Mil/Civ Operations

[Get me some traffic]

A recent airprox commented on the lack of standardation between mil & civ procedures. Co-ordination, radar handover, interpretation of RIS/RAS are just some of the areas of difficulty.
Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on its own navigation to a defined reporting point!
I was berated because I was not interested in the level of traffic co-ordinated against my VFR track some 12,000ft above!!
I was accused of being "unprofessional" because I did not use the phrase "co-ordination agreed" when co-ordinating traffic with the military.
I was told that agreeing to follow military traffic in a complex high density traffic situation was not co-ordination because we had not agreed levels.
Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?

[Chilli Monster]

And now you know why they don't automatically get civil licences ;)

Maybe it's time they realised they're not the majority airspace user, and so should do the job the way we do it - not expect us to do it their way all the time (Handing over aircraft on ridiculous QFE's, expecting a radar handover for each individual transit when you've already pre-noted it and obtained a squawk and frequency etc etc).

It's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.

[Turn It Off]

Isn't a handover required for a continuous radar service?

My understanding is that if a handover is not given then the radar service should be terminated, as it has not been confirmed whether the next radar unit has identified the aircraft.

I generally would give a handover on a RAS as I am trying to provide standard separation, on a RIS, I would call traffic out to about 10 / 15 miles ahead of the aircraft, cancel the service and then transfer the a/c.

Just my two penneth.

TIO

[Standard Noise]

Recently I was berated by a military controller for not passing the heading of an aircraft on a RAS. The aircraft was on it's own navigation to a defined reporting point.
Christ on a bike, so it's not only down here that it happens!

Simple solution in that case, ring off, and repeat these words to the aircraft, "freecall XXXX radar 123.45, good day." Let the mil guys sort it out.
I had a run in with a certain mil unit north east of us a few months ago, when I tried to give a radar handover with a C130 on a RIS with the usual weekend traffic operating to the NE of us. Then the dimwit at the other end started to give me traffic info and avoiding action to relay to the C130, despite the fact that none of the tfc he was calling was visible to me on my radar and the headings he was giving me were putting the aircraft in conflict with traffic I COULD see! I protested and he claimed he couldn't take a handover while there was conflicting traffic. Since we only had one radar position open, and I had my own commercial inbounds to give a service to, I rang off, put the C130 on his own nav, cancelled his radar service and told him to freecall the mil unit on any freq which took his fancy. At the rate things were going, he'd have been at the beacon before I got him transferred.
So not only do I have to pay taxes which keep these eejits in a job, but they expect me to do their job at the same time!!
I think not!

[flower]

We learned an interesting fact in the last couple of weeks or so regarding the procedures our Navy colleagues have to follow when crossing airways.
Aircraft non squawking not talking to us are always taken as being beneath the Airway, our Navy colleagues apparently have to take avoiding action on those non squawkers.

We work very closely with Military ATCOs and I find them very helpful, it is the procedures they have to follow that are the issue, possibly introduced so long ago and simply not updated to deal with the traffic of today. To hand over traffic to a Military ATCO takes on average 3 times the length to a Civil ATCO.

It is a shame we seem to work to such contrary rules

[Widger]

Ey, ey ey, calm down, calm down.

Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.

On the subject of phraseology etc, it is an issue. This was brought to a head by a couple of Airprox where the civil controller "claimed" he did not understand what was being said to him! (raises eyebrow) Now you could read this as the controller in question trying to cover his arse. There was another (published) airprox where Boulmer used a phrase "I'll call you in" which confused the situation. I can confidently state that on the whole, military phraseology is much more strict than civil. This is because of the strict standards organisation in most units and the ATCEB visits.

It is however, an issue. Any controller should be in no doubt about what has been agreed. Comments like "cheers mate", "yeah that's fine" "no problem" etc. heard EVERY SINGLE DAY, have no place in a safety critical environment. A clear and unambiguous statement of intent is essential "cleared to cross at", "not above" "not below" are key elements. Some people can get anal and say that statements such as "co-ordination agreed" are not current phrases but, if it is clear then fine "I'll go behind the BRTXXX and the turn north to climb".... a clear statement of intent.

On the subject of not seeing traffic on radar, that is a difficult subject. If you are the receiving controller and the aircraft is in confliction, you cannot just ignore it! Team game everyone, safe and expeditious flow etc.

The bottom line is..there are plonkers in both civil and military ATC. There are also a lot of hard working and highly professional people around. If you talk to one of the plonkers, resolve it, get your units together and talk about the issues. We live on a very small island, with extremely busy airspace, all trying to do our respective tasks, military working civil aircraft and civil working military. It has worked very well for decades and is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system has it's faults but nothing we cannot sort out!



:ok: :ok:

[Roger That]

Is it not time we sat around the table and sorted out these differences?

NATS, M.o.D. and SRG have started this ball rolling [end of July] - you'll probably guess that it's not exactly an easy or quick thing to do but there's a will to do so and hopefully we'll see some movement in the not too distant future.

What's clear though is there's always 2 sides to every story so if you don't understand the other saide, go visit - you might be surprised at what you see ;)

RT

[Standard Noise]

Team game everyone, Safe and expeditious flow etc
Yes, yes, yes, that's all very well, but my unit employs me to sort out our traffic, not XXXX's. I know we also provide LARS, but only to the extent that MY radar picture allows. And, when the LARS function begins to override MY primary function ie sequencing and control of our own commercial inbounds and outbounds, then the LARS side will not get my full attention. Neither do I need a mil ATCO telling me what to do with traffic to sort out his problems.

Now, that said, it was not the C130 driver's fault, and I don't want to give them a bad service, they are after all, entitled to the best service I can provide. But even they, as pilots, will understand that I must provide my own inbounds and outbounds with my full attention. Something I cannot do when Johnny Eagle Eyes at the other end of the line is jabbering in my ear with avoiding action that is unnecessary under the terms of the service I am providing.

As for the large mil seafaring unit to my south, they seem to understand such things and cause no such problems.

[Widger]

SN,

Are you saying that your organisation is not providing enough manpower to exercise it's license?


:ok: ;)

[flower]

Flower, I think I can expand on your comment. If you are talking about N864, then part of that airway is delegated to Cardiff ATC. Anyone other than CDF has to avoid non-squawkers because they may be on a procedural crossing with Cardiff. In the MoU there will be a comment such as Cardiff will try to inform other users of this situation, which is obviously not practical. This is why you may often get calls from other units asking if you have any procedural crossers. If you say no then they can legitimately deem that non-squawker as being below CAS.

We at Cardiff have to apply the same rules to Airways traffic as everyone else , traffic must be wearing both Mode A and Mode C.
The only time we once had a non squawker ( I can't quite remember why but it was some emergency I believe ) we had to inform all possible users of the airspace ie those who have autonomous use of the Airway, so it isn't infact an issue at all.

[Widger]

Flower me old flower,

That is very interesting! Thanks

Widgster

[Standard Noise]

Widger, do you have any idea how the civil system works?

Yes we have enough staff to cover our 'license' requirements, but that doesn't mean the LARS radar position ie RAD2, has to be open at all times, we just combine functions when it suits. That 'combining' of functions does not, however, take into account some ass at a nearby mil unit adding to our workload for no good reason.

[Widger]

Well,

I think the answer to that considered argument is..................

[Chilli Monster]

Bear in mind Widger that civil units don't have the luxury of the defence budget to staff a tower with:

Ground
Tower
Zone
Director
Talkdown
Approach
Supervisor

plus 3 or 4 assistants

Many ADC/APR units will get along with 2 on position plus a rotating relief - often pushing as much traffic as a busy military unit.

Welcome to the real world ;)

[Canary Boy]

I spose it was time that this knackered old topic was trotted-out again! The nail has been hit firmly on the head in an earlier post; visit one anothers' units!!!

As usual a lot of old cock has been spouted in other replies.

Fact - some mil controllers are t*ssers
Fact - some civ controllers are t*ssers
Fact - most mil controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - most civ controllers do a thoroughly professional job within their rules/regulations
Fact - the rules/regulations are virtually identical
Fact - some people are not so good at remembering, interpreting and applying said rules/regulations on a day-to-day basis.

