4 ms·

I’m sorry, but in what world is it acceptable for an aircraft flying in an airport’s atc controlled airspace to not be coordinating with ATC? I thought that wa

by olliej 2y ago

I’m sorry, but in what world is it acceptable for an aircraft flying in an airport’s atc controlled airspace to not be coordinating with ATC? I thought that was literally the entire reason we have controlled airspace rules?

noirbot 2y ago
It's F1 weekend in Austin, so I'd assume that's part of the reason someone may think they don't need to care where they fly their private jet.
- dfc 2y ago
  Are you referring to the 45 year old Cessna when you say private jet? It looks like that plane flies a lot around Louisiana and Texas. Weird to jump to a conclusion about F1 money and an entitled pilot.
  - noirbot 2y ago
    I mean, I'm just guessing, but AUS becomes one of the busiest airports for non-commercial planes this weekend every year. Even an old Cessna is literally a private jet, and they clearly weren't listing to ATC, so it's either entitlement or some sort of minor disaster that almost became a major disaster. It's a choice to fly your airplane across the land/takeoff trajectory for a major airport. They also essentially flew by the F1 track on the way.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Even an old Cessna is literally a private jet... No, it isn't. It's a small non-jet aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane > they clearly weren't listing to ATC They are not required to in that airspace at that altitude.
      - noirbot 2y ago
        Private plane then. The point is the same. If you're flying a couple miles away from a commercial airport and across the path of the runways, maybe you're not required to be listening to ATC, but that's definitely a choice you're making to risk it.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Private plane then. The point is the same. No, it isn't. You can get a Cessna for less than a Cybertruck. You cannot get a private jet that cheap. > If you're flying a couple miles away from a commercial airport and across the path of the runways, maybe you're not required to be listening to ATC, but that's definitely a choice you're making to risk it. There's an explicit system of controlled airspace around airports. See the picture illustrations in https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/97110/why-do-airspace-shelves-look-like-upside-down-wedding-cakes https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/97110/why-do-ai... The Cessna was operating in airspace it had the legal right to be in and no need for ATC coordination. Near some of the busiest airports, etiquitte requires you try not to make a nuisance of yourself as a GA pilot to ATC.
        noirbot 2y ago
        You clearly know this more than I do, and I'm probably wrong in general, as it seems. I guess I find it hard to believe ATC is just flagrantly flying planes full of people in airspace they shouldn't be, but maybe that's normal.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        You’d be surprised! For example, when I take off from Palo Alto in the Bay Area and fly northeast over, say, Fremont, staying under 4000 feet, I am in what’s called Class E airspace where I am not required to transmit on the radio. I regularly see arrivals into Oakland in front of me at my altitude and below. It is technically considered controlled airspace, as IFR aircraft must operate on an ATC clearance, but my VFR ass can legally barrel right through without talking to anyone! Obviously that’s not the smartest or safest practice but it’s legal.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  A Cessna 182 isn't a private jet.
  - noirbot 2y ago
    Ok, I used imprecise language in using the colloquial term. I'm not a pilot. I don't work in ATC. The exact nature of the plane doesn't seem too relevant to whether they should have been flying across the path of an airport runway without listening to ATC. It's not as if the lack of literal jet engines makes it less of a problem or less of a rich person's toy.
