Request for Clarification on Priority Policy

[Mike Cassel 849958]

VATUSA,

 

I'm requesting clarification on VATUSA policy number 5, relating to the priority of some aircraft over others. The policy says:

 

5) Aircraft Priority Handling

 

A. No aircraft will be given priority over any other by virtue of its call sign, status, virtual p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]engers, or pilot flying the aircraft.

 

B. VATUSA Controllers have the right to approve and allow special procedures for aircraft under their control within ARTCC and VATUSA policy and guidelines.

 

On the whole, this makes absolute sense; things could be very difficult if aircraft got priorities by sole virtue of their callsign or other such factors.

 

My question relates to the priority IFR aircraft over SVFR aircraft. According to the .65, aircraft operating under SVFR have a lower priority than IFR aircraft. In fact, the .65 says that SVFR operations can only be done so long as no delay accrues to IFR aircraft through this procedure. This makes absolute sense; unless special standards are established(probably extraordinarily rare in VATSIM), SVFR aircraft have to be separated from IFR aircraft with either the appropriate vertical separation, or non-radar separation minima. Practically, this means that one SVFR aircraft can effectively shut down any airport by that operation. Is the controller allowed to apply the .65 priority to IFR aircraft to terminate the SVFR operation until the IFR operation is clear, or does he have to disregard the .65 and operate under first-come first-served in order to comply with VATUSA policy?

[Alex Bailey 969331]

The VATUSA policy applies more towards aircraft operating under the callsign of Air Force One, or as a medical flight. Those types of flights will not be given priority, however, IFR will have priority over VFR/SVFR.

[Matthew Bartels]

Air Force One, will always get put to the back of my line! Seriously though, are there any pilots who aren't complete newbies who actually use that one?

[Dan Everette]

Air Force One, will always get put to the back of my line! Seriously though, are there any pilots who aren't complete newbies who actually use that one?

 

I get them fairly often. My favorite are the ones that log in as Air Force 1, and their callsign is AFR1 or AF1. Then they inevitably get upset when I continue to call them Air France 1 and refuse to call them Air Force 1.

[Steven Perry]

...however, IFR will have priority over VFR/SVFR.

 

IFR and VFR are coequal.

[David Klain 874106]

Actually Steven, no they are not. The whole purpose of ATC is to provide separation for IFR traffic. VFR traffic is handled "workload permitting". Most people fly VFR (real world) because they don't want to have to deal with ATC and want the freedom to go whatever route they way.

 

IFR definitely takes precedence over VFR traffic when talking to ATC.

 

Dave

Edited January 27, 2008 at 04:55 PM by Guest

[Alex Bailey 969331]

Edit: Dave beat me to it so I won't go into an explanation.

[Steven Perry]

I still say IFR and VFR are coequal. Here's why:

 

The purpose of ATC service in the USA is:

"... to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system ..." [2-1-1]

It makes no distinction between IFR, VFR, or SVFR.

 

Further,

FAAO7110.65 2-1-4 says "first come, first served" except:

Distress

Lifeguard

SAR

Presidential

Night Watch

FlyNet

Garden Plot

Samps

Intercepts

SCOOTs

TEAL/NOAA

IFR over SVFR

Open Skies

NRP/HAR

Diversion Recoveries

 

Those are the only rules I know of. Is there a contradicting p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]age elsewhere?

 

The level of service isn't the same, which may give some illusion of priority, but I can't point to anything in the book stating it is a factual difference in priority. Additional services are provided "workload permitting." This would include flight following. But if two C172s [EDIT: One IFR, one VFR] are lined up opposite each other holding short of the runway ready for departure heading the same direction after departure at the same altitude (and all else being equal), it's first come first served.

 

If IFR took precedence over VFR, this would not have happened [i'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming it was VFR]:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=27204

[Alex Bailey 969331]

You're making it much more complicated than it really is, respectively. A VFR aircraft, for the most part, will usually be denied entrance into a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace unless you go in at off-peak hours or the controller is really nice. There are virtually no requirements for a controller to ever offer services to a VFR aircraft if he doesn't have the time to do so. Granted, once you have flight following then most of the time you will receive equal treatment as an IFR aircraft (that doesn't mean that they are equal, though), but they won't put IFR aircraft into holds just so you can land your VFR Cessna in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, believe me.

