Discount
Several points, please, re your interesting post.
The MATS Part 1 is not a legal document but is, surely, the medium through which the Authority specifies how the task is to be performed.
The ANO might not refer specifically to ATC responsibility, but any significant lapse on the part of ATC could still result in a charge e.g. of endangering an aircraft, could it not?
I am surprised that you say that "it would appear that pilots have full responsibility" when Rule 17 states quite clearly that "Notwithstanding that the flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft" - which obviously must include compliance with rules of the air if necessary.
QUOTE=discountinvestigator]
Back to reality, all UK ATCOs should check their Unit Safety Case for the interpretation of the phraseology which has been approved by the management for use at their local unit. It is not acceptable in England and Wales to just take the MATS Part 1 standard and apply it. The unit has to show that the standard is relevant to their operations and that a risk assessment has been carried out. [/QUOTE]
I am sure that this will be news to many people - what is your justification for saying this? How does this assertion square with the Authority's requirement that standard phraseology is used for specified situations? And surely, any such unit-specific phraseolgy that might be appoved should be in the unit MATS Part 2? "All UK ATCOs" should not have to delve into the Unit Safety Case document to determine ATC instructions.
2 s