MoD / NATS differences confusion

[Kiltie]

Are the MoD aware of serious terminology differences when providing FIS/RIS/RAS on VHF to civilian traffic?

One airfield in Scotland has its radar service provided by an MoD unit for all traffic above 3000'.

Frequently, when requesting a "visual approach" but still under an IFR flight plan, we are met with the response...

"Roger, cleared VFR approach, contact ....."

Of course this is not what was requested; my understanding being that one is responsible for one's own terrain separation under a VISUAL approach at the end of an IFR flight, but IFR traffic separation is still the responsibility of the controller.

On a more eyebrow-raising note, I departed an MoD field early one morning in total darkness, well before official daylight, and my clearance was given as a "VFR departure to the north.......".

My explanation that we could not accept this clearance, but would maintain VMC and our own terrain separation was met with a pause followed by "Roger."

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong, but the RAF, whenever visual, are immediately deemed to be VFR, but guys please note this is NOT the case with us civvys.

Would any controllers from both sides care to comment; and also state whether they feel ATC or the pilots should adapt to the other's system?

Feedback appreciated.

[3rd Runway]

Interesting points. The military tend to consider types of service and nature of airspace rather than flight rules. For example, you may be IFR but only under a RIS. The only times they assume your flight rules arewhen under a RAS or Radar Control (IFR). Furthermore, they apply the rule that if you are outside CAS (A-E)and under a RAS or RIS you (the pilot) are still responsible for your own terrain clearance although the controlling agencies will set levels at or below which RAS will be terminated and/or radar vectors will not be offered to civil aircraft. So, in you circumstance, I would guess that when you opted for a visual approach the controller assumed that you were happy to continue under VFR. If, on the other hand, you had asked for a 'radar to visual' he would have continued with the assumption you were IFR until you informed him otherwise.

Before I get too boring, I agree with your sentiments as, within the military, there is a lack understanding of the differences between flight conditions and flight rules.

As far as night VFR is concerned, my guess is that the controller was dull. Again, military aircraft can fly under VFR at night and the controller was probably unaware of the different regulations between military and civil.

My personal view is that it is inevitable that, eventually, all controllers will speak the same language. Unfortunately, I do not think that this will be because of a willingness from within the UK; more likely we will be forced down the route by ICAO and European legislation.

[2 six 4]

The military are not trained or licensed in procedural ATC. If an incident was to happen and this was highlighted there would be interesting ramifications - not least for the civil aircraft insurance company.

VFR at night ? Maybe the JSP318 can tell us not only how far the military aircraft has to be from cloud but also how they manage to see it !!!

[passepartout]

Hi Kiltie,
could be wrong but I believe you might be one of the guys who talks to me at the Nats airfield during your descent before transfer to the Military controller.
I believe your worries are entirely justified, because wherever there is confusion ,there is potential for problems. However I was involved in a "boot on the other foot" incident not so long ago when I had to hold an Army Air Corps helicopter outside the zone before I could issue a special VFR clearance (as it had just become official night). The commander was most confused as to why he could not continue VFR and in the end routed round the zone taking a FIS from the military base.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Interesting one.. Many years ago - for my sins - I worked at a training airfield where many of the instructors were ex-CFS types. During night-flying I often had to correct them when they said "departing VFR to the local area". They simply didn't appreciate what I meant! Also in total IMC when they got fed up with goiung round they hold they'd gaily announce "continuing VFR, going to Tower". All my grey hairs came from those days, not my 29+ years at Heathrow.

[Evil Jethro]

Going back a few threads, but am I not right in saying any pilot under a RAS, from any type of controller is always responsible for his/her own terrain separation? Some one a bit higher up seemed to imply that a civvy controller is responsible but military ones are not..?

Thoughts? Clarification?

[3rd Runway]

Evil, just to clarfy, under a RAS, regardless of controller (mil/civ), the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance. The difference is that military controllers can give radar vectors to military aircraft when they are in reciept of a RIS. Ergo, miltary controllers can provide radar vectors to military aircraft that are flying below safety altitude/radar vector chart etc (there are some caveats to this exemption). Hopefully this has cleared-up any confusion.

2 six 4. Why do you need to be trained in procedural control when there is a perfectly serviceable radar?

[This message has been edited by 3rd Runway (edited 25 January 2001).]

