Nats - A Law Unto Itself

[jack-oh]

Is NATS or the CAA/DAP in charge of airspace policy?

I ask as it appears that NATS (PLC) are now setting the agender and defining what goes on in UK airspace and not the goverment organisations set up for that very purpose. This has become apparent as:

1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.
2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.
3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight.
4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.

All of these are contary to policy, but this doesn't appear to matter at all.

[flower]

Are you relating to a particular bit of airspace or unit Jack-oh . They are certainly not rules or regs that i am aware of at my NATS units and i can assure you we do provide RAS in Class G.

We don't have any Class D airways in my neck of the wood ( do they exist ? ) just normal Class D CAS and VFR flight is certainly allowed access to it subject to the usual criteria.

Can you be specific please ?

[BEXIL160]

Hmmmm?

1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace

? It DOES, at LOTS of different units

2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.

Like Flower, I'm not aware of any Class D Airways. There is a certain amount of Class D airspace (Mostly CTR/As) that NATS does provide a service in... Both to VFR and IFR flights.

3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight
Ahem... all part of European harmonisation, and nothing to do with NATS. Oh, and VFR flight IS allowed BTW in Class C, its only Class A where it's not allowed (there's always SVFR).

4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.
Untrue. It will, and does. In many cases however our Military colleagues are better equipped to deal with larger formations, particularly in the event of diversions / emergencies with one or more of the elements.

Not quite sure what has upset you Jack, perhaps you could clarify?

No ANSP, including NATS can "set the agenda" as to what happens in Class G, even the Mil.;)

Rgds BEX

[Chilli Monster]

This sounds like a "North of the Border" problem that's been mentioned before (for the first item anyway). There are certainly class 'D' airways there also.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Generics are no good, we need specifics, then our learned readership can provide the answers.

Where do all these things happen ??

But in the meantime:

1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.

NATS Units which are mandated to provide ATSOCA have their areas of responsibility specified in the UK AIP. These are notably LARS units, which as Flower says, provide RAS in their portfolio. Other units might also provide services over and above what the AIP specifies they will, but that is at their complete discretion. For example Gatwick sometimes do provide ATSOCA, but there is absolutely no need for them to do so. I think it is fair to say that some pilots seem not to know what the services provided by some units detailed in the AIP actually are. As a prime example ... none of the NATS En Route Centres are actually classed as units providing either LARS or Middle Airspace Radar Services, except where they are the controlling authorities for Advisory Routes (but then that's Class F as opposed to Class G ;) ). If that's the thrust of your post, then it hardly seems fair to slate an organisation for not providing something it is not prescribed or mandated to.

2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.

Presumably examples of this have been reported to DAP ?? Anyone out there ever heard of a refusal taking place ? Of course if there were traffic reasons for doing so, or capacity issues, then that would be fair game, but the unit would also, I am sure, have logged those details for any subsequent witch hunt.

3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight.

Oh dear, we are not doing too well. As mentioned, the changes to airspace above FL195 is a European initiative. And Class C does allow VFR, albeit controlled and separated from IFRs.

4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.

NATS (and other UK civil ANSPs) will accept formation flights as GAT, the only conditions are that they must be military and within CAS. There is no provision for providing an ATS to civil formation flights, or formation flights in Class F or G airspace, in the UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (CAP493) ...... which interestingly is a UK CAA 'Policy' document.

As I say, give us examples of what has happened and where and I am sure the specific rebuttals or explanations can be provided by those in the know ;)

[Ops and Mops]

1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.
Darn! So I have been doing it all wrong since I got my radar ticket all those years ago...
If you are still at the unit you were at the last time I saw you Jacko, could it be that the levels at which to give/take handovers from the only NATS Unit nearby are below the minimum for a RAS from that unit?! :rolleyes:

Additionally it has been ScACC (Civ) policy for some time now not to provide a RAS outside Controlled or Advisory Airspace.

2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight
I take it you are having a pop at the new(ish) part time airway between Aberdeen and Newcastle (P18 IIRC)? VFR flight IS allowed in this airway subject to an Air Traffic Control clearance so I'm not sure what your point is caller.

Maybe you're just having an off day.....have a beer or three in the mess and chill out. Maybe a visit to ScACC (Civ) and your "adjacent" NATS unit for a chat would reveal more than bleating on here and jumping to assumptions.

Toodle pip Carruthers!

[frostbite]

Funny this should come up now.

This morning I heard a pilot (I believe using RAS) advising/complaining Southend ATC about a close encounter, and the response was something like 'well you're playing in class G airspace, that sort of thing happens'.

I will admit I wasn't paying much attention at the time, so take that as an approximation of the situation.

[Barnaby the Bear]

I very much doubt they were getting a RAS at Southend. Its primary only, the best you will get is a RIS with all the airways traffic overhead. :}

[jack-oh]

The point I was trying to make was mainly aimed at NATS En-Route. Where as you can imagine the manopoly occurs.

Scottish civil will not provide RAS in class G and rumour sugests this is creeping in south of the border, but as you can imagine there is less GAT in class G down there that is being worked by civil, the majority being given to Mil to contened with.

Class D airways do exist. The point about them being treated as Class A is valid contary to policy. If you cant except VFR traffic in it when there is IFR traffic then dont call it Class D. This is eutopian thought process but if an ac declares itself to be VFR within that clasification of airspace then separation is not required between it and any other ac, so why does it matter if the airspace is busy with IFR ac. If it does matter then call it class A, B or C.

