whowhenwhy
In your example you would never have given the aircraft traffic.
Precisely, but some would.
Quite honestly at this stage I really dont give a
If some controllers consider it to be their,
duty of care, to pass traffic info to a/c on a basic service then so be it
Obviously one of the main reasons for the change ,i.e to remove the 37 or so differences between Mil procedures and Civil procedures and unit to unit is totally bl--dy lost on them. The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care.
As ATCO's we have a choice follow procedures and thus fullfill our duty of care or act as individuals out side of the agreed procedures and by doing so lay ourselves wide open to a shafting.
Look at the following ,MATS part one before, states,
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
MATS part one following the change will state ,
The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances,
which may not be covered by the procedures herein.
The revised ATSOCAS will be contained herein
Make your own mind up