From CAS to "Injun" Country...

[BEXIL160]

Dear All,

A colleague related this tale to me a few weeks back and I offer it here for discussion / edification...

BE20 type a/c files a flight plan along airways to leave CAS 50 miles before destination, an aerodrome outside CAS, within the "FIR", or if you prefer, Class G airspce. There is an adequate airways routing available which could have taken the aircraft to within 10 miles of it's destination, but no matter, the pilot wishes to take the "short-cut".

No problem, as far as my Area Controller colleague is concerned. As a matter of courtesy an estimate is passed to the nearest LARS unit as the aircraft will probably call them anyway on leaving the comparative safety of the airways system.

Area controller thinks, "Stupid B*****D, why not stay inside CAS as long as poss? Oh well, his choice, I've asked him which way he wants to go and that's what he wants to do. Good luck mate".

Aircraft duly leaves at the appropriate place, is given warnings about "possible danger area / military activity, Radar service terminated, suggest you give XYZ a call as they can provide you with a service (if only a FIS) and have your details" Goodbye.

No problems so far. Phone rings. Irate lady controller from XYZ. Upset that aircraft on leaving CAS set off towards Danger Areas, and military aircraft. Colleague points out that warnings had been given, but AREA controllers responsiblity ended when a/c left CAS (of it's own volition).

Lady controller still upset. Expresses concern that AREA controller "should have moral responsibility to a/c". AREA mate stumped by this. "WHY? Outside CAS is INJUN country. If pilot elects to fly out there, it's no responsibilty of mine" he says.

End of tale....

Discuss...

Rgds BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Lady "controller" is screwy!

[TrafficTraffic]

I agree Bex,

we give the same warnings to acft tracking west towards Beeno .... Injun country we say...be vewy vewy careful...they are only taking 25 an hour.... <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

. .Ahhh it's good to be back.

Oh yeah...did you guys leave an Atlas behind when you moved centres?

[matc2]

Lady Controller may be "half" right.. .Check out the latest SRG rulings on Duty of Care.

IMHO , provided the Area Controller discharges his responsibilities by reminding the pilot of the dangers he should be OK. It's a gray gray world these days <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[BEXIL160]

ahh TrafficTraffic.... where have you been? I did ask to be remembered to you. PPRuNe has been a little quiet while you've been away. I wonder if my North Bank colleagues will bite? For myself I'm glad you're back cos I WANT your input / advice /experience. It benefits us all.. no really. You and I will never go far 'cos we tend to agree on things. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

MATC2...Yes, I know about duty of care and I agree I think my colleague covered this with warnings about the mil/ DAs. Faith in SRG has worn somewhat thin for NERC ATCOs especially. The rule seems to be NATS says "we want to do this", and SRG say "Yeah, OKay" everytime.

It strikes me that the LARS lady was in a difficult position, especially with this "duty of care" notion that she would have been all too well aware of. Even under a FIS she would have had to do something for the a/c, though quite what remains open to question.

The point is worth making again. AREA controllers responsibilities END at the edge of CAS. LARS, and other ATSOCAs providers, do the thankless task outside in Injun country. Flight in Class G airpace, the ultimate in shared airspace, has certain freedoms and certain inherent risks. Caveat Emptor.

BEX

[Chilli Monster]

What does she expect to happen - we fly the aeroplane as well?

The Area controller passed on the warnings. Danger area avoidance is the pilots responsibility. He can read a map - he knows his routeing. Duty of care or not you cannot enforce that the guy remains in CAS. The lady controller (I presume it was ATC, not FISO or A/G) should know this as well as anyone.

Why didn't the aircraft call the LARS unit, and they arrange a transfer of control to the airfield?

At the end of the day you can only do your best - the ultimate responsibility is the aircraft captains.

So - spill the beans - give us a clue where <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

CM

[Chilli Monster]

Bex

Just read your last posting and now I'm confused. If the lady controller was the LARS controller what happened to RIS and RAS?

We always get traffic coming off the airway 40+ miles away - give it a service and vector it to the ILS. It actually takes 20 miles off the routeing in our case.

CM

[BEXIL160]

Chilli...

Dunno about RIS / RAS, I guess either could have been provided, but the minimum as you know is a FIS. My own personal favourite when doing the LARS thing in a previous existance was "Limited" RIS. Seemed to cover all eventualities.

What I was intruiged by was the lady's apparent insistance that AREA control should have done something to stop the a/c wandering off into conflict with the Mil / DAs after it left CAS.

So an a/c calls you and is somewhere he shouldn't be. Happens all the time out in the FIR, as LARS and non-LARS approach controllers know only too well. Using your skill and judgement you vector/advise/cajole said idio... sorry pilot, into a more sensible location. Hopefully at some point forging some sort of agreement with him about the type of service. No problem.

