I knew that there would be a thread that brought me out of semi PPRuNe retirement at some point........
For me, the questions raised by
Encorebaby can be answered without casting any doubt on the professionalism, or otherwise, of anyone. Once again those that do, and hide behind the anonimity of an internet forum, do little to answer the questions posed.
As a pilot with corporate experience of flying in and around Europe, I have this to offer by way of balance against those in the Air Traffic fraternity that are, again, so keen to shoot down one of their own!
1 - Have you discussed this directly with the Air Traffic Control Unit concerned? What did they have to say? If not, you will find their contact details in the relevant AIP entry.
2 - Did the pre flight brief and TOD brief include the relevant items from the AIP entry for the aerodrome in question? Was there anything in the AIP entry with regard to radar service provision outside controlled airspace for the aerodrome in question or was there an assumption made on the flight deck? Aerodromes in class G bring with them many unique aspects by virtue of their operation and due diligence should be paid to these AIP entries before flying to the aerodrome concerned. The devil is often in the detail....
3 - CAP 774 Chapter 3 details in full the provisions, responsibilities and caveats of a Traffic Service. Paras 3.3 and 3.6 seem relevant in this case, and indeed the vectoring of aircraft against manouevring traffic under a traffic service may be dealt with within the latter. Do you know what else the controller was trying to avoid when vectoring you? When you requested to turn left or right did you state which heading you were turning to? If you were that concerned, why did you not turn anyway? See para 3.10
4 - CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 1.9 - Appropriate type of ATS. When the controller stated Traffic Service, why did you not say "negative, request Deconfliction Service"? Remember that you are entering into a contract and so your acceptance was binding. You would not sign a contract to buy a house that you did not want....
5 - So why did the controller not provide more deconfliction advice to you? See CAP 774 para 1.10 - Standard Application of ATS. Not withstanding Duty of Care, several AIRPROX reports of late have been highly critical of ATCOs providing more than is required for the type of service agreed and provided e.g. aiming for deconfliction minima on TS when vectoring, turning aircraft out of conflict on TS rather than just passing traffic information et al.
6 - It is unusual that you say that you were not fully aware of the airspace and area through which you would have to transit from the boundary of controlled airspace to the destination aerodrome, just because you were "IFR". It would seem reasonable to expect that you, as a crew, would have discussed how you were going to get from CAS to the destination aerodrome when planning the flight. As this would require flight in uncontrolled airspace, it is reasonable to expect that this would require a current chart that depicts the appropriate airspace, hazards and obstacles relevant to the flight. Parachute drop zones, Danger areas, ATZ's, control zones, gliding sites, hang gliding sites affect all aircraft, whether IFR or VFR. There is a legal responsibility on the commander of an aircraft to ensure that he is adequately briefed to ensure that his flight can be conducted safely; had you flown through a parachute DZ that was not marked on your "IFR" chart or Jepp plate and collided with a parachutist, the fact that you were IFR would make no difference. As long as the site has been promulgated correctly (through the national AIP and on aeronautical charts relevant to flight in class G airspace), the commander of the aircraft in this instance may be found negligent for not adequately preparing for the flight. Of course the use of a "topo" chart does not require you to be VMC. I am sure that you were actually spatially aware of your position either from the FMS nav display or by traditional radio nav techniques. This position is easily transposed to a "topo" chart if adequately prepared for in advance.
Whether one likes it or not, flying in Class G airspace, whether IFR/IMC, IFR/VMC or VFR, is statistically more hazardous than being inside CAS. It is the unknown elements that are most cause for concern. It is impossible for us, as aircrew, to have the same situational awareness on our small flight deck and in our own situational awareness (SA) "bubble", as an ATCO with a radar picture of tens of miles radius with many other "SA bubbles" to contend with. Add to the mix non-squawking aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, aircraft squawking but not talking and flying through the published instrument approach to an aerodrome (all doing so perfectly legally) and you get a flavour for the task at hand. Sometimes one has to accept that the safest option is actually unpalatable however the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the safety of his own aircraft and, in class G airspace, all aircraft have an
equal responsibility to avoid collisions with other aircraft.
I have found that whenever there has been a question to ask of an ATCO, asking it at the aerodrome concerned normally elicits an invitation to visit, a cup of coffee and a very worthwhile discussion. These discussions may or may not leave you in mutual agreement, but they certainly shed more purposeful light on things than an internet forum full of guesses and assumptions.
Give them a call. You may be pleasantly surprised!
