IFR on a RIS

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Forgive if this has been dealt with before.

Do two aircraft on a RIS that inform you they are IFR require to be given Standard Separation?
:D

[cdb]

No.

Radar INFORMATION service.

Both A/C get "Traffic is a ..."

Unless of course I'm providing an approach control service to one or both of those A/C, in which case yes!

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

cbd
lets hear the scenario whereby you would be providing an APP service and a RIS at the same time and how would the driver know what was giong on

:D

[Workisfun]

Forgive me if I am wrong but there are only 5 types of service:
Radar Control
Radar Advisory Service
Radar Information Service
Flight Information Service
Procedural Service

Under a RIS both pilots will be provided with traffic info but the pilots remain responsible for separation. However recovery separation or sequencing will be applied by the ATCO in such a manner that allows the ac to safely approach the airfield. This separation applied is not for collision avoidance.

This is fun!

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

This is better than fun!!!

Thanks so far but let me run a scenario past you all

A/C departs on a local flight and when asked FLIGHT RULES replies IFR, when asked Service required replies RIS which is given.
In the way is an IFR transit that is also on a RIS.
Traffic info given at appropriate time but due workload a/c come within 2nm and 700ft. Transit a/c not happy" I am IFR" etc so says he will file.
At the subsequent board of enquiry how much sh1t comes the ATCO's way

:D

[AlanM]

Then you reply - you were only under a RIS so standard separation NOT provided - just traffic info.

As an aside, wouldn't that departure be listed (and billed) as an IFR outbound?

If he departs VFR and requests IFR, then the controller needs to decide if they can give an appropriate service.

For example - on Thames Radar, if Biggin want an IFR outbound outside CAS, they call us - if we are too busy to give a RIS or RAS they are told to stay on the ground (or depart VFR).

Thames get transit traffic outside CAS insisting on a radar service because they are IMC and getting ar$ey when we say we are too busy and it is a FIS.

cdb - "when was in under an Approach Control Service?" - not sure what you mean there?

[matspart3]

If you're calling yourself XYZ Approach, you have to provide standard separation between all IFR flights. Simple as that, doesn't make a difference what type of service is being provided.

If you got 2 IFR flights within 700ft & 2NM, you've failed to provide the appropriate level of service.

AlanM
Don't take this the wrong way, but what legitimate right/reason do Thames have for not permitting an aircraft to depart IFR outside CAS?

[AlanM]

Sorry for the confusion - but we don't actually tell the IFR departure that he cannot depart, just let them know that they will get no radar service if we are too busy. Which, in a way, is no different to stopping an IFR into CAS if you are busy.

So all the TMA airfield approach sectors use "XYZ Radar" not "XYZ approach" so don't have to provide standard sep'n outside CAS?

[matspart3]

'Approach' or 'Radar', makes no difference, you still have to separate all known IFRs outside CAS.

[bookworm]

Ugh.

MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3
1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise
specified, between:
...
g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;

S3 Ch 1

1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace
1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA, from the time and place at which:

...

b) departing aircraft are taken over from aerodrome control until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner;

c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

In other words if you read it literally, while the pilot of an IFR aircraft can decline to participate in an approach control service, you have to separate them from other aircraft if you provide them with any service at all.

That's just dumb. If the pilot wants a RIS rather than an approach control service, you cannot issue instructions that meet the separation requirements.

I think S1 Ch 3 is intended to be read as:

IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with an approach control service;

[AlanM]

Bookworm - I agree!

I understand what pt3 says - but that is too literal for most units. Of course all inbound and outbound IFR outside CAS get standard separation, but you can't legislate for VFR transit traffic that then decides it wants to go IFR, or IFR traffic that freecalls you and you have no control over its routing if under a RIS.

[Workisfun]

This all seems very complicated. Its a lot simpler in the military world.

Perhaps one of the few times that can be said!!!

[2 sheds]

Bookworm and Alan M

Agree entirely.

Although it might not strike the reader at first, I would take the statement "IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit" to refer to Approach Control Service, that being the service, by definition, that is provided by an Approach Control Unit (though advisory by nature outside CAS - qualified in the AIP).