High horse stabled. :ouch:

[RNGrommits]

Are we not all bound to give the same standard of LARS service, or is it only when your budget and interest factor allows?

And would Standard Noise be an "eejit" controller not understanding the rules of handover on RIS/RAS from the same Lulsgate that refused to take a handover on commerial traffic inbound to them under a RAS (that I had kindly taken from Sector 6 to give a more expeditious route from the Channel Islands to Bristol due to time/fuel constraints across our danger areas - nice seagoing mil blokes that we are) because he was too busy with 4 ahead (he had time to tell me that!), despite the aircraft being only 10 miles south of him at FL80 and getting towards the edge of my radar cover.

Maybe thats why he doesn't have much contact from the dockyard controllers too often.

Can't be easy being perfect......

(And in my current job I dream of only 5 on at times!)

[LXGB]

Well said CB!

LXGB :ok:

[Standard Noise]

RNGrommits- very good, best laugh I've had in ages. There's nowt like a drain on the taxpayer who's lost his sense of humour!

If you're talking about a certain thundery afternoon about two weeks ago, then no, I won't accept traffic coming direct through the FIR, just so the airline involved can save a few quid. There was a perfectly acceptable alternative route for those aircraft (SAM-CPT-BRI) if they weren't happy flying their normal route (BHD-EXM-BRI). If they wanted to leave CAS NE of SAM and come direct BRI, we will accomodate if we can, but that means if the FIR south of us is relatively quiet. 99% of my colleagues at BRS will back me up on that. We're not in the business of risking the safety of our inbounds and outbounds just so an airline can save a few bob. There can be up to 4 different Mil units operating a/c to the south of us, and we simply don't have time to coordinate with all of them about everything in the FIR as well as avoiding the other unknown puddle jumpers. On that afternoon, Sector 6 gave one of our inbounds to Lon Mil who attempted to hand the a/c off to me south of DY (with at least a dozen contacts unknown to me operating between the a/c and our zone). I asked my ATSA to tell them that "no, I won't accept that a/c there, tell them to put it to DY" because yes, I had other commercial movements to think about and didn't believe I could devote enough time to that one particular inbound such was the level of attention it would have required.
What did Lon Mil do? Well, they threw the toys out of the pram, and very, very professional chaps that they are:rolleyes: , freecalled the inbound to me in the middle of the FIR, while he was surrounded by multiple contacts (five of which I knew to be Mil fast jets operating unpredictably from 40-240, but only cos those decent spuds at Boscombe let us in on the joke), and without any semblance of a handover at all. I suppose that means that if we don't play by the Mil rules, they decide just to make up new ones!

Then, when I had time, I phoned the Sector 6 planner and asked him to inform all inbounds likely to want the same route that I would accept them routing SAM-CPT-BRI or not at all. Funny how they all then followed this route without so much as a squeak. And no, I haven't had any complaints from my boss either, oh, and he's an ex-mil ATCO. Funny enough so are a few of my colleagues.

You see RNG when you work in the civil world, you have a different set of priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order. If you think we at BRS need improving in those areas, then come along, bring your little yellow licence, and have a go. :ok:

[Pierre Argh]

Please don't generalise. CB has hit the mark... If there is a problem with neighbouring airfields/units, the answer lies in liaison, not personal attack.

FACTS: Both sides work under slightly different interpretations of similar rules (right or wrong?), both work under slightly differing pressures, some have inflated egos, not everyone is the same.
... and Standard Noise believe it or not, similar priorities? priorities that go along the lines of safety, expedition consistent with that safety, ond order
... regarding your specific scenario, the Sector Controller let the traffic off-route in the first place... to help? Swanwick (Mil) would have accepted the traffic assuming they would be able to handover the traffic as it approaches the destination... to help.

The traffic was, I presume, pre-noted ahead of arrival and it is that point you can express any concerns you have if it is inconvenient. I don't doubt you were "one-armed paper hanging" with the traffic already in the zone, but you may have left Swanwick (Mil) with little option and certainly no solution, what did you expect them to do with the traffic?... although I agree a freecall isn't helpful. (IMHO they do not have the capacity they used to have when at West Drayton?).

For once, I agree this is the sort of problem caused by the routing of GAT through unregulated Class G airspace... but wake up to the facts, like it or not... it's happening more and more, wise or unwise it is not yet illegal, so ranting about it, and the people trying to make it work, is NOT the answer.

In the scenario, I believe everyone was trying to do what we do best i.e. help... This time it didn't work out for you... hopefully some lessons were learnt? Speaking to the Sector was the right action... did you speak to Swanwick(Mil) too? If this is a recurring problem, formulate an SOP, so then everyone knows what to expect and has options.

[AyrTC]

Up North the Mil at Lossie had a shot at being civil ATCO's providing radar !!! service for Inverness ( well at least monitoring traffic entering the INS hold).The trial has been so " succesful" ( for various reasons I imagine), that HIAL have put the service out for Civil tender ie HIAL inhouse,NATS or Serco.

I am not anti-Mil ( I gave a CFP to Scot Mil the other day :ok: ),however apart from the title of Air Traffic Controller I sometimes think Civil/Mil ATCO's have nothing in common.

Rgds

AyrTC

.

[Standard Noise]

Pierre Argh - the point I was making there, was that my input wasn't asked for on whether the a/c in question would be accepted direct the BRI, by either London OR Lon Mil, rather, it was assumed that it would be, and when informed that I would not accept the a/c, Lon Mil threw the toys out and freecalled the a/c in the middle of the FIR surrounded by unknowns from which I had little chance of maintaining any sort of separation. That's not a very professional attitude to take and I would suggest that in future, before they decide to be 'helpful', they phone us first to ask if it is OK. Then we can spare any embarassment that would be caused by the 'Cavalry' cocking things up and adding to our workload. Anyway, with the incident I'm talking about, the a/c came to me on the drop to 80, he was actually passing 147 about 13 miles south of the BRI when he called me, which to be frank, was as much use as a choccy fireguard!:uhoh:

Update to Pierre's edit :
I know everyone was trying to be helpful, and that pilots will 'chance their arm' trying to get direct routes, but it would be nice if these things were co ordinated before they happened. As for what I expected the Mil controller to do, I expected him to follow the actions I passed to him ie hand the a/c off to DY, who, after all, are responsible for providing LARS in that area and knew about a great deal more of the traffic in that area than I did. The Mil ATCO chose to do something very silly, which put the a/c in potential conflict with upwards of a dozen other a/c. The only saving grace was the height of the inbound at the time of contact.

[Pierre Argh]

Standard... re-read my post and you'll see I agree with you almost completely... it has long been general SOP to accept traffic on the assumption that it will be accepted further along en-route and that pre-note was sufficient? Let's not get hung up on the particulars of one specific incident... Things are changing, everyone is busier, most have fewer resources... we need practical solutions that allow everyone to work together, NOT antagonism... which will always lead to toys all over the floor.

[Standard Noise]

Pierre, I understand what you are saying, but there was no pre-note. And often, we get no pre-note, rather, just a call to give a handover.

Perhaps the initial fault here lay with Sector 6, but I sorted that out with a phone call afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I like the direct route idea, but only when it is going to work. Routing SAM-BRI or even BHD-BRI during business hours Mon-Fri however, generally doesn't work, so a quick phone call to us from whoever has the traffic, will establish the suitability of such a plan.

[NorthSouth]

Standard Noise:
Maybe I'm just being thick here, but my little ruler and chart tell me that a direct route SAM-BRI goes straight through EGD123, permanently active to 50,000ft.

AyrTC:Up North the Mil at Lossie had a shot at being civil ATCO's providing radar !!! service for Inverness ( well at least monitoring traffic entering the INS hold).The trial has been so " succesful" ( for various reasons I imagine), that HIAL have put the service out for Civil tender ie HIAL inhouse,NATS or SercoIsn't there a bigger story to this though? INS is applying for CAS and will need a radar service to support it. But the radar at Lossie can't see all of INS's airspace, so they'll need not only civil controllers, but their own new radar...

