ATSOCAS - 12 Mar 09

[roon]

At a briefing during the recent RNR Air Branch Conference at VL, we heard about ATSOCAS (Air Traffic Services Outside CAS). Being outside aviation (mostly) these days, I asked the assembled hangovers (who are mostly inside aviation these days) if they had heard of ATSOCAS. Many hadn't.

Just in case you haven't heard of it, RAS/RIS/FIS etc are all being replaced by ATSOCAS which includes almost direct replacements for the old services, but with specific guidance on some areas which were apparently unclear under the old guidance (such as Terrain Avoidance responsibility, which was unclear from a legal viewpoint).

There is a related thread under the Civ forum, and another in ATC Matters, but the Mil forum may benefit from checking the following link. It comes into force on 12 March this year.

FAQ Details | Air Traffic Standards | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1838&pagetype=70&gid=1851&faqid=1002)

Your friendly ATC can provide training, and there is a DVD available. You'll be pleased to hear.

[Pure Pursuit]

The CAP 774 CD/DVD is shocking. Completely useless & highly frustrating.

Mine is now a beer mat.

[SirToppamHat]

Just to clarify (though not detract from) what roon has said, the term ATSOCAS is not new. It was in use when I qualified in 1989. It has gone on (within some mil systems at least) to be renamed ATSOCA, but has always referred to the Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace (or Air Space). I am guessing that most controllers out there are familiar with the term.

Why do I say this? Mainly because I don't want anyone out there to screw up by assuming that what is coming in is the same as we have now. This is a significant change to services and will (for the controllers at least) bring in a whole load of new phrases and language that will need to be learned and applied.

If you are involved in aviation, please don't get caught out on Mar 12.

Oh and to add to roon's link, see here:

CAP 493 Effective 12 Mar 09 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2239).

STH

[spheroid]

I've been trying to get my head around this stuff since November and I still can't see the difference. I chatted to an ATC'er who said the differences to ATC were massive but to me....... It used to be called ..............


.... Listening watch.


Then they changed it to Flight Information service..... but it was the same thing......


and now it will be called Basic service.....but its still the same thing......

So, whats the difference ?

[BEagle]

Perhaps the most significant change is that 'Deconfliction' can be requested by traffic flying under VFR, whereas previously RAS was only available outside CAS to IFR traffic.

Which will be such fun for LARS controllers on a busy summer's day (if we ever get one!).

The other point I've noted is that a 'Traffic' service isn't considered appropriate to IFR traffic if 'Deconfliction' is available.

Which is utter bolleaux!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

This from one of the FAQ's at the above links for controllers:

Requests for FIS at non-radar units:
'Revised air traffic services outside controlled airspace have come into effect, Basic Service'.

Requests for FIS at surveillance equipped Air Traffic Control Units:
'Revised air traffic services outside controlled airspace have come into effect, confirm you require basic service'.

Requests for RIS:
'Revised air traffic services outside controlled airspace have come into effect, confirm you require Traffic Service'.

Requests for RAS:
'Revised air traffic services outside controlled airspace have come into effect, confirm you require Deconfliction Service'.


Think that sums it up!

[VinRouge]

How about requesting heading and level changes under the equivalent of a "RIS" (traffic service)? You CANNOT just turn and tell air traffic, you now need to get a response.

How about decreased separation distances?

How about no mention whatsoever of emergency deconfliction vectors if the controller thinks an airprox is likely under the equivalent of a basic service? (FIS)

How about Captains being responsible for traffic avoidance under the Equivalent of a RAS? (Deconfliction service)

This IS NOT a renaming exercise. This it seems, is the ATC fraternity getting sloping teflon shoulders and placing all responsibility (legal particularly) on the shoulders of Aircrew. Thats not to say individual controllers would take such a gash, arse covering attitude, in fact I know all wont, unfortunately the CAP does leave a LOT to the imagination when really, we need clear cut regs.


There are significant issues with the whole of ATSOCAS, many of which have been voiced at the various stages of development, but it seems little has been done.

You want to have a look in the ATC forum for the controllers views on this; its not good by the way.

[anotherthing]

Vin Rouge


How about no mention whatsoever of emergency deconfliction vectors if the controller thinks an airprox is likely under the equivalent of a basic service? (FIS)
This was never written down in official documents for FIS - however any controller worth their salt would provide the info - if the FIS aircraft was actually identified (or if not, would use the words 'traffic believed to be you...') and if they had the time to do it, or have even noticed the confliction (FIS is a lower priority and therefore has less attention paid to it than RIS or RAS).

Now with the new service(s) there is a section in the full document regarding 'duty of care'... this 'duty of care' statement actually puts more of an onus on the ATCO and in some interpretations makes them more liable to prosecution if something were to go wrong, and not, as you state ...This it seems, is the ATC fraternity getting sloping teflon shoulders...This is actually a retrograde step.