However, if the aircraft is being provided with a radar service - entirely different rules of engagement, this can be either RAS or RIS of course. If RIS, even if the pilot is flying under IFR, this does not require separation from other IFRs (even if the controller knows the flight rules in the first place, which usually he does not). However, this does not preclude the requirement for other aircraft, under RAS, to be separated from the RIS aircraft!

[matspart3]

I agree with bookworm's common sense suggestion, but as thing stand, you can't selectively decide which aeroplanes you're providing a service to.

Working, as I do, in the unpredictable FIR environment, I know only too well that you can't legislate for freecallers or VFR flights that become IFR, but even in those circumstances the Part 1 requires you to establish separation by the quickest means possible etc. etc.

I'm not saying it's right, but let's face it, the Part 1 bears absolutely no resembance to what really goes on in Class G anyway. The worrying thing is, that if things had gone utterly pear-shaped and you welded two IFR RIS aeroplanes together, a good lawyer would drive a coach and horses through the 'they only wanted a RIS' argument.

This becomes a bigger problem at night, when everybody's IFR.

[cdb]

To answer your questions, at least the way I would play it...

OCEAN WUN ZERO

Err, I quite often provide RIS and approach services to different A/C at the same time. I don't see how you can have a problem with this?

As Bookworm said, technically when providing an APP/APR service, ALL IFR A/C are to be seperated, even though they are in class G.

Realisticaly however, if the two A/C were transiting under RIS I would only give traffic. If they looked like they were going to get as close as you said, I would give them traffic again and might (at my risk) suggest avoiding action.

If however one or both A/C were inbound, then I would seperate them.

Clear as mud eh? Good point matspart3 - what would happen if there was an accident?

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

This is the whole crux of the matter.
The QC for the prosecution at the Accident compensation hearing is bound to ask why Pt 1 separation was not being applied even if the defence QC has given them the crossed i's and dotted t's on RIS.
What would the Expert witness (SRG) say?
What would your company say, would they take the £13.5 million hit(Hatfield trains) or would they hang you out to dry.

cdb
No big deal I just dont know of any phraseology to differentiate and that indicates to the user that thay are in receipt of a APP service.
I remember saying something like " approach procedural service" cos I could not think of anything else, and being laughed at for weeks by the OJTI


:D

[AlanM]

MATS pt 3 - I hear what you are syaing - and I guess it depends on a particular unit and its intricacies.

i.e. We don't have the luxury of vertical separation when the MSA is 2300ft and the base is 2500ft.

Laterally things don't get better - and at the LTMA approach units traffic outside CAS even if IFR is low on the priority as detailed in the pt2.

You are right - we aim for standard sep'n, but 2nm and 700ft is better than nothing if you are busy and have no airspace to play with!!

Finally, as you stated above, the MATS pt 1 says

Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified

So, if we said something along the lines of "Standard separation will not be achieved due to blah blah blah" then that would cover you - would it not? I think if you did everything reasonable that you could you would be in a better position.

[matspart3]

Alan M
Wouldn't want to test it in court! Don't envy you, working under the TMA.

At my Unit, we have recently got around the night IFR issue by using this bit: -

1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace
1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA...

The Aerodrome Operator (i.e. me!) has determined that we won't provide an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating in VMC at night, solely by refernce to the surface...i.e. the night rating, 'VFR at night' brigade.

We publish the following warning in the AIP:-

Extensive flying may take place in the vicinity of the aerodrome at night, sometimes below MSA, by aircraft only capable of operating in VMC in accordance with Rule 29(d). This activity occurs on random tracks and at varying levels. These aircraft will be considered to be nonparticipating in the Advisory Approach Control Service and provided with a Flight Information Service only. Traffic information, departure and joining instructions will continue to be passed as appropriate but standard separation cannot be assured between these aircraft and other arriving and departing flights.

I'm fairly confident that this protects my ATCO's and, I guess it could be expanded to include the scenarios to which this thread relates.

[2 sheds]

Ocean

You say...
"No big deal I just dont know of any phraseology to differentiate and that indicates to the user that thay are in receipt of a APP service.
I remember saying something like " approach procedural service" cos I could not think of anything else, and being laughed at for weeks by the OJTI"

I thought that the use of your callsign "Bloggsville Approach" on initial contact was that very reason. However, if there is any doubt, e.g. the pilot still requests a radar service, your phrase "approach procedural service" is a very precise explanation and perfectly reasonable. I'm afraid that that OJTI needs to think things out a little more.

