ATSOCAS

[Encorebaby]

I would be very grateful for ATC thoughts on this scenario:

IFR BizJet flight from Europe to busy Destination in the UK located in uncontrolled airspace with close proximity to busy RAF airfield.

We were instructed by London that our destination would accept us in the descent to 5000 feet and to fly direct xxxx (airfield) and contact xxxx approach. Upon making contact and continuing our descent as cleared the approach controller advised us that we had a traffic service and that we were to be vectored for final. We were instructed to turn on to a heading and our 5000 foot clearance was confirmed. We were in IMC and MSA was 2300 feet. On the assigned heading we were notified about target traffic in our 12 O'clock at 5000. Our TCAS display confirmed this and it looked from the display to be just inside of 5 miles directly ahead. This target traffic was currently at our cleared level and appeared to be directly on our track. I asked ATC if I could turn left or right to avoid this traffic. The reply from ATC was that we had a Traffic service and that the cleared altitude was 5000 feet. The controller had also explained that the traffic was military traffic manoeuvring up and down rapidly. The heading that we had been given was to avoid RAF base which was also busy.

I am aware that a Traffic Service leaves me in charge of my own collision/terrain avoidance but in this case I have a dilemma. My usual daily flying (all commercial IFR jet) requires that I obey ATC instructions and clearances. We were after all receiving vectors for a final approach and the controller reminded us about our cleared altitude. We were also on an IFR flight in thick IMC (cloud from approx 2000 up to 10000 feet). I am also aware not to use my TCAS display as a means of creating my own vectors to fly due to inaccuracies etc unless of course in the event of a RA. ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 details this and ACAS II bulletin No 6 'incorrect use of TCAS display' provides a good example.

In this situation I am not looking at a Topo chart since on my IFR flight I am not required to, nor am I visually familiar with the proximity of the RAF base to my destination. I could have requested a Procedural service but the vectors given were to aid my avoidance of the RAF base and it's associated traffic. A Deconfliction service was not offered. With simple Jepp plates in front of me and ATC instructions that sounded like instructions but were in fact guidance, both my colleague and I felt uneasy.

How are flight crew able to maintain their own traffic separation whilst operating in IMC? Do ATC expect flight crew to simply use assigned vectors and cleared altitudes as guidance in uncontrolled airspace? If flight crew start their own navigation over and above assigned headings and altitudes for traffic avoidance how do they avoid other airspace without a Topo chart? (Even with a Topo chart this is tricky due to work load and situational awareness coming from an IFR flight in IMC). From my perspective this situation feels like hit or miss and is quite unnerving. Any ATC perspective advice based on regulations rather than 'airmanship' is gratefully received for future visits to this and similar airfields.

Thanks in advance, sorry if it sounds a bit wooly.

[throw a dyce]

The Controller should ask what service you are requesting.If you asked for a Deconfliction Service and this was refused,then I'm surprised.If you didn't then perhaps you should have.

[chevvron]

I think the controller was being most unhelpful. He should have offered to vector you clear of the conflicting traffic, or at least asked you if you would like de-confliction instead of traffic service having already given you a heading to avoid the military airfield. To say what he said and leave you 'in the dark' was most unprofessional.
Personally I used to offer all IFR inbounds routing through class G airspace a de-confliction service (or RAS as it was in those days - I retired just before the 'new' services started) as the initial intention was always to vector them onto the ILS.

[Chilli Monster]

For starters, you had an inappropriate service imposed on you. Either you tell them what service you require, or ATC should ask you. ATC say whether they can provide it or not. From what you've written that hasn't happened.

Next - the Controller involved was being extremely unhelpful as has been said, and not particularly bright. If you have an AIRPROX, they will get suspended and subject to an investigation. If you have a TCAS RA - same again. Pointing you at a military aircraft manoeuvring randomly, although perfectly within the rules of the service they've placed you under, isn't going to cut the mustard at the subsequent enquiry.

I'd submit your account for inclusion in CHIRP based on what you've said. In the future - ask for a Deconfliction service.

