London Military ATC

[F-5DRIVER]

I have been flying charter in and out of Newcastle for two years now. Yesterday, for the first time, after taking off from Newcastle and changing freq to London Military I have been requested " What type of service do you like ?". I was caught by surprise! Can a British controller please explain what did they mean?

[Spoonbill]

Hello F5, in the UK, when flying outside controlled airspace, there are two types of radar service available: Radar Advisory Service, (RAS), and Radar Information Service, (RIS).
RAS is available only to aircraft flying IFR, and the controller will provide you with avoiding action, when necessary, against other traffic. Under RAS you must not change heading or level without the agreement of the controller.
RIS is available to all aircraft, IFR or VFR, and the controller will pass information
on other aircraft, and may offer vectors - but it is not mandatory to comply.
Both radar services, especially RIS are only available subject to controller work load.
Basically, if you accept a RAS, the atco is responsible for ensuring that standard separation is applied, under RIS the pilot has this responsiblity.
Flying out of Newcastle, outside controlled airspace, you are flying in an area of intense military and civillian activity, so a RAS may be the best option. :)

[F-5DRIVER]

Spoonbill, thanks for the detailed explanation. I am going to post it to my company's dispatch so everybody know about!

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Try these links
http://www.chirp.co.uk/library/FocusWinter2000/FocusWinter2000.htm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/ifs/mcasd_lars.html

[chiglet]

F5,
Also works with "Pennine Radar" [128.67]. Normally a RAS, ["Below FL245, you are on a 'RadarAdvisory Service'"]. If "low[ish] level, you may be offered a "Radar Information Service". At very low level, FL65 [ish] and below you may get either a Flight Information Service, or a Listening Watch.
RAS, Penninee squawk You are "vectored"
RIS, You are told of potential KNOWN traffic, and "advised"
FIS Any "known" traffice is passed to you
LW that's it!
Very simplistic, I know, but that's me...Simple :D
we aim to please,it keeps the cleaners happy

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

F5 Driver, whilst I have already put my two penneth worth in, be VERY careful of simplistic explainations (Chiglet for example). The rules are not that simple and you need to check the authoratitive documents for yourself. For example:

1.Under a RAS or RIS you (ie the pilot) are responsible for your own terrain clearance.

2.RAS is only available under IFR.

3.If the controller is unable/unwilling to provide a service he is under no obligation as you are outside Controlled Airspace. he may downgrade without much/any notice.

4.Some units will not provide a RAS in Class G airspace.

I only quote these as some of the finer points of what we call Air Traffic Services Outside Controled Airspace (ATSOCAS). There are a plethora of other 'gotchas'. A good site to look is AIS where you will find an on-line copy of the UK AIP. Here's the link although you will need Acrobat reader to get further.
http://www.ais.org.uk/uk_aip/pdf/gen/genmain.htm

Look at Annex 11 to Gen 1.7

[ Spelling!]

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]

[204 Red]

Spoonbill and Chiglet, interested to see you both mention offering vectors under RIS. Duty of Care I suppose, nothing wrong with that, I just wish they would take the damn bit out of the book that specifically says we're not to!

[ATCO Two]

Hi 204 Red,

They have!!! MATS part 1 1-41 refers.

[chiglet]

Sorry, 204
BUT, I didn't mention "vectors" under a RIS.
Sorry, that the post is a "bit" ambiguous
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[204 Red]

ATCO 2 & Chiglet, my apologies, you are both right. Rather than vectors I should have used separation. Whether we are advising/suggesting or vectoring (but not including tactical planning! ) we are assisting separation which, at the moment, the good book insists is the total responsibility of the pilot. My point is rather than interpretatational phrases like Duty of care, which in this case seems to absolve the pilot of his Duty of care to be aware of his obligations under RIS, why not change the MATS (&JSP318A) to say that if a controller considers traffic constitutes a definite hazard, we up-date the position AND offer advice/suggestions to resolve?

f-5 Driver--sorry for Hi-jacking your post!

[F-5DRIVER]

204 Red, since I don't have a British license and not being familiar with these regulations I love to read all this info! By the way keep up the hard work so we can fly safely !!!

[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: F-5DRIVER ]

[The Jaguar Fan Club]

Whipping Boy's SATCO,

I have to disagree with your post. A pilot receiving a RAS is NOT responsible for his terrain clearance.

MATS Pt 1 1-50 refers:

"Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:

(a) IFR flights in receipt of a radar control service

(b) flights in receipt of a radar advisory service and

(c) flights in receipt of a radar information service and receiving vectors.

provide adequate terrrain clearance for the phase of flight" as shown in MATS 1 1-50.

"Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of. and shall not assign levels to aircraft:

(a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or

(b) operating SVFR or VFR within controlled airspace which accept radar vectors.

Air traffic control units providing a radar advisory service outside controlled and advisory airspace shall set a level, or levels, below which the service shall be refused or terminated."

Sorry to quote the book, but I think knowing who is responsible for terrain clearance for a certain phase of flight, is a major safety issue.