Class C airspace is to be introduced next year, and will replace class B in the UIR. However as class B airspace requires separation between all ac irrespective of flight rules it has no practicle differences to class A. This is the way the UK has functioned for a long time and rather than embracing the change to class C, the rules will be fudged so to all intensive purposes we end up with Class A/B again. Hardly the concept of european single sky. Again if the VFR / IFR thing doesnt work then say so; don't call an Ass a Donkey and expect no one to notice.

Mil formation flights will not be worked by civil controllers, instead a mil formation must file as OAT and be worked by Mil. Not a great heartache you say, but all the formation flights departing the UK for places sunnier must now fly OAT to the FIR boundary and then pick up as GAT to fly the routes they require. Not bothered, well this means that Mil ac cant use the shortest routes but must be weaved around everyone else until they get out of the UK, where our European counterparts will then have to intergrate them into the flow system because we couldn't be bothered.

[DtyCln]

I am a civil controller in NATS en-route and work Mil formations flying as GAT every day up and down the country.

You are talking c*ap!

[jack-oh]

I hope I am, it is only what I have been told. What about the other points

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

jack-oh.. You seem to have got several things wrong. Are you an aviation professional? I ask as your profile conveys nothing..

[BEXIL160]

The OTHER points:

Scottish civil will not provide RAS in class G .
Already answered. They aren't required to. NATS ER Ltd operates under terms specified in a Licence issued by the UK CAA on behalf of HMG

Nobody has a monopoly on ATS in Class G in either UK FIR.

If you cant except VFR traffic in it when there is IFR traffic then dont call it Class D. This is eutopian thought process but if an ac declares itself to be VFR within that clasification of airspace then separation is not required between it and any other ac, so why does it matter if the airspace is busy with IFR ac. ahem.... You do not seem at all familiar with the operation of class D airspace, as comments about a/c "declaring" itself to be VFR show only too well.

VFR flights do not need to be separated from IFR flights, but they do need an ATC clearance, all a/c in the airspace need to be provided with traffic info, and then theres good old "duty of care" also. There could be many reasons why a/c could be refused a VFR clearance, and they may not be immediately obvious to other ATSUs or indeed pilots. Nevertheless there will be a VALID reason, and it will not be a policy. If you are concerned speak to the relevant ATC Sup who will clear it up for you.

embracing the change to class C, the rules will be fudged Pure conjecture. As it happens the mil have been FULLY involved in drawing up the relevant procedures.... haven't they told you yet?

it is only what I have been told. By whom? The Ass or Donkey that you refer to in your post?

rgds BEX

[5milesbaby]

Mil formation flights will not be worked by civil controllers, instead a mil formation must file as OAT and be worked by Mil. Not a great heartache you say, but all the formation flights departing the UK for places sunnier must now fly OAT to the FIR boundary and then pick up as GAT to fly the routes they require. Not bothered, well this means that Mil ac cant use the shortest routes but must be weaved around everyone else until they get out of the UK, where our European counterparts will then have to intergrate them into the flow system because we couldn't be bothered.


Another untruth, they are free and able as everyone else to file GAT. There are occasions where civil controllers when they see the flight details appear at Swanwick request LJAO (London Joint Airspace Organisation), the Mil that works inside CAS, to work the flight. In these cases in my experience through my airspace the formation actually gets the direct route and we move around it.

As for being "intergrated into the flow system" then the process is exactly the same weather GAT begins inside the UK or elsewhere, the flight plan is filed and then any slot will be issued once accepted.

I have had the "pleasure" of the Red Arrows de-formating due to cloud on my frequency during a reasonably busy session. I'm not trained to deal with this situation and do not have the time to deal with it should it happen again, the workload is too immense, however our LJAO friends are perfectly equipped for such a task hence they are normally asked to work such a track.

[StillDark&Hungry]

Totally agree with 5'. Work military formations all the time. The only problems that occur are when they can't maintain a tight enough formation and end up blocking too many levels, or in inclement weather conditions when they can't maintain their formation. In either case this dramatically increases controller workload more than any other single flight, unless in emergency. Therefore it's sometimes easier to allow our experienced military colleagues to take on the job!!

[Widger]

DTY, HD and Bexil,

I think you need to give Jack-Oh a bit of a break as the points he has raised have substance.

With regard to RAS he is correct that ScACC do not provide RAS in class G. Indeed this was one of the factors that led to Airprox 198/04. Not an issue in London FIR as LACC only operate within Class A/B. ScACC do not have the luxury of so much class A.

With regard to Class D airways, I believe the issue is that you cannot have an Class A that does not exist all the time, hence the reason the airspace was established as Class D. (correct me if i'm wrong).

DFL 195. Europe issue, we will all have to comply eventually.

Formations....he is indeed NOT spouting Cr@p. Nuff said.


I'm thinking about my doorbell, when you gonna ring it, when you gonna ring it!

[Carbide Finger]

Widger,

Sorry a few inaccuracies there!

LACC and A/B Airspace.

Sorry, but we do provide ATSOCAS in class G. Certainly on the West End, it's a necessary evil. Most don't like it but, there you go. What we can't do is provide a radar service below FL70. You also won't find many giving a full RAS!

Any ATSOCAS we do give are a secondary duty, as far as I'm concerned. The airways traffic is primarilly what we're there for. This is the reason that a full RAS is very rare. As a rule you'll only get one if we need to have you on a heading for separation reasons, but that one's been done to death!

Part Time Class A.

Sorry your also wrong here. This is called a Conditional Route (CDR), an example of which is L18 (a short cut to EIDW from MALBY) This route's hours are published in NOTAM form on a daily basis. The route is published closed in the day due to military activity in the NWMTA and also activity at Aberporth. In the evening it opens up at about 1730 Z until early the next morning.

Hope this helps clear up matters.