Similar situation at Doncaster. RAF controllers at Waddington couldn't provide an approach service, but Liverpool controllers using the Waddington picture can.

NS

[Standard Noise]

NorthSouth - no, you're not being thick at all, you are correct, but that route was the easiest way to explain rather than saying 'the a/c was put on a radar heading while south of SAM and taken round etc etc'. Although since the a/c was going to under the control of Lon Mil, that would have been their problem to deal with.

[Turn It Off]

would be accepted direct the BRI

At FL80 the a/c is outside CAS and can surely therefore enter the hold at FL80 if they so desired?

I agree it wouldn't be very helpful, choccy fireguard springs to mind, but at least if it had you would have been talking to it, so not all bad!!!

[RNGrommits]

SN
Again showing my ignorance - what little yellow license?
I think the last yellow licence I had was my provisional car licence. (Or is that actually all I need......?)

And yet again this kind of thread highlights the real core of the matter, which is the fact that Mil/Civ controllers and indeed the airspace users are trying to complete a wide variety (& indeed often disparate variety) of tasks in a relatively confined bit of airspace.
Are we the only country on the planet that has the problems? I think not.

I think the real answer is to realise that we probably are all after different goals, and if you do end up on the end of a landline to someone playing "their game" much to your own angst, then it is probably better to suck back, chill out and do the best you can without going off on one and giving yourself a cardiac (or at least an earlier one) which probably isn't going to help the situation any.

And if you can't help but be Mr Stressed and Angry, are you sure ATC is actually the vocation for you?

[Widger]

SN

For crying out load, will you calm down! Your posts are becoming more of a rant rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

First of all London (Mil) no longer operate in your area, it is Swanwick (Mil) who share the same ops room as sector 6.

If the situation you were presented with was dangerous, then did you file a report? If so, the facts will come out when the WHOLE issue is investigated.

A certain airport to the south west of you, never seems to have the problems you have.

[Canary Boy]

Interesting that the considered, even posts seem to come, in the main, from the Mil fraternity and the rants from Civ. :(

How many of the Civ moaners have been to a Mil unit recently to either see what they get up to or to present their case?

As a matter of interest, all future Mil controllers will have undertaken liaison visits to Civ towers and ACCs as part of their training.

[Number2]

BRS were always bleeting about the Mil traffic operating in Class G when I was at BDN. Did they do the same when BDN was a CAA Unit I wonder - they probably weren't even that busy before the Mil rescued the mess that Airwork left! That was the Airwork employing people with little yellow licences by the way!

It must be so so hard to be perfect.

[whowhenwhy]

Widger thankyou for making the correction about it being Swanwick not London, it was very hard being tarred with that particular brush :ok:

Standard Noise, as Widger said, if the ac was freecalled to you in confliction then file a report. However, your comment about the height of the ac being the saving grace suggests that actually the confliction was well below you. You have however highlighted a VERY important point and that is the provision of ATSOCAS to CAT outside CAS, a problem that is close to all our hearts in one way or another. Believe me, Swanwick (Mil) like working RAS airliner traffic inbound to you through Class G airspace, about as much as London Mil like working RAS airliner traffic through the Vale of York. No mean feat when the airliner is an A340 with a pilot who doesn't understand RAS and the Vale of York has got up to 40 VFR ac within it, playing up to FL200.

The main problem that I believe that we have is the provision of ATSOCAS and the way in which we interpret the rules, because I don't believe the civ and mil rules for RAS are going to be that much different.

[rej]

I can't believe that I have avoided reading this thread for so long but Canary Boy, your post of 14 Sep is spot on. We all work with a variety of people with a variety of qualities. We do the same job but interpretaton of rules and procedures do vary ; god I spent several years banging my head against a brick wall at my last unit trying to get some of mycolleagues to comply with the rules correctly, almost all did but some are intent on 'being gash and doing it their own way' thereby they do not deserve the respect of their peers and IMHO should seek alternative employment where such exacting professional standards are not required (what an opening to start a feud between other military occupations but I shall pass on that one!!)

Standard Noise, I notice that the views on the neighbours of your unit seem to have changed in the last 15 months or so; as a controller I also get frustrated that others do not listen to the information given during handovers, or maybe the controller misheard or had inputs coming from left, right and centre during the handover - I remember what it can be like in that area on a weekend when everyone is on min manning.

I think, with the odd exception, controllers do a bloody good job in this country, whether it be civ or mil. And those who let the side down should be gash elsewhere

[Standard Noise]

To answer a few queries.............

No, I didn't file a report cos there was no airprox, but with fast jets flogging around, there's nothing to say there won't be a confliction in the blink of an eye. I'd prefer not to have to sort out a mess of someone else's creation.
As for the mil traffic whcih operates to the south of BRS, hey, it's free airspace, I've no problem with them being there, and will try to keep my traffic out of the way. Saves on the paperwork.
I don't think mil controllers are bad controllers, but there was, in this particular case, a bad decision made ie 'if BRS won't take a handover, then we'll point it thataway and chuck it.' That seems a bit silly to me as it's not something I'd do, but there you go.

But guys, if we're all meant to be on the same side and working towards the same end, then ask yourself before you do something if it will help the next guy down the line. I made a decision not to accept a particular aircraft on a particular (non standard) routing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean to say you can disregard it. Problem is, next time, I might be more pre-disposed to go into print, but I really don't want to.

Oh yeah, RNG , when you've done your time and come to the civvy world, you'll need a little yellow licence, we've all got them, and they're not provisional either. Read up about them, they're fab.:ok:

[Get me some traffic]

I am pleased to see the debate my post started.
However, My question was not answered. We all believe that we are doing the "right thing." The difficulty is that we sing from different hymn sheets.
Should'nt the powers that be sort out this mess or is it up to an organisation like GATCO to sort out their airships?

[Roger That]

Notwithstanding the user consultation(s) in progress, the JANSC are discussing this at a senior level.

RT

[Toadpool]

I've been following this thread with interest and an incident yesterday has compelled me to add my views.

The comments made by GMST are not an attack on military ATCOs, but rather are critical of the system under which they are required to work.

The incident in question happened when I was extremely busy, a military area controller rang asking about traffic 10 nm east of the airport, squawking A, but not C. When I told her it was on a FIS not above 3000' she then proceeded to try and co-ordinate against traffic more than 25 nm North, passing FL210 climbing!

I also tried to explain that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C.

This was not only a waste of both her and my time, but an unnecessary distraction for me at a time of high workload.

I would also comment that there are a lot of ex-military ATCOs working at civil units, but how many ex-civil ATCOs work at military units?

[RNGrommits]

Toadpool
Whilst appreciating your rules, you must surley understand that when giving a RAS the Military controller cannot deem your aircraft to be below FL100 just because it has NMC (Our rules will not let us do that) and the fact that you have passed TRAFFIC INFORMATION (see the rules for a definition Of Traffic Information vs Co-ordination) which is dead information the moment you have given it means that the Military Controller must get co-ordination on that track from you. Seeing as you have already passed Traffic info on the track, the extra sentance that you have to say for co-ordination is hardly that much of a burden. And Despite the fact that it was 25 miles away, I assume that it was coming towards your traffic, otherwise the military controller wouldn't have bothered disturbing you, so in fact the Mil Controller had a fairly good scan and was co-ordinating early - Just like taught at CATCS!
It's attitudes like this that mean more and more mil controllers are disinclined to even bother their civil counterparts with trivia like co-ordination or handovers.

And as for your last throw away comment, if the pay was comparable, how many military controllers do you think would be having the blinkers inserted and becoming a Civil Atco then?

Time for some of you lot to look beyond your 10 mile range ring or your CAS A and see the big wide world out there.

[Widger]

Now now Grommit....cracking toast!


Toadfish,

You stand into significant danger if you assume that if a track, is either not showing mode C, or not squawking at all, then it cannot be above FL100. There are many good controllers on both sides of the camp who have fallen foul of this assumption. I am sure that MATS part 2 does not say that you can deem this traffic either.

ASSUME and you will make an ASS of U M E.