How about Captains being responsible for traffic avoidance under the Equivalent of a RAS? (Deconfliction service)The Captain has always been ultimately responsible for traffic avoidance whatever the ATSOCAS service they were receiving.

Apart from a few minor tweaks, including the ability to provide RAS for VFR traffic, the service aircrew can expect stays virtually unchanged. This is mostly a renaming exercise, and a bad one. However, by the statements you made above, it goes to prove that some pilots may not have fully understood the services they were receiving previously, nor the implications of that service.

However the majority of ATCOs I work with feel that instead of a big re-naming exercise, money would have been better spent on educating pilots (and ATCOs) to ensure they understood the current nomenclature.

As spheroid pointed out, these services have already been renamed once, no doubt in 15 or 20 years we will go through the process yet again!!

[spheroid]

How about no mention whatsoever of emergency deconfliction vectors if the controller thinks an airprox is likely under the equivalent of a basic service? (FIS)


Very true. You have to remember that a FIS / Basic service is a NON radar service.

[VinRouge]

The Captain has always been ultimately responsible for traffic avoidance whatever the ATSOCAS service they were receiving. Not so sure I agree with that:

552 version:


There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside CAS to comply with
instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, a pilot who
chooses not to comply with advisory avoiding action must inform the controller. The
pilot will then become responsible for initiating any avoiding action that may
subsequently prove necessary.

The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance, although ATSUs providing a
RAS will set a level or levels below which a RAS will be refused or terminated.
Nowhere in JSP552 does it state under a RAS the Aircraft Captain is responsible for trafic avoidance.

Now, to Cap 774 which states:

A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the
provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance derived
traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned
deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in Class F/G airspace, or for
positioning and/or sequencing. However, the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility. That is not the subtle change you make it out to be. In the old scheme, as aircrew, if I followed advisory vectors and had an airprox or god forbid a mid-air, against coordinated traffic, I think its pretty safe to say that it wouldnt have been my fault. That is quite blatantly not the case now as stated by CAP774. What do you suggest we do in cloud? Use the Force? :suspect:

Now, to this:


This was never written down in official documents for FIS - however any controller worth their salt would provide the info - if the FIS aircraft was actually identified (or if not, would use the words 'traffic believed to be you...') and if they had the time to do it, or have even noticed the confliction (FIS is a lower priority and therefore has less attention paid to it than RIS or RAS).
Yes it was I am afraid, back to JSP552:



235.125.1 FIS is a non-radar service provided, either separately or in conjunction with otherservices, for the purpose of supplying information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flight. Under a FIS the following conditions apply:
a. Provision of the service includes information about weather, changes of
serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes and any other information pertinent to safety.
b. The controller may attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only. Such identification does not imply that a radar service is being provided or that the controller will continuously monitor the flight. Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service.

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

d. Where a controller suspects, from whatever source, that a flight is in dangerous proximity to another aircraft, a warning is to be issued to the pilot. It is accepted this information may be incomplete and the controller cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy.Now, to the airy-fairy CAP774 version:

A Basic Service is an ATS provided for the purpose of giving advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights. This may include weather information, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes, general airspace activity information, and any other information likely to affect safety. The avoidance of other traffic is solely the pilot’s responsibility.
Basic Service relies on the pilot avoiding other traffic, unaided by controllers/
FISOs. It is essential that a pilot receiving this service remains alert to the fact that,
unlike a Traffic Service and a Deconfliction Service, the provider of a Basic Service is not required to monitor the flight.
Now with the new service(s) there is a section in the full document regarding 'duty of care'... this 'duty of care' statement actually puts more of an onus on the ATCO and in some interpretations makes them more liable to prosecution if something were to go wrong, and not, as you stateWhy should there be interpretations? Why not have clear-cut, well defined rules that dont rely on some modern legal mumbo jumbo b*ll**** like "Duty of care" to ensure that I am not going to crash into another aircraft? Since when did phrases such as vicarious liability factor into flight safety or the cultural manner in which we operate aircraft safely? You are right, this IS a retrograde step, but not for the better.

Anyone that seriously thinks that this is a simple rebranding exercise needs to get their heads in the regs. Because, as it has been pointed out, it is not.

[BEagle]

spheroid, if an ATC service provider has access to surveillance systems, even under a Basic service some urgent avoidance action might be provided.

Some problems stemmed from pilots receiving helpful information whilst in receipt of a FIS, then coming to expect that as the norm from non-radar units. Education would certainly have helped.

I see nothing to prevent a pilot flying under 'own navigation' under a Traffic service - which infers self determination of heading, height and speed in my book. Which should, of course, be made known to the ATCO. Whereas if a heading is assigned by the ATCO at the pilot's request, that heading should be maintained unless safety overrides it.