Regards

CF

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I feel a dose of deja vu coming on..

Widger...... You seem to have got several things wrong. Are you an aviation professional? I ask as your profile conveys nothing..

[5milesbaby]

Widger;

Formations....he is indeed NOT spouting Cr@p. Nuff said.

If you are going to join in then you need to back up what you say or its just unsubstantiated personal opinion which has no bearing on the issues and therefore need not be said or taken into consideration.

As you have quoted Airprox 198/04 as an example for no RAS being given, care to share with us what happenned then maybe we can answer?

[fredator]

HD

You seem to have got several things wrong. Are you an aviation professional? I ask as your profile conveys nothing..

In your 2 submissions on this topic you have said the same thing to 2 different people. Have you nothing constructive to add?

As far as I am aware, LACC Civil controllers have no remit to provide ATC services outside CAS. There is nothing about it in the MATS Part 2 as far as I am aware. Anyway, LACCis an en-route centre not some 2nd rate LARS unit.

[Widger]

Well now, aren't we all a touchy bunch!

OK if we are talking about inaccuracies:

In the evening it opens up at about 1730 Z until early the next morning.
Incorrect 1700Z in summer. However, I accept your comment that it is an example of part time class A (I did state that I stood to be corrected). Why no so with P18 then?

Regarding the airprox

It has been discussed here! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183700&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

It has also been published, so you can read it in full yourself.

HD I will treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.:ok:

5miles baby, it is not unsubstantiated, have a chat with your colleagues on S9!

Carbide, the only time I suspect you provide a service outside CAS is if it joining or avoiding weather. How often do you change the service? I suspect that you are trying to take the credit from units such as Cardiff, Bristol, Exeter and Hurn all who DO provide RAS outside CAS.

:ok: :ok:

[flower]

LACC is an en-route centre not some 2nd rate LARS unit.

I think the above comment was unecessary, LARS units are hardly second rate.

[Standard Noise]

Hear! Hear! I'm with flower on this one.:ooh: (twice in two weeks, what's the world coming to!?)

fredator - you lot think you're so good, come on down to BRS or CDF and see what a "2nd rate LARS unit" gets up to. One or two of the S23 guys have been down, and they were a little astonished to say the least.

[Carbide Finger]

Widger,

I take the credit from no one!

It has been known for LACC to give the odd short cut. Sometimes this involves being outside controlled airspce. An example of this would be either a EGGD dep to the north routeing to NOKIN which, if turned early enough, goes outside, underneath UN862.

Now, it could be said that that's a join, (even though it goes past the join fix BCN or TALGA) so how about routeing a EGGD or EGFF from AMMAN to VATRY. This is a Ryanair special but they can't accept a RIS. So, if they want to got that way (it's down to the controller and his workload, as discussed before) you have to give them a RAS. That's not joiner or wx avoider.

To answer your question. I change the service whenever I have to.

I also said that L18 availability is published by NOTAM. This changes from day to day. The military sometimes like to occupy the NWMTA later on in to the evening.

P18 - I don't know.

The LARS units I work with are, without a doubt, first rate. They've helped me out many, many times. I hope that I can help them out too, when the time comes. At the end of the day, we're all on the same team trying to get the job done.

Regards

CF

[NorthSouth]

On whether NATS airports (as opposed to En Route) provide RAS in Class G, I've just found this interesting quote from the report on Airprox 156/04:The NATS Ltd advisor also added that as the civil ATC provider to the B737, the company policy is that it will not provide a RAS to any flight in Class G airspace.Company policy it may be, but I know that this particular NATS unit does provide RAS to aircraft in Class G!

NS

[BEXIL160]

Hmmm, Cut Jack some slack? Why? He made a proposition Is NATS or the CAA/DAP in charge of airspace policy?.
and backed it up with:

I ask as it appears that NATS (PLC) are now setting the agender and defining what goes on in UK airspace and not the goverment organisations set up for that very purpose. This has become apparent as:

1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.
2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.
3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight.
4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.

All of these assertions have been addressed and found incorrect. But then, Jack-ho admits that he has no first hand knowledge of these matters, they are "just what I have been told".

It seems that we have educated the chap then, whoever he may be.

Rgds BEX.

P.S. IMHO LARS units (mil and civil) work VERY hard, and do a fine job.

[5milesbaby]

There seems to be a trend that NATS have a company policy NOT to provide RAS in Class G from the reports posted here, I see that NorthSouth's quote is from the Airports division, but to clarify I as an en-route controller have in no way been told I cannot provide a RAS in Class G, and although seldom, have done so.

5miles baby, it is not unsubstantiated, have a chat with your colleagues on S9!

Widger, if only you knew the full irony in that statement. S9 only has Class B a/s FL245+ and CLASS F advisory route G4D. Most of the traffic FL245- is engaged in military activity, and the formations above FL245 are normally en-route to DA's or refuelling lanes, therefore the Military controllers work these flights to prepare for the task. As the Mil have those flights FL245- then it makes good sense for them to control any civil flights FL245- too so that all traffic is known and controllable. So why would we work giving a RAS in Class G on S9? Have I missed your point? Once again, you need to back up your points with examples so we can find where there may be a problem as if needed I know S9 provide RAS's when appropriate.

Although not providing a RAS was indeed a factor in Airprox 198/04 it is only a casual factor as the controller had no reason to provide any radar service at all, it depends on workload, other situations..blah..blah.

[lippiatt]

Must agree with Widger on this I'm afraid.

In my experience LACC routinely refuse to offer joining clearances to mil formations and thus leaving us little option but to work them.