Rgds BEX

[terrain safe]

Excuse me if I am being stupuid, but can't LACC (doesn't seem right!) controllers provide a RAS outside CAS down to FL70? Therefore, if the traffic situation allows, this could be provided and area controllers can work outside CAS. ScOATCC cannot provide a RAS outside CAS, of course, thanks to management instructions.

Pardon me while I now duck as I am informed by much better informed people than myself that they can't provide this service. Anyway they're much too busy and if the ac is informed of the danger areas and still flies towards them then they are stupuid and the other controller is even more stupuid.

[Chilli Monster]

Right - so she was the LARS controller

In that case this particular bimbo wants her arse kicked and her CofC revoked. The traffic was IFR leaving the airway. She should have asked it what service it wanted, applied that plus any limitations she felt were necessary. So there's a danger area in the way and military aircraft. Nothing to stop her vectoring on a RIS (if that was what he requested) for tactical reasons (danger area avoidance) and pass traffic on the conflictions.

It is not up to her to impose a service - you ask what the aircraft wants, and give it if possible.

If I did what she did at my unit my UTO would have a fit and hang me from the tower balcony!

CM

[Foot in Mouth]

This scenario happens all the time between the Tay sector at ScACC and EGNT(the traffic presentation not the moaning over the telephone line <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> At ScACC traffic leaving at DCS for EGNT will be told tfc info and danger area status and transferred to EGNT.Also deps from NT will be transferred heading for DCS.Both units accept the fact and just GET ON WITH IT!!!!Maybe the ATCO in the top of the thread is just inexperienced <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Rgds. .FiM

[BEXIL160]

TerrainSafe..

Yes Indeedy, LACC controllers can provide ATSOCAS (RAS/RIS/FIS) above FL70 in class G.

The thing is that they are usually not best placed to provide anything more than a FIS, usually due to workload inside CAS, which is after all the primary task.

Another reason is that Area Controllers aren't very practiced at providing RAS / RIS, and yes, I reckon it does take practice to do it well, practice that LARS units get daily.

So, apart from the "duty of care" aspect there doesn't appear much else to add. Thanks to all those who contributed. It's just possible that a lurker or two has learned something here.

Best rgds (to all). .BEX

[mildly amused]

All, I would like to provide a few more facts about this event.. .The flight that is the subject of this discussion was indeed a Kingair operating on a foreign private registration, the flight was also subject to limited co-ordination, the Sector Chief had called and asked if we were prepared to work this aircraft inbound to a unit within the LARS area, this was agreed, an estimate, squawk and level was passed. The aircraft was observed approximately 50nm away at FL160, the flight was then seen to squawk 7000 and subsequently called with about 5nm to run to the edge of a danger area,the assistant was asked to ascertain the staus of the danger areas while the aircraft was put on a unit squawk and re-identified, unable to find out the status before the aircraft would have entered the danger area, the aircraft was given a heading to keep it clear of the danger area which then required us to to contact a different sector to request an airways crossing clearance in the descent out of FL160.. .Far from being irate, I called the Chief about 10 minutes later to suggest that I was not very happy about the presentation of the flight,this is not the normal practice.. .What would you have done as a LARS controller? . .How could I possibly have known what the sector controller had or indeed had not warned this pilot about?(unless of course he telephoned to tell me) . .Why as an area controller would you take such an aircraft off the airways squawk when co-ordination had been effected?. .Please feel free to re-evaluate your opinions with the other side of the story.

mildly amused to be called a bimbo, as far as I am aware a first in my career.

[Crabo]

Some interesting points raised so far.. .As an ex mil area radar controller and now a mil terminal controller I have seen this sort of situation before. Whilst I fully sympaphise with the view of the civil area controller that they have no responsibility outside CAS, the immediate route on leaving CAS is important and they surely have a duty of care to ensure that the route is safe. Eg approving an aircraft to leave CAS on a direct track to a destination airfield that will immediately aim for a danger area within 10 miles of CAS. Although pilots should know better, many are foreign and do not understand UK airspace as well as they perhaps should - many also do as they are told without question as they trust UK ATC to look after them so much. On a more interesting note, if the airway was there, why wasnt it used?

[BEXIL160]

Mildy Amused...

Aha.. the other side of the story. Thank you. There always is one.

Putting a/c on 7000 squawks on leaving CAS is fairly common practice, especially when it isn't known if the recieving unit is SSR equipped or not. There is also no guarantee that although it is suggested that a particular unit should be contacted, it actually will be. Especially if it isn't the destination. Leaving the airways squawk on may mislead another unit as to who is actually providing a service to that a/c. The military are particularly keen on this I understand.

It seems that both you and the area bod did their jobs correctly, the AREA person cleared the a/c to leave CAS as requested by the pilot and as specified in his flight plan (apparently) and you provided the appropriate services outside CAS.

