To quote the present Farnborough MATS 2
"When it is obvious from the pilot's response that there is no understanding of ATSOCAS, unless it is inappropriate (workload, traffic, position etc), a RAS is to be provided (with relevant limitations if necessary)."
I assume the same will apply substituting Deconfliction for RAS after March 12th.
SH
It sure does worry me but I am not sure where we go if pilots do not understand the service, which a large proportion do not appear to. The amount of times that I have asked "What type of service do you require?" and got the answer "vectors for the ILS" is huge even in my time and I am still a trainee.
And to be honest chaps thus was the case under the old ATSOCA and will remain pertinent after 12th March. The very ethos of ATC service provision is the formulation of the contract between controller and pilot. How the hell can a controller FULLY discharge his obligations when the other party is totally unaware what their obligations are under the service they are being provided.
It worried me back in LATCC Mil days when working traffic of the east coast and it does now as a civil controller providing services in class G. FWIW, I believe we (controllers) have for far too long been the crux for those aviators who have no understanding/appreciation of the airspace classification through which they fly AND those airlines that do not provide sufficient training for their crews to equip them to SAFELY discharge their duty of care to their passengers.
BUT in the interest of safety and those blissfully unaware down back we do (and will always) expose ourselves to risk of being unwilling involved in incidents/potential accidents due to the factors above when really just once I'd like to offer a FIS and leave them to fight it out alone.
Sometimes tough love is the only answer