TC also fail to provide RAS to ac joing controlled airspace from the north, pilots tend to have ris imposed on them after being identified by squawk ident.

Now I've added fuel to this fire, I'm going to stand back and warm my hands!!

[BEXIL160]

In my experience LACC routinely refuse to offer joining clearances to mil formations
Thats your experience, mine and others experiences differ.... of course for reasons already explained it could be that the type of formation you have been dealing with is best handled by the military This is to the benefit of all involved pilots, and controllers, indeed such formations get a much more appropriate service from someone better placed to provide it.

pilots tend to have ris imposed on them Nope. Nobody can impose the type of Radar service. It's a contract agreed between the two parties, if RAS isn't possible / available then RIS is offered and is usually taken up (the alternative is a FIS).

Rgds BEX

[Widger]

Let's keep this a calm and mature guys.

5milesbaby, with regard to S9 I was referring to not working formations. I will say no more. Check your PMs.

[Carbide Finger]

I seem to remember, and am prepared to be corrected, that there was an SI that said formations could cross CAS but not join and fly along the airway.

Going back to Sector 9, if traffic is flying along G4D, there is the option of giving an Air Traffic Advisory Service. I'd like to ask any pilots out there a question:

If I gave you this service, what would you be expecting in terms of traffic information and avoiding action?

[benedictus]

I can't remember the last time i provided anything other than a RAS to IFR traffic in class G airspace, nor do I remember the last time any of my colleagues at EGPF did either. Perhaps that's just a peculiarity at Glasgow.

[BALIX]

With regards to RAS in Class G, it is a unit policy at ScACC not to provide it, not a NATS policy. There used to be an exception for Loganair flights to Carickfinn but I don't do West Coast so I don't know if that is still applicable. The only other time you will hear the words 'Radar Advisory Service' uttered by a ScACC controller is when traffic is operating on an advisory route (Class F) and also in Class G airspace when the controller wishes to resolve a specific confliction between two aircraft under his 'control'.

This last exception is, of course, a neat little cop out by the powers that be which means that should two aircraft operating under RIS have a clanger, the controller can cop the blame.

I personally believe we should give all Class G airspace to the FISO (they could do with the work) and not provide RAS OR RIS, enabling us to concentrate on the primary tasks inside regulated airspace. Maybe those operators affected would then make enough noise to the higher management/government and we would get the reglated airspace we need to provide a proper service.

[jack-oh]

Thank you for such an enlightened debate. Despite being called an unprofessional half-wit, that obviously knows nothing. It has been established that NATS (at some units) have a policy that they will not provide RAS in Class G. That there has been an SI that states formations won't be worked and that there are Class D airways where VFR is not permitted at all times (I am surprised, as permitting a Mil FJ to cross a Class D airway, that is not permanent, under VFR is a sure way to have an AIRPROX and thus a strengthened case for permanent Class A). As to Class C, I have had no takers, but that is not altogether surprising as it has not come in yet and most NATS controllers seem woefully ignorant of their own companies policies or special instructions. Content to engage in parochial arguments about what sector does what but not engage in the larger debate; which is, do NATS or the CAA/DAP drive policy on airspace.

[BEXIL160]

half-wit, that obviously knows nothing...
nope, YOU said:
It's only what I have been told The inference being: you don't actually know. You don't seem to want to KNOW, having aleady made your mind up about the issue.

That there has been an SI that states formations won't be worked Nothing to do with airways (or Upper Air Route) joiners, just formation OAT CROSSING flights not being allowed to fly along segments of airways, but being required to CROSS. Despite assertions to the contrary, mil formations filed as GAT are regularly accepted ALONG the airways system and are controlled by Civil ATC.

there are Class D airways where VFR is not permitted at all times says who? Or do you mean at night? (No VFR at night in the UK, as you know of course).

have an AIRPROX and thus a strengthened case for permanent Class A It might help your case, but is no guarantee. Ask the Newcastle people, or the Bristol people or any other MAJOR regional airfield not directly connected to the airways system. All to do with DAP and NOTHING to do with NATS.

As to Class C, I have had no takers. Yes, you have. As heard in the "other place", I refer you to my previous reply.

NATS controllers seem woefully ignorant of their own companies policies or special instructions. I wouldn't expect somebody valid at Solent to know the ScATCC part two backwards, or vice versa. Or if you are a pilot (we don't actually know your profession), a B735 pilot to know all about the contents of the NIM flight manual. But you do, it seems. Tall order, I must say.

do NATS or the CAA/DAP drive policy on airspace. sigh... answered on PAGE ONE of this thread. DAP drive policy on airspace, NATS ER ltd operates under the Terms of a LICENCE.

[NorthSouth]

BALIX:I personally believe we should give all Class G airspace to the FISO (they could do with the work) and not provide RAS OR RIS, enabling us to concentrate on the primary tasks inside regulated airspace. Maybe those operators affected would then make enough noise to the higher management/government and we would get the reglated airspace we need to provide a proper service.I wonder if that would work? It would drive all CAT operators back into CAS then there would be no further commercial pressure for additional airways and the MoD would breathe a sigh of relief and carry on believing that it owns the North Sea.

NS

[055166k]

Thanks for a good read, enjoying this a lot.
To address your point we must go back to when CAA and NATS were one and the same. When the divorce came about the eventual settlement gave NATS [ THE MONOPOLY EN-ROUTE SERVICE PROVIDER] the lions share of the responsibilities and power that it had enjoyed when there were no clearly defined boundaries of task definition; basically the one large melting pot did everything in-house and staff moved freely from one discipline to the other. If NATS were to restrict itself to being purely an ATC service provider there would be massive staff shrinkage and reduction in charges, and the CAA proper would not cope without major increase in staff and resources [budget].
It suits NATS to be in charge of everything, have you noticed how international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority. They want to be separate when it is convenient to be seen to be separate, but in reality almost all of the old strings are still attached under the table.
Gosh...could ANY of this be true?
Couldn't spell self-engrandisement earlier so deleted a really boring paragraph!
RGDS.