I agree that the service titles are very poorly chosen. I suggested 'Basic', 'Information', 'Advisory' and 'Procedural'.

[VinRouge]

BEags, problem is, under a traffic service, you are now expected to request heading and level changes.

Re-education would have been much better than a wholescale re-writing of the rules.

[BEagle]

Under 'Headings', the statement in CAP774 for 'Traffic' service is:

A pilot may operate under his own navigation or a controller may provide headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing or as navigational assistance. If a heading is unacceptable to the pilot he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change route, manoeuvring area, or deviate from an ATC heading without first advising and obtaining a response from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot. Controllers shall only instigate heading allocations when the aircraft is at or above an ATC unit’s terrain safe level. However, if pilots request a heading from the controller whilst operating below the ATC unit terrain safe level, this may be provided as long as the controller reminds the pilot that he remains responsible for terrain clearance.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

For 'Levels', the statement is:

Pilots may select their own operating levels or may be provided with level allocations by the controller for the positioning and/or sequencing of traffic or for navigational assistance. If a level is unacceptable to the pilot he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level or level band without first advising and obtaining a response from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot. Levels allocated by controllers shall be terrain safe in accordance with the ATC unit’s terrain safe levels, unless an agreement is reached with the pilot, or such levels form part of VFR clearances for aerodrome arrival or to enter controlled airspace that by necessity require flight below the unit terrain safe levels; in such circumstances, the instruction shall be accompanied by a reminder that the pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance.

(My bold characters for emphasis)

So yes, I see what you mean. This will undoubtedly increase RT workload - so I imagine that many people will simply not bother with this type of service.

Alternatively, "G-XXXX will be remaining within a manoeuvring area from 50N to 53N and from 002E to 003W from 2000 ft to FL60, remaining outside CAS at all times. I will advise if I wish to leave the area or levels"...:E

[ComJam]

VinRouge,

Current MATS Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, 1.5 d:

d) The controller will be advised before a pilot changes level, level band or route.

Sounds the same as the new "Traffic Service" requirements....

P.S. There are a surprising number of pilots out there who know very little about the forthcoming implementation of the new rules...

[spheroid]

P.S. There are a surprising number of pilots out there who know very little about the forthcoming implementation of the new rules...

Not military pilots. The ATC'ers have been bleating on about this for months with roadshows, lessons, DVDs, presentations etc etc blah blah....there isn't a military pilot who doesn't know this is coming.

[VinRouge]

I agree. Thats why people need to be careful of trying a direct read across and just say the new service name.

The intent of the services may be similar, however, the means by which those intents are sometimes different.

[whowhenwhy]

Actually, it's amazing what you learn about the amount that aircrew don't know about the service that they've been getting for years. Especially so now that people are out and about explaining the new services. Yes it would have been better if we'd re-educated aircrew and civvy air traffic controls about what it was supposed to be all about, but that wasn't politically acceptable. Pilots have always been ultimately responsible for the safety of their aircraft, no matter what service they are under, all that CAP 774 does is spell that out in words that some will find objectionable. Under RIS, pilots have always had to tell ATC before changing level, level band, or route and by definition hdg - so there's no change with the new Traffic Service. From a military perspective there are few changes to the service, the noticeable changes are going to be those relating to phraseology - we're all going to adopt CAP 413. God knows who thought it was a good idea to get rid of roll and overshoot though - touch and go and low approach don't exactly roll off the tongue!

[Pure Pursuit]

This will not be transparent to the aircrew, particularly with the deconfliction service.

There will be no 'you are responsible for terrain...' from the ATC or FCs (unless they suggest a vector whilst under a basic service). I think that is good call as constantly telling a pilot to do his utmost not to clip the hills is, at best, patronising!

You'll be allowed to climb to right up to the DFL with traffic at FL250 (200 if TRAs are not active) regardless of whether you have call 'happy to continue' on that traffic. A good move IMHO, although I'll only be applying that although every effort SHOULD be made to coordinate.

Unfortunately, some idiot has removed the RAS merge rule, which was ideal for being able to negate VFR offshore helo traffic. Unfortunately for the Typhoon & F3 guys, they'll be getting avoiding action calls against pop up, slow, low traffic even if they are 20K above it. Madness.

[moggiee]

A pilot may operate under his own navigation or a controller may provide headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing or as navigational assistance. If a heading is unacceptable to the pilot he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change route, manoeuvring area, or deviate from an ATC heading without first advising and obtaining a response from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.

I read that as:

If you're doing "own navigation", you choose the heading to fly.
Once you accept an ATC heading, then you don't deviate from it without telling ATC first.

Isn't that pretty much how it's always been?

[BEagle]

The main difference is that you must now wait for an ATC response before changing your route or manoeuvring area when under 'own navigation'.

