Terrain Avoidance / F15s

[gadgetbent]

Enough time has passed since the F15Cs tragically crashed on Ben Macdui, yet we are probably all still having to put up with the knee jerk reactions implemented by the great and the good.

FCs have to remind ac that they are controlling that it is the pilot's responsibility not to fly into the ground. From looking into GASOs, it is clear that this only has to be said when controlling non RAF ac, however, FCs have to say it to all ac even those from the RAF. Why??

I was wondering if Air Trafficers have to do anything similar such as when providing LARS?

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Gadget Bent

[Frogbox]

Gadgetbent

sadly those of us who are placed in positions of responsibilty realise that flight safety is beyond the controllers remit when dealing with the poor coverage of various sensors and indeed radios. We cannot attempt to take the flying element away from the aircrews, they generally have far better SA than we do. Unfortunately owing to legal requirements, a substantial degree of ass-covering has to be employed, or god forbid our lords and masters have a blemish on their career due to personnel they were supervising making an error.
There are a good dergree of factors that can seriously erode the SA of the controller, and I consider that micro-management by supervisors is a contributory factor on a daily basis.
Who would be entirely responsible in the tragic event of an accident with a/c under your control. I would wager that you would be on your own and the rats would flee from the scuppers in this eventuality, and leave you in the hangmans noose.

Rgds

Froggy

[jack-oh]

Outside CAS the responsibility for terrain separation lies with the pilot. However, most other countries don't provide radar services to ac outside CAS and there is the inherent problem. Only in the UK have we cobbled together RAS, RIS and FIS no other country provides exactly the same services and not every pilot knows what they are, or more importantly, who is responsible for avoiding the lumps. Furthermore, we descend ac based on Radar Vector Charts or other similar devices all of which are not known to the pilot. How is the pilot supposed to know that 2700ft in that particular area is safe or not? Since the F15 crash I have seen 2 instances where a similar situation could have occurred: the first was a pair of aircraft taking a different ac's instructions and popping out of the cloud 200ft above a hill; the other was an American who was given the QNH 998 and set 29.98, read back 998 and then descended well below the altitude he was given. Now these instances could happen anywhere but are a stark reminder to us all who instruct ac to descend when they can’t see the surface. It does say that the controller may remind the pilot of his responsibility and although the phrase "you are responsible for your own terrain separation" is an arse covering exercise I would rather tag it on to the myriad of things that I have to say, than end up in court because some pig farmer from Arkansas joined the national guard and got the chance to fly uncle sams finest around the UK "YEA HAW"

[M609]

The mix up regardig what service is provided does not only apply to foreign aricraft in the UK, but UK aircraft operating abroad as well. Just spendt 5 minutes last monday trying (not with much success) to explain to a Harrier that RA is not available in Norway, and that the only radar service available inside class D is RC. The concept of radar service in class G seems a bit dodgy to me.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Slightly more than just a hypothetical question. If you had a clean sheet of paper, how would you design/define/provide ATSOCAS?

[Chilli Monster]

WBS- let's see if our ideas are similar.

1) Change all airspace from class 'G' to class 'E' (with the exception of TMA's and CTR's) up to FL100. (Come on - with modern aircraft performance do we really need a chunk of Class 'A' stretching from Daventry to just north of Shawbury with a base level of FL45?).

2) Apply the definition of 'FIS' more stringently, rather than it being used for traffic information also.

3) RIS (for want of a better name) for IFR flights only in class 'E', with avoiding action available on request, not as a service in it's own right. FIS available for VFR.

4) Have one, consolidated, provider of radar services throughout the country, rather than the fragmented set up so far. (In short the radars come out of the airfields - both civil and military - this is not a huge country after all). Radar cover for the entire country with sectorisation size both laterally and vertically based on traffic density.

(I realise the latter will bring up the question of qualifications and ratings. As the lower sectors will involve providing an approach service to airfields in the sector then requirements for that will be an approach surveillance rating. Sectors above that would be area).

Make sense?

[jack-oh]

ATCROCAS are mainly driven by the military, because the provision of services inside CAS does not meet their needs ( or so they believe). The concept of filing IFR plans to go on a low level sortie for a fast jet jock when the weather is not too good at the departure aerodrome but not bad where he wants to go wouldn't work. They would go VFR irrespective of what the weather was like then pull up and be forced into an emergency because they could not see where they were going. Yes, it happens all the time, I had a formation of ac depart just the other week that were adamant they were VFR despite the cloud base being 400ft, on departure they all asked for RAS and separation from each other.

Yes, the rules need sorting out; the conditions of RIS are now over a page of A4 long. No pilot commits that to memory and after all, it is them who receive the service not me, I just provide it. At the moment, RAS is a totally unworkable service if you try to abide by the rules. Some provision about separation between other IFR ac and traffic info on Known VFR and avoiding action on unknown would be good. Personally, I don’t think we can continue in the same vain for much longer. The EU airspace harmonisation process will take care of that and we should concentrate on the provision of services inside CAS what ever they are defined as in the future. Uncontrolled airspace should be left to the likes of exercise training areas and danger areas where the military can fill its boots but no service would be provided, as stipulated by ICAO. The remainder should be designated accordingly, this will mean the military and civil ATS providers would be responsible for portions of controlled airspace and far more harmonisation on procedures would be required.