[Encorebaby]

Thanks for the replies. In hind sight yes we should have declined the traffic service and requested a Deconfliction service instead, it certainly would have been our preferred option. It is correct to say that in most cases ATC ask what service is requested upon first contact to which the answer is always a Deconfliction service please. I suspect that this is a case of proverbial environmental capture in that I am used to being offered a service rather than simply being given one and for this reason didn't ask. I think that a Deconfliction service probably wasn't available regardless though due to the high traffic density in the proximity of my destination. Multiple military targets and at least one training aircraft in the hold above the field from what I could hear. In the defence of ATC he did explain these issues to me (albeit not an excuse for putting us on a collision course under our own separation in IMC) and in a round about way vectored towards a visual approach clear of cloud.
I guess I just wanted to know how ATC are directed to deal with IFR traffic in IMC under a Traffic service, technically the pilot is responsible for collision/terrain avoidance yet can't possibly do so in IMC (albeit above MSA) and ATC are seemingly powerless to override this authority if the pilot chooses to vector him/herself.

[Ops and Mops]

I knew that there would be a thread that brought me out of semi PPRuNe retirement at some point........:hmm:

For me, the questions raised by Encorebaby can be answered without casting any doubt on the professionalism, or otherwise, of anyone. Once again those that do, and hide behind the anonimity of an internet forum, do little to answer the questions posed.

As a pilot with corporate experience of flying in and around Europe, I have this to offer by way of balance against those in the Air Traffic fraternity that are, again, so keen to shoot down one of their own! :ouch::yuk:

1 - Have you discussed this directly with the Air Traffic Control Unit concerned? What did they have to say? If not, you will find their contact details in the relevant AIP entry.

2 - Did the pre flight brief and TOD brief include the relevant items from the AIP entry for the aerodrome in question? Was there anything in the AIP entry with regard to radar service provision outside controlled airspace for the aerodrome in question or was there an assumption made on the flight deck? Aerodromes in class G bring with them many unique aspects by virtue of their operation and due diligence should be paid to these AIP entries before flying to the aerodrome concerned. The devil is often in the detail....

3 - CAP 774 Chapter 3 details in full the provisions, responsibilities and caveats of a Traffic Service. Paras 3.3 and 3.6 seem relevant in this case, and indeed the vectoring of aircraft against manouevring traffic under a traffic service may be dealt with within the latter. Do you know what else the controller was trying to avoid when vectoring you? When you requested to turn left or right did you state which heading you were turning to? If you were that concerned, why did you not turn anyway? See para 3.10

4 - CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 1.9 - Appropriate type of ATS. When the controller stated Traffic Service, why did you not say "negative, request Deconfliction Service"? Remember that you are entering into a contract and so your acceptance was binding. You would not sign a contract to buy a house that you did not want....

5 - So why did the controller not provide more deconfliction advice to you? See CAP 774 para 1.10 - Standard Application of ATS. Not withstanding Duty of Care, several AIRPROX reports of late have been highly critical of ATCOs providing more than is required for the type of service agreed and provided e.g. aiming for deconfliction minima on TS when vectoring, turning aircraft out of conflict on TS rather than just passing traffic information et al.

6 - It is unusual that you say that you were not fully aware of the airspace and area through which you would have to transit from the boundary of controlled airspace to the destination aerodrome, just because you were "IFR". It would seem reasonable to expect that you, as a crew, would have discussed how you were going to get from CAS to the destination aerodrome when planning the flight. As this would require flight in uncontrolled airspace, it is reasonable to expect that this would require a current chart that depicts the appropriate airspace, hazards and obstacles relevant to the flight. Parachute drop zones, Danger areas, ATZ's, control zones, gliding sites, hang gliding sites affect all aircraft, whether IFR or VFR. There is a legal responsibility on the commander of an aircraft to ensure that he is adequately briefed to ensure that his flight can be conducted safely; had you flown through a parachute DZ that was not marked on your "IFR" chart or Jepp plate and collided with a parachutist, the fact that you were IFR would make no difference. As long as the site has been promulgated correctly (through the national AIP and on aeronautical charts relevant to flight in class G airspace), the commander of the aircraft in this instance may be found negligent for not adequately preparing for the flight. Of course the use of a "topo" chart does not require you to be VMC. I am sure that you were actually spatially aware of your position either from the FMS nav display or by traditional radio nav techniques. This position is easily transposed to a "topo" chart if adequately prepared for in advance.