[Pierre Argh]

Of course many of the above posts make a few assumptions:

Remembering that this is in Class G airspace, irrespective of the service being provided both aircraft involved the near miss would have to be on frequency (to be known traffic) or the controller would have to have radar contact with the other aircraft (to be unknown traffic)... it is possible to be ignorant of the presence of another IFR flight.

If traffic information was given under RIS, the responsibility for avoiding the other traffic rests with the pilot irrespective of Flight Conditions (although the pilot might reasonably expect the Controller NOT to pass further instructions that place him/her into confliction... which is where I feel the Approach Service arguement comes in?)

That the Controller may have offered advisory information before the near miss, but the pilot is under no obligation to follow that advice (under RAS or RIS in Class G)?

IMHO, therefore, if the pilot choses to ignore any given advise no responsibility for the loss of separation can lie with the Controller?

[loubylou]

just a small point
if the callsign is xxx radar then thay have a radar, and therefore provide radar services
if the callsign is xxx approach - then they don't and would be providing a procedural service - and therefore could not provide a RIS

louby

[Married a Canadian]

In Class G airspace what does IFR mean anyway??

That the pilot is flying quadrantals and according to the minimum height rule. Nothing really technical there and nowhere does it imply that separation is not the pilots responsibility. I thought that was what uncontrolled airspace was about?

I don't recall anywhere in the MATS pt one saying there are any standard separations to be applied in Class G airspace unless the aircraft are under a RAS.

So IFR...RIS...does not make any odds...we pass traffic...pilot takes responsibility for seeing and avoiding. Just cos they are IFR does not mean they may not be VMC..and in most cases the pilot will advise...sorry we are IMC when you pass traffic (which defeats the purpose of asking for a RIS anyway).

I would be happy in court with that aswell...the pilots should know what they are asking for when they request ATSOCA..and RAS is the only one that requires controller separation.

As a question....how many PPLs know the difference between the FIS, RIS and RAS.

Also what difference to a controller should IFR or VFR make outside controlled airspace?

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Ladies and gents
Do we really think that the drivers be they PPLs or ATPLs know the difference between “ XXX RADAR good afternoon” and XXX APPROACH good afternoon, NO

Hand on heart do we all change the words from XXX RADAR to XXX Approach depending on wheather a Spam can local or a Giant Jet inbound
:D

[rodan]

Hand on heart do we all change the words from XXX RADAR to XXX Approach depending on wheather a Spam can local or a Giant Jet inbound
I say 'radar' when the radar is serviceable, and 'approach' when it isn't. Am I expecting too much from instrument-rated pilots to know the difference? :confused:

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Rodan

Fair enough, but therefore what type of service are you providing to a VFR local if on first call you identify yourself as RADAR
especially if the driver thinks as he goes IMC/IFR "it ok RADAR is watching me
:D

[matspart3]

Use of the suffix 'radar' would generally denote the availibility of the service, but then you've got the potential that pilots assume they're in receipt of a radar service, Part 1 warns about this specifically.

Married a Canadian...I'm guessing you've never worked outside CAS?

MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3 says....
1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise
specified, between:
...
g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;

The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.

[rodan]

Ocean 1 0:
OK, I'm not being funny here, but I am giving them whatever service they request.

Like I said, not being funny, and I'm with you on the glaring incongruity within MATS 1 re. separation of IFR when providing a RIS.

[PPRuNe Radar]

MATS Part 3

At my Unit, we have recently got around the night IFR issue by using this bit: -

1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace 1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA...

The Aerodrome Operator (i.e. me!) has determined that we won't provide an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating in VMC at night, solely by refernce to the surface...i.e. the night rating, 'VFR at night' brigade.

and then:

MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3 says.... 1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: ... g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;

The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.

