RIS or RAS

[carbheat]

Is RAS available to VFR traffic or IFR traffic ONLY, as stated in Trevor Thom vol.7?
I followed the book and got this wrong according to the PPL R/T examiners.
Could anyone at ATC clarify the matter?
(sorry if this is a regular query)

------------------

[Warped Factor]

carbheat,

RAS is available only to flights operating under IFR (irrespective of met conditions, as it says in MATS Pt 1).

W.F.

[carbheat]

Thanks, W.F.
I'll check that reference.Cheers.

[Warped Factor]

Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1

Chapter 1 page 36 ;)

WF.

[Packem Inn]

Of course, there has been the recent 'clouding' of the radar tubes with the impact of 'duty of care'on the ATCO. Thus, someone on a RIS can request avoiding action (a la RAS) and SRG uphold that it is the duty of care of the ATCO to comply - regardless of flight conditions. Time to think before you provide any service to anything outside CAS.

I am aware that some controllers at the "North London Air Terminal" have received instructions and advice to limit what service they provide in the open FIR.

Mind you, I hear that they will be withdrawing from LARS at the end of the year so there won't be any radar service north of Heathrow........

[Flybywyre]

Carbheat

Be advised that the pilot requesting/receiving RAS does not have to be IR rated. He could be a very new PPL/IMC holder and therefore his actions may not be quite as "crisp" as expected.

FBW

[PPRuNe Radar]

Packem,

If by 'North london Air Terminal' you mean Luton, they are not a notified LARS unit anyway so need not provide the service today....or did you mean somewhere else ?? ;)

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[Lew Ton]

Capt PPRuNe Radar, Sir! Far be it for me to correct a person of your esteemness, but Luton has been a LARS unit for donkey's years! We were the second civil unit to be so after Newcastle.

[This message has been edited by Lew Ton (edited 06 September 2000).]

[Flybywyre]

And I can vouch for a generally very good service from Luton everytime I have requested it. However, what will happen when they move to TC at LATCC ?

Regards
FBW

[PPRuNe Radar]

Lew Ton,

I stand corrected. I was looking in the AIP list under Luton...not London !!

Well spotted ;)

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[not a scooby]

a word of advice, don`t mention ras/ris to anyone at Scottish, very touchy subject.
They have been banned by management from Ras ( off route), and are now a bit confused about " care of duty" , even more confused on issue of calling tfc to someone under Ris, who then dosen`t see or avoid the said tfc, and whom is then expected to be given avoiding action because we can see the conflict and under this duty of care issue we should act, but if we act ( and we have left it late of course expecting the pilot to do his bit under this scheme) and things still go wrong guess who SRG will hang out to dry!
Confused?, you should be, oh and by the way while all this is going on you prey you don`t slip up within the two airways and one advisory route that you are trying to cope with.

[This message has been edited by not a scooby (edited 24 September 2000).]

[OrsonCart]

No LARS available from Luton from around Dec 00/Jan 01. (Airac update).

[2 sheds]

Packem Inn is quite right to say that the whole subject of RIS and RAS has now been clouded by SRG's latest edict in ATCSI4.

I notice that one Jonathan Smith raised the issue on the GATCO website but the only reaction has been fairly negative and just seems to accept the ruling - I thought that GATCO was supposed to represent ATCOs' interests?

The effect of this instruction is to place the LARS controller (and others providing ATSOCAS)potentially in an invidious position. The "duty of care" might be the argument used by SRG but equally, what weight ought to be given to the verbal contract previously established in which the controller accepted obligations but equally, the pilot accepted the limitations of the lesser service - a service which might well have been provided because it was impractical or unsafe to provide RAS.

Despite the opinion of SRG, this would only ever be tested if, as the result of an incident, such a case were to be heard in court. Meanwhile, if they want to discourage controllers from providing any radar service outside CAS, they have gone the right way about it.

Instead of an arbitrary instruction to ATC (hidden in a long, rambling SI), it would be nice if pilots could be addressed on this subject via an AIC - along the lines of "accept the service that has been agreed, play the game and don't make an unreasonable request for avoiding action if RAS has already been refused."

[bookworm]

sheds, I haven't seen a copy of this SI, but let me offer something from a pilot's perspective.

I'm under an RIS. You've warned me of traffic "1 o'clock, 3 miles, right to left, indicating same level unverified". I look, and I can't see the traffic. So what do I do?

If the traffic was going to pass slightly behind me, turning right will make the conflict worse. If it was passing ahead, turning left will make the conflict worse. So without further assistance, all I can do is bumble straight on, desperately trying to pick out the little dot that's somewhere in the clutter in my 11 o'clock.

What you can see on your tube, but I can't, is the geometry of the encounter. I don't suddenly want to achieve standard separation from the traffic. But the only thing I can do is ask for help -- looking at your picture, if you were in my position, which way would *you* turn to increase the separation? If you can help, great. If not, OK, the risk of collision is higher, but that's the way the game is played.

I don't think that's an "unreasonable request", because if you *can* offer the advice, it could save my life. I know it's more than a bear RIS, but it's not a RAS either.

I think that more than an AIC is required. We need to revisit the concept of a RIS and RAS and modify them to meet the needs of the real world.

Anything, particularly this 'duty of care', that dissuades ATC from offering a service has to be an impediment to safety. All services, RAS included, should be given on an "as workload permits basis". Pilots can and must accept that. [The only thing that's slightly different about a RAS is that if you *do* give me a vector, it's important that you don't leave me hanging there!].

So where does ATCSI4 come from then?

[1261]

The SI you mention was included in the Manual of Air Traffic Services, Part 1, recently - a document that few in the aviation industry (other than controllers) will have seen, or indeed have access to.

Personally, I felt that the SI clarified the situation to my satisfaction. It states that the "primary collision avoidance service is RAS and when collision avoidance is required that is the service that should be in place." The caveat that ".... irrespective of the service being provided, nothing should prevent a controller who has positive, self-evident information that a collision is likely, from taking action to prevent this" (in my opinion) covers the situation that you describe.

Speaking as a radar controller who provides these services on a regular basis, I would say that if you made a clear, unambiguous request for assistance in that situation, I'd be happy to provide avoidance advice, whatever service you were under. I'd rather defend that in court than "I did nothing because of SI 4/00".

[not a scooby]

2 Sheds, GATCO is designed to offer the viewpoint of ATCOS, unfortunately if no one gives it their views, what are they supposed to say when asked for comment?
Like IPMS the actual active base is very small & therefore the breadth of comment avaliable is also very small, representative?, perhaps not.
Have you noticed the recent campaign to attract " interested" atcos into contributing to the greater good of the atco via participation in GATCO?
Like all organisations its only as good as the effort that its members put in to it.