Whether one likes it or not, flying in Class G airspace, whether IFR/IMC, IFR/VMC or VFR, is statistically more hazardous than being inside CAS. It is the unknown elements that are most cause for concern. It is impossible for us, as aircrew, to have the same situational awareness on our small flight deck and in our own situational awareness (SA) "bubble", as an ATCO with a radar picture of tens of miles radius with many other "SA bubbles" to contend with. Add to the mix non-squawking aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, aircraft squawking but not talking and flying through the published instrument approach to an aerodrome (all doing so perfectly legally) and you get a flavour for the task at hand. Sometimes one has to accept that the safest option is actually unpalatable however the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the safety of his own aircraft and, in class G airspace, all aircraft have an equal responsibility to avoid collisions with other aircraft.

I have found that whenever there has been a question to ask of an ATCO, asking it at the aerodrome concerned normally elicits an invitation to visit, a cup of coffee and a very worthwhile discussion. These discussions may or may not leave you in mutual agreement, but they certainly shed more purposeful light on things than an internet forum full of guesses and assumptions.

Give them a call. You may be pleasantly surprised! :ok:

[LostThePicture]

Difficult to say for sure from the information you've given, but I think I am familiar with the airfields in question.

It is quite likely that the approach controller to which you were handed over was unable to provide a higher level of service than the one offered, either because s/he had significant workload at the time, or because s/he did not have access to the level of equipment required to dispense a higher level of service with any confidence. The destination to which I think you are referring only has primary radar - were you aware of this?

The list of conditions and caveats for the provision of a Traffic Service is quite long and tedious, but the long and short of it is that "pilots remain responsible for collision avoidance, even when flying at a level allocated by ATC". The inference being, as I read it, that if you don't like the level you're at because of traffic or other reasons, it's up to you to change it. Remember that safety is paramount, so if you feel you need to be at 4000ft instead of 5000ft for collision avoidance, advise ATC that this is what you want to do. In extremis, manoeuvre your aircraft as required to avoid a collision, then tell ATC what you've done. After all, you're outside CAS, and you're not receiving a radar control service. The controller is very limited in terms of what vectors s/he can provide under a traffic service - specifically - "a controller may provide headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing, or as navigational assistance". Note that conflict resolution does not appear in this list, and the heavy inference in our manual is that if a controller does decide to provide vectors for conflict resolution, this should also be accompanied by an upgrade to a deconfliction service (because this, after all, is what the controller is attempting to do). As stated above, it's likely that the controller was reluctant to issue these vectors (and therefore upgrade the service) for any number of reasons.

On leaving CAS, as a London Area controller I will always endeavour to secure you the best possible service from an ATSU outside the limits of my airspace. Now once again, if I guessed your destination right, I would invariably have been offering you to the large military radar unit located just on your right as you leave CAS. They may decline to provide a service, in which case I would seek acceptance directly from the destination ATSU. However, if the former unit declines to provide a service whilst knowing that they have conflicting military traffic in the area (and knowing also that they have better radar kit than the civilian unit down the road), it's my view that they have been fairly negligent in not offering you safer passage through what can be a fairly busy strip of airspace.

Obviously, my view (without knowing more) is based on supposition and conjecture - but my experience says that the unit which deserves the most criticism in this instance is quite likely to be the one you haven't actually spoken to.

