Cap 774

[NorthSouth]

The CAA issued CAP 774 today. It sets out the new definitions of ATSOCAS (Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service etc). But I can't see anywhere in the document which says that these new definitions only apply from March 2009. Won't this generate a lot of confusion between now and next March?
NS

[Spitoon]

If it's anything like the draft it will cause a lot of confusion after next March too!

[airac]

see ATSIN 130 ,it details the time table for all the changes

[Defruiter]

eugh...Interesting read. I thought the idea was to simplify what we got already? :ugh: Looks incredibly complicated to me...

[Spitoon]

But the point that NorthSouth makes - quite correctly in my view - is that unless you've read ATSIN 130 you wouldn't know you're not supposed to do what it says until next March.

If you just take the document - which sets out the rules - it appears to be in force now. It's dated today and the web site says it's current. What status does an ATSIN have - by definition, it's only information? I wonder how the CAA would react if someone said "Well, we didn't follow that rule in our Part 2, even though it's current, because we decided to wait a few weeks"? In the UK we have a convention that rules from the CAA are in force when they are published unless it says otherwise.

The only exception, which I think rather proves the rule, is MATS Part 1 which as I recall is issued with lots of fanfare saying 'here is the next amendment but it doesn't come into force for three months in order to give you time to prepare' - which is supposedly why this one has been published early. Doesn't the MATS amendment have pages dated the day they come into force rather than the day they are published?

Which reminds me, having got used to a MATS Part 1 amendment every three months I'm kind of missing them - maybe because we've got a new edition we don't need amendments any more?

[Another_CFI]

Pilots, unless they are also involved in the provision of ATS, do not see ATSINs therefore they will believe that CAP774 is applicable with immediate effect. What response do we give to a pilot who has read CAP774 and asks for a "Basic Service"? Should it be "GABCD, Flight Information Service. Stand-by until next March for Basic Service!"

[silversurfer808]

I feel this is a case of fixing something that isn't really broke - the current radar services are simple enough to understand. The new Services virtually sound the same, they are just re-written in a more complicated fashion. The current Services do what they say on the tin - the names of the new ones don't. Pressonitus over a bad idea I feel here...

[Toadpool]

I feel this is a case of fixing something that isn't really broke - the current radar services are simple enough to understand. The new Services virtually sound the same, they are just re-written in a more complicated fashion. The current Services do what they say on the tin - the names of the new ones don't. Pressonitus over a bad idea I feel here...

Silversurfer, I and many of my colleagues agree 100%.

It's change for changes sake.

I feel it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary confusion next March, if not before.:ugh:

[silversurfer808]

Toadpool, thanks for your comments. There is qute a few of us who have read this from front-to-back and haven't really seen what warrants the change.

[airac]

silversurfer808 , Toadpool

Initially I was of the same opinion until the publication of the ATSIN 132 and the CAP774
Having gone through this on another thread already, the removal of the current explicit requirement provide standard separation between IFR flights in Class G airspace that are being provided with a service by an approach control unit, I.E A/C on a RIS, and the removal of the dependence on flight rules, to determine the appropriate level of service, is a major step in the right direction. It's not perfect ,nothing ever can be outside CAS but,
as someone who regularly provides ATSOCAS, I reckon we will soon get used to it. What gets me is the need to submit a training plan and hazard analysis for what should basically be an SI:D

[Highland Director]

The CAA issued CAP 774 today. It sets out the new definitions of ATSOCAS (Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service etc). But I can't see anywhere in the document which says that these new definitions only apply from March 2009. Won't this generate a lot of confusion between now and next March?
NS

On page 4 of the document you'll find this:

First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)

[Spitoon]

On page 4 of the document you'll find this:

First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)

Interesting. I don't think it had the bit in brackets - or the comment on the page where you download it - a couple of days ago.

Is this the power of Pprune?

[Jumbo Driver]

On page 4 of the document you'll find this:

First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)

My downloaded copy from late in the evening of the 12th simply says "First Edition 12 June 2008" - there is no parenthesised addendum - but it's there now ...