You seem to be saying two different things here. All flights regardless of flight conditions are IFR at night outside CAS in the UK. Ergo, need to be separated if being given an Approach Service. But then you say that if IFR then regardless of the type of service being provided by an Approach Control Unit (as per MATS Part 1), separation must be provided to (IFR) flight. Your first statement refers to an 'Approach Control service', your second to any kind of service (which surely includes FIS and ALR) being provided by that kind of unit.

As you say:

Wouldn't want to test it in court!

;)

[Toadpool]

As AlanM says these three words in MATS pt 1 may be relevant here
unless otherwise specified .

RIS/FIS requested - I don't require separation.

RAS requested - please separate me.

Ras does require separation from other IFR traffic, whether RIS or FIS, which normally can be done by asking the RIS/FIS a max/min level, or to report before making a turn toward the RAS. Making sure, of course that traffic info is passed:}

[matspart3]

PPrune Radar
I know, I know!!! We're talking about 2 different scenarios here though.

1. Just because you don't have to separate on a RIS, doesn't absolve you from your obligations to separate IFR flights. End of story.

2. The night thing is different. It's always been that way, and no-one's ever bothered to do anything about it, probably because SRG don't do validations outside office hours, ergo at night. Fact is, it's impossible to apply the Part 1 in Class G at night. In this litigious society, it concerned me that my ATCO's couldn't apply 'the rules' and were, therfore, exposing themselves to potential problems in the event of an airprox or worse. (didn't this happen at Oxford, and the ATCO was criticised?) So, in consultation with SRG, we developed a Special Separation Standard in our MATS Part 2, and agreed it with the Authority. Co-incidently, the hard copy is in my Inspector's inbox as we speak, having been verbally agreed a few months ago. All being well, we'll be applying it later this week.

The point I was trying to make is that Aerodrome Operators have the option to 'determine' which aircraft they provide an Approach service to: -

S3 Ch 1

1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace
1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA....

This useful 'get out of jail card' offers, what I hope is an appropriate level of protection in our particular night scenario and could, potentially, be expanded to incorporate RIS tracks.

Hell, I'd like to see it expanded to Aerodrome as well...something along the lines of 'thou shall not provide a service to circuit bashers'


;)

[Married a Canadian]

MATS PT 3

Afraid I worked Thames which is Class G city..and gets referred to as the Dustbin of air traffic as that is where all the crap gets chucked..IFR VFR..RAS..RIS FIS..RCS the lot.
And as MR Moss has mentioned it got a wee bit difficult with the restrictions of the TMA above Thames airspace and the amount of unknown traffic in the FIR coupled to our inbounds into City and BIggin

As our primary task was to sequence City and Biggin Inbounds I wasn't overly worried what flight rules someone was flying outside controlled airspace IF they asked for a RIS.

RAS is a different ball game I agree...and aircraft under an approach control service I will agree with you. But for aircraft receiving basic Atsoca...If I was controlling two IFR aircraft under a RIS I would not consider it my responsibility to separate them. Otherwise we might as well change the requirements for providing the service.

If someone called up flying IFR asking for a FIS would you take it upon yourself to separate them from other aircraft?

[matspart3]

If someone called up flying IFR asking for a FIS would you take it upon yourself to separate them from other aircraft?

By the book, I don't have any choice. As an Approach Control Unit (with, or without Radar), I have to separate known IFRs. Given that Thames isn't, specifically associated with a particular aerodrome, it could be a bit different, but probably not when it comes to court!!

[AlanM]

So you are saying that if 4 IFR aircraft outside CAS were just transitting the area - and I was very busy with my IFR traffic inside CAS you would expect me to separate them all? (And to open another can of worms - Thames only has two levels inside CAS 3000ft and 4000 ft with inbounds on a silent handover at 4000ft and outbounds thrown on a heading to miss at 4000 ft - so are you saying that 3000 ft cannot be used against the IFR outside CAS at 2400ft underneath?)

The Thames area of responisbility outside CAS is East of the Battersea Heliport North-South line and inside the M25. Not a lot of airspace and all capped at 2500 ft.

Given that the only IFR safe level is 2300ft , and the Heathrow to Gatwick zones are about 10 miles apart (and you can't vector the RIS's unless on tactical vectors for the ILS) how would you separate them? Suggest they turn to the unknown traffic?

As an aside pt3 - are you at a LARS unit?