[QUOTE]This was not only a waste of both her and my time, but an unnecessary distraction for me at a time of high workload.

Well this comment needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves. That is not the attitude of a professional ATCO and you should be ashamed of yourself for even saying it!

[Lifes2good]

The nail has been hit on the head quite frequently in this thread. The military controllers have to work to almost different rules at times. This causes us all some headaches but really some sort of standardisation should be sought from all concerned.

[rej]

Quote
I also tried to explain that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C.


So Toadpool, if one of your tracks suddenly experienced a mode C failure (or if it was showing out of limits and you told the pilot to deselect Mode C ) would you force the pilot to descent to below FL100 - I think not.

Yes the words on the hymn sheet might not always be the same but as RNGrommits said, the mil controller cannot deem such tracks. Maybe some understanding of our rules relating to the regulations might have prompted you to review your post .

However, IMHO if you have time to explain to that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C, I would suggest that you would have had time to bite your tongue and carry out the coordination as requested.

[Toadpool]

The point I was trying to make, as I think was GMST's in starting this thread, is that we need standardisation.

I was not aiming to be critical of the military ATCO involved, but of the system which required her to undergo such a palaver.

In answer to rej's question, if an aircraft is unable to squawk mode c, for whatever reason, then I, or any other civil ATCO may *not* authorise it to climb to FL100+. In the unlikely event, at least with civil aircraft capable of operating at these levels, that the failure occurred above FL100, then it WOULD be descened asap.

Is it so difficult for the military authorities to permit their controllers to deem a track observed on a valid civil squawk, with NMC, to be below FL100?

This is just one of the many points which need addressing (VFR at night, not permitted under civil rules)!

The point I was trying to make regarding ex-military ATCOs is that as we work alongside them ever day, we probably have a better understanding of military controlling than you think. In fact the watch that I am on is made up entirely of controllers who are ex-military (yes, myself included)!

[London Mil]

From the AIP

1.3.3.2 In specific cases where short notice exemption from the carriage and operation of SSR Transponder equipment is required
by an operator, entry may be permitted on an individual flight basis provided that the approval of the ATC Unit responsible for the airspace has been obtained and that the pilot complies with the appropriate Rules of the Air and ATC which apply to the airspace concerned. Operators should note that this does not apply in respect of the London TMA where for safety and practical purposes short notice exemptions cannot be accommodated and the procedure detailed in paragraph 1.3.3.1 must be followed. The controlling ATC Unit is to be contacted prior to departure or, in exceptional circumstances, on the appropriate ATC frequency prior to entry to the specified airspace. Entry under an exemption is not guaranteed in normal circumstances and will only be permitted at the discretion of ATC where it does not impinge on the safe operation within the airspace involved. Short notice exemptions will only be granted on a case by case basis and will not be given to operators who require regular access to airspace to which mandatory carriage and operation of SSR regulations apply. Such applications should be submitted to AUS in accordance with paragraph 1.3.3.1. Cases in respect of transponder failure are to be dealt with in accordance with the SSR Operating Procedures as promulgated in ENR 1.6.2,
paragraph 3. An aircraft in an emergency situation will be afforded the appropriate level of priority which shall include implicit exemptions from the appropriate legislation for the purpose of saving life.


and

3.2 Failure after departure
3.2.1 If the transponder fails after departure or en-route, ATS Units will endeavour to provide for continuation of the flight in
accordance with the original flight plan. In certain traffic situations this may not be possible particularly when the failure is detected shortly after take-off. The aircraft may then be required to return to the departure aerodrome or to land at another aerodrome acceptable to the operator and to ATC. After landing, pilots shall make every effort to have the transponder restored to normal operation. If the transponder cannot be repaired then the provisions in paragraph 3.1.1 apply.
3.3 At present the temporary failure of SSR Code C alone would not restrict the normal operation of the flight.

Toadpool, it would appear to me that ATSUs are permitted to allow NMC flight above FL100.

... and before anyone starts, in this respect mil aircraft are subject to exactly the same regulations.

[rej]

London Mil

Toadpool, it would appear to me that ATSUs are permitted to allow NMC flight above FL100.

That is one of the points that I was trying to make. However, I would like to know why Toadpool has not responded to my point

'However, IMHO if you have time to explain to that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C, I would suggest that you would have had time to bite your tongue and carry out the coordination as requested.'

when I instructed ab-initios and examined controllers I taught them to deal with controlling first and then resolve any disagreements off console via landline. Is this not one of the first principles of control before admin?

[Canary Boy]

I'd be prepared to wager a large proportion of Toadpool's salary that, when examined carefully, there are few differences in the regulations for civ/mil. Some of the aircraft operating procedures may differ (VFR at night), but the ATC rules are drawn from the same pot and then put into the appropriate documents. If I'm talking bolleaux, please give concrete examples (with references) and I'll retract.

[Widger]

Canary Boy,

You are correct. It is the interpretation of those rules that are different, sometimes corrupted by people in the training environment putting on their own little spin on things.

[Toadpool]

This is danger of becoming a debate on one incident, rather than answering the original question posed.

Rej, if this were an isolated incident, then perhaps I may have bit my tongue. However it is not, it seems to happen several times a day every day.

Let me explain from my viewpoint. Ignoring the issue of mode c and FL100 for now, I had given the other ATCO all the information she needed in that she was told that the track was a FIS (i.e. not under control), and not above 3000'. As far as I was concerned this made it known traffic to her, and if that information subsequently changed the onus would be on me to inform her, so no RNGrommit it was not dead information. As she was going to achieve a minimum vertical separation of 18000'+, no co-ordination was required and I did not wish to get into a lengthy discussion regarding traffic that was not really relevant.

Now for the FL100 discussion.

London Mil's quote has missed off the start of the relevant part of the AIP, which states that aircraft operating IFR in CAS, and outside CAS FL100+ are required to have a serviceable transponder with both mode A and C. Also just before London Mil's quote it states that exemptions from the requirement are not normally granted.

It then goes on to state that in exeptional circumstances exemptions may be granted, etc.

I would suggest that a civil unit considering granting such an exemption would weigh the benefits very carefully against the extra workload created, as they would be expected to notify any other unit on the aircraft's track of the non-compliance. At the very least they would be expected to initiate any co-ordination required against conflicting tracks.

With reference to the failure of mode C only, why does the sentence refer to "temporary failure", not just "failure". I may be wrong (again), but I would interpret that to mean "intermittent".

Canary Boy, I would agree that the basic regulations are broadly similar, but there are differences in the operating practices. Coming up with concrete examples (with references) will, as I'm sure you're aware, be difficult and time consuming.

One example would be the understanding of a "handover". I can take, and hand over traffic to other units without any direct interaction with the other controller, in other words, silent handovers. Military handovers normally involve direct controller/controller communication.

I could go on but I think thats enough. I'll sit back now and await the flack.

[rej]

Toadpool

I don't want to keep on about this but you are never thorough enough in your application of the rules.

First of all she (the mil controller) needed coordination as the traffic information that you issued became dead information and of no use to her once it was passed. She quited rightly needed this act of negiation between 2 or more controllers to agree a course of action as the ac had no mode C. Even though the FIS ac was 'not under control' you could have effected coordination by identifying the ac and obtaining compliance from the pilot that he/she would not fly above a certain altitude that meets the coordination criteria.

Lets not make this into a p1$$ing match but, had the ac been under RAS with unknown traffic with no mode C as a conflictor, she was spot on with her actions.

And if it is not an isolated incident have you tried to get your supervisors or watch manager to speak to the relevant unit and work towards understanding why the mil controllers insist on what you consider to be superfluous control actions. Without intruding on what seems to be inter-unit disagreement, the only way to resiolve it is to discuss it.

[yellowplane]

JSP318A as was and now 55.....

MATS Pt1

Take the best from both and put them together.... what a fantastic system we'd have!!

There are some really good things in the JSP and MATS...it's high time that everyone got together to produce an even better system.... crumbs this is the 21st century after all!

[rej]

yellowplane, couldn't agree more.