[radarman]

Chilli Monster,

Good start, but your FIS suggestion in para 2 might be scuppered by the concept of Duty of Care. If you are providing FIS while watching radar and happen to spot a real nasty situation, DoC will require you to call traffic. (Or, as I had happen recently, stop a very sensitive aeroplane from flying into a mountain.)
In many cases DoC works contrary to the drafting of ATC rules.

But however rules are written there will always be accidents. Management is then obliged to take action, which results in so many orders starting with the phrase 'A recent incident has highlighted the fact that ......... In future all controllers are to .....'
We now go full circle to the start of this thread.

[Chilli Monster]

Radarman

Good call on the DoC question. I suppose the way round it is not to allocate a squawk and therefore not identify them. With that done you don't know who they are from adam and so can't stop them having a nasty. They're VFR, they're meant to be in VMC, it's up to them.

Sounds a bit hardnosed - I suppose it does. I've flown the length of France under that basis and never had any problems, and flown in the UK following the same principle - never had a problem. We tend to nurse-maid a bit in this country where it's not really needed - the time has come to prioritise effectively.

[M609]

Have tried to ask about this before...but: Why is it not in the UK militarys interest to have class D or better protection around their airfields, with all IFR procedures running within CAS inside of say, 20nm from the field?

Germany and others seem to manage fairly high traffic levels with this system for the military as well.

[Chilli Monster]

M609

Nice idea, but that would take out a large chunk of airspace in a small and, aviation wise, crowded country. It just wouldn't be fair on other airspace users and, contrary to popular opinion, the military are no longer the majority in that case.

The whole question for protection of IFR procedures, not just for the military but for civil units without CAS, needs looking at. WBS and I both feel the same way - it is time the UK just tore up the airspace map for this country and started with a clean sheet of paper.

[Scott Voigt]

Looking at UK airspace and watching the procedures from time to time have always left me scratching my head... Listening to the discourse here about how it is and how it should be makes my head hurt <G>... Makes me happy that we have easy airspace to keep up with. If you want to look at an easy airspace to operate in, take a look at our AIM (aeronautical information manual) and then look at some of our charts... Yes we have a LOT of airspace, but depending on where you are, there is either a LOT of space and nothing going on, a moderate amount of space a bunch going on, or not much space and EVERYTHING going on <G>.... A little bit of everything for everyone as it were. A smorgasboard of aviation...

For providing services, there are only basicly two types, IFR and then VFR with advisories. Nothing else to speak of...

Have fun with the discussion. I'm going to be on the road for a week on a project. Will be interesting to see where the discussion has gone while I am away...

I am thankfull for PPRUNE being here, it gives me an interesting perspective on aviation. I wish that there were more folks from the continent on here giving their perspective too...

regards

Scott
;)

[whowhenwhy]

Chilli, sorry but your idea on the DoC issue about not identifying them and therefore not worrying about them doesn't work for me. As an ac freecalls us at area, he'll give me an approximate posn report, hdg and a level. 9.9 times out of 10 you know exactly which ac it is calling before you've formally identified him. Call it a feeling in your water, gut instinct, whatever, but you know that it's him (no sexism intended). Am I then supposed to not provide him with possibly life saving information because I did not identify him? My conscience certainly would not be clear! Personally, I think that what we have now works excellently, providing safety and flexibility. Problems are generated by the differences of interpretation of ATSOCAS by different units, particularly the difference between mil and civ units and the education issue of the aircrew themselves. Yes RIS is a side of A4 and it is written in aramaic, but it's generally common sense stuff that we've all got our head around. Who says that you can't provide RAS in busy airspace? We go through the VoY everyday. You may not be able to provide standard separation all the time, but the rules allow for that, as long as you apply them properly. Like I said, sort out the interpretation issues so that we're all humming the same tune and sort out the education issue, especially foreign mil and civ aircrews and we'll all be laughing! :ok:

[jack-oh]

RAS is a fine srvice if you are in transit but try and implement it to the letter when departing or recovering to an airfield with VFR traffic all around.

[Chilli Monster]

whowhenwhy

Ok - maybe my posting was a little simplistic in the vein of DoC.

There is nothing to stop you giving him necessary information "for the safe conduct of flight" - that's the definition of FIS and it also fulfills Duty of Care. What I'm getting at is this constant passing of traffic information to VFR / FIS aircraft that is not necessary. He's VFR, he's elected to accept the responsibility of see and avoid, that's it - simple.

What we have does work well - nobody's saying it doesn't. However, that is down to the individual controllers who provide the service, not the infrastructure available. As attitudes change and we become more slaves to the bean counters we need to find a solution to ATC provision in this country which is efficient in terms of shifting traffic safely for the money available, and rationalisation both in service provision and airspace is the only way that's going to be achieved.