[Pierre Argh]

MATSPt3... It's interesting the differing interpretations this raises, but IMHO I believe you are interpretting the rules too literally? If you are providing an Approach Service, then I agree you should separate participating IFR traffic on Approach (no question)...

As for separating ALL IFR traffic in unregulated airspace, when the traffic has no mandate to call you, that's probably impossible? How can you guarantee separation? You don't know the flight rules the unknown traffic is operating under, and more importantly you don't know its intentions (a VFR pilot may be happy with a close pass at much less than standard ATC separation)

So, if I am providing RIS to an IFR flight I will NOT give a vector or climb/descent instruction that will put the aircraft into confliction with other known traffic (unless, exceptionally, the pilot indicates (s)he is happy to continue).... But against unknown traffic, I will only pass traffic information for the following reasons:

IAW the definition of RIS, I am not obliged to separate aircraft and I feel strongly we should not apply our own spin to the rules (if it worries you, by passing traffic info you have met your duty of care obligation)...
The IFR flight may be in VMC or if not, feel able to take their own separation from other aircraft...
If the pilot requires separation or avoiding action (s)he simply has to request an upgrade to RAS...
There is no obligation in Class G for IFR traffic to receive or remain under a service, as long as the pilot applies and basic Rules of the Air for the prevention of collisions and can comply with IFR.

Maybe the original scenario was too vague... Were both aircraft known, were both aircraft IFR, were both on approach or was one, or both, transitting?

Without that information, when we set the scenario in out own airspace against local procedures, the answers are very likely to sound contradictory.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

PA

A/C departs on a local flight (in marginal weather) and when asked FLIGHT RULES replies IFR, when asked Service required replies RIS which is given.
In the way is an IFR transit that is also on a RIS.
Traffic info given at appropriate time but a/c come within 2nm and 700ft. Transit a/c ( which has TCAS) not happy" I am IFR" etc so says he will file.

This is the scenario, answers on a postcard.

We are not talking about separating unknown from known.( dont do that on RIS)

Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.

Looks like most say yes MATS pt 3 says no.
How do we get a definitive answer?
:D

[Married a Canadian]

Ocean Wun Zero

Traffic that is IFR in poor vis and then asks for a RIS does not understand provisos of service.

Therefore when I am in court I get my lawyer to stand up and grill the professional pilot on the provisions of Atsoca and what it entails and why they asked for a particular service if they did not know what MY duty of care was. If they are not happy with 2 miles and 700ft with traffic info passed when THEY asked for the RIS then that is not my problem.

It is not my job to second guess pilots and tell them what service they require outside controlled airspace. And an aircraft departing from an airfield outside controlled airspace....when does he cease to be under the Approach control service. If he is transitting to an airfield 40-50 miles away and I can work him that far....is he under APC the whole way in class G??

We have to be careful not to over control. Class G is called UNcontrolled airspace for a reason.

[360BakTrak]

Think I might bring this up at my competency check on wednesday......get SRG's comments on the subject. Whether it will clear anything up remains to be seen!!!:}

[Red Four]

Married A Canadian asks 'when does he cease to be under the Approach control service?'

MATS Pt 1 again:

...shall provide approach control service from time & place at which :
b)Departing aircraft are taken over from ADI until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach controluntil they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive as serviceor are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

Both these aircraft would seem then be requiring such a service.

Ocean 10 says:
Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.

I agree with MATS Pt3.
There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?)

What service did your transitter originally request? RIS/RAS/FIS?

Also, if I knew weather was marginal or IFR and I had a departure to go, then I would be expecting the departure to suddenly be requiring some sort of separation in a hurry from the transitter (who I already knew to be IFR).

Until SRG actually give more guidance on how Approach units outside CAS are to apply the rules in practise, it remains somewhat open to interpretation. Luckily? I understand ATSOCAS are under review at present, but whether this will make it easier for radar ATCOs to apply... who knows.

4

[BE happy]

Red Four states:

"There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?) "

However there is something in the Part 1 which states that under a RIS:

"The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot."

So if we do separate 2 IFR's under a RIS by using vectors, are we going against the Part 1?

Confused? You and me both!

My take on it, if they request a RIS, they don't want separation to be the responsibility of ATC, otherwise they would have requested a RAS.