[BEXIL160]

international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority.

But that's the way it's supposed to be. CAA is supposed to REGULATE the proposals and agreements (amongst other things).

It does this mainly by checking that NATS' own SMS is working properly (ANSPs are Required to have some form of accountable Safety Management System) and that NATS operates within the Terms of it's licence.

CAA SRG now work in a similar fashion to what used to be CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate, doing for ANSPs what FOI does / did for airlines.

I think....
rgds BEX

[DFC]

ICAO Annex 2 - Unless authorised by the appropriate authority VFR flights shall not be operated above FL200.

When setting FL195 as the base level for the European class C airspace the above ICAO requirment was taken into account.

Since FL200 is not a VFR cruising level, the highest available VFR cruising level is FL195 and that ties in nicely with the base of the class C.

However, it is recognised that certain flights (military flights and civil test flights, gliders! etc) will have to be accomodated within the airspace above FL195 and there are clearly laid down procedures in place for those flights.

When it comes to Class D airways, TMAs and CTAs, one must remember that VFR flights in such airspace are under an ATC service. Controller workload has a major impact on the airspace capacity. For IFR flights it is simple - everyone gets a slot time if required or if no slot must depart close to the planned time and the flow operates without any problems. VFR flights are even simpler - they have no slots, they have no requirement to depart close to the planned departure time and if the controller is too busy to accept the traffic there is always airspace below the airway where the flight can continue without restriction if it can't wait until the controller is less busy.

The last time I was involved in such things, military formation flights were no problem on the airway - provided that the elements remained within 1nm of the leader. However, the whole idea of being military and having an expensive military enroute ATC network is to provide flexibility and operational effectiveness - something that is not on the civil controller's objectives when it comes to military ops.

Military pilots are well aware that many of the standard UK entry/exit points (north point etc) cross busy civil airspace and often are only too happy to work military going direct.

In France, military flights are often filtered out on civil displays and one can be crossing a major civil flow under military service and the civil controller will not be aware that you are there.

Regards,

DFC

[BALIX]

NorthSouth

Dunno whether it would work but it seems to me that there are no commercial pressures at the moment if operators are happy to accept the RIS. Whatever, I really don't think we should be offering any service in Class G airspace that the military are using as a playground.

Thankfully, I don't have a Tay validation any more...

[Widger]

BALIX and others,

The problem with offering RIS instead of RAS to CAT is that it protects no-one. A huge amount of airproxes (as you probably know!) occur under RIS. This is partly because there is no compulsion on the part of the controller to resolve the confliction and the pilots are probably unaware of the true geometry of the conflict. As mentioned in other posts/furums, some pilots are also relying on TCAS for separation, by not reacting to the controllers calls and instead waiting for the TCAS to resolve it. the problem is that by that stage you are into the 25 second window and the likely outcome is an Airprox. RAS means that at least some early action will occur and while you might not always achieve 5 miles/3000' it is far preferable to an Airprox.

But anyway, we are getting off topic. I do not think NATS are changing the rules, I think it is the lack of firm guidance by the regulator on the Licence holder that is the issue.

[Pierre Argh]

Nice post jack-o... certainly got us talking.

The semantics about whether it is NATS or the CAA, DAP or whoever else may lay claim to control our airspace is, I suggest, irrelevant... Take the case of the "new" third class of airway you mention i.e. we have the "classic", the ADR and now the Class D... isn't it making things a tadge complicated?.. I dare say an alert, up-to-date ATCO might stand a chance of keeping up with such variety... but what about a non-UK based pilot flying into Aberdeen for the first time... will (s)he relly understand the nature of the airspace they are occupying? Of course not! (I have always been curious as to what exactly a VFR clearance into Class D achieves... if the traffic is pegged down to specific level or route, he may no longer be able to maintain VMC?... but I'm sure a PPRuNer will enlighten me?)

Why does it make a difference which side of the FIR boundary you are on, in Class G, whether or not you can get RAS?

Back to your point... I am amazed that there is such a mis-match between ScATCC and LATCC SOPs... I know there is an U/FIR and national boundary, heck there's even the Scottish Parliament to take into account... but I was under the impression that both were regulated by the same bodies(?) and therefore cannot see why such deviation is tolerated?

[BALIX]

Pierre

It isn't a case of tolerating a deviation. At LACC they don't have to worry about providing RAS as there aren't any sectors that oblige their controllers to operate any ATSOCA at all in Class G airspace (I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge on this should any LACC controller want to put me right).

At ScACC, however, certain sectors, Tay being the prime example, regularly 'control' flights in Class G. What's more, that Class G airspace is a popular playground for the military. Management decided that we would not provide traffic in that airspace with a RAS. Despite me being a cynical old bastard, for once I agree with them, we can't provide a RAS as it is written in the AIP. As I said before, I'd go further and not provide any radar service in Class G at all. Why? Because I feel that RAS/RIS as they stand could cause a controller to end up in prison having copped the blame for something that isn't his/her fault.

[Hippy]

I thought we had a groovy little system in the UK, whereby NATS worked everything in the airways and the Mil worked everything outside, to the benefit of all. Why is this not being done North of 55N and why do LATCC(Mil) arbitrarily direct civil traffic requiring a radar service in class G to piss off and call London Information? Anyone?