    - AceyMan 2y ago
      Well, imprecise language really is key here - because a pilot with a turbojet rating is, de facto, a better pilot than one who's flying a single engine piston plane. Words matter.
      - noirbot 2y ago
        Honest question, why would they de facto be better? Is it harder to fly a jet-engine plane? Especially when we're talking about generally flying safely in terms of "in airspace you're allowed to be in and being aware of other planes"? I could see a more complex plane being literally harder to fly, but is there a reason a Cessna isn't easier to fly safely?
        K0balt 2y ago
        In general, a jet is much more likely to be coordinating with ATC even if they aren’t required to under the specific circumstances. But still, this was a failure of ATC to provide adequate separation from an aircraft that they knew was operating under Visual Flight Rules, and was not under ATC control. The Cessna pilot is under no obligation to maintain contact with ATC in this airspace, and it is the job of ATC to route the aircraft under its guidance around this kind of airspace, and if penetration of uncontrolled airspace is required, then to advise about and route around any known traffic. The Cessna was probably communicating with the relevant CTAF or tower frequency for the airport it was setting up an approach for, or monitoring Unicom for traffic avoidance for other small VFR aircraft. A single pilot can’t fly, navigate, and maintain traffic separation in a plane and communicate on all frequencies at once simultaneously, and ATC does not have the resources to control all random manoeuvres of small aircraft. This is why there are places where small aircraft operate, mostly under “see and avoid” VFR rules, and places where all operations are done under strict ATC controls. In this case, the heavy aircraft was directed to fly through one of these uncontrolled areas, and the controller failed to maintain adequate separation from uncontrolled operations.
bee_rider 2y ago
The site seems to be very focused on what happened in the air, I assume the site summarizes air traffic control or FAA reports for hobbyists, or that sort of thing, right? So we don’t know what happened when the pilot of the Cessna got on the ground. Without knowing much about the rules of this sort of stuff, I assume they got a pretty stern talking to…
buildsjets 2y ago
The Class C airspace at that location starts at 2,100 feet. The Cessna was at 1,300 feet. The airliner was at 1,700 feet. The Cessna did not have to be coordinating with ATC because they were NOT in controlled airspace that requires radio communication with ATC, but it is optional and recommended. The real question here is, why does Austin Approach Control have airliners driving around lower than the ceiling of the Class C protected airspace, where EVERY pilot knows that there are little putt-putt planes pottering about down there?
- noirbot 2y ago
  That's essentially the approach for the landing to the airport. I'd assume the AA flight was on its way in for landing. It definitely strikes me as a place that wouldn't be a great idea to fly your plane past if you're not planning to be on comms with ATC.
  - amluto 2y ago
    Seems like maybe the airspace used for the approach should be class C? How does one find a map?
    - buildsjets 2y ago
      skyvector.com
  - buildsjets 2y ago
    No, that's essentially underneath the landing path to the airport. Aircraft operate in three dimensions, and the airspace is sized and configured in three dimensions to support all the navigation needs and users in the area. Did you know that there is a "tunnel" of uncontrolled airspace directly about Los Angeles International, between 3500 feet and 4500 feet, and you can fly through with commercial airliners whizzing about, talking to absolutely no radar services or ATC controllers? Called the LAX SFRA. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-services-brief-lax-class-b-vfr-transition-routes https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-se...
- deleted 2y ago