Hope this helps.

TJFC

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: The Jaguar Fan Club ]

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

TJFC, I couldn't disagree with MATS Pt 1. However, Chapter 15 of JSP 318A (the document us military types use as the gospel) states that under a RAS:


g. The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance, although ATSUs providing a RAS will set a level or levels below which a RAS will be refused or terminated.

Confused??

[x-border]

The Jaguar Fan Club:

I understand where you are coming from, however, having studied both the MATS Pt1 and JSP318A (which is what mil controllers work from) in recent months, I have to side with Whipping Boy's SATCO. Whilst your post clearly states the rules are described in MATS Pt1, and it says that levels will be set below which a RAS willl be refused/terminated in order to provide terrain separation etc. etc., nowhere does it say that controllers are responsible for terrain separation.

The mil have looked at this issue in depth in recent months following actual ac incidents, and the conclusion they came to was that overall, regardless of the safety measures put in force to comply with laid down regulations, pilots remain responsible for terrain separation under a RAS. This info was passed to all mil controllers by the organisation formally known as MATO (Whipping Boy's SATCO, you would have known this if you really are a SATCO!!)

I would be interested if you were able to specifically find a quote that states what you say - it's probably one of those arguements that could go on forever - interpretation!!!!

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

x-border, that's why I have lifted the quote directly from Ch6 to JSP 318A. If you doubt my credentials, e-mail me and I will arrange a visit!!

[The Jaguar Fan Club]

Whipping Boys SATCO,

Sorry, didn't realise you were mil. Civ/Mil disparity strikes again!!! ;)

x-border,

The quote in MATS Pt1 Chapter 1 page 50 para 13 CLEARLY states:

Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned: to IFR flights in reciept of a radar control service, Radar advisory service or a RIS and receiving vectors, provide adequate terrain clearance.

The part about setting levels for refusal or termination of a RAS relates to if a pilot assumes his own terrain clearance below terrain safe levels, you would terminate the RAS. No RAS=No terrain responsibility. You may not vector an aircraft that is not terrain safe. That is where the controller responsibility lies. SRG were quite hot on this when I did my App Rad and Area Radar validations!

Were you taught about the terrain clearance "keyhole?"

TJFC

[Rad1]

I always thought that the rule about setting the minimum level at which a service could be provided was as much about how low you could go and still have solid radar cover as terrain clearance.

[foghorn]

Sorry to interject on this interesting thread, could someone explain to this GA pilot the difference between vectors under RIS and a full RAS?

Is it a duty-of-care thing? Would you expect to offer vectors under RIS regularly, or is it saved as a final tactic for potential airproxes (subject to all the usual riders about RIS...)? Is it for vectoring to final approaches outside CAS?

cheers!
foghorn.

[x-border]

The Jaguar Fan Club

I agree with everything in your post and all that you say - however, even though though levels are laid down (by both civ and mil) below which a RAS will be refused or terminated to ensure adequate terrain clearance, the mil interpretation is that OVERALL the pilot still holds the responsibility for terrain separation.

I've never heard of the terrain clearance 'keyhole' - but am interested if you would like to expand.

Rgds

[Odi]

The Jag fan club - I'm with you on this one, and not just because I sit next to you!

MATS 1-50 para 13 - Terrain Clearance

Within 30 miles of the radar antenna associated with the unit providing the service .... [minimum terrain clearance] .... 1000 feet above any fixed obstacle within:
(a) 5 miles of the aircraft, and
(b) 15 miles ahead and 20 degrees either side of the aircraft's track.

When drawn this looks like a keyhole and so is known as the keyhole rule.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Sorry if I have stirred up a bit of a hornets' nest. It seems to me that we all understand there are levels below which a RAS will be terminated/not offered. The sticking point is who remains responsiblefor terrain clearance.
To take it a step further, try and decipher the rules regarding vectors to RIS as defined in JSP318A!! In a nutshell, this quotes the duty of care factor.

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]

[The Jaguar Fan Club]

I think this highlights another civ/mil difference and that although JSP318A and MATS 1 look the same and perform equally as well as door stops/table props etc, they have lots of conflicting information.

I didn't mean to dive headlong into this book first. I didn't realise that both WB SATCO and x-border were both military controllers. We all know that civ and mil controlling is different an many ways (VFR at night etc). Sorry if I caused any confusion/offence guys.

Mind you, I do think it is a good idea if we all provided standard radar services under the same rules. I know a lot of GA pilots are confused enough about ATSOCA without controllers singing from different song sheets! :rolleyes:

Another subject for those who think the pen is mightier than the headset!

Odi:

Thanks for posting the "keyhole" rule. Saves my fingers from more wear and tear! Back to work on Tues :eek:

Cheers
TJFC

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

x border, hear hear.

You hit the nail on the head with

[Mind you, I do think it is a good idea if we all provided standard radar services under the same rules. I know a lot of GA pilots are confused enough about ATSOCA without controllers singing from different song sheets!

[ 17 September 2001: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]