIRSPACE (DEPENDING ON WHO IS TRAINING YOU COULD RECEIVE DIFFERENT INTERP/INSTRUCTIONS). THE INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING AND I CANNOT TEACH/BRIEF THIS ITEM BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS. IN REALITY; I COULD BE WRONG BUT I THINK IS UNSAFE TO HAVE FOR AN SVFR IN FRONT OF AN IFR ALIGNED TO LAND THE SAME RWY WHEN THE SVFR CAN ACTUALLY REVERSE ITS COURSE TO STAY OUT OF THE CLOUDS. UNTIL WE RECEIVE INTERP; THIS EVENT CAN OCCUR MANY TIMES OVER.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.