[bookworm]

Traffic that is IFR in poor vis and then asks for a RIS does not understand provisos of service.

I wouldn't agree with that. It's not unusual for a pilot to use a RIS in marginal VMC or in IMC in class G in the UK, as a RAS, where available, often entails an extended detour at FL whatever around a primary-only popup target. And in the middle of the detour, another primary-only target decides to pop-up, making standard separation impossible... :(

What is important is that the pilot under a RIS is able to decide (and subsequently knows) whether or not he is separated from known IFR traffic, in other words the standard provisions of an approach control service.

While it's helpful in some circumstances to be able to decline such an ACS, the default should be to separate, just as it would be for a unit with no radar, when the pilot "places herself under the control" of the unit.

[matspart3]

Interesting debate

Pierre
I may be taking the Part 1 too literally, but I think I'm reading it in exactly the way a lawyer would, God help us!

Ocean 10
Did this 'scenario' actually happen? It'll be interesting to see ATSI's take on it during the Airprox investigation.

AlanM
Technically, yes. Practically, you've got no chance in that airspace environment with that volume of traffic. Red 4 is in a similar envronment, without the luxury of Mode C.

Married
I take your point re. 'overcontrolling', but really don't see any other option.

My interpretation of this is that the definitions of RIS & RAS are there primarily for pilots to understand what level of service they're getting. I don't see any clearly identifiable text that absolves us as ATCO's from providing anything other than standard separation.

Although mine isn't a LARS unit (and primary only). We do come across this situation from time to time and, although I'll do my best to achieve 'Standard', sometimes it's just not possible. In fairness, even though the Part 1 is utterly useless in this situation, my Inspectorate do appreciate the 'volatility' of the Class G environment and adopt a sensible and pragmatic approach to overseeing what we do.

Incidently, my Part 2 amendment was approved today...copies available at a small charge!!!!
:ok:

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

The scenario did happen but after a long chat with the transit pilot on the phone after he landed, who did not understand this situation(do we) he decided not to File.
It may not be our job to second guess the pilot but if we are not completely sure of what to do what chance do they have!!
:D

[jack-oh]

Recently there was a topic that tried to get to the bottom of the differences between civil and military interpretations of service provision outside CAS.

I can't think of a clearer example than this thread of the diferances involved in service provision within the UK.

In that topic I put forward that civil ATC was far more concerned with flight rules than applying the definitions of RAS, RIS and FIS and was berated because that "simply wasn't the case". Yet we see that this is cleary what goes on when one set of definitions conflicts with anouther.

Bring on the much needed ATSOCAS review, and let us stop chasing our tails around and around, so we end up disapearing up our own backsides.:\

[Stupendous Man]

My interpretation of this is that the definitions of RIS & RAS are there primarily for pilots to understand what level of service they're getting. I don't see any clearly identifiable text that absolves us as ATCO's from providing anything other than standard separation.

RIS and RAS are 2 completely different services.

One provides separation from other PARTICIPATING flights, and traffic information and any necessary avoidance against unknow traffic (3000ft or 5miles).

The other provides traffic information only, on any a/c whether it is working your frequency or not.

That is it.

In the original scenario the ATCO has fulfilled his part of the contract with the RIS a/c - traffic info was passed.

What would happen to the same ATCO if he had given avoidance tothe RIS a/c which put it into conflict with something else not seen on Radar. Not a leg to stand on.

Many a time I have said "the only traffic to affect your descent to X is at FL Z" only to receive the response "confirm we are cleared to FL X?"

Many pilots do not know the difference between RIS/RAS/RCS
(most noteably American carriers coming off the ocean) and what their own responsibilities are when receiving a service outside CAS.
This isn't me having a go at pilots or saying they are irresponsible - merely that services outside CAS are not fully understood by everyone involved (receiving and providing)

[Pierre Argh]

I still remain convinced that under RIS you do not have a separation obligation unless vectoring, sequencing etc on approach or on climb out (which then probably comes under DoC?).

OWZ's expansion of the scenario opens up one point... he had a IFR departure and known confliction, so why did he clear the departure to the same/similar level? (bad idea, I think the pilot is entitled to expect deconfliction if NOT separation?)

