2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Just to clarify something here.  In the USA, after being cleared for a visual approach (assuming you're not following another aircraft), ATC is still providing separation from other aircraft, not the pilot. 

Brilliant, I was hoping you might jump in on this, I almost tagged you.

So ATC has got your separation from other traffic, but if you call proceeding traffic in sight and are told to follow that aircraft then is the pilot responsible for wake separation , is that correct Ryan?

I know we aren't allowed to overtake the aircraft we are following ( parallel runway ops SFO) if we do we have to go around as I understand it.

Also on a go around the pilot is initially responsible for terrain separation until they reach the ATC cleared altitude in the go around instructions? is that also a correct interpretation? 

Thanks Ryan

5 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Just to clarify something here.  In the USA, after being cleared for a visual approach (assuming you're not following another aircraft), ATC is still providing separation from other aircraft, not the pilot. 

I guess it could be a different case, but when I get clearance for practice approaches in VFR ATC explicitly tells me no traffic separation services provided! At the same time I still get dedicated squawk and still recieve traffic advisories. I assume ATC want to take burden of sequencing traffic with formal intervals and squeeze me "in between" relying on my own visual separation? Also considering that most practice approaches under "hood" involve two pilots  one on  look out at any time.

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I guess it could be a different case, but when I get clearance for practice approaches in VFR ATC explicitly tells me no traffic separation services provided! At the same time I still get dedicated squawk and still recieve traffic advisories. I assume ATC want to take burden of sequencing traffic with formal intervals and squeeze me "in between" relying on my own visual separation? Also considering that most practice approaches under "hood" involve two pilots  one on  look out at any time.

A vfr practice approach is different than a visual approach while on an IFR flight plan.

When you hear those magic words "no separation service provided" during a vfr practice approach that simply means we're not providing IFR separation between you and other vfr practice approach or ifr aircraft.

However, some airports with control towers DO have a letter to airmen stating the aircraft conducting a vfr practice approach WILL be afforded IFR separation.  When this happens you'll basically just hear a normal approach clearance as if you are on an ifr flight plan, EXCEPT with the preface to "maintain VFR" (typically ATC issues this phrase before the approach clearance but we are required to issue it as soon as practicable once you are told radar contact).  Personally I did it twice when I worked terminal radar.  Once upon initial contact. And later right before I clear them for a vfr practice approach (again assuming the tower has a Letter to Airmen).

One thing to note.  While some A Hole controllers will just shove you in between 2 IFRs and say the no separation services are provided part, that is pretty rare and most will still sequence you to provide a safe arrival path to the runway.  For example, socal approach has 2 IFR Skyhawks on an ils 24 at KCRQ.  Pretend there was already 6 miles between them.  They could easily fit you in between (so about 3 miles between all 3 of you) without clearing you for the approach, and that would still provide a safe arrival path to you and not screw the tower into having to do something different with you.

A visual approach is an approach given to aircraft on an IFR flight plan which allows them to stay clear of clouds and basically fly any path to the runway, unless given restrictions by ATC.  ATC provides separation during the entirety of the visual approach clearance UNLESS the pilot has been told to follow another aircraft.  "N12345 follow the learjet, cleared visual approach runway 24 palomar airport.". Another caveat is if the tower controller (called local), has both aircraft in sight, they can provide separation.  They need to see both and be in direct communication with 1, and have the ability to contact the number 2 aircraft).  In this case another form of separation must exist between the two aircraft prior to local visually separating them.

5 hours ago, jon b said:

 

So ATC has got your separation from other traffic, but if you call proceeding traffic in sight and are told to follow that aircraft then is the pilot responsible for wake separation , is that correct Ryan?

I know we aren't allowed to overtake the aircraft we are following ( parallel runway ops SFO) if we do we have to go around as I understand it.

Also on a go around the pilot is initially responsible for terrain separation until they reach the ATC cleared altitude in the go around instructions? is that also a correct interpretation? 

Thanks Ryan

1) Yes, you will hear something like Speedbird12 heavy, follow the heavy Boeing 747, cleared visual approach runway 28R, caution wake turbulence

a) caveat - Tower can provide visual separation between two IFR aircraft on an approach (or between arriving and departing/departing aircraft) - They must have all aircraft in sight, be in direct comms with 1, and have the ability to contact the other

b) caveat - ATC cannot issue a visual approach clearance to follow if the lead is a Super

c) caveat - Tower cannot visually separate two aircraft when wake turbulence is required (example a C172 cleared for an ILS in trail of a B744 requires 6 miles separation - if somehow the C172 caught up to the B744 lol, tower cannot apply visual sep)

2) Correct

3) Correct

 

38 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

A vfr practice approach is different than a visual approach while on an IFR flight plan.