I see there have been other changes too. CAP774 Document Status is now shown as "Future", rather than "Current" and there is also an added "Review Comment: Effective 16 March 2009" in the listing (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=subcat&id=4).

I believe the most visible and appropriate place to clarify this, to remove any possible ambiguity, would be within the document itself, in Forward, Paragraph 1, under the Heading of Introduction and Applicability.


JD
:)

[bottom rung]

According to the new impending rules, I could be sitting at my usual spot controlling in a class G procedural unit, with two aircraft on, one inbound for the ILS and one transitter, both IFR and IMC, within a short distance from the overhead and at the same level. In the existing system, standard separation would have been applied according to the MATS Pt 1. In the new system, if one of the aircraft elects for a basic service and one for a procedural service, I should only provide traffic information. Can't see how this makes the situation any safer...

[Dizzee Rascal]

According to the new impending rules, I could be sitting at my usual spot controlling in a class G procedural unit, with two aircraft on, one inbound for the ILS and one transitter, both IFR and IMC, within a short distance from the overhead and at the same level. In the existing system, standard separation would have been applied according to the MATS Pt 1. In the new system, if one of the aircraft elects for a basic service and one for a procedural service, I should only provide traffic information. Can't see how this makes the situation any safer...

Exactly. And under the new services, I don't see any mention of essential traffic information, maybe this will be done away with or maybe it will become clearer in the new MATS.

[2 sheds]

A further change seems to be that traffic information (in a Traffic Service) is only referred to as "traffic..." (as ICAO). I have always thought that the UK practice of differentiating between "traffic" (i.e. known traffic) and "unknown traffic" (what it says on the tin) is quite useful and appropriate.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Has anybody received there CD/DVD or whatever it is yet? I seem to recall reading somewhere that they would be sent early this month?

[matspart3]

This is going to be an unmitigated c0ck-up which will solve far fewer problems than it creates......glad I'm not operational anymore!!

[bottom rung]

It seems we have to do the safety case on their behalf and prove that it works. Has the person responsible for formulating this change ever been valid in a procedural class G unit?

[Spitoon]

I believe the most visible and appropriate place to clarify this, to remove any possible ambiguity, would be within the document itself, in Forward, Paragraph 1, under the Heading of Introduction and Applicability.
And maybe at the top of each page in big bold letters!


It seems we have to do the safety case on their behalf and prove that it works. Has the person responsible for formulating this change ever been valid in a procedural class G unit? The sad thing is I think this has been written by committee...and if I'm not mistaken some of them have worked outside CAS.

[airac]

bottom rung ,
It will have to go through a hazard analysis as per your units SMS however on the basis that you will be providing the service in accordance with CAP774 the following quote should be of interest.

APPENDIX C TO ATSIN 132
In the event that the unit considers the content of CAP774 can be implemented with minimal impact upon local procedures, or variances being sought from the policy, further risk assessment may not be required. However, there should be auditable evidence to support this assessment and that due processes have been completed.

As someone who will be doing just that I cannot imagine our unit will come up with many, if any variances. Hope this helps

[bottom rung]

Thanks airac. The crux of the matter is that at present the new system would not be workable in my location. I cannot see any control measure that could be applied to a risk analysis that would ensure safety. It seems reasonable for the instrument approach traffic to expect to be separated from local IFR traffic as at present; the new system allows IFR/IMC traffic to plough through, unseparated, on a basic service. As we will only be able to separate the traffic participating in a procedural service safety will be degraded. I'm quite happy to put together a risk analysis, but I'm going to have my work cut out to come up with a control measure to make it safe, orderly and ex...etc etc.

[airac]

The simple matter is that the CAA have determined that an Approach procedural unit is safe. If they were to come clean and state " Actually it isn't really because any body can fly in class G without talking to any one" ,then half the airfields in england would have to shut.

The new system isn't really that much different, since pilots never have had to comply with approach instructions. The main difference is that now YOU don't have to provide standard separation to IFR flights.
It may not be any safer than the last set up, but it's surely got to be easier than the previous. Don't forget most pilots are already under the impression that they are not separated outside CAS unless it's a RAS.
I think the main reason the CAA have done a blanket safety case is that PROBABLY, all units SMS would not be able to sanction such a service.:(

[Toadpool]

Don't forget most pilots are already under the impression that they are not separated outside CAS unless it's a RAS.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the case at the moment.

