Apart from the name changes and the ability to ask for/receive a deconfliction service when flying vfr, no great change......
However, have already asked a few pilots what they think, answers range from 'we're aware something is changing' to 'didn't know about it'. Just a random sample asked, not representative hopefully, but not too encouraging either.
The c.d.rom issued by the CAA is also contradictory.It does clearly say controllers must stick to the strict definitions of the service agreed but also says that they have a 'duty of care'. So if a controller sticks strictly to a basic service but suspects the aircraft being provided with the service is heading directly for another aircraft,which is not on frequency, is he/she going to tell the pilot or not? Better to blur the service and use 'radar derived information' to pass traffic information than have an airprox (or worse) on frequency and then be hauled over the coals for neglecting 'duty of care'.
No straight answer on this i suspect. The CAA c.d.rom clearly states that the correct interpretation , following an incident, will be 'decided in a court of law'.
Probably will mean more refusal to provide a service or more reduced services due to controller workload, poor radar, traffic density etc etc
Last edited by tribekey; 23rd Jan 2009 at 16:41.
Reason: spelling check