Known VFR vs IFR under RAS

[52 North]

Just a quickie...that may develop, if a conversation today was anything to go by:

1, IFR under a RAS, identified VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles same level, what do you do?

2, IFR under a RAS, identified VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles level capped 1000ft below, what do you do?

Sorry if this has been covered before, I couldn't find a similar thread.

52N

[rej]

IFR under a RAS, known VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles same level, what do you do?
The RAS traffic, must be offered advisory avoiding action to achieve standard separation (3 or 5 miles depending on who is controlling it (the VFR traffic) unless your IFR aircraft calls visual or happy to continue (at which time it becomes 'RIS' against that specific traffic). At 6 miles reciprocal, you might have left it somewhat late to achieve standard separation!!




IFR under a RAS, known VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles level capped 1000ft below, what do you do?
No avoiding action, just issue traffic information to the RAS aircraft, provided that the same controller is controlling the VFR traffic or if the 2 aircraft are subject to co-ordination.


Now I am going to be told that during my 18 months out of a controlling job I have lost the plot !?!

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

rej said

The RAS traffic, must be offered advisory avoiding action to achieve standard separation (3 or 5 miles depending on who is controlling it (the VFR traffic) unless your IFR aircraft calls visual or happy to continue (at which time it becomes 'RIS' against that specific traffic). At 6 miles reciprocal, you might have left it somewhat late to achieve standard separation!!

MATS part 1 says "prescribed separation " we do not separate IFR from VFR do we.
Additionally if you take this to the letter of the PT 1 law the VFR traffic is not participating in the RAS therefor must be missed by 5/3 miles or 3000 ft.:D

[rej]

OCEAN WUN ZERO

The VFR traffic COULD be under a RIS or FIS and therefore, subject to the caveats appropriate to the type of service, could be co-ordinated down to 1000ft vertical or 3nm lateral/longitudinal.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

The VFR traffic COULD be under a RIS or FIS and therefore, subject to the caveats appropriate to the type of service, could be co-ordinated down to 1000ft vertical or 3nm lateral/longitudinal.

So why does the RAS need to be downgraded to a RIS,and what are the caveats:D

[rej]

This is like a bloody PK.

'Downgrading to RIS'

The RAS is not actually downgraded to a RIS (hence my use of apostrophes) but the ac need not be issued with any more traffic information, advisory avoiding action and the RAS pilot becomes responsible for his/her own separation against that individual track.

The Caveats.

If the VFR ac is under a FIS then the ac must be identified and compliance from the pilot to maintain a set altitude/level block must be obtained prior to co-ordination being legal



OCEAN WUN ZERO, as you are an ATCO, I am suprised that you need to be reminded.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

rej mate
you dont know the half of it.

This thread is rumoured to be here to pull out of us poor sods that pay the mortgage OSCAS all the theorys so that a bit of standardisation might prevail
:D

PS
rej are you ex mil?

[rej]

OCEAN WUN ZERO

standardization in ATC ........ next you'll be telling me that you believe in Father Christmas.
;) :hmm: :rolleyes:

[52 North]

So just to be clear, we should treat a/c in class G under a RAS as if they are in class C airspace wrt known traffic i.e. separate IFR from IFR and VFR...can that be right :ugh:

My take on it (which is not what the Part 1 says at the moment)

We should not separate IFR from known VFR in class G, even if IFR is under a RAS (if we do then we are providing a better service for a/c in class G than they get in class D which imho is not the idea).

IFR under a RAS going towards a known VFR at same / similar level should be issued with traffic information and if requested given avoiding action (as per class D)

IFR under a RAS shall be separated (1000ft or 3nm/5nm) from other IFR\'s no matter what service the other IFR a/c is under

IFR under a RAS shall be issued with the same avoidance from unknown traffic than it is at the moment i.e. attempt to provide 5 miles or 3000ft mode C readout

However the Part 1 effectively says that a/c under a RAS shall attempt to avoid any a/c not participating in the RAS by 5 miles or 3000ft. i.e. IFR under RAS vs known VFR should be 5 miles or 3000ft! what a nonsense.