Oh yeah, another thing ... We were reminded today that airways clearances must not be sought for Mil formations, they must be worked by Mil to the FIR boundary. It seems Jack-Oh is right, but I happen to think that a good idea for the reasons given earlier.

[Pierre Argh]

Balix... you sayI'd go further and not provide any radar service in Class G at all. Why? Because I feel that RAS/RIS as they stand could cause a controller to end up in prison having copped the blame for something that isn't his/her fault.
I'm afraid I disagree... providing ATSORA is tricky, sometimes bloody frustrating (for those at both ends of the radio)... but IMHO, under RAS/RIS there is no obligation on the Controller to provide separation ... and I quickly add... just a remit to "aim to provide it". As long as a Controller makes reasonable efforts to keep traffic apart, I suggest, they should not be penalised for failing to provide separation... and thus I doubt they'd end up in Prison - unless guilty of negligence? (there are plenty of PPRuNe users qualified to give an opinion on my assumption... please)

I have worked in many places, but not Scotland... so do not have first hand knowledge of regulations there... I don't see why, irrespective of the situation that exists South of the Border (is there any similar restriction on LATCC if the need required it?)... why the management at SCATTC believe they need to say no to ATSORA? What right has a unit to "cherry-pick" what services it is or is not going to provide, when there is a demand for it... Sounds like a case of tail wagging the dog to me?

I feel you are niave to say that you should not provide ATSORA and leave Class G to the Military... firstly there are plenty of airspace users, who quite legitimately, want/need to fly in Class G... and not to provide them with some form of service is probably neglectful... or maybe just "jobsworth"

Secondly, forget about the big players for a moment... I work at a mixed traffic developing regional airport. No Controlled airspace for miles... the Airport is building passenger/flight numbers quite well... but until it reaches a magic figure DAP will not entertain any suggestion of establishing CAS... so in the meantime passenger carrying flights (and others) are obliged to transit a sizeable portion of Class G to get into us... If we don't get the flights we won't get the airspace, but from what you're suggesting... if we didn't provide a service I doubt we'd get the flights?

[Spitoon]

Bex international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority.
and
But that's the way it's supposed to be. CAA is supposed to REGULATE the proposals and agreements (amongst other things).
I don't normally jump up and down at your posts but this time I have to disagree.

If, like some other Countries, NATS was the only ATC company perhaps, but only perhaps, you might be right. But in the UK there are many companies providing ATC services.

As 055166k correctly says,when NATS and CAA got divorced there were no clear boundaries or responsibilities for each organisation for many of the bits they got custody of. The international things that NATS get involved in are often, technically, Government or State issues. So, when NATS go to these shindigs and agree to things they are doing so on behalf of the UK. Surely that should be the CAA's job. And why, if NATS get to make these decisions, don't ATC at Exeter, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds and many others also have a say?

I refer you back to 055166k's post where the reasons are quite neatly summed up.

[BEXIL160]

Don't mind disgareements, never have, never will, SPITOON. It's always possible that I could have made an error or misunderstood. So, no problem.

I am bit confused however. NATS is the licenced AREA provider, and the only provider with INTERNATIONAL obligation. It is overseen by CAA ATSSD.

I'm unsure what input ATC at the non NATS regional airports would actually want regarding European Agreements, but I do know that they do indeed have a voice through CAA SRG if they need to.

The Split between NATS / CAA confused everyone (including me). In ATC we were never used to the regulatory approach used by the CAA with the Airlines, where the CAA is oversees and monitors through the airlines [b]own/b] safety systems.

Instead CAA SRG used to be much, much more proactive and specific.. ATSSD now uses the Airline regulation model, for reasons that I'm sure they can explain. It's very different, and we haven't all got used to it... yet.

Rgds BEX

[BALIX]

Pierre

Perhaps I am being a little 'jobsworth' but, alas, it is the world we live in. I'd be more than happy providing a service to traffic in Class G if that service were written up in such a way that made it 'fair'. The thing is, RAS does compel you to provide separation, though it adds a little footnote to the effect that 'standard' separation cannot be guaranteed. RIS, on the other hand, compels you to provide traffic information on unknown traffic.

I may be being a bit fatalsit here but I can forsee a situation where a Tay controller is busy sorting out airways traffic at Newcastle and his one Eastflight into Aberdeen is hit by a Tornado who is quite legally dogfighting over the North Sea. Had that Eastflight been on a RAS, said controller ends up in court having to explain why he didn't provide separation. Even under a RIS, had he not provided traffic information, he would still be in trouble.

As it stands, if you provide a RAS you have to have your eyes constantly on that aircraft. Military area controllers can do this. Civil area controllers can't, unlesss they are very quiet. The system just doesn't allow for it. As an airfield controller, your modus operandi might be sufficiently different to allow you to get away with it. But I'm afraid area control and RAS don't go together very well at all.

Now if they rewrote the procedure it might be a different matter. Separation guaranteed between participating aircraft only would be a start.

[RebornCyclogenesis]

BALIX

Jobsworth is certainly the word! There are two reasons why you do noyt provide RAS in the Scottish FIR.

First of all the Union has a very strong lobby and protects it's controllers. Tough luck for the aircrew.

Second. You are trying to get more CAS. The way you intend to do that is to log all occurences when military traffic comes within 5nm or 1000ft of your RIS tracks. By building up this database you will have a good strong lobby to get CAS. Dare I say it the odd Airprox probably helps as well. If you were to provide RAS, there would be no such occurrences, so not data for your base and then no CAS. Cart this is Horse over.

[Roger That]

RC - your percis of why ScOACC proscribed RAS bears no relationship to the truth as I recall it.