 

At a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D field, sure, it will most likely be first-come first served, but that's how it usually is for ground/tower operations anyway. Start getting into approach and center airspace, and it will be strictly work-load permitting.

 

An example of this would be Tampa approach, real world. File an IFR flight plan and you can usually fly directly over TPA, or take the coastline. VFR? They won't even let you in the airspace half the time, let alone talk to you. That's my experience anyway.

[David Klain 874106]

Steven,

 

I think the issue is a difference in how "priority" is being defined here. Two aircraft holding short of the runway will get clearance from tower...generally based on who got there first, however the VFR guy may very well get priority if Tower has to coordinate an IFR release with approach. I've done that a number of times in the real world. I would say there is no "priority" in this scenario.

 

Now in the scenario of ATC provding traffic separation services...the IFR plane will ALWAYS get priority over VFR traffic. As pointed out to you, ATC only supports VFR traffic workload permitting. Yes, ATC will separate the IFR traffic from ANY traffic he sees on his scope (IFR or VFR), but his focus is on ensuring IFR separation. Why? Because he is REQUIRED to provide separation for IFR traffic. There IS NO REQUIREMENT to do this for VFR traffic (VFR flight following, etc.). As a matter of fact, ATC isn't even required to point out conflicting traffic to a VFR aircraft using flight following...he is just asked to do it workload permitting.

 

It is the second scenario above which leads me to say IFR gets priority over VFR.

 

Hope this makes sense to you.

 

all the best,

Dave

[Greg Marcoux 980029]

. A VFR aircraft, for the most part, will usually be denied entrance into a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace unless you go in at off-peak hours or the controller is really nice. .

 

Wait what?

 

I fly in central florida and have been in the Orland and Tampa Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B many times and never had difficulty getting in. If I was all ready on flight following when i was told to contact orlano appoach they cleared me into the bravo without me even having to ask.

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

Those are the only rules I know of. Is there a contradicting p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]age elsewhere?

 

Steven,

 

VFR is handled on a workload permitting basis at approach facilities:

 

7-6-11 Basic radar services [to VFR aircraft] should be provided to the extent possible, workload permitting.

 

I fly in central florida and have been in the Orland and Tampa Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B many times and never had difficulty getting in. If I was all ready on flight following when i was told to contact orlano appoach they cleared me into the bravo without me even having to ask.

 

You've never tried to fly into the Chicago cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B If you're lucky, they tell you they're too busy and to go away. Most of the time, they don't even bother responding to VFR requests.

[Steven Perry]

VFR is handled on a workload permitting basis at approach facilities:

 

7-6-11 Basic radar services [to VFR aircraft] should be provided to the extent possible, workload permitting.

 

VFR flight following is an additional service.

 

Access to airports, taxiways, runways, helipads, and positively controlled airspace [b, C, D] must be equal.

 

If an arrival sector is already under flow control with the scheduled IFR traffic, the controller has no obligation to talk to a VFR since his space is already full to the max. This happens often but does not change the rules in Chapter 2. A better example is departures.

 

Coordinating release for an IFR and letting a VFR go ahead is not a matter of priority, that is a matter of delay for the IFR. If everything was equal, it is simply first come first served.

 

In practice, VFR will always seem to be put behind the IFR aircraft. But that is only by circomestance (flow control, releases, even controller error). By the book, they are coequal. At least that's what the FAA teaches controllers in training. But the FAA has been known to lie to and mislead its workers and future workers before.

[Francisco Obregon 1004310]

I was flying ORD-OJAI as RJA1 Royal Jordanian 1, Presidential Aircraft and I didn't get any special treatment . I was expecting some F-16s to take off with me and go a fly by with me, and even get to do a fly by my self, but I guess the controller didn't care .

 

Joking..

 

I flew it and I didn't get any special " " priority for being presidential, And I even put it in our flight plan we were a presidential aircraft.. oh well.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

. A VFR aircraft, for the most part, will usually be denied entrance into a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace unless you go in at off-peak hours or the controller is really nice. .

 

Wait what?

 

I fly in central florida and have been in the Orland and Tampa Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B many times and never had difficulty getting in. If I was all ready on flight following when i was told to contact orlano appoach they cleared me into the bravo without me even having to ask.