 

So basically I actually file IFR on the ground. It's not a pop up practice approach. First one is always granted under IFR, all the way to "map". Then SoCal  converts my IFR to VFR on their own. They don't really ask me to cancel or change squawk, they just want me to affirm that no separation is provided! I still shoot whatever approaches I requested; however, SoCal can modify them based on their IFR traffic need. For example SoCal can call missed approach point way before published "map" just to slide me off some jet landing behind. Do you guys do the same thing?

13 hours ago, jon b said:

Brilliant, I was hoping you might jump in on this, I almost tagged you.

So ATC has got your separation from other traffic, but if you call proceeding traffic in sight and are told to follow that aircraft then is the pilot responsible for wake separation , is that correct Ryan?

I know we aren't allowed to overtake the aircraft we are following ( parallel runway ops SFO) if we do we have to go around as I understand it.

Also on a go around the pilot is initially responsible for terrain separation until they reach the ATC cleared altitude in the go around instructions? is that also a correct interpretation? 

Thanks Ryan

To answer your question regarding separation when the tower asks if you “have the traffic in sight” the answer is yes while you are airborne but no if the conflict will cause a loss of separation while on the runway.  So for example, if you turn base and then final and are overtaking the aircraft in front of you, ATC will notify you of the overtake and they will make you go around if you are going to land too close behind another aircraft.  I believe the reg is “5,000 feet” of runway is the minimum separation from 2 piston class aircraft but I’m not 100% sure.  I know this is true because this happened to me in real life.  A plane in front of me was taking forever to exit the runway and I was on short final and the controller said, “no need for a go around, still cleared to land as separation is more than 5,000 feet.”  
 

I doubt BATC gets that technical but I’d thought I’d help answer your question around the responsibility of the pilot while airborne to maintain visual separation from the traffic.

9 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

So basically I actually file IFR on the ground. It's not a pop up practice approach. First one is always granted under IFR, all the way to "map". Then SoCal  converts my IFR to VFR on their own. They don't really ask me to cancel or change squawk, they just want me to affirm that no separation is provided! I still shoot whatever approaches I requested; however, SoCal can modify them based on their IFR traffic need. For example SoCal can call missed approach point way before published "map" just to slide me off some jet landing behind. Do you guys do the same thing?

That's not legal.  They cannot cancel your IFR for you.  Are you absolutely certain you're filing ifr on the ground and you are receiving a clearance limit?  It should sound like "N12345 Palomar clearance/ground, cleared to palomar airport via radar vectors, climb and maintain 5000, departure frequency 123.45, squawk 1234."

However if I have to break you off the approach I will do that but legally it needs to be before you descend below the MIA/MVA - basically the lowest minimum vectoring altitude.

@jspilot

 Pilots following aircraft on a visual approach need to space themselves appropriately.  If they are too close then sure tower will issue a go around, but at that point the aircraft going around becomes a departure and then tower is separating them as I already discussed.  They'll either enter the traffic pattern or maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance till reaching an altitude that meets the MVA/MIA.

5000 is not correct.  It's 3000 ft between cat 1, 4500 cat 2, 6000 cat 3.  And if it's between departures the lead must be airborne.  And for two aircraft landing involving a cat 3, the 6000 ft rule, the aircraft must be clear of the runway.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

That's not legal.  They cannot cancel your IFR for you.  Are you absolutely certain you're filing ifr on the ground and you are receiving a clearance limit?  It should sound like "N12345 Palomar clearance/ground, cleared to palomar airport via radar vectors, climb and maintain 5000, departure frequency 123.45, squawk 1234."

However if I have to break you off the approach I will do that but legally it needs to be before you descend below the MIA/MVA - basically the lowest minim

Yes I get IFR clearance with clearance limit when I get airborne I asked SoCal for multiple approaches. They ask what kind and how last approach terminate. As mentioned the first approach always IFR. The rest however become "practice" approaches. I don't cancel  but I need to  affirm when they say no separation services provided . My guess is when you ask multiple approaches in VFR SoCal grand one and the rest automatically downgrade it to practice approaches.

40 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes I get IFR clearance with clearance limit when I get airborne I asked SoCal for multiple approaches. They ask what kind and how last approach terminate. As mentioned the first approach always IFR. The rest however become "practice" approaches. I don't cancel  but I need to  affirm when they say no separation services provided . My guess is when you ask multiple approaches in VFR SoCal grand one and the rest automatically downgrade it to practice approaches.

It's possible they have a letter to airmen about multiple approaches which converts into vfr.  But aside from that ATC cannot cancel your ifr.  It's also possible they are screwing up and think you're vfr.  You can absolutely do multiple approaches while ifr though.  I need to find someone who works socal cause I'm super curious about that procedure.  It's definitely the exception if they truly are making you VFR via some form of LTA or SOP.