by olliej 2y ago

noirbot 2y ago

It's F1 weekend in Austin, so I'd assume that's part of the reason someone may think they don't need to care where they fly their private jet.

dfc 2y ago
Are you referring to the 45 year old Cessna when you say private jet? It looks like that plane flies a lot around Louisiana and Texas. Weird to jump to a conclusion about F1 money and an entitled pilot.
- noirbot 2y ago
  I mean, I'm just guessing, but AUS becomes one of the busiest airports for non-commercial planes this weekend every year. Even an old Cessna is literally a private jet, and they clearly weren't listing to ATC, so it's either entitlement or some sort of minor disaster that almost became a major disaster. It's a choice to fly your airplane across the land/takeoff trajectory for a major airport. They also essentially flew by the F1 track on the way.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Even an old Cessna is literally a private jet... No, it isn't. It's a small non-jet aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane > they clearly weren't listing to ATC They are not required to in that airspace at that altitude.
    - noirbot 2y ago
      Private plane then. The point is the same. If you're flying a couple miles away from a commercial airport and across the path of the runways, maybe you're not required to be listening to ATC, but that's definitely a choice you're making to risk it.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Private plane then. The point is the same. No, it isn't. You can get a Cessna for less than a Cybertruck. You cannot get a private jet that cheap. > If you're flying a couple miles away from a commercial airport and across the path of the runways, maybe you're not required to be listening to ATC, but that's definitely a choice you're making to risk it. There's an explicit system of controlled airspace around airports. See the picture illustrations in https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/97110/why-do-airspace-shelves-look-like-upside-down-wedding-cakes https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/97110/why-do-ai... The Cessna was operating in airspace it had the legal right to be in and no need for ATC coordination. Near some of the busiest airports, etiquitte requires you try not to make a nuisance of yourself as a GA pilot to ATC.
        noirbot 2y ago
        You clearly know this more than I do, and I'm probably wrong in general, as it seems. I guess I find it hard to believe ATC is just flagrantly flying planes full of people in airspace they shouldn't be, but maybe that's normal.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        You’d be surprised! For example, when I take off from Palo Alto in the Bay Area and fly northeast over, say, Fremont, staying under 4000 feet, I am in what’s called Class E airspace where I am not required to transmit on the radio. I regularly see arrivals into Oakland in front of me at my altitude and below. It is technically considered controlled airspace, as IFR aircraft must operate on an ATC clearance, but my VFR ass can legally barrel right through without talking to anyone! Obviously that’s not the smartest or safest practice but it’s legal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 2y ago
A Cessna 182 isn't a private jet.
- noirbot 2y ago
  Ok, I used imprecise language in using the colloquial term. I'm not a pilot. I don't work in ATC. The exact nature of the plane doesn't seem too relevant to whether they should have been flying across the path of an airport runway without listening to ATC. It's not as if the lack of literal jet engines makes it less of a problem or less of a rich person's toy.
  - AceyMan 2y ago
    Well, imprecise language really is key here - because a pilot with a turbojet rating is, de facto, a better pilot than one who's flying a single engine piston plane. Words matter.
    - noirbot 2y ago
      Honest question, why would they de facto be better? Is it harder to fly a jet-engine plane? Especially when we're talking about generally flying safely in terms of "in airspace you're allowed to be in and being aware of other planes"? I could see a more complex plane being literally harder to fly, but is there a reason a Cessna isn't easier to fly safely?
      - K0balt 2y ago
        In general, a jet is much more likely to be coordinating with ATC even if they aren’t required to under the specific circumstances. But still, this was a failure of ATC to provide adequate separation from an aircraft that they knew was operating under Visual Flight Rules, and was not under ATC control. The Cessna pilot is under no obligation to maintain contact with ATC in this airspace, and it is the job of ATC to route the aircraft under its guidance around this kind of airspace, and if penetration of uncontrolled airspace is required, then to advise about and route around any known traffic. The Cessna was probably communicating with the relevant CTAF or tower frequency for the airport it was setting up an approach for, or monitoring Unicom for traffic avoidance for other small VFR aircraft. A single pilot can’t fly, navigate, and maintain traffic separation in a plane and communicate on all frequencies at once simultaneously, and ATC does not have the resources to control all random manoeuvres of small aircraft. This is why there are places where small aircraft operate, mostly under “see and avoid” VFR rules, and places where all operations are done under strict ATC controls. In this case, the heavy aircraft was directed to fly through one of these uncontrolled areas, and the controller failed to maintain adequate separation from uncontrolled operations.

bee_rider 2y ago

The site seems to be very focused on what happened in the air, I assume the site summarizes air traffic control or FAA reports for hobbyists, or that sort of thing, right? So we don’t know what happened when the pilot of the Cessna got on the ground. Without knowing much about the rules of this sort of stuff, I assume they got a pretty stern talking to…

buildsjets 2y ago

The Class C airspace at that location starts at 2,100 feet. The Cessna was at 1,300 feet. The airliner was at 1,700 feet. The Cessna did not have to be coordinating with ATC because they were NOT in controlled airspace that requires radio communication with ATC, but it is optional and recommended. The real question here is, why does Austin Approach Control have airliners driving around lower than the ceiling of the Class C protected airspace, where EVERY pilot knows that there are little putt-putt planes pottering about down there?

noirbot 2y ago
That's essentially the approach for the landing to the airport. I'd assume the AA flight was on its way in for landing. It definitely strikes me as a place that wouldn't be a great idea to fly your plane past if you're not planning to be on comms with ATC.
- amluto 2y ago
  Seems like maybe the airspace used for the approach should be class C? How does one find a map?
  - buildsjets 2y ago
    skyvector.com
- buildsjets 2y ago
  No, that's essentially underneath the landing path to the airport. Aircraft operate in three dimensions, and the airspace is sized and configured in three dimensions to support all the navigation needs and users in the area. Did you know that there is a "tunnel" of uncontrolled airspace directly about Los Angeles International, between 3500 feet and 4500 feet, and you can fly through with commercial airliners whizzing about, talking to absolutely no radar services or ATC controllers? Called the LAX SFRA. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-services-brief-lax-class-b-vfr-transition-routes https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-se...
deleted 2y ago