Following an AIRPROX several years ago (B**26C into EGPE I recall), and after a sucession of critical incident reports where NATS controllers were panned by SRG for not achieving standard separation with aircraft under a RAS, a series of steps were agreed to improve the [B]Safety of aircrew and ATS operations within the ScOACC AOR. This included a radar service for Inverness inbounds (provided by Lossie) and the proscription of RAS outside CAS and Class F airspace (to coerce those who could reasonably fly in both to do so and not route point to point in splendid ignorance of what was going on around them).

Whilst much has moved on since then, the issue for BALIX and his colleagues at ScOACC (regardless of shirt colour ;) ) is the safety of what is provided so that passengers and aircrew alike get home safely after every trip / sortie.

Inaccurate speculation of the ATCOs TU motive or of a lever for CAS establishment, whilst entertaining for those of us know different, does little to improve safety.

'though slightly OT bear in mind that potential solutions to the lowering of the DFL to FL195 / Class F Review may actually establish CAS where we currently have Class F .... and all with NATS and UK M.o.D. agreement :uhoh: Time will tell once a final solution is agreed.

BALIX, a jobsworth, I think not :cool: ... RT

[jack-oh]

I think we are now getting to the heart of the subject. NATS when privatised took with it all its higher functions and left the CAA under funded and exposed. Rather than setting standards and dictating policy to the licensed service provider (such as OFCOM or Rail Track for instance) the CAA is left to catch up with whatever NATS dictates as the way ahead or the way in which it will provide services (imagine for instance BT declaring that it wouldn't provide phone lines to people who lived in areas of the country that are windy, because there is a possibility of the phone lines being blown over).
Now, no one is suggesting that the controllers employed by NATS don't have the safety of ac as their number 1 priority. However, in the past this has been the only concern where as now the legal position of its controllers is also a concern for its employees and the employer. The pace of growth in air travel, although predicted long ago, still seems to be a bit of a shock to those that regulate and as such, they have been rather slow to react to this change (although they appear to be catching up as indicated by the past 2 years worth of airspace changes). As a backlash to this NATS (or the controllers unions) have had to implement protections for themselves to counter the demands placed upon them.

I have heard that the CAA is about to put more pressure on NATS to provide RAS in Class G, primarily because it not to long ago stated that flying in Class G was just as safe as CAS if the ac was under a RAS. It obviously failed to point out that the national license holder didn’t actually provide this service. There is however not a lot the CAA can do if NATS say no (I presume) and it would not surprise me if the definition of RAS was to change to be more accommodating to the demands of controllers before any movement was made on this issue. The other points I raised were just to highlight deviations from policy, but providing the mil is content on working its own traffic or restricting it to fit in with NATS requirements then I see no reason why these decisions would not stay in place.

[BEXIL160]

Hmmm.... lots more innaccuracies from JACK , but here's one I would like to see evidence of:

I have heard that the CAA is about to put more pressure on NATS to provide RAS in Class G, primarily because it not to long ago stated that flying in Class G was just as safe as CAS if the ac was under a RAS

Who, where and when? :confused:

BEX

[5milesbaby]

jack-oh, the more this thread goes on the more I feel you need to air your interest in the subject as your thoughts/comments are sounding more and more like a Media interest or agenda. You failed to respond to this request in the beginning of the thread, can you now please tell us more about your background/interest.

[Pierre Argh]

Balix

Firstly, I agree with you entirely about the need to re-word the regulations on Class G services... but, that's for another thread and I don't think an excuse to ignore the current definitions?

Under the definition I have available, when providing RAS the aim is "to provide standard separation from non-participating traffic"... if a Controller doesn't do it, and providing they weren't neglectful, I don't see how they can be to blame. In the scenario you describe, I believe you might have overlooked that....

a. The traffic that's paying for the airways service probably should get higher priority that the Class G traffic (easily, and legitimately, defined in unit procedures/orders if not already done)... therefore the ATCO is correct to be concentrating their attention on the CAS track (see below)

b. You can, and should, limit RAS whenever there is a possibility of not achieving standard separation... i.e. Controller high workload, handling dispersed traffic, higher priority tasking.

So said, unfortunate, controller should never have to explain to the beak why they didn't provide separation... there's no obligation and, I believe, simply a question of best efforts?

But... what about all those times when the Tay Sector Controllers (and others) are not working to capacity, and traffic in Class G requests a service?... SCATCC restrictions seem to be denying that pilot the best service legitimately available i.e. RAS; and therefore, IMHO, they are not exercising a duty of care (Corporate Maslaughter???) when the service is available south of the border (albiet, perhaps, theoretically?)

Finally, I'm sure that the ego of many military controllers has been unnecessarily massaged by your comments about their abilities to cope with such a situation.

PS. Smilesbaby... I can vouch for Jack-o, as I know him personally and assure you he is not a "stringer" but quite legitimate... maybe just an ATCO concerned/frustrated by this situation?

[Ayr-Rage]

But... what about all those times when the Tay Sector Controllers (and others) are not working to capacity, and traffic in Class G requests a service?... SCATCC restrictions seem to be denying that pilot the best service legitimately available i.e. RAS; and therefore, IMHO, they are not exercising a duty of care (Corporate Maslaughter???) when the service is available south of the border (albiet, perhaps, theoretically?)