LTP

[kcockayne]

Encorebaby

By now you will have gathered that every time you "set foot outside of CAS" (particularly in a "performance aeroplane") you "take your life in your hands" - or compound that by putting your life in the hands of an ATCO who very often has no hope of providing the service which you require; due to traffic density, lack of appropriate equipment, lack of a proper medium to work within, lack of traffic awareness, lack of communication with said traffic, lack of compliance by said traffic with what the ATCO wishes to do (to provide the service) etc.
After spending my career entirely within Class A airspace I have nothing but complete & utter admiration for those ATCOS who try to deliver a service in uncontrolled airspace. It is they who deserve to be paid the sort of salaries which LACC , EGLL controllers get !
You pilots ought to be fully aware of the impossible task Class G ATCOS have , give them due credit for their efforts , & , keep out of Class G !

[Moli]

Ops and Mops an excellent post.

Lost the picture. I am perplexed, how on earth could you possibly level criticism of this incident as reported by the OP, at the Unit the he did not speak to?

[LostThePicture]

Moli

I can only suggest you re-read what I've written in an attempt to understand it.

From what the OP has written, it's difficult to criticise the approach controller at the destination aerodrome. The OP has, however, volunteered that the conflicting traffic was a military aircraft in the vicinity of a major military aerodrome.

Common sense dictates that two conflicting aircraft should, where possible, be on the same frequency for ease of conflict resolution - I have stated that at my unit we attempt to achieve this by offering all traffic leaving in the vicinity of the military aerodrome, to the approach controller at that military aerodrome. We do this because we know that the military unit is better equipped to handle traffic transitting the area.

So, military ATSU declines to work my traffic leaving CAS for the civilian aerodrome. Leaving traffic (now working a primary radar only unit) comes into confliction with military traffic which is highly likely to be receiving a service from the military ATSU. Can you see where the rationale for criticism is yet?

Sure, there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes. Maybe me and the OP are not describing the same area of airspace. But the sort of situation I've just described is quite commonplace, and it's undeniably bad practice.

LTP

[Moli]

LTP

Your assumptions regarding this scenario are wide ranging and not based in fact at all.

1. You assume the airfield in question is a non SSR airfield. Okay, I ask for clarification, what airfield do you assume that to be? You are not naming and shaming as you are praising the airfield concerned, but there are 2 candidates in the assumed area, so which ATSU do you think is being discussed? Please identify which civil airfield you believe this to be as it is fairly crucial.
2. You assume the traffic was initially offered to the Mil Unit and that they refused to work it. Do you know this to be a fact?
3. You assume that just because the Mil Unit has conflicting traffic they are now obligated to work that traffic. Is that SOP across the ATM world... Hello I have conflicting traffic so please accept my handover????
4. You assume this incident occurred during the notified LARS hours of the Mil unit concerned, do you know this to be the case?
5. You assume that if this did occur within the notified hours of the Mil Units notified LARS hours as notified in the AIP, that the Mil Unit had the capacity at the time to work another adjacent ATSU's inbound traffic. Do you know this to be so?

What is bad form, is for an ATCO is to make assumptions based on supposition and conjecture and unidentified airfields and then criticise another ATSU with no knowledge of the facts .

Finally if you are that concerned about it, and i do not mean this with any attitude or slight at you, why doesn't your unit work the traffic inbound to the ATSU with allegedly no SSR if the Mil Unit doesnt have the capacity to work the ac inbound to EGXX? Is that because its not your units task to work the traffic? Perhaps its not within the remit of the Mil unit to work another airfields inbounds either.

[Wyler]

ATSOCAS disappears on 13 Nov to be replaced by UK FIS.
Alongside disappearance of (all??) Class F to be replaced, in places, by Class E.
Working Class G airspace is like swimming with sharks on occasions. Irrespective of the service the Duty of Care exists and it is up to Controllers to provide the best possible service they can. Likewise, it is up to pilots to ask for the appropriate service.
My understanding is that the next iteration of CAP 774 will state that controllers should respond to any given situation as they see fit, notwithstanding the service being provided i.e giving vectors under a Traffic Service.