[rej]

OCEAN WUN ZERO

Less of the ex please. Just having a good time doing something out of spec at the moment.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Sorry rej
Just trying to understand which side of the screen you are on.
It seems that us civvies cant agree, the old addage applying that if you take 10 ATCO's and ask the same question you will get 23 different answers( see the recent posts on 3 mile separation, and separation of IFR RIS)
The rumour is that the mil are able to standardise easier than us so I thought you may have the golden egg.
:D

[rej]

I can understand your frustrations at a system that struggles to stabdardize simple procedures. I do like to think that we have a fairly robust standardization system but it is only ever as good as the people who apply the rules in the course of their day-to-day duties. If individuals are hell-bent on breaking the rules or just embellishing them because they can be bothered to do things properly then the system will never meet its potential. I remember one situation which took place at my unit at during the height of the Ben MacDui courts martial. Although the procedure for low-level let downs was clear and the subject of much notification to remind controllers of the procedures and their responsibilities, I observed one experienced controller trying teach an trainee incorrectly by blatently disregarding the rules and procedures. When I interjected and reminded them both of the procedure, one in particular was less than professional in response.

All I can say is that things will never improve if we act in a blinkered manner and turn a blind eye to those who transgress. We are in a profession that we should be righly proud of; as I said earlier, the rules are not complicated, they are written down so that we can learn them and apply them ..... correctly.

Rant over.

[chevvron]

What class of airspace, A, D or G?
Is the VFR identified?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Chevron,

You can't give RAS in Class A or D. There's a clue for you :)

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Come on people we need your input here.
This is a reasonably serious request for info on how units deal with this issue.
Much internal consultation (shouting) has taken place and the feds are considering it.
Some of the outcome will influence a feeling that the Pt 1 on this issue should be thrown in the bin.
:D

[Chilli Monster]

1, IFR under a RAS, identified VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles same level, what do you do?
Give the IFR 3 miles separation, making sure the VFR does nothing to erode it.
2, IFR under a RAS, identified VFR 12 o'clock 6 miles level capped 1000ft below, what do you do?
Keep the 1000ft separation, again making sure nothing erodes it.

[Standard Noise]

Ah, but are the rules the same in sunny Leicestershireshire?;)

[rej]

Chilli Monster

So succinctly put..... you are obviusly not a policy maker :ok:

[airac]

IFR a/c inbound on a RAS, two VFR a/c both Identified but only recieving a RIS or FIS, do I have to provide the prescribed separation of 5 miles /3000ft ( Mats part one RAS ) since they are not participating in the same service as the IFR inbound A/C.


The whole crux of the matter appears to be the words non-participating TFC . Is this simply restricted to the a/c under a RAS or can another a/c under another form RIS or FIS ( albeit identified) be considered to be participating in " the service"
1.4.1 e) states pass avoiding action to resolve conflictions with nonparticipating TFC ,but goes on to say , it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown TFC etc
To my mind if you are providing a RAS or a RIS the a/c are participating in the service ,therefore If both IFR then standard separation if one is unknown or not identified then seek to achieve 5nm or 3000'.

As for providing standard separation between IFR and VFR . The UK does not subscribe to that practice
section 3 chapt 4 page 1 3.1 although in class D E F and G airspace separation standards are NOT applied
ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights.

So if someone wants to go for standard ,its OK by me ,but I feel a tad unnecessary.

:hmm:

[Pierre Argh]

As for providing standard separation between IFR and VFR . The UK does not subscribe to that practice Which UK are you refering to airac?

When I am controlling IFR traffic in Class G airspace in the UK that is heading towards known VFR traffic I am not allowed to ignore the VFR, as you infer, I have to attempt to ensure standard separation in manitained... either by requesting compliance of the VFR pilot or issuing advise to the IFR pilot (avoiding action)

If the VFR is unknown (I wouldn't know it was VFR then would I) so I have to offer avoiding action...

What do you do?

[52 North]

So if we go around avoiding known VFR's in class G, are we not giving a better service than IFR receive inside class D? In fact we are operating as if the IFR was in Class C airspace.

Is that really what they wanted when they designed the RAS? I don't think it is, it would be interesting to see what SRG think of all this.

[rej]

So if we go around avoiding known VFR's in class G, are we not giving a better service than IFR receive inside class D? In fact we are operating as if the IFR was in Class C airspace.

I am intrigued at 52 North's replies. What is your conecetion to the aviation industry and do you not believe or understand the answers that you are getting from experienced civ and mil controllers?

:confused:





The whole concept of an ac electing to take a RAS vice a RIS (as a RIS can be provided to ac operating under IFR or VFR) is that he/she (the pilot) might require assistance in the avoidance of other traffic. Whether you are providing a better service is really up to the pilot; he or she can always downgrade to RIS if required. However, if operating in IMC, to avoid the aluminium overcast that might lurk within the clouds, a pilot might, and this is just my opinion, be exercising weak judgement by taking a RIS, FIS or no service at all. I have flown (as a pax on headset) quite a few times in cloud under a RIS and I can assure you that it does not always give you a warm and fuzzy feeling hearing ATC passing instructions and warnings to other ac in your vicinity. By taking a RAS, traffic avoidance is one less thing that is left TOTALLY to you (yes, I know that ultimately the pilot is still responsible for collision avoidance but any help in ****e conditions is better than non - otherwise the SRG and mil policy makers would have binned the service years ago).