In Canada they have MANOPS which suits both roles; it has a mil specific pages that deal with the mil-specific issues such as formation splits etc

[Toadpool]

Rej, the rules you refer to may be yours, but they are not mine.

Surely this was the whole point in this thread being started. To a civil ATCO co-ordination is the act of negotiation,etc,etc. The phraseology "your traffic not above xxx, my traffic not below xxx" and "co-ordination agreed" is not required.

As I have said before, I fully understand that the mil ATCO was only following her instructions.

If the other ATCO concerned was civilian the exchange wolud probably have been something like " XXXX here, what's the xxxx 10 miles east of you doing?" , "Not above 3000' " , "Roger, Thanks". This is if the call was made at all.

Flower says in his post at the start of this thread that it takes 3 times as long to hand an aircraft to a military ATCO than to a civil one. This is often time we do not have.

Why does it take so long? Is it because military procedures cause an unnecessary increase in workload? Are civil ATCOs really being gash and unprofessional?

It is not for me to say, but I do feel it needs addressing.

[whowhenwhy]

Toadpool, I'm sorry but if that was the coordination phraseology that you use and it was transcripted and presented to the UKAB in the event that an ac under your or the other unit's control broke that coordination, then you wouldn't have a leg to stand on as you have not agreed to anything. As Rej said, the mil controller needed coordination and was right to pusue the matter with you. I cannot believe that JSP552 and MATS Pt 1 differ to the extent that coordination was not required under the terms of MATS Pt 1. While what you are saying is very common-sensical, it's not right at the moment. It would be interesting to hear from some of the guys at Norwich who deal with this situation on a daily basis. As I've said before, the problem is one of interpretation. You only have to look at the differences in application of RAS between mil and civ to see that.

As Rej and Yellow plane have said, what we need is a single document MATS Pt 552(?) which does not leave items open to interpretation.

The silent handovers that you mentioned are, in military terms, written agreements in which a series of terms have to be met for the silent handover to take place. One of these is a pre-note. I'm guessing that when you do these silent handovers between your local units that you do a pre-note first? Otherwise it's just a free-call. If you've got the time to do a pre-note, then you have time to do a radar handover: there is very little difference in the time taken! Besides, they don't take that long if you follow the format...

[flower]

If you've got the time to do a pre-note, then you have time to do a radar handover:

Not so, generally our ATSA staff do the pre notes for us as we do not have the time to do them.


PS Flower is a she not a he :)

[Standard Noise]

You tell 'em girl!

[Toadpool]

Whowhenwhy you are correct in that the phraseology example I used is not co-ordination. This is because a civilian ATCO would not require it as the traffic would be "known" once its intentions (not above 3000') had been passed.

If the situation were to be changed, and the other traffic was descending towards mine, then I would expect the other controller to say something like " Roger I'll descend on top with my xxxx, let me know if yours climbs". Response "Wilco". S/he (sorry Flower) could then descend to a level below FL110, making sufficient allowance for any pressure difference, say FL50, and then further once lateral separation was achieved.

What I'm saying may not be right under military procedures, but it is acceptable under civilian ones.

As an aside, I do find it worrying that a military ATCO will, and has to my knowledge, disregard co-ordination because the phrase "co-ordination agreed" has not been used. I believe that this is one matter that is under investigation following at least one airprox.

Changing the subject slightly, an ex-colleague, a former Squadron Leader at a fast jet base before getting his civilian licences, so with a fair bit of military experience, once said to me that he had never worked so hard until he came to our unit.

[whowhenwhy]

Okay, that sounds better. I did want to have a proper look in MATS Part 1 but only having dial-up somewhat limits me at the moment. Like I said, what you're suggesting is certainly a common-sense approach. If it really is legislated in this way for you guys and different for us, I wonder if that's because mil ac are expected to follow unpredictable flt paths in all 3 dimensions conducting high energy maneouvers which could quickly see a confliction arise which was not there before??

The 'coordination agreed' statement is an old chestnut that constantly does the rounds. We (the mil) binned it sometime ago and any mil controller who still uses it is not following the standard. Anyone who dis-regards and breaks coordination because that phrase wasn't used will get themselves in trouble. If that was the only reason for breaking the coordination.

As far as your change of subject goes be careful of ex-squadron leaders who say they work hard. It depends on how hard he actually worked as a mil ATCO!:ok: :ok: (tongue was in cheek, but now hunkered down preparing for incoming!)

Flower, do you have written silent handover arragements with other local units that you use following your ATSAs pre-note. Or is it a local ladies/gentlemens agreement?

[flower]

Whowhenwhy,
pre-notes are in the standard format that are used throughout civil ATC, however this style of pre-note is also used by Military units who also it would seem have absolutely no issue with them, I can think for example that we use the same style with St Athan, Yeovilton, St Mawgen , Lyneham and Brize.
DX, DY, DG and DL seem very familiar with this style of handover and generally speaking all that happens is a squawk and frequency are issued and traffic is always handed clean or the appropriate traffic information passed dependant of type of service.

Of course at our unit we are so familiar with the Military way of doing things that perhaps we have just got very quick at it, but I do feel that since London Military has become Swanwick Military that a greater deal of flexibility has appeared. bearing in mind it should be exactly the same ATCOs I am not entirely sure of this.

There are still some issues that I find as i have already said frustrating, but some of the " we know best" attitude that pervades both sides of this argument I do find rather tiresome.
For all our sakes , either we try to get a standard approach to everything , don't think that will necessarily work, or we just try to get to visit our Civil or military colleagues and gain an understanding of how each other works. I suspect the Military ATCOs are equally bothered by a lack of funds that we Civil ATCOs are regarding liaison visits.

[Canary Boy]

then I would expect the other controller to say something like " Roger I'll descend on top with my xxxx, let me know if yours climbs". Novel bit of phraseology! The Mil may be pedantic - perhaps this illustrates why! 'Let me know if yours climbs' I DON'T BELIEEEVE IT!!!As an aside, I do find it worrying that a military ATCO will, and has to my knowledge, disregard co-ordination because the phrase "co-ordination agreed" has not been used. I believe that this is one matter that is under investigation following at least one airprox. 'Has to my knowledge' / 'I believe'; no - not good enough. As said earlier, the Mil haven't used that phrase for donkeys' years. Be very careful about quoting hearsay or dimmed memory as fact.

[Widger]

There is no difference between the MATS part 1 definition of co-ordination and that in JSP552. MATS part 1 refers controllers to MATS part 2 and this is where it all falls to pieces. There is only one section that helps the whole issue and that is the MACC section.

Coordination (Tactical)
Coordination is defined as - the act of negotiation between two or more controllers each vested with the
authority to make executive decisions appropriate to the task.
Put simply, coordination is effected when the controllers agree a course of action to resolve a
confliction or potential confliction.
However, when undertaking tactical coordination with the Military, MACC controllers need to bear the
following in mind, since this is a different mode of operation to the civilian operation:
• Coordination should take place with the unit/console working the conflicting traffic.
• Use the correct phraseology, which is use of the word “Coordination” not “Traffic Information”
• It is important to be clear (when coordinating) on exactly which traffic is being coordinated
against which traffic. Note: the fact that the MACC traffic may be “known traffic” to the
Military is not sufficient to ensure separation from further traffic that is working the
military.
• If there is more than one confliction, then separate coordination should take place for each
individual track. This may include coordinating with a different console at London (Mil).
• In order to avoid misunderstandings between MACC and London Military over the question of
crossing clearances of CAS, controllers need to bear the following in mind:
– What MACC understand as a ‘crossing clearance’ is understood by the Military as being
a Cleared Flight Path (CFP).
This difference in terminology should not alter MACC procedures since MACC can still issue a
Crossing Clearance/CFP with restrictions, for example, “cross after a certain identified flight”.
Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that when undertaking coordination with the Military,
that any conflicting traffic to the CFP is clearly pointed out to them, understood by them, and
acknowledged.
12.3.3 Phraseology
Where coordination is effected between MACC and military controllers, MACC controllers are to ensure
that the correct phraseology is used and that the action agreed is unambiguous.
Phraseology example for Tactical Coordination:
MACC: “Manchester East– request coordination my traffic EZE226 15nm southeast of Newcastle
heading 170 squawking 6310”
Mil: Wait for the Mil controller to say, “Contact”
MACC: “Maintaining FL150 until south of Leeming then descending FL100, under (Type of Service
RAS/RIS). Your traffic Ottringham 330/25nm tracking northwest squawk/callsign xxxx”
Mil: “Maintaining FL130 on that track (Type of Service RAS/RIS)”
MACC: ”Roger. My traffic maintaining FL150 until clear of your traffic" (Could specify vertical or
horizontal separation)
Both controllers terminate the conversation by exchanging console numbers and Unit callsign.
Mil: “Roger. London Controller 15”
MACC “Manchester East”

So the issue was obviously resolve by MACC and the military sitting down, working the whole problem out and writing an instruction.