But, if you argue the old chestnut about Class G airspace, cannot restrict the pilot etc... then surely that is equally your "excuse" for not providing separation, in unregulated airspace, under a service that doesn't require you to do so?

I understand the limits of ACS extend to 10mins flying time for procedural reasons... but in the radar environment (which most work in nowadays) that might be 60 miles or more from the airfield... It's going to be interesting to see what SRG say?

[Chilli Monster]

he had a IFR departure and known confliction, so why did he clear the departure to the same/similar level? (bad idea, I think the pilot is entitled to expect deconfliction if NOT separation?)

Agreed.

There is a line in our MATS pt.2 " All departures will be procedurally separated from arriving or other traffic until radar separation can be used". Just because the airfield is in class 'G' doesn't absolve anybody from that responsibility or the service that other aircraft may be on.

This is an argument that, due to the vagaries of UK ATC and ATSOCA is possibly neverending. My advice - use all the tools in your armoury to protect your yellow/blue book. MATS pt 1 and JSP552 are very good guides but are no replacement for common sense.

[Pierre Argh]

Thanks Chilli

I've been following a post on another forum about "practice instrument approaches"... and the way the arguement there has turned around makes me realise that the problem here lies with the differences between ATSORA/LARS and the Approach Control Service?

ISTM that the principle of ACS is a hangover from non-radar days, (when procedural control techniques, and separation, applied to IFR only?)... The along came radar, and services are generally available irrespective of flight rules (except RAS)... but amidst it all there is the "half-way house of RIS (a radar service without separation).

Both ATSORA and ACS stand alone as good, practical regulations. The confusion develops when you try to combine them?

Is RAS only for IFR and RIS/FIS for VFR the way to go... I don''t think so?

[airac]

PA "he had a IFR departure and known confliction," so why did he clear the departure to the same/similar level? (bad idea, I think the pilot is entitled to expect deconfliction if NOT separation?)

Don't think OWZ would launch an IFR into that situation, probably a/c departs VFR realises weather is cr@p and elects to go IFR.
thus presenting you with this awkward situation

As for my opinion professional pilots probably know the differnce of service being provided some PPLs also know , Most foreign pilots ,...... me " what service would you like outside CAS" them
" Ve vant vectors" :D

[Pierre Argh]

Airac... most foreign (commercial) pilots are probably not used to flying outside CAS, let alone getting a service there then, just to further confound those who are familiar with that concept, the UK confuses them by going its own way with RAS and RIS... so cut them some slack?

PS: How long did it take you to work out the VFR to IFR scenario, I'd have never of thought of that as a possibility in the UK?

[airac]

PA
Plenty of slack given I've no problem with any pilot regardless of nationality, but one pilot actually did say that to me
Perhaps this confusion or should I say differences of opinion re RAS/RIS Approach /radar/ LARS ,is down to the fact that the UK has probably registered the most differences with ICAO thus the ANO says one thing The AIP another and MATS pt one yet another( depending on the readers of course)

Solution, keep it simple .Out side CAS we cannot guarantee standard separation between IFR flights but we will endeavour not to let blips merge regardless of known/unknown .IFR/VFR

And Before anyone has a go it's only IMHO:ok:

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

airac

"Don't think OWZ would launch an IFR into that situation, probably a/c departs VFR realises weather is cr@p and elects to go IFR.
thus presenting you with this awkward situation "

This is exactly what happened, and IFR standard SEPN lost as soon as he says i,m IFR!!

New point of order, how many MATS 2 of our readers has the phrase something like" when providing vectoring for tactical reasons do not allow the blips to mearge?


:D

[Pierre Argh]

when providing vectoring for tactical reasons do not allow the blips to merge Ahhh... this "get out", that is creeping slowly across the regulations is a fudge. Aircraft are either separated or they are not (or don't need separation)... perhaps, give it five years, and "standard separation" will have become "don't let the blips merge"?

(Serious hat back on) OWZ says that the pilot changed to IFR in flight... surely then, in such cases, it may take some time to establish standard separation. IMHO by passing traffic info the pilot, who knew he was only under RIS, should have requested climb or descent (i.e. taken responsibility for separation iaw the conditions of the service)