Where, exactly, does LACC or MACC provide RAS these days?
London Mil have taken on the old Pennine Radar area, WHEN they have enough staff available.
I do work on the Tay sector, and I feel at times that the only service off-airways I should be providing is FIS, as separating aircraft in two different geographical AIRWAYS locations (P600 and L602/P18) at the same time is awkward.
I have every sympathy with Eastern Airways, who cop most of the encounters over the North Sea, and am pleased they are now asking for RAS from Scot Mil on occasion.
I do not think my employers are "A law unto themselves", but do believe the time will soon come where radar services outside of the airways system will be a luxury we cannot afford to supply.
We DO have P18 available some of the time, and the way to go is for our customers to put pressure on the relavant authorities to make it H24.

[NorthSouth]

To add to the debate about the ScACC policy of RIS only outside CAS, has anyone seen the recent circular from the CAA Flight Ops Department to airlines about accepting vectors on a RIS? It says that it has come to their notice that some operators (no prizes...), when given vectors under a RIS, are choosing not to take them, and advises that they should.

Question: when is a RIS with avoidance vectors not a RAS?

Answer: When it's being provided by ScACC controllers who aren't allowed to call it a RAS?

NS

[Spitoon]

Bex saysNATS is the licenced AREA provider, and the only provider with INTERNATIONAL obligation.Yes, NATS is the present licenced provider for area services - but, without wishing to stir up too many hornets nests, that could change in the future. I'm not sure - is NATS the only licensed area provider? How does Warton, for e.g., do what it does sometimes?

Perhaps there might be other providers that become licenced to provide certain area services in he UK in future. With the advent of functional airspace blocks I presume that providers from other countries may be providing services in UK airspace.

International agreements are made on behalf of the State and should be made by the State - not by a single service provider that just happens to hold the area licence at present. Granted that NATS may have the expertise to provide advice to the State. Granted that there's little liklihood of any provider other than NATS becoming the predominant area service provider in the UK. But the national interests should be served by such decisions rather than those of a single service provider which may well be swayed by commercial interests.

Then we must consider what those international agreements cover. I'm not sure what you have in mind but I'm not convinced that some of the agreements that NATS make on behalf of the UK do not have significant knock-on effects on other UK service providers. But unless we consider particular examples I guess it's difficult to take this point any further.

Perhas one of the problems is that the divorce that 055166k referred to did not clearly set out who was responsible for what in many areas. One of those areas seems to be representation at international meetings. I have no problems with NATS representing the UK at such meetings - just as long as the whole of the UK is represented and has a chance to advise NATS of any knock-on effects that may not be immediately obvious to what is predominantly an area and big airport ATC service provider.

[JayeRipley]

Where, exactly, does LACC or MACC provide RAS these days?

At MACC it's on W2D, the advisory route between IOM and POL, and obviously the usual Wx avoidance, aircraft in emergency whatnot. Other than that it is RIS outside CAS. Pilots will often ask to route direct outside on a RAS but RIS is the best we are able to do outside.

[jack-oh]

BEXIL160

As far as I am aware the NEAT report stated that it was safe for CAT to fly in calss G with a RAS. Secondly this is a rumour network. I heard a rumour.

[Spitoon]

It should be pointed out that the NEAT report was only considering airspace in the NE of Engand.

[Pierre Argh]

OK guys... If you're adamant that LATCC et al don't provide RAS in Class G... I bow to your knowledge... but that's an irrelevance, lets bring them into Jack-o's original point... same argument, same book of rules.

I'm not pretending ATSORA is easy... or that the rule's shouldn't be changed; but last time I looked at the MATS & JSP552 etc etc it didn't say anything about these are the services, but some aren't available from certain units. When I'm busy wheelin' & dealin' with inbound traffic in Class G, the pilots calling for LARS are an embuggerance I could sometimes do without... I can't totally ignore them, some I will need to speak too... but, as I've said before I can "clear my six" by limiting service and have defined priorities that allow me to relegate them to a lower level of attention... but I can only reduce the service from RAS to RIS in exceptional cinrumstances... If we can cope with this in the Terminal World, why can't you Area Controllers (Did I hear someone mention Jobsworth again?)

Here's a question for you... Are LATCC Controllers restrained from providing RAS by a similar order to their SCATCC Colleagues?... So, I'm working departing traffic en-route to join CAS under RAS, it has received it's clearance, it's clean so I transfer it to the En-route centre with 20nms to run to the airway... when the pilot checks in, what service is (s)he under?... I've never heard you area guys say anything. Can the pilot assume continuation of RAS (dodgy... but seeing as you haven't said anything to the contrary understandable?... RIS... but you haven't said that?... Nothing at all?... not according to conversations I had with the guys on the Sectors?) So, what happens if said pilot has an incident before crossing into CAS?.

Ayr-Rage... see my earlier post about airfields that are not located withing the CAS structure? Reality check... your proposal to limit service to within CAS, along with others who have posted here would seriously stiffle growth of smaller regional airports?

[JayeRipley]

Pierre, here is a scenario that I get presented with - London Mil climb a departure from a regional airport to join my sector at FL250. They are most probably giving it a RAS. If they chuck it to me and it calls me say passing FL225 as an example, I can only give it a RIS until it's at FL250 when the service becomes a control service. I guess that the pilot still thinks he is under a RAS unless we say otherwise, and if we tell him he's under RIS and he can't accept a RIS what then. As you say also, if we don't say anything and he has a nasty with pop up traffic before he climbs into CAS.........?

[Pierre Argh]

JayeR... I think we're in agreement, although the point I made wasn't really about the guy with a thousand feet or so to go before the upper air... but someone in level flight with 20nms to travel before blasting into the side of an airway. We frequently get requests from the sector controllers to release joining traffic to them early (as they have situations to resolve)... what is the pilot receiving for those 20-30nms? You may think RIS, but what about the pilot... we may understand it (cos' its our own daft procedures)... but I doubt they do.

Any pilot's got this far, and want to comment?