Why can't other units do the same.

[rej]

Maybe we should start a new thread: 'Coordination'

The first post would be the correct /approved phraseology used by civilian controllers and that used by military controllers.
The next 20,000 would be bitching over who is right and who is wrong. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BUT THE COAL-FACE CONTROLLERS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR TASK.

I think that it is appauling that such a fundimental,vital aspect of our job has differences and the day that it is rationalized is long overdue. I also think that, whilst there are 2 different types of phrases out there, we should aim to go for the one which makes it legally binding for both controllers (ie the lowest common denominator). At the end of the day we have to keep the aircraft safely apart and in doing so often requires 'legally' binding agreements; the only way to make the agreement such is by doing it properly and understanding the other controllers requirements to help them. Yes call it covering your a$$ but if you do thinks corrctly then your aircraft are safe and you are not exposed.

[Pierre Argh]

I've just read through Widger's lengthy post, detailing the MATS rules for corrdination... and, surprise, surprise, they are virtually identical to the JSP552 rules... as has been said before, the difference comes in interpretation and implimentation?

The military controllers who are saying their method is the "right way" are taught to do it "the right way" at Shawbury, which is then re-enforced by every ATCEEB visit... But conversely, the Civil Controllrs have the similar reassurances that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable?

Have we ALL got too pedantic in our standardisation?

How can we be "standard" when the interpretation of mil/civ rules is so different... This is a real challenge for SRG/ATCEEB?

[jack-oh]

It has been my experience that Mil controllers will deal in absolutes where as civil controllers deal more in common sense. This does not mean that mil controllers have no common sense or civil controllers don't know the rules. Mil controllers have been taught, sometimes by bitter experience, that absolutes will not bite you on the arse. This may appear on the surface that they are unable to think outside the box and in certain people, this is quite true. However, the annual ritual of public humiliation, known more commonly as the ATCEB visit, does not encourage freethinking, but absolutely insists in compliance with the letter of the regulations that are published. Looser interpretations of, what is and has always been, are not encouraged.

Equally, it has been my experience that civil controllers try and transfer certain aspects of controlling inside CAS to controlling outside, this is only to be expected but it does cause differences concerning the interpretation of RAS which leads on to requirements for co-ordination etc.

The differences all revolve around conflicting VFR traffic, as far as mil is concerned RAS states that "separation is to be provided between participating traffic and the bearing distance and if know level of conflicting traffic will be passed along with advisory avoiding action to resolve the confliction" this is the same definition as civil work to; however, to the mil this means separation is to be provided on all ac; irrespective of the flight rules or type of service that the conflicting ac may be under, by its act of requesting a service from anyone it is PARTICIPATING. If co-ordination cannot be agreed, then avoiding action is to be given.
Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not, because in their eyes it is neither PARTICIPATING or UNKNOWN but should comply with the rules of the air and avoid other ac.

Whilst I will probably be slated by many, it has been my experience that this difference of interpretation lies at the heart of our problems and will hopefully be fixed with the ongoing review of ATSOCAS.

[Chilli Monster]

Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not

Sorry - going to have to disagree with the above.

As a civil controller I would not, under any circumstances, do what you suggest above with RAS traffic. The rules for RAS are unambiguous - attempt to achieve 5nm or 3000ft against unknown traffic, or 3nm/1000ft against identified and known being worked by myself. If the conflict is IFR v VFR it makes no difference - the IFR on a RAS will not have its protective "bubble" broken no matter what, and that goes for all civil ATCO's I know.

It's been often said that civil apply ATSOCAS, and especially RAS differently to the military, yet what I've written above looks like the same application to me. Unless people can state actual ocurrences then I think this is an "urban myth" perpetuated by constant rumour and hearsay.

[London Mil]

Jack-oh, sorry but I second CM's views and think you are wrong.


MATS Pt 1

Radar Advisory Service

A Radar Advisory Service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this
procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions.



How anyone could interpret the above statement as allowing a controller to ignore VFR traffic when providing a RAS confounds me.

PA has hit the nail on the head. There are significant standardisation issues here, not only between mil/civil, but also within the two communities.

[jack-oh]

It is a stated fact that there are different interpretations between civil and mil applications of RAS, this was bourne out by phase 1 of the CAA ATSOCAS review. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but there are differences and in my experiance this is the main one. If it were not so, why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when recieving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. The answer is, in order to provide separation iaw with the mil interpretation of RAS standard separation has to be achieved between all ac and not just the ones flying IFR.

[flower]

With Chilli Monster on this regarding RAS, we apply the same separation standards against all traffic.

Jack-oh could you explain to me about what you mean by restrictions in the following statement

why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil.

We are not able to restrict VFR flights in Class G airspace all we can do is make requests of them, do your rules say something different ?

[Lifes2good]

Mil/Civ Operations

In my experience The Military Controllers offering a service to IFR traffic continue to request they fly not above a certain level. This can of course only be a request to VFR traffic in class G.
I must agree with "flower" and ask Jack-oh to elaborate on his previous post.

"why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. "

Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!!

As throughout this thread standardisation and interpretation of the rules appears to be the common problem.

[Canary Boy]

Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!! What a load of nonsense! If G/A pilots don't want a service in Class G that's up to them. If they don't call and then pose a problem to customers who are under a service then, IMHO, that comes under the heading of poor airmanship. The restrictive flying you mention must surely comprise the avoiding action heading or level changes that ANY controller would pass to RAS? If you mean a request to maintain a level or heading for coordination purposes or to avoid screwing a traffic pattern - surely that's perfectly acceptable?

Or am I just missing the point as usual.....:confused:

[flower]

There is no requirement for any aircraft to speak to ATC when operating in Class G. To call it poor airmanship is a bit sweeping, however there are times when operating in the vicinity of certain airports without speaking to ATC I would have to agree.

However the most we can do is ask them to fly not above a level but even then how can you really base separation on that when they have to maintain VMC and that level may not allow them to do so. It is a procedure we use but even so it is only on a request basis. Perhaps the phraseology used is different. I for example will say to the aircraft " can you fly not above altitude** B737 descending on top" they pilots are invariably completely and utterly helpful and I have not heard any specific grumbles in that procedure. Do the military have to phrase it differently ?

[NorthSouth]

jack-oh:why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when recieving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. In my experience of regularly flying VFR in Class G under a FIS from two nearby units, one civil, one military, it tends to come down to differences in phraseology.

The civil unit will invariably say: "advise if you wish to climb above XXXXft". Since I know that the reason for this is so he can descend IFR inbounds to 1000ft above, it is only in rare circumstances (e.g. under time pressure on a detail which requires climb to height e.g. stalling) that I will insist on the climb, knowing that to do so will force the controller to either keep the IFRs higher or vector them to maintain 3nm.

I should add that this civil unit has a very good record of providing radar-based traffic info to us when operating just outside their zone on a FIS.

At the military unit the FIS tends to mean no traffic info at all but when they have an IFR descending above they will say "c/s for co-ordination purposes request you operate not above XXXXft". Again, I almost always say yes to the request but there have been occasions when I have wished I didn't e.g. in the middle of some manoeuvring in a non-transponder aircraft and the controller asks me to maintain my heading and report that heading, then turn 30 degrees for ident, then he gets involved with some other traffic and doesn't speak to me for ages, then eventually by the time he's ID'd me the confliction's passed anyway. All a bit of a waste of time which the poor student is paying for - 5 mins of b***ering around instead of learning is an extra £10 on their bill at the end of the flight.