 

That is generally how flight following works, as it becomes a courtesy among the controllers. As was stated, try flying into the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B at Chicago or Miami. It will be workload permitting, so you may not have a problem and it also depends on your intentions. I'm not saying you will never get access, and you might always get access, but it all comes down to the controller and how busy the airspace is. I've even had arrogant MIA_APP controllers not even allow me into the Bravo at 3 AM when he only had one other a/c on the frequency, and the airspace was dead. They do what they want, and you listen

[Tony Rimovsky 1042972]

From my ATC S1 test from VATSUSA on Jan 20, 2008.

 

Question #: 8: IFR aircraft shall have priority over SVFR aircraft on the VATSIM network.

Weight: 1

User's answer: False

Correct answer: False

Additional Notes: Reference: VATUSA Policy 07/01 Section 5 Para A

[Greg Marcoux 980029]

Oh wow I didn't realize that coule be so much trouble. I'll be sure to plan my Commerical cross country trip to Key west away from the Miami cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

From my ATC S1 test from VATSUSA on Jan 20, 2008.

 

Question #: 8: IFR aircraft shall have priority over SVFR aircraft on the VATSIM network.

Weight: 1

User's answer: False

Correct answer: False

Additional Notes: Reference: VATUSA Policy 07/01 Section 5 Para A

 

 

Tony, VATUSA is aware of the "discrepancy." Whether they plan on looking at their policy again, I have no clue. That would be a good question for VATUSA3.

[Nate Johns]

The problem with allowing SVFR to have parity with IFR traffic would be the one pilot that requests SVFR (not that it happens ever anyway) and just does pattern work while an IFR is inbound.

 

In that case, the IFR has to hold outside the airspace while the SVFR operation is ongoing. SVFR needs to report clear of the airspace or landed at the airport to let that IFR in.

 

I mean... in VATUSA, this rule is almost a moot point anyway. The airports where this is REALLY going to be an issue (the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B's), most already prohobit SVFR. Other airports get so little traffic in general... and it's such a rarity that weather is right in that marginal area between VFR minimums and the 1 SM vis where SVFR is possible... from a practical standpoint, it probably hasn't affected many people.

 

However, from a technical standpoint... I believe that the priority rule between IFR and SVFR should be preserved and enforced as written in the 7110.65.

 

~Nate

[Joe Caban 844086]

Funny, Air Force One is now officially AF1. No more A1, to many hotsauce jokes.

[Davor Kusec 990407]

Air Force One, will always get put to the back of my line! Seriously though, are there any pilots who aren't complete newbies who actually use that one?

 

I get them fairly often. My favorite are the ones that log in as Air Force 1, and their callsign is AFR1 or AF1. Then they inevitably get upset when I continue to call them Air France 1 and refuse to call them Air Force 1.

 

Yea I've noticed that one before. It's better when you point it out on serveinfo and they see the little Air France logo.

[Mike Cassel 849958]

I hate to revive this thread, but a student(test 14 under view test results for those with cert center access, at time of posting, test taken 02-06 at 17:08:07) failed his S1 test yesterday by one question, and one of the questions missed was the one Tony posted .

 

It seems like the general consensus from the VATUSA community(although interestingly, no VATUSA staff members apparently wish to chime in) is that IFR's priority over SVFR should remain. Yet with these two week waiting periods, this poor student has to wait two weeks before testing again, for missing a question that some very respected and knowledgeable people in VATUSA would answer the same way. Is it too much to ask to get a clear answer on the validity of this question and whether this student should have to be denied the ability to control on the network 2 weeks because of it?

 

I'm not a big fan of trial by forum, but I wanted to see how the community felt about this issue, since it is one that presumably affects all of us in VATUSA.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Mike, I raised our concerns (particularly that question) to VATUSA3 prior to my above post on Jan 28th. I have no idea why it hasn't been changed or addressed yet.

[Curley Bryant]

However, from a technical standpoint... I believe that the priority rule between IFR and SVFR should be preserved and enforced as written in the 7110.65.

 

I agree with Nate.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

However, from a technical standpoint... I believe that the priority rule between IFR and SVFR should be preserved and enforced as written in the 7110.65.

 

I agree with Nate.

 

Can we please get the VATUSA policy looked at and changed then, so we can get our student controlling? I notified VATUSA3 of the discrepancy almost 3 weeks ago, and have heard nothing in return. Meanwhile, our student is forced to sit idle and can't control for half a month because of OUR mistake. Not good...