If the ATCO is busy, for example with providing a 'deconfliction service' to other traffic, that might take a fair while. Whereas in the past you just announced what you were going to do and got on with it, now you will have to wait for the response.

Changing to CAP413 terminlology is long overdue - but presumably uniquely military expressions such as 'run-in and break' will remain? Or will it be something like the tortuous 'high speed gear up low approach to pitch into the closed pattern' as in Spam-speak?

[Long Drop]

I know it sounds petty but I for one will still use roll or overshoot at a military base, I think most of us already use civvy r/t at civvy aerodromes. Why do we always have to come in-line with the civilian fraternity, we operate differently and therefore should have nuances in the way we do things. The cynic in me thinks that going fully to the civvy rules will save a couple of SO2s somewhere writing and ammending military regulations. Cost saving?

[BEagle]

I for one will still use roll or overshoot at a military base,

Why? Does it hurt to say 'touch and go' and 'go around'?

Why do we always have to come in-line with the civilian fraternity, we operate differently and therefore should have nuances in the way we do things.

Because as a minority UK airspace user (which, unfortunately, is what the UK military now is...:mad:), it makes sense to use the standard terminology of the majority where possible but to retain uniquely military terminology where essential.

After a CHIRP submission due to a military ATCO clearing a departing aircraft to take-off whilst another was on short final to land - which the departing aircraft wisely refused - the response from whatever IFS is now called indicated a greater interest in trying to witch hunt and hang the ATCO than in solving the problem. The problem was actually due to the military failing to use 'conditional clearances' - e.g. "After landing traffic, line up and wait" or similar. It was then revealed that the only reason that the military didn't want to align their terminology with rest-of-the-UK practice was that there was nobody available to 'staff' the change.....:rolleyes:

[US Herk]

Not military pilots. The ATC'ers have been bleating on about this for months with roadshows, lessons, DVDs, presentations etc etc blah blah....there isn't a military pilot who doesn't know this is coming.
I'm assuming that RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath, and RAF Mildenhall have been informed, training materials provided, and their aircrew/ATCOs trained...

...or is that a bad assumption?

Not currently posted there, but due to return to Mildenhall this May...I have passed along some info to folks I know there with hopes they already are aware.

[whowhenwhy]

They certainly have-they got about 3 days for their trainers and then they roll out trg to the rest.

[US Herk]

Yes - confirmed by my mates abroad as well. However, they are currently undergoing their tac-eval, so I imagine emphasis has been there, rather than ATSOCAS training...

[Squawk7143]

Folks,

What does the adoption of CAP 413 mean in terms of military circuits? If I fly a circuit at a civil airfield with an ATSU and call downwind I will typically get one of three responses:

"Report ready for base", "Report left (or right) base" or "Report finals number 1" The key thing is I am told to "Report" at a particular point.

At a miltary base this does not of course happen ( at least in my limited experience) since I would call downwind to roll or land and get told the surface wind. My next call would be "finals"

Is this likely to change?

7143

[Grabbers]

Sqk 7143,

Nope the downwind calls, finals calls - in fact any of the std vis cct calls remain the same. The vast majority of phraseology changes are to do with ATSOCAS, Terrain levels and Types of Service.

Of course all this could have been known to you had you sourced a copy of the documents.
:ugh:

[Squawk7143]

Grabbers,

Ok, its just that I saw the exchange on "touch and go" and "go around". Are they not visual circuit calls? I just wondered what the implications of those particular changes might mean on the visual circuit overall.

Thanks anyway.

7143

[Liobian]

Beg pardon if I've missed it, on here, but one aspect of the move to new ATSOCAS appears to have been overlooked; namely that the civil and military ATC worlds will (should) be using the same terms with common understanding thereof. That must be an improvement, surely ?

[Monkey Madness]

Just to wander off topic slightly...

The problem was actually due to the military failing to use 'conditional clearances' - e.g. "After landing traffic, line up and wait" or similar. It was then revealed that the only reason that the military didn't want to align their terminology with rest-of-the-UK practice was that there was nobody available to 'staff' the change....


JSP 552 has changed in that Mil ATCO's can issue conditional clearances subject to certain conditions... though to be honest I have yet to see a unit that will allow its ATCO's to exercise that right (asides from the three of us who were cleared to use them by the ATCEB last year, and I must say that they work very well in certain conditions).

905.150.5 All clearances to enter, land on, take-off on, cross and backtrack on the runway in use are to be read back. Other clearances and instructions (including conditional clearances) are to be read back or acknowledged in a manner, which clearly indicates that they have been understood and
accepted.


As for the phraseology, the 552 also states:

901.100.1 The air-ground-air communications procedures in CAP 413 and ACP 125 are to be used for all air-ground-air communications with civil aircraft and with civil-operated ground stations. The air-ground procedures in Allied Communications Publications (ACPs) are to be used for all other
purposes.

It's all there for us to use, if only they let us.