We have also had some controllers at this unit trying to issue avoidance vectors to our traffic operating VFR outside their MATZ. I suspect this stems from the difficulties of MATZs being effectively CAS for military traffic but open Class G to civil.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the military unit, just adding my experiences to the debate. I recognise that mil units operate in a very different environment with very different sorts of traffic.

NS

[Larsman]

If we all play by the same rules as suggested, how come i was given traffic info from a mil controller on traffic she was working at FL290 and was NON SQUAWKING.

How come the mil can do this and yet it is clearly against the rules of the air?

[London Mil]

Larsman, probably because the UK AIP (ENR 1.6.2) says:


3 Transponder Failure
3.1 Failure before intended departure
3.1.1 If the transponder fails before intended departure and cannot be repaired pilots shall:
(a) Plan to proceed as directly as possible to the nearest suitable aerodrome where repair can be made;
(b) inform ATS as soon as possible preferably before the submission of a flight plan. When granting clearance to such aircraft, ATC will take into account the existing and anticipated traffic situation and may have to modify the time of departure, flight level or route of the intended flight;
(c) insert in item 10 of the ICAO flight plan under SSR the letter N for complete unserviceability of the transponder or in the
case of partial failure, the letter corresponding to the remaining transponder capability as specified in ICAO Doc 4444, Appendix 2.

3.2 Failure after departure
3.2.1 If the transponder fails after departure or en-route, ATS Units will endeavour to provide for continuation of the flight in
accordance with the original flight plan. In certain traffic situations this may not be possible particularly when the failure is detected shortly after take-off. The aircraft may then be required to return to the departure aerodrome or to land at another aerodrome acceptable to the operator and to ATC. After landing, pilots shall make every effort to have the transponder restored to normal operation. If the transponder cannot be repaired then the provisions in paragraph 3.1.1 apply.


PS. I see nothing in the "Rules of the Air", as defined in section 2 of the ANO that precludes such flight.

[Pierre Argh]

I seem to have lost score...

Civil .... vs Military ....

Can anyone help?

[jack-oh]

Whilst I always try and pose restrictions to GA ac as a request, I have been to forums in which continuious requests to do things for the purposes of separation have not gone down well. Especially as the pilot complying with the request never wanted separation in the first place. These requests have been taken as an imbugerance by some and this is where the feeling of "grumbles" comes from.

It would however appear from the replys that there is no difference in the fundemental application of RAS, it therefore begs the question where are the differences, why do we appear to be a profession divided by a common language.

If everyone is so uniform why have we spent 4 pages disagreeing with each other.

[Canary Boy]

have been to forums in which continuious requests to do things for the purposes of separation have not gone down well. Especially as the pilot complying with the request never wanted separation in the first place. If they didn't want separation are they prepared to erode against traffic that obviously does? If yes, then I refer the Rt Hon Gent to the answer I gave earlier - slack airmanship. These guys need educating and reminding that one day THEY will be the ones being cocked about by others 'not wanting separation'.

The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?

[10W]

If they didn't want separation are they prepared to erode against traffic that obviously does? If yes, then I refer the Rt Hon Gent to the answer I gave earlier - slack airmanship. These guys need educating and reminding that one day THEY will be the ones being cocked about by others 'not wanting separation'.

I assume you're not a pilot then Canary Boy ?? Class G requires no separation standards to be provided between any aircraft (go look at the Airspace Classification Chart in the UK AIP). The ultimate responsibility lies with the pilots involved. That's us who sit up in the pointy end up there, not anyone down here. ATC might try to provide some to one (or both) parties with their agreement through ATSOCA, but it can't enforce any requirement on a third party who does not require it. No one 'controls' or has jurisdiction over Class G airspace, just an equal responsibility to prevent collisions. And it does open the whole can of worms up about the majority possibly being 'cocked up' by the few you provide a service to. Look at how many aircraft operate in UK airspace. Look at how many are commercial and how many are private or military. Majority should perhaps rule ?? Oh, and airmanship actually still applies to traffic receiving a RAS. Just because the pilot is receiving a radar service, it doesn't absolve him from any of the facets of airmanship which you project, nor from their responsibilities for collision avoidance as per the ANO. I'd suggest taking a fam flight with a commercial operator outside Controlled Airspace. The lack of lookout might be an eye opener !!! It has even been highlighted in one of the RAF Safety mags I believe if you don't believe me.

The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?

So if I am flying VFR, am known traffic to you outside Controlled Airspace because I have called you (though not obliged to do so), have the other aircraft in sight and assess that I am in no danger of collision, have called said traffic as being in sight .. and you will try and vector me 5 miles away from it or else question my airmanship ?? The fact is, I don't need 5 miles, or 1000'. I just need to avoid a collision using the Rules of the Air. In fact, if your commercial RAS aircraft is approaching me from my left on a crossing track, who are you going to move out of the way ... and why ?? ;)

I can't help wonder if such instances and attitudes displayed by some ATC 'over controllers' put off more GA pilots from talking to ATC when they are not obliged to, rather than encouraging them that it might be in their interests to communicate with us.

Class G is not Controlled Airspace. The 'separation standards' in RAS are aims, not requirements. The standards are actually set by the pilots themselves. They are up there and operating in the environment. They can judge what is safe and what is not surely ?? And the vast majority of us winged sky gods are also personally paying for the privilege as well :ugh:

[Chilli Monster]

The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?

It doesn't. But after reading 10W's write up it's probably a good time to clarify what may have been missed in the rest of what's been written.

If someone's asked for a RAS - they're the one that gets vectored around the sky. If someone's asked for a FIS then they're the one that gets left alone. To go back to Flowers point - you can ask the VFR/FIS traffic if it doesn't mind not going above a level to achieve standard separation aginst your IFR/RAS, but that's as far as it goes. It's their choice, their decision on flight rules and service.

Sweeping statements against their airmanship for choosing that service and the freedom of operation it gives them are out of order - I say that both as an ATCO and a pilot.

And - for all those people who try and vector VFR traffic for their own aims a little reminder. The reason RAS is only available to IFR traffic is because under vectoring it's possible the traffic may be out in a position where it may go IMC. Do you really want it on your conscience that you vector a student or inexperienced pilot into inadvertant IMC - someone who's always been told not to question ATC and follows your instructions blindly. When they lose control and go spinning out of the bottom of that cloud who's fault is it going to be really?

NorthSouths comments should hit home here. You have no idea of qualifications on the end of the R/T - he could quite easily have been a low houred, newly qualified PPL rather than an instructor. This should be in the back of every ATCO's mind, both civil and military, of every aircraft they work.

[yellowplane]

hey hummmm


I refer you to my previous posting......

[London Mil]

Regarding the diferences between mil/civil, there is a whole wedge of stuff here from the CAA as part of their ATSOCAS consultation:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=7&pagetype=68&groupid=844

PS. You will note that the CAA paper was compiled by an RAF Officer. If this isn't an example of joined up regulatory responsibility, then I will eat my hat.

PPS. Some really good posts on this page, not least from those who actually understand what is being provided and individuals' responsibilities when operating in uncontrolled airspace.

PPPS! Obviously there is a bit of a clue in the title - Radar Advisory Service.

[Pierre Argh]

Regarding coordination: Services in Class G is a hotbed... VFR traffic is entitled to be there, looking after themselves, not speaking to a soul (IMHO daft... but that's only my opinion?). So if I need to request complaince from a VFR pilot for coordination purposes, I will always use the minimum possible restriction. e.g. VFR pilot reports flying at 1000ft RPS and I am descending RAS traffic to 3000ft RPS... I would request the VFR pilot remains below 2000ft (2500ft if the IFR traffic is Military). That gives me the minimum vertical separation I need, and flexibility for the VFR pilot to manoeuvre if required. I aim to lift the restriction asap and always thank the pilot for his/her cooperation.