On 4/29/2026 at 2:41 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

It would be very interesting to hear comments from anyone running BATC with Concorde. It had a very different set of flight parameters to a Boeing / Airbus.

Hi Ray, I'm interested in the ATC parameters for Concorde. Was it mainly noise abatement and speed related? 

Cheers,

Dave.

3 minutes ago, gb09f said:

Hi Ray, I'm interested in the ATC parameters for Concorde. Was it mainly noise abatement and speed related? 

Cheers,

Dave.

The New York Port Authority was very strict about noise abatement and Concorde pilots developed a procedure for the 31L Canarsie departure which rarely if ever broke them. Reheats turned off then on a couple of times in a complex procedure.

Speed on departures out of Kennedy was limited to 250kts below 10,000ft but once over ocean was soon lifted.

Out of Heathrow the 250kt speed restriction was frequently lifted. Inbounds to both airports generally abided by the 250kts below 10,000ft as they had to fit in with subsonic aircraft.

9 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

That's not legal.  They cannot cancel your IFR for you.  Are you absolutely certain you're filing ifr on the ground and you are receiving a clearance limit?  It should sound like "N12345 Palomar clearance/ground, cleared to palomar airport via radar vectors, climb and maintain 5000, departure frequency 123.45, squawk 1234."

However if I have to break you off the approach I will do that but legally it needs to be before you descend below the MIA/MVA - basically the lowest minimum vectoring altitude.

@jspilot

 Pilots following aircraft on a visual approach need to space themselves appropriately.  If they are too close then sure tower will issue a go around, but at that point the aircraft going around becomes a departure and then tower is separating them as I already discussed.  They'll either enter the traffic pattern or maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance till reaching an altitude that meets the MVA/MIA.

5000 is not correct.  It's 3000 ft between cat 1, 4500 cat 2, 6000 cat 3.  And if it's between departures the lead must be airborne.  And for two aircraft landing involving a cat 3, the 6000 ft rule, the aircraft must be clear of the runway.

Thanks for the clarity on this!  I’ve been flying for 15 years into all different types of airports( except class B) and the scenario I described only happened 1 time.  Good to know it’s actually 3,000 feet- that’s actually pretty close together!

1 hour ago, jspilot said:

Thanks for the clarity on this!  I’ve been flying for 15 years into all different types of airports( except class B) and the scenario I described only happened 1 time.  Good to know it’s actually 3,000 feet- that’s actually pretty close together!

At Oshkosh it's 1500 😉 

That's between basically small piston singles though.

On 4/29/2026 at 3:41 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

It would be very interesting to hear comments from anyone running BATC with Concorde. It had a very different set of flight parameters to a Boeing / Airbus.

BATC does not do anything different with the Concorde (except for taking care of minimum / maximum speed type limits like with any other aircraft), which is because:

1) While you can use BATC with historical airplanes just fine, the ATC design is present-times (which is why there's e.g. not yet any Oceanic Procedures because they are changing right now, so it's a moving target), and at present there are no (practical) procedures for supersonic passenger flights that I'm aware of.
2) There's no decent Concorde for MSFS, which is why no one ever asked about it or complained about it on BATC 🙂 Actually I haven't even thought about it until you mentioned it now.

16 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

BATC does not do anything different with the Concorde (except for taking care of minimum / maximum speed type limits like with any other aircraft)

But Concorde isn’t like any other aircraft. Do you enter your expected cruise level in BATC? I guess you do because otherwise how would the program know you’ve reached it in order to issue the instruction to descend at the appropriate point.

But therein lies the problem. Concorde didn’t have a set cruise altitude. It was given a block altitude of 50,000-60,000. There would be no other aircraft at those altitudes so it wasn’t a problem. It hardly ever reached FL600 on the JFK hops as the upper atmosphere wasn’t cold enough. On the Barbados run it would as the air is much colder in the tropics.

Speed was the priority and if required Concorde would drift up or down to maintain Mach 2. How would BATC cope with that? Concorde’s climb rate was determined by air temperature and fuel remaining.

During the cruise-climb above FL500 the climb rate might only be 50fpm. Would that trigger a problem with BATC? Does it expect a minimum climb rate?

And Concorde had a unique way of descending. Firstly it would level off 10nm before the Decel point and then reduce power until 350Kts IAS was reached - approx Mach 1.7. Then a gradual descent would begin with further reductions in engine power the descent rate would increase still maintaining 350Kts IAS.

Once Mach 1 was reached at around FL360 it then operated as other subsonic aircraft would.

As you can see a very different aircraft to Boeing and Airbus. There were ways of keeping Radar Contact happy with that requirement. I wonder if BATC could also be kept happy.

33 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

There's no decent Concorde for MSFS

FS Labs keep their plans very close to their chest. No formal announcement has been made about Concorde for MSFS but given their expertise with that aircraft it will surely only be a matter of time before they release one.