[Findo]

3rd Runway just a small matter of handing over to a civil unit who are operating procedurally. If the said military unit is not aware of the difference betwen a visual and VFR approach I suggest this lies in the complete lack of procedural training and understanding of civil law. Not getting at that particular ATC unit as they probably do a very good job. It is just that you are being asked to do something you are not trained nor licensed to do.

[take5]

Going back to the top of the thread, just a quick explanation as to how military aircrew are advised to inteperet Radar Services.

A very noddy poster was produced with three pictures -

FIS was illustrated by a pilot sitting in very low cloud conditions, with light workload, happy to do everything himself.

RIS was similar met conditions, but with an increased cockpit workload - suggesting that in this instance, although happy with inflight met, the pilot wished to have an enhanced warning service.

RAS was described as poor weather/ and or high workload, making ATC responsible for avoidance of traffic.

As such, the type of service requested holds primacy with the military controller, and he/she will control accordingly.

As to the application of service to civilian aircraft, military controllers are supposed to ask any civ a/c requesting a RAS if they are flight planned IFR - if not, then they are to be given a RIS! Obviously (I would hope) the majority of controllers disregard this and give the Ac the service the pilot deems he requires based on his in flight conditions.

The above paragraph is more applicable to 'puddle jumpers' in the LARS system, as all air liners etc, even if 'off route' tend to be flight planned IFR and it would therefore be a silly question to ask.

Understanding of other controllers limitations is a must - the interpretation of services are being brought closer together - military now understand that civil cannot give vectors to ac under RIS etc, however, it is incumbent on aircrew to understand what to expect when flying from other airfields - all part and parcel of planning the flight before take off!

There is a lot that all parties need to take on board, but it seems to work well most of the time (fingers crossed)

2 six 4

I have flown a lot at night in military cabs - and yes you can see cloud and also tell just as easily how far you are from it!

[This message has been edited by take5 (edited 25 January 2001).]

[Kings Arms]

This,
I hate to say sounds totally like a rerun again of how things look from both sides of the fence. So some heads should come together to get us Post privatisation singing from the same hymn sheet. Or the laywers will have a field day.

[x-border]

Gents, as an experienced military controller, I would like to make some comments from the 'other side of the fence'.

I agree with most of what you all say, and a lot of the differences are down to the ways we are trained and the different way we are taught to interpret the rules. During the Joint Air Traffic Control Cse (JATCC) we cover many subjects in much less detail than the civil cse; however, the content has been professionally compiled to meet the needs, mainly, of the military pilot - that is our primary task after all.

The 'confusion' Kiltie had with the visual approach should have been resolved by re-emphasising exactly what he/she required - the military controller would have no problem providing the service, he just didn't quite understand you.

Take5 - must of your comments are correct. Your comments regarding asking an ac who has requested a RAS whether he is flying IFR are true, but, as you rightly suggest, this 'rule' has been brought in to 'catch' the many puddle jumpers that fly around who do not understand the difference between FIS/RIS/RAS and just ask for what they think they should ask for. I would be suprised if many military controllers would question an airliner - this would show a lack of awareness.

Also, the military no longer provide vectors to RIS ac that are flying below the radar vector chart (except when they are carrying our a radar to visual approach within 20nm of the airfield) - this is starting to move towards the civil way of working.

Last point - just because we do things differently doesn't mean we are any less professional, or competant, than the civil world - we are just a little different.

[ukatco]

I think you'll find that civil controllers are also able to vector RIS traffic. Vectors can be given for tactical purposes but not to avoid traffic. It's amazing how many tactical vectors just happen to avoid traffic though.

[RATBOY]

It seems logical that any ATC facility providing service should be capable of providing that service or not bother. The explaination that "this kind of facility is primarily oriented to that kind of aviation" is lame in the extreme.

At the risk of provoking a b**** Yank slagging it might be useful to know that there is only one manual for U.S. ATC and it is written by the FAA and the Military together and everything is in one book. Also, legally speaking, in the U.S. the FAA owns the navigable airspace....period. Some airspace has been set aside as restricted for the military to use for good reason, but it has been for so long that people have forgotten that the airspace is delegated to the military, not freehold ownership. When a military ATC facility provides ATC service it is the same as FAA service...for civilians that means the same terminology, procedures, and everything. When they are doing something military peculiar and they talk to each other that's fine, but when ATC services are provided to civil aircraft the procedures are the civil ones.

I believe there was a reference a few posts back to everyone working off one sheet of music. It is an excellent idea, and it is very "doable".