CAP 493 Sect 1, Chaper 3, Page 1, Para 1;

Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: - (my highlight).

UK IAIP ENR 1.6.1.2 para. 3.2.1. - (R.I.S.)

The pilot is wholly responsible for maintaining separation from other
aircraft whether or not the controller has passed traffic information.

CAP 493, Section 1 chapter 1 page 2 para 6.1 (c) - (F.I.S.)

c) Controllers are not responsible for separating or sequencing aircraft.

(I can't find it in the IAIP, but I'm sure it says something similar).

[bottom rung]

Whatever... at present we still have to separate participating IFR aircraft in class G according to the MATS Pt 1. The new rules may put me in a situation where one of my IFR aircraft specifies they want procedural separation, and the other IFR one doesn't as he wants a basic service, but continues to plough on regardless through the vicinity of the other. Given the fact that my approach procedures are based around a certain VOR, and the same VOR is a favourite of transit IFR traffic, this could be happening reasonably often. If the aircraft on a procedural service gets upset about the situation, I could still get hammered under "Duty of Care" which rears its head in print in the briefing material sent out by the CAA. The lawyers are going to have a field day. Or then again, I could be worried about nothing. As you say, the aircraft captain is responsible for separation and sequencing. All the non radar units in class G can have an early go.

[airac]

Toadpool
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the case at the moment.
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: - (my highlight).


If that was the case then why would they need significant revisions to MATS part one? it is therefore necessary to remove the current explicit requirement within CAP 493 to provide standard separation between IFR flights . Their words not mine.
unless otherwise specified, refers to the subsequent paragraphs
Increased Separation
Reduced Separation
Advisory Routes
Search and Rescue Escort
Think about it:)

[Toadpool]

airac,

I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question as to why the revision to MATS pt1 is required.

As for your understanding that the statement "unless otherwise specified" refers to the subsequent paragraphs, where does it say this? It could just as easily mean "unless otherwise specified in MATS pt 1".

If this is the case then the MATS pt1 definitions of both FIS and RIS state that the controller is not responsible for separation.

Believe me, I have thought about it, long and hard:ok:.

[LXGB]

Online training program now available here: LINK (http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/ATSOCAS.asp)

Worth merging this thread with the current IFR / VFR and ATSOCAS threads or vice-versa?

[HershamBoys]

Can I please be enlightened....?

I have trawled through CAP 774 and the Appendix from which the paragraph below is extracted.

Establishing Whether a Duty of Care is Owed
To decide if a duty of care is owed by one person to another, the courts will consider the three criteria which were set out in the 1990 case of Caparo Industries v Dickman:
• First the loss suffered must have been “reasonably foreseeable”;
• Second, there must be “proximity” between the claimant and the person who has been negligent. This means that the person who is alleged to have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the events that have led to the claimant’s loss.
• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS. However, the depth and boundaries of this duty of care cannot be defined in advance for each specific scenario and situation, as they will vary depending on the exact circumstances at the time, including: the type of airspace, type of ATS, dynamics of the situation (i.e. how ‘foreseeable’ was the event?). The only time that these factors will ultimately be decided upon is in court when examining the specifics of the situation under scrutiny.

If, ultimately, it remains the responsibility of a pilot to avoid aerial collisions:
[ANO Rule of the Air, Rule 8 - Avoiding aerial collisions
8.—(1) Notwithstanding that a flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.]

How do I, working in Class G, or presumably for that matter, in D, acquire the Duty of Care to separate two aircraft whose pilots have made the choice to conduct their flight under VFR. How have we come to this ???:confused:

HB

[HershamBoys]

Looking at this stuff again -

"• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care."

Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on an ATCO in Class G [or D] to separate aircraft whose pilots have chosen the VFR option ?

"Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS."

Clearly ? In the case of aircrew who have chosen the VFR option ? Are we now responsible for every waif and stray blundering around in Class 'G' ?

HB:{