[airac]

piere agh Probably the same UK airspace as you !!!!!

I would not ignore an unknown a/c and, if subject a/c was under a RAS , Iwould seek to achieve the prescribed separation .

Also I would not ignore a known VFR a/c but, and a big BUT , at that, I would do what the manual and SRG prescibe. Give traffic info on both to both , to enable the pilots to decide a course of action. If one of them (presumably the IFR) wasn't too happy then I could suggest an alternative heading/level/ or route.

However ,we in the uk do not separate by STANDARD separation IFR and VFR . Either re read the chapter on VFR/IFR intergration ,
or tell me and everyone else where the manual/ AIP says that we have to.

The whole point of this thread was to try to establish a concensus on the ATSOCAS and how they are applied .

The majority of NATS units, and I believe a number of non NATS units are issueing instructions to their ATCOs not to provide a RAS . Ask your self why.

Once again these threads always end up with some body trying to have a pop at the other. I am sure that if this discussion took place in a pub over a pint , it would be heated but non the less friendly . Please try to remember that when you choose your words so that people do not take offence. :ok:

[rej]

Yet again there appears to be a huge discrepancy between MATS pt 1 and JSP552 wrt the application of ATSOCAS. I hope that the current working group resolve this soon, not just for the sake of us ATCOs but also for our customers.

[airac]

REJ
you can say that again :ok:

[52 North]

I am intrigued at 52 North's replies. What is your conecetion to the aviation industry and do you not believe or understand the answers that you are getting from experienced civ and mil controllers?

The whole concept of an ac electing to take a RAS vice a RIS (as a RIS can be provided to ac operating under IFR or VFR) is that he/she (the pilot) might require assistance in the avoidance of other traffic. Whether you are providing a better service is really up to the pilot; he or she can always downgrade to RIS if required. However, if operating in IMC, to avoid the aluminium overcast that might lurk within the clouds, a pilot might, and this is just my opinion, be exercising weak judgement by taking a RIS, FIS or no service at all. I have flown (as a pax on headset) quite a few times in cloud under a RIS and I can assure you that it does not always give you a warm and fuzzy feeling hearing ATC passing instructions and warnings to other ac in your vicinity. By taking a RAS, traffic avoidance is one less thing that is left TOTALLY to you (yes, I know that ultimately the pilot is still responsible for collision avoidance but any help in ****e conditions is better than non - otherwise the SRG and mil policy makers would have binned the service years ago).


Sorry if I have confused / intrigued you by my answers, maybe I am being a little deep, last time I checked I was a valid radar controller at a civil unit in class G airspace. I am perfectly aware why the RAS is used to avoid unknown traffic but this is not what I am getting at, I am getting at the fact that procedures vs known traffic are not well written in the Pt1.

The different answers we have seen on this subject so far indicate that it is being interpreted very differently by individual ATCO's

Once again, the points I am trying to make are that:

a) If we are required to separate IFR under a RAS from identified VFR, is that not giving a better service than aircraft receive in Class D....if so, why? i.e. we are operating as if the aircraft was in class C (suggest you check the table in Part 1 if you don't believe me)

b) Depending on how you interpret the word "participating" in Part 1, it can mean that we need to provide 5 miles or 3000ft separation between IFR under a RAS and all other traffic (known or unknown, IFR or VFR) unless the other aircraft is "participating" in the RAS also. This cannot be what they wanted when they designed the RAS.

I have read answers from other valid civil and mil ATCO's and I am none the wiser (and rej if you don't understand what I am getting at, it is probably due to your different mil rules)



52N

[London Mil]

They way I read it is that separation is to be applied between RAS traffic (ie that which is participating).

In all other circumstances, the controler will pass advice to participating traffic in order to assist a pilot in roesolving a confliction. This advice, will be based around trying to achieve a separation standard of 5nm/3000ft (careful with the wording here, I do not mean that "controllers will provide standard separation" as we must remember this is an advisory service). I don't see any difference between mil/civil interpretation so far.

As others have said, if a non-participating track is actually recieving a service, the question of how much separation, if any, comes to the fore. Common sense should prevail here and maybe we should look at things from a pilot's perspective. In this respect I agree with CM.

Rej, I don't actually think there is too much different between 552/MATS Pt 1, the problem lies in the interpretation (pilot and controller), hence the CAA Review of ATSOCAS.

52N, an interesting argument about standards in Class G being higher than Class D. Maybe one way to look at this is that Class D is a known environment whithin which a control service is applied whereas, in class G, ATSOCAS is merely an advisory service. Consequently, the burden of responsibility has changed.

[Married a Canadian]

Where is the common sense here??

From my reading..

Known VFR capped 1000ft below......if it known and capped that must mean it is identified and Mode C verified. Therefore why not just tell the pilot under the RAS that the VFR aircraft is capped 1000ft below and ask if he is happy with that? Either tell or coordinate the VFR to remain below until passed and problem solved. I know you haven't met the prerequisites of a RAS but you have still separated the aircraft more than would have been done under a RIS. And as has been mentioned in another thread 5 miles and 3000ft is impossible to achieve in some areas of the UK due to overlying airspace.

Given that 1000ft is ok for separation in controlled airspace then surely it is ok in Class G if you have two verified Mode Cs. The 3000ft vertical under a RAS is only incase a mode C is inaccurate! Why do we get so hung up about the exact separation when it is only an advisory service. So long as you instigate some form you are doing your job.

Before anyone queries me again...I used to work Thames which had enough Class G to keep anyone happy. Uncontrolled airspace should not be this complicated.

[52 North]

Where is the common sense here??

Not in the Part 1 :ugh:

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

I know you haven't met the prerequisites of a RAS Exactly the point. The part 1 says prescribed separation between RAS and non participating Tfc ie not on a RAS.
So if you dont attempt to achieve I fail you on your comp check!!!!

:D

[Married a Canadian]

Ocean

That is where the MATS 1 is nonsense though

The scenario created was known VFR traffic.....capped below.

So even if the traffic is VFR...not partaking in the RAS.. I KNOW his altitude and have coordinated capping him...why I am going to attempt to provide 3000ft separation with my other traffic that again has a verified altitude.

As I said common sense should prevail....1000ft is adequate in controlled airspace as the traffic is known. Should it not be OK between known traffic outside controlled airspace and save all this hassle.

You could fail me on a competency check for not upholding the MATS 1 to the letter of the law......but that means most controllers would probably fail competency checks.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Married
At last we get to the crux of the point.
Where does disregarding the part 1 get us when it goes wrong? Although in these scenarios it is unlikely that a mid air would occur it is conceivable that a number of incidents, filed, brought up on checks or otherwise could occur that might require licensing action.
In these days of self regulation through Safety Management Systems how does a unit write procedures with this sort of advice from the official doc?
:D

[chevvron]

The problem with only providing RIS is that you may give the pilot traffic info, but unless that traffic carries a transponder, it won't show on TCAS, so you'll have to 'go back' (not upgrade) to RAS and give avoiding action anyway!
I agree it does seem strange that avoiding action is given in class G but only traffic info in class D; this was brought up years ago by GATCO when the RAS/RIS question was last looked at.
I personally think we should apply FIS using radar as specified in ICAO Doc 4444 and ditch RIS, then there would be no confusion for foreign pilots

[NorthSouth]

Married a Canadian:Given that 1000ft is ok for separation in controlled airspace then surely it is ok in Class G if you have two verified Mode CsWhy do you need Mode C? If the VFR is 'known' then you're either talking to him or you know a man who is. Why can't you just ask his altitude and request 'not above XXXX till advised'? I get this frequently, sometimes in non-transponder aircraft, and not always with a formal identification, against descending IFR traffic.

While we're on the subject, where in MATS Part 1 does it say you must - or even should - provide 1000ft vertical separation between IFRs and VFRs in Class D? Seems to be standard in the UK but you certainly don't get it in the USA.

NS

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

NS
In class G is saying "not above" X not controlling VFR and we dont do that do we !!!!!!
How about " advise if you wish to climb above X "
However what do we do if they say " I wish to climb above" Class G and all that as I have had, we then go back to avoiding them with our RAS tfc by 5/3 or 3000 ft . ie as has been said better than class D

:D

PS I thought there might be more on this from Civies working OCAS
PPS Can we have a pole on units that have an instruction NOT to provide a RAS, name changed to protect the innocent if necessary

:confused:

[52 North]

While we're on the subject, where in MATS Part 1 does it say you must - or even should - provide 1000ft vertical separation between IFRs and VFRs in Class D? Seems to be standard in the UK but you certainly don't get it in the USA.

It doesn't, however I have noticed a tendency for some UK Class D CTR's to be controlled as if they were class C. I guess it is easier to provide 1000ft sep through a VFR level cap than it is to go through the "pass traffic, then pass avoiding action if requested" procedure.

52N