Traffic Traffic

[karrank]

Our system of traffic advice here is a bit odd I am led to believe, we have fairly rigidly enforced circumstances where we DON'T pass traffic. How does it work elswhere? For instance:

Would you ever pass traffic to flights that are not entitled - VFR to VFR in Class G for instance?

Would you record broadcasts from aircraft and pass them to others for traffic?

Would you chase a flight you were speaking to in Class G with traffic if he appears to have left the advisory frequency?

[1261]

The level of traffic information passed is is dependent on the type of service. Most VFR traffic in class G airspace will be receiving a Flight Information Service (in UK airspace) - assuming of course that they are talking to someone!

The rules here permit radar identification of FIS traffic for the purpose of "monitoring and co-ordination purposes only". But we are also permitted to pass "information pertinent to safety", and most controllers interpret that as including some form of traffic information.

Personally, so as to leave no doubt in the pilot's mind that he IS NOT under a radar service, I only pass generic traffic info to FIS traffic (i.e. "traffic passing point X NE bound" as opposed to "traffic in your eleven o'clock"), and I don't identify anyone unless they are operating in an area likely to directly conflict with my IFR traffic.

Hope that's of some help.

[Spoonbill]

1261 sums up the UK scenario succinctly, basically do as much as you can without compramising your primary duties to radar traffic.
Even if we're not providing a radar service, we tend to keep an eye on FIS traffic anyway, most of whom are squawking conspicuity, so if someone leaves the frequency without saying goodbye, we can assess their last known position relative to the area we would expect them to change frequency. If they leave the freq' in an area we're not expecting them to, then we'll try and confirm that they are working the next expected unit or ask the destination airfield to let us know that they're OK. It doesnt take up much extra time and reinforces the message to local GA that we do care about them, :D , really - we do :p

[NextLeftAndCallGround]

There's a funny - and poorly defined - thing that often gets mentioned in the UK these days, the 'duty of care'.

This seems to be interpreted as if you are aware of something dangerous/untoward which you can do something about but don't, then you are not fulfilling your general duty of care. There was something about this which came out of the CAA a year or two back but it didn't really give any definitive rules.

Don't know where the concept comes from but it seems to crop up in all walks of life these days!

[Four Seven Eleven]

NextLeftAndCallGround

The concept of "duty of care" is a well established legal principle. Briefly it can be described thus:

A duty of care is owed to any person or class of person whom you should have in your contemplation when planning any act or omission. It involves the 'neighbour' principle, where a 'neighbour' is any person who fits into the category of persons who, by their relationship to you, should be so considered.

In the context of ATC vs pilot, the relationship has been extensively tested in courts in many jurisdictions, and there is not doubt that ATC owe a duty of care to pilots.

Given that a duty of care undoubtedly exists, an ATC (or more accurately the ATC provider, through the doctrine of vicarious liability) will be held liable for any damage (i.e. material loss or physical injury) which results from a failure to observe this duty of care.

The important point to note is that blind adherence to procedures will not always be adequate protection against a successful action in court.

For example: Assume that you procedures state that in class G, VFR aircraft are NOT entitled to a continuous radar advisory service. If you were to observe two VFR aircraft on radar which were about to collide, and did nothing, your employer may be sued for damages.

The overriding principle is 'reasonableness' or the 'man in the street/man on the Clapham omnibus' comparison, except that your actions would be judged by the standards of a 'reasonable' air traffic controller (a contradiction in terms?)

Y'all be careful now!

[Edited for spelling]

[ 02 November 2001: Message edited by: Four Seven Eleven ]

[TrafficTraffic]

Did someone call?

;)

[Chilli Monster]

Had just this situation on Friday just gone.

3 Aircraft, Class 'G' airspace, all on a FIS and VFR at similar levels and aiming for the same square mile of airspace. All were wearing individual squawks so I knew who they were, but couldn't really give radar derived information.

So, under duty of care - just tell each one where the other two are and where they're going - let them sort it out.

Worked a treat :)

CM

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

CM, what, exactly, stopped you from giving 'radar derived' information?

PS Was audience to an extremely interesting brief by a lawyer a few days ago about 'Duty of Care'. May I suggest that we all start putting this high on our agenda?

[Legs11]

Chilli,

Surely the information you gave wasradar derived?

I hope it's all going swimmingly :D

Keep looking over your shoulder, I may just appear one day ;)

[Chilli Monster]

WBS

Working on the following basis:

FIS - a NON-RADAR service. Radar derived traffic information would have been a RIS. Even if you identify the aircraft the pilot must not be misled into thinking he is receiving a radar service.

So - FIS traffic information becomes "Yak at 2500 crossing the motorway services westbound" instead of "traffic in your 2 o'clock range 8 miles crossing right to left"

Admittedly my use of the word 'radar derived' was probably not quite right - but according to the books you can't give RIS type info on a FIS, so you alter it accordingly (does that make sense?) :)

Legs

The grin hasn't stopped yet - especially as I've done 50% more radar in 3 days than I have in the previous 3 months!

CM

[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]

[ProcATCO]

Speaking as a procedural ATCO, you give traffic information to any aircraft that APPEAR to be in the same area, or are self evidently conflicting with each other!! The "duty of care" is as good a defintion as any, and applies to non-radar ATSU's as well as radar units!!! (Sorry radar guys, joking really!!)

If in doubt, give information!!

Keep the faith!!
;)
:D

[ 07 November 2001: Message edited by: ProcATCO ]

[Mr Simple]

Nothing stops you putting a FIS on a squawk and identifying it (for example to make it 'known traffic') to yourself. If passing tfc info to FIS traffic you could always use the time-honoured phrase 'traffic believed to be you has tfc etc...'

IMHO anything that stops a potential midair happening is fair game (MATS Pt1 sentence 1) - and I'd defend THAT against any desk-bluntie in a court of law.

[Goldfish Watcher]

Mean while, the radar trafic slowly turns to ratsh*t......

PS Was audience to an extremely interesting brief by a lawyer a few days ago about 'Duty of Care'. May I suggest that we all start putting this high on our agenda?

Thought that by the very nature of the job it was high on our agenda.

You do your best and that's it. Traffic under RCS gets highest priority. end of story