Question on night VFR... what is the problem? In the U.S. every private pilot student must learn to fly VFR at night. With a little moon and some reasonable clouds it can be a lot of fun and certainly sharpens you up becaue of the lack of as many visual cues outside the cockpit. On a cloudy/moonless night however, over terrain without cultural features (i.e. lights) you can get disoriented and kill yourself all too easily.

[Crabo]

As another military ATCO, X-Border sums up matters well from the RAF point of view.

Kiltie - I would be very suprised if there was not a letter of agreement covering the transfer of control procedures that should take place between the 2 airfields. I am sure that the SATCO of the mil airfield concerned would welcome a friendly phone call to resolve any areas of confusion and possibly improve the service given.

2 six 4 - ref the lack of procedural training for Mil ATCOs - I and my fellow Mil ATCOs at an East Anglian airfield in the early 1990s found no problems when controlling aircraft inbound to Norwich (they worked procedural once Coltishall had closed up for the day). As long as you prenoted the aircraft to Norwich, and did not descend the aircraft below the level given, you then transfered the aircraft across to them once clear of unknown traffic. This was also the procedure that LATCC (Mil) used when controlling the significant number of off route civil aircraft inbound to civil airfields such as Plymouth, East Mids, Humberside etc.

Kings Arms makes a good point regarding standardising civil and military procedures. Not too many years ago it would have been unusual for mil ATCOs to control scheduled civil traffic; however, this is now becoming increasingly common. In principle, I do not think that there is any flight safety risk in mil ATCOs giving a radar service to scheduled civil aircraft. Whilst at LATCC (Mil) I did not resent controlling civil off route GAT where there was no available airway; however, you sometimes wondered about the logic of GAT going off route to cut a corner and then having to take multiple avoiding action turns to get standard separation on fast jets and puddle jumpers etc flying VFR in class G airspace.

[RogerOut]

Crabo, you are quite correct when you refer to GAT "cutting corners". A certain airline regularly does this inbound to the UK, I can give them a control service until they descend, below FL255 they are under the control of a colleague who can only offer them RIS (please don't mention the 1,000 ft gap), being contentious I mention this to a/c concerned, whereupon several have got quite shirty about it! By agreement some have arranged (prior) to get a RAS off the MIL, which I'm quite happy with, but when will airlines advise pax that "this service is flying through the Bundu (SP?) subject to a RIS and therefore we cannot guarantee separation from other a/c, however we will give pax traffic information so you can look out the window and I hope you have a change of underpants". This is nonsense that a/c do this regularly and it will only change when some poor buggers make the headlines. Blame all round as the airlines shouldn't file routes where separation is NOT guaranteed in order to provide a faster A to B, and when are the military going to recognise Advisory routes? I hate having to cover my @rse at work, questioning myself whether a lawyer would have a field day. My that is a long sentence, must be Sunday morning. Tata.



------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden

[passepartout]

slight point from earlier,civvy controllers providing a RAS ARE responsible for terrain clearance."They shall set a level at or above which the a/c will remain in the limits of radar cover and with the requisite terrrain clearance. Below this level RAS will be terminated or refused"

[Magnetron]

Crabo/Passepartout/Rogerout/Ratboy,etc,etc
Civil ATCO for more years than I care to remember.
Q ,What the F$%& are we trying to achieve here,I will try to stop an A/C of any type from bumping into another one,or cumulo granite to the best of my ability irrispective of the service I am supposed to be providing, as I am sure you do!
Have we yet again been taken over by the accountant/company liability/compensation culture where " My ass is covered cos I was only giving a RIS/RAS/FIS/ALT"
WHY have these nonsense scenarious arisen and why do we continue to accept them

[Data Dad]

Whilst I agree with the "theory" of RogerOut's comments, look at it from another perspective. ATC is a SERVICE. The only Airway from Airport A goes completely the wrong way for 90% of the customers and to take the roundabout route costs 25mins time and £4million pounds per year in extra fuel.(Actual figure given by the most affected company.) Surely being a service, the airway should be moved to meet the needs of the customers! :) :) :) :)

[RogerOut]

Data Dad, you're probably right but other groups (mil, GAT etc) would maybe oppose such a move, other airfields would then apply or demand their "own" airways. My main point was really that pax-carrying a/c shouldn't be running the gauntlet, some of these get a bit too close for comfort. I'll take that back about "pax-carrying a/c" - sorry pilots! :)

------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden