Dick
I don’t believe the CAA is incompetent because “they offer a RAS service to aircraft in G”. Such a service would be fully compliant with ICAO. However, when they actually offer an Air Traffic Control separation service in uncontrolled airspace, that’s incompetent
I dont believe incompetency is quite the right word for it. Are they bang on ICAO rules, no. Is any country - no, not even Australia & the USA.
You say a RAS service in is compliant with ICAO & the next line say separation standard in uncontrolled airspace is incompetent. I believe they dont call ita RAS anymore a deconfliction service instead:
Deconfliction Service:
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions. Under a Deconfliction Service the following conditions apply:
The service may be requested under any flight rules or meteorological conditions.
Controllers can expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Controllers should be aware that pilots may not be qualified to fly in IMC. Should this situation arise the controller will be informed by the pilot.
There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside controlled airspace to comply with instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, should a pilot choose not to comply with advisory avoiding action then he will become responsible for his own separation and any avoiding action that may subsequently prove necessary.
The controller will be advised before a pilot changes heading or level.
Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with nonparticipating traffic and, wherever possible, shall seek to achieve separation which is not less than 5 nm or 3000 feet, except when specified otherwise by the CAA. However, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
Controllers shall continue to provide information on conflicting traffic until the confliction is resolved.
And saying international pilots need to know the there are the same rules wherever you go. Do most international pilots flying in oz airspace know what TIBA is, unlikely.
Most aircraft going into airports in the UK (IFR ) are radar-vectored to an ILS, for separation, sequencing etc. Dont have too many RNAV approaches etc. Unfortunately, sometimes the vectoring has to be conducted through G airspace. It is all above LSALT and within published RVAs, but none of the majors airports have the need for vectoring in G and the few exceptions like Plymouth have little RPT traffic. Once again if PLymouth have no radar feed they cant
radarvector (its in the name!). An approach service can be done from the tower, by plymouth APPROACH. If the tower controller is approach trained & plymouth approach rated he can do both tasks from the same desk.
Rotorblades, whether you like it or not, the last time I flew into Plymouth
I quite honestly couldnt care at flying rats testicle, plymouth means nothing to me nor in the context of NAS. Neither does a RAS or anything done in UK airspace. They elected to go the way they did because of the traffic situation, the availability of radar & numbers of controllers. PIlots can opt out of the deconfliction service, it is just available for use if pilots want that extra level of service & protection.
ICAO is designed for the lowest common denominator not the highest. Every country picks & chooses which bits they like & dont, or ammend, the others.
If you are flying in another country then you have to be aware of their local rules, wherever you go not just the UK.
And Dick, a little less of the anti-pom bigotry on your comments of the state of UK Aviation industry, has nothing to do with the CAA, more of the UK government. This isnt the place for racism or xenophobia.
Now, bring it back to NAS & what Australia needs for its traffic situation, vs just inplementing what someone else does. And whatever is decided upon, ATC numbers need increasing. They are low & only getting worse.