Avoiding action … where do we start ?
As previous posts have illustrated there is a difference between RAS and radar control services. This is particularly noticeable in class G airspace where a service can be given by either a civil or military unit.
Despite the fact that civil controllers were instructed last year to “try” to achieve standard separation against unknown traffic there is a pragmatic application which only generally uses the term avoiding action if there is a serious risk of very little or no separation. On the other hand I have heard military controllers turning aircraft to avoid controlled airspace by the use of avoiding action.
I believe this is a fundamentally different approach and probably comes about because the majority of military ATCOs give RAS to aircraft that do not have to bother about upsetting the self loading freight.
Inside controlled airspace the situation is quite straightforward. If an ATCO gives avoiding action this is to avoid a collision or a serious loss of separation.
ATCOs have been regularly reminded about using the phrase avoiding action and history shows when the words are used it means serious action. When a civil action actually uses the term it is mandatory they file a report and often end up suspended so this is not done lightly.
The UK Airprox Board has regularly commented about the slow reaction of some pilots in these circumstances. There is no doubt that when the term is used the pilot is expected to disengage the autopilot and turn the aircraft promptly to the assigned heading or climb / descend as instructed. Plane*jane if you want to keep this going with the company, and I suggest you do, then see Airprox 94/01 where part of the cause of the Airprox was “ and slow reaction, for whatever reason, of the B767 crew.”
I would also suggest that your company safety officer contacts the Airprox board chairman ( Gordon McRobbie) who will confirm exactly what sort of actions are considered a reasonable response to the term avoiding action. Details at
UKAB