If I can't get the cooperation, or in some situations it's easier not to ask, then the RAS traffic gets the "Cooks Tour" (and probably a service limitation). Simple, No arguement!
(The pilot) could quite easily have been a low houred, newly qualified PPL rather than an instructor Accepted, but please remember a similar statement can apply to the ATCO?

[c172flyer]

This is my first post. I take it many of you are mil atc. Its interesting to read what you say but as a civil pilot with a 172 I try to avoid talking to mil wherever possible. Just in my experience they make life harder not easier. eg a few months back between daventry and cpt vor's i was talking to the local mil. Claggy weather meant I elected to climb into IMC rather than be down with the vfr traffic in poor conditions. Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake. In imc the atc got me to turn right 90 deg and ended up norwest of Oxford. Then he let me go, too busy, continue own nav, fis service !! i had to turn 180 deg to get back on track. Later he instructed me to remain clear of Benson MATZ..I thought the matz was not mandatory these days? I complied but was getting annoyed at this stage. On several other trips they ask if I want "clearance" through the MATZ. The point is I dont need clearance. I am happy to tell them I am coming through but i feel they constantly overstep the mark.
What do you pro's think?

[RNGrommits]

c172
Matz= lots of traffic (often fast and pointy) climbing/descending.
Matz + C172 (C150, C152, PA28 (delete as appropriate)) bimbling along 3 miles away from mil airfield sub 3K' not talking to anyone = accident waiting to happen & big artcile in local newspapers.
You're the professional, you do the maths.
You don't have to ask, but common courtesy and AIRMANSHIP will go a long way to survivingl longer. You ask, we can co-ordinate our own traffic against you. If we can't we will ask you to climb/descend or take a small change in track so that we can. This saves the MOD millions in the mantanance hours inflicted in scraping off small pieces of puddle jumper from our aircraft.

You ask for a RAS, you will get turned from a/c you can't see. If the conditions allow you to see em, or you are desperate to stay on track, don't ask for a RAS.

Right, now that you have got me on a rant.

In my opinion, I think mil airfields should be applying for class A airspace around them like every regional civvy airport seems hell bent on doing. About 5 miles radius up to 3000' with little stubby bits out to 10 miles on selected final approach paths ought to do it. Then you would have to call us! Or would that infringe on GATs god given rights to plan routes over busy airfields without any thought to the consequences?

Sorry if our airfields and aircraft are in your way.

And, by the way, just how much do the GAT world pay to the Lars units (mil & civil) for providing an ATS? Shall we start charging by the mile? I can feel our tea boat growing! Can you attach chip and pin to your squawk and callsign?
Rant over.

PS C172, I see you are from leicester. Do you fly out of there? And if so, who do you get a radar service from when you go North, east or south (and don't tell me east midlands, cos I know they have got enough to deal with from the traffic inside their ever expanding zone to give too much thought to what is happening outside of it!

[Pierre Argh]

Claggy weather meant I elected to climb into IMC rather than be down with the vfr traffic in poor conditions. Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake. In imc the atc got me to turn right 90 deg and ended up norwest of Oxford. Then he let me go, too busy, continue own nav, fis service !! i had to turn 180 deg to get back on track. Later he instructed me to remain clear of Benson MATZ Sorry you had a bad experience, this is NOT the norm. However, it is fact that LARS is a lower priority than the Approach Service, and is provided from within a Unit's spare capacity (and what units have that nowadays?)... so an overworked controller may have to terminate service... BUT should provide warning where possible of the need to do this.

The 90 degree turn was probably for identifiction, much easier if a serviceable SSR is available in the air on the ground... but you do need to be identified on radar before the controller can give you a radar service.

You're totally right about the MATZ too... you do not have to avoid, nor accept any restrictions the controllers may try to impose. If you are unable to accept a restriction request PLEASE do NOT go off frequency... tell the Controller you are "unable to comply, and intend routing through the MATZ at ..... (altitude)" Some units might not like this but you are within your rights, and as long as you stay on frequency are known traffic... which means we have to take less separation on you than if you become unknown traffic.

The terminology "MATZ Crossing Clearance" should be read as meaning "Do you intend to route through my MATZ?"... please don't take it as anything more?

I am disappointed by RNG's self-confessed rant (I know him personally, and IMHO it is out of order!!!)... Please don't take his comments as standard. LARS is poorly funded, units are overstretched... but still manage to help out dozens of pilots everyday; one or two getting buggered about is unfortunately bound to happen. But, if you have a problem with your local LARS unit a request for a personal visit, or a trip along with your flying club, might help clarity on both sides?

I hope this helps?

PS RNGrommits... The MOD receives on average £8 for every LARS track my unit works (not too bad a rate... I wish it went into my pay packet?) This comes from a portion of the on-route fees paid by heavy GAT... because LARS is meant to simplify the separation problem of inbound and outbound traffic from transit traffic passing close to an airfield without CAS... i.e. the party line, whatever you may think, is that we do it to help ourselves as Controllers!!! Think it over?

[flower]

No wonder ATC has such a bad name in some areas and GA pilots don't talk to ATC units when they get flamed for offering an opinion

:mad:

[PPRuNe Radar]

In my opinion, I think mil airfields should be applying for class A airspace around them like every regional civvy airport seems hell bent on doing.

Now that would be fun to see ..... one of the fast jet bases trying to recover 20 jets low in fuel where VFR is not permitted ;)

[NorthSouth]

grommit:mil airfields should be applying for class A airspace around them like every regional civvy airport seems hell bent on doingonly one airport in UK with Class A and regional it ain't. DAP who decide these things is full of blue suits anyway, so relax, your interests are secured.

Maybe things are different around navy airfields, but I have never heard any civil pilot advocate flying through a MATZ without requesting a penetration from the controlling authority. Some may get lost and do it unwittingly, but hey, plenty e.g.s of that with civil *and military* aircraft entering 'civil' CAS too, and that's not just a bad idea it's illegal.

NS

[Matoman]

NorthSouth

Interesting statement - "DAP who decide these things is full of blue suits anyway, so relax, your interests are secured".

I suggest you do a little more research, because I reckon there are only about half a dozen light blue suits and one dark blue suit in DAP. Yes, there are a number of ex-blue suits, but that is also true of every civil ATC unit as well. Civilians easily outnumber service personnel in DAP and I am not including AUS in the figures.

During my time in DAP it was very difficult to recruit any civil controllers to work there, and NATS had great difficulty in finding anyone who would accept a posting to DAP.

Perhaps if more civil controllers expressed an interest in taking up some of the jobs that do become available, there would be less ex-military ATCOs employed in DAP - the ball is in your court.

Matoman

[Shagster]

"Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake."

It was if you wanted direct routeing! The airspace you were transitting through can get very busy. Requesting RAS will almost certainly involve re-routeing so that the controller can fulfil his part of the agreement (attempt to maintain separation). An alternative would have been to request a Radar Information Service (RIS). Under this service you would receive the same information on traffic but no re-routeing as separation would be your responsibility. You then make your own turns for separation as you see fit (after informing the controller of your intention to do so).
You are quite right about the MATZ status to civ pilots, you should not be "instucted" to remain clear, you are only required to remain clear of the ATZ portion. But please bear in mind that aircraft operating in a MATZ may be performing any number of high speed or rapid climb/descent manouevres and this (wrong) instruction to avoid the MATZ was probably made with your well-being at heart.

[RNGrommits]

Pierre
You may notice the little devil symbol in my last post - Think of him as an advocate. (And this thread was getting stale!)

£8 per lars track - thats cheaper per mile than the M6 toll.
And is it Poland where you have to pay before you can get a LARS service (or is that just another urban myth?)?

[Pierre Argh]

you have to pay before you can get a LARS service Careful you'll have the GA Fraternity on here next, complaining how Mode S will mean we can track them down and charge them... I agree LARS is a Billy Bargain? but as income for using spare capacity it's, in effect, money for nothing (hence my comment about my pay-packet... after all it is MY spare capacity that's being touted?) The whole LARS scheme is being reviewed anyway, along with a general look at ATSORA (or whatever they're calling it this week?)