CRABO... .I disagree. No AREA ATCO has a duty of care to ENSURE that the route on leaving CAS is free of traffic / active DAs, whatever. He might provide traffic info, or other info, but is not on any position to always position traffic such that it remains clear of all the unknowns in the FIR. That is the PILOTS responsibility. AREA ATCOs cannot instruct aircraft on what they are to do OUTSIDE CAS. Their prime responsibility must rest inside CAS.

I DO agree about foriegn pilots doing exactly as they are told when in the London (and Scottish) FIRs. As a LARS experienced person you will know that this has it's advantages <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

BEX

[matspart3]

Bex. .I don't think the 'Area bod' did his job properly. Surely passing an estimate, obtaining a squawk/freq constitutes a basis of co-ordination. Why then was the aircraft put on a 7000 squawk and told "suggest you contact...they have your details"? That's pretty wishy washy and patently not what was previously agreed. It's proved to be open to quite a bit of interpretation so far on this forum so it it must have been equally difficult for a foreign aircrew to appreciate the subtlety of what had been arranged.

IMHO, I think this demonstrates a growing lack of awareness amongst some Area controllers of the rest of us providing ATSOCAS out here in 'injun' country. ACC's responsibility doesn't stop at the boundary of CAS. (MATS pt.1 refers!!). I know the primary task is within CAS and I accept that they're outrageously busy but it can also be argued that they're suitably equipped and qualified to provide RIS/RAS/FIS in the vicinity of CAS.. .My unit (APC and primary Radar) is about 20nm from the nearest CAS and it's fairly common for our inbounds to be leaving CAS between 20-50nm out. We have an excellent relationship with our nearest LARS unit(s) and some of our airways traffic is handed over to them. They, in turn, will co-ordinate with us. More often than not, though, ACC will just point leavers in our direction and freecall them. We rarely get estimates,(although I have actually noticed an improvement since NERC) and often the first call from the aircraft is late, high and conflicting with our procedural 'stack'!. .I'll climb down from my soapbox now and wait for the fallout!!

[BEXIL160]

Only an estimate was passed. There was no agreed co-ordination or at least one of the parties concerned didn't think so, and there was no request for a squawk change to indicate "change of ownership" to all interested parties. I.E. all those different agencies operating outside CAS.

Wishy washy? The alternative was to let the a/c leave CAS as requested, squawk 7000 and suggest that "FIS is available with LONDON INFO". Absolutely NO RADAR service would then be available. A perfectly legit MOP, and enshrined in the LATCC and now LACC part 2. At least in this case a unit who might be in a better position to provide info knew "something" about the flight if it actually called them. There was no requirement for it to do so (even if it was a really good idea to do so)

Flight outside regulated airspace has certain freedoms and certain risks. ALL pilots operating in such airspace, and CLASS G is universal, not just for the UK, should be aware of those freedoms and risks. Ignorance is not a defence. These are ICAO rules, not just UK ones.

I'm interested in what MATS pt1 says about ACC's responsiblities in the vicinity of CAS. It may well not be the same as the LACC pt2 (the overriding document approved by ATSSD). As you will be aware access to the Pt1 is now "difficult" for most operational NATS staff.

Turning to "new" ACC ATCO's awareness of what happens outside CAS, I couldn't agree more. They have little or no conception of ATSOCAs. A result of the recent "rushed" RGAT training? Or the common attitude "Just tell me what I need to know, amongst students? Dunno. But whenever I have trained people I have always made a point of packing them off to a LARS unit to find out.

At least I've achieved what I'd hoped to, and stimulated a little discussion here. It's clear that there are a number of interpretations, all of which have some basis in truth.

Thanks for all the input. .BEX

[VectorLine]

Ahem!

Dear Mr Bexil - please dont tar all new (young?) ATCOs with the same brush. Many of us are quite keen to learn!

Thats why I've followed this thread with keen interest. We may not have the massive experience that you repeatedly tell us you have (LARS, Area, Terminal, Airfield are the ones I can remember from your posts)- but most of us try hard to do our job to the best of our ability.

anyway - havent you already pointed out that it was a CSC that got him/herself embroiled in this argument? so much for experience.

[BEXIL160]

Ooops.. Apologies to you and all those younger ATCO's who DO take an interest. It is my experience that not all do, but you are quite right, one should not tar all with the same brush. So, once again, apolgies to all those who do make the effort.

As for the role of the CSC. No. I never mentioned the CSC. If there was an arguement, it wasn't told to me. I am aware that there are different interpretations on this subject which seem to relate to whether you're sitting at an ACC or at an airfield in class G. This is what I sought to highlight.

My own experience? Yep. Wide and varied, including all you've mentioned and much more besides.. BUT I'm still learning, and I'm quite happy to take advice / opinions from any quarter. Hence my post here. We all learn from experience, our own and that of others.

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

Rgd BEX