[ratt]

Chilli Monster said :-is down to the individual controllers who provide the service, not the infrastructure available

This hits the nail on the head. It is the hardest thing in the world after all the training and constant spamming about looking after pilots with DoC not to call traffic to a FIS.

We often have discussions at work about this very subject. It is a very hard thing to predict a merge or hairsbredth of daylight. One person's view of near is different to anothers, even with standardisation.

Another thing. I would like squawks to remain on FIS aircraft, because they are there for the use of other angencies as well as a source of ident.

[whowhenwhy]

Chilli we certainly agree on the calling of traffic to FIS issue. Many's the time I've sat down working FIS ac with something going 5 miles through his 12 o'Clock, 500' below, not called it-because it doesn't constitute a direct threat-and been told off for it. Again we have the mil/civ issue. Civ ATCOs are much more likely, in my experience, to treat FIS like a FIS, whereas mil ATCOs will generally have identified the ac. You then have a tendency, once you've identified that ac, to possibly give him something approaching a RIS because that is the way in which our training system slants. Saying that however, ratt I agree! Everyone should have a VFR conspicuity code so that if they are working FIS traffic, other ATC units with SSR know who's got what. Jack-oh, if you work near where you say your located then yes there is a lot of VFR traffic, but you can still implement RAS to the letter. Limit for high traffic density, prioritize provision of separation against known traffic, above unknown traffic and warn them that standard separation may not be achieved. I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, and it may not give you the most comfortable feeling in the world not getting 5nms, 3000' against everything, but we can provide a RAS to the letter!

[mad_jock]

I am suprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that the pilot is ALWAYS responsible for terrian clearance be it under radar control, RAS, RIS or FIS or nothing. And after discussing this with a Leuchars based pilot I believe this is also the case with mil trained pilots.

It was hammered into me time and time again before accepting a decent /vector below sector MSA, check your MSA and terrian. And our decent checks always include a MSA check. If the controller is checking your MSA as well as the pilot/s great more the better. Terneriff is the case study which is always brought up on a CRM and SA note of why you must always be aware of where you are and what the MSA is.

Having to work with jack-oh's mil unit most of my aviation working life I am just about coming to terms between the differences in ATC rules mil and civi.

And to a civi pilot who doesn't know the whole set up it is garanteed to get their backs up.

This is what i think they are..

IFR is seperated from IFR
VFR is seperated from IFR
IFR is seperated from VFR

this is all in class G and the seperation is always a radar seperation.

The VFR traffic feels its being over controlled all the time.

The Civi IFR traffic is wondering why the hell they are getting moved round the sky in IMC to avoid traffic which is declared VFR (this only happens when the local flying instructor gets pissed off and refuses to play, err guilty as charged m'lord :D ).

If its CAVOK the VFR traffic can't declare contact with the IFR traffic and avoid. Normal radar seperation needs to be maintained.

And there seems to be no understanding what VFR rules actually are. "You are responsable for terrian seperation" It usually creates more confusion than help due to the pilot thinking o hell this controller thinks I am flying IFR not VFR.

Jack-oh I am not having a go at your unit its taken me a year or 2 to suss out what i think are the rules which you have to stick to. And I really appriciate your crew giving a me RAS in the open FIR.

I am actually quite suprised there isn't a approach note on the plates explaining the differences between the civi and mil rules. And it doesn't help that the rules all change at the weekend. Which maybe makes matters worse because situations at the weekend would be a none event with IFR and VFR being seperated under civi rules. Then during the week being what feels like being harrassed for no reason for the same traffic situation under mil rules.

MJ

[jack-oh]

I quite agree that RAS can be limited by all the criteria stated but that doesn't mean that you can now just call the ac and be dammed. RAS states that standard separation is to be maintained between participating ac. It does not state between participating IFR ac or that you should ignore VFR traffic it just says all of them. And this is how all mil units interpret the provision of this service. Unless co-ordination can be achieved either laterally or vertically then advice must be given to resolve the confliction. This is why people get ******ed around, but if I may add that all restrictions to VFR ac are by request and not an instruction. This is why providing RAS to ac descending into an airfield with VFR ac all around becomes tricky. Not because I don’t know the rules, but because the rules provide no provision otherwise. Whilst I sympathise with Mad-Jock we have taken steps to rectify the situation which are currently on the table for discussion, if you speak to Brian he will be able to enlighten you. As I stated earlier RAS should include the provision for separation between participating IFR ac, traffic information on participating VFR traffic and avoiding action on unknown ac. However, as I also stated earlier some pilot’s interpretation of VFR can be suspect. Equally, mil ac roar around in excess of 500kts, see and avoid becomes very difficult at these speeds and keeps the airprox board in work.

Mad-Jock I am still on for that flight if you can oblige

[mad_jock]

Busy next 2 weekends but have a week leave next week.

I have heard some talk on the subject and it does sound a better solution. Lets hope it happens before the ILS gets turned on.

Maybe a FAM visit might be in order and we can make arrangements then.

Away as long as its the Lossie boys roaring about we don't have a problem they only seem to get above 500ft agl to enter your circuit. Now those Leuchars jessys and yanks... different story

MJ