[LostThePicture]

Moli,

No attitude? For someone who describes him/herself as a "PPL", you certainly seem to have an attitude...

No, I haven't stated any facts. I'm fairly confident that I was not present at the time of the OP's scenario, but s/he has asked for an ATC opinion, and I have given it.

I am comfortable with the assumptions I have made in providing my opinion, because as I stated they are based on experience of events which are commonplace.

I fail to see how I can be accused of criticising an ATSU when it hasn't been identified. It does not take a genius to work out that, given the circumstances described, the military unit would not be shortlisted for this year's "Great contributions to air traffic safety". The exact names of the airfields are, to a greater or lesser extent, an irrelevance.

I have a pretty good excuse for not working the traffic outside CAS, and it's not because "I can't be arsed". It is partially because it isn't really my task, especially when I might have 15-20 other customers on frequency of a higher priority. But it's mostly because, once traffic is below FL70, the level of service I can legally provide means that the pilot will probably be better off listening to Radio 5 Live than to me.

LTP

[Moli]

LTP

So I have an attitude for a PPL holder...weird thing to say but hey, your prerogative.

If we are talking about the same units that I think we are, the edge of CAS to the destination airfield is just 13nm, well within the radar coverage of that unit. That ac in question is an inbound to that Unit not a LARS track for another adjacent unit to work.
If it is the airfield I think you believe it to be and they are non SSR they can still provide a DS and should have asked the pilot what TOS he required and not simply imposed TS on him. There is however doubt in my mind that it is the non SSR airfield you assume it to be as they pass TI ref an ac at 5000, how did they know it was at 5000 feet if they had no SSR?
The inbound unit then introduced a risk of collision by vectoring the ac at the 5000 foot traffic that they called to their inbound. Once the conflict had been introduced, duty of care dictates they should have done something to mitigate it but they simply said you are on a TS cleared level 5000 and lets not forget, the ac is of course on a radar vector pointing at the conflicting traffic issued by the ATCO he is talking to. ....

When you say you haven't criticised the Mil Unit as you haven't named them, if I can work it out so can others and then you go on to have a further swipe in your last post, very professional.

Anyway I'm not going to back and forth with you, you have your thoughts and I have mine.

Moli

[ATCO Fred]

Encorebaby.. . .

You say you were given a steer, was the traffic at 5 miles when steered or was the traffic on your course some time after the steer?

Your cleared altitude, was that something that the unit gave just prior or was it a level co-ordinated many miles ago as a release level from CAS?

You say that ATC did nothing , well if you had traffic on the nose at the same level at 5 miles then why have you not mentioned a TCAS TA or even an RA? The absence of both would indicate that ATC actually did do some thing and perhaps vectored around said traffic!

The controller had also explained that the traffic was military traffic manoeuvring up and down rapidly

SO it was manoeuvring traffic - that normally involves rapid changes in heading and level . . . .so maybe it was that traffic that flew into conflict with you and not you turning into conflict with that traffic which if manoeuvring would have been VFR / VMC.

Sounds to me like a routine encounter in class G airspace resolved by the controller actions "not reported by Encorebaby" or else we would all be sat reading transcripts in the UKAB!

One final point . . . . if you had asked for a Deconfliction Service, is your knowledge of the Pilots Obligations in the contract of agreement between controller and pilot actually good enough. For sure in the UK all controllers are well versed in their responsibilities, unfortunately the same could not be said for some of the airborne recipients! Just my views from the side-lines

[mad_jock]

unfortunately the same could not be said for some of the airborne recipients! Just my views from the side-lines

yep that's why ATSOCAS isn't fit for use. UK pilots barely have a grasp of it and all foreign pilots don't have a bloody clue.

More than likely why there has been an increase in airprox's since they introduced it. Apart from on a deconfliction service which is about as common as rocking horse poo and those that refuse to speak to anyone in class G and take no service.

Under a Traffic service or basic service you have a marked increase chance of an airprox as a pilot compared to the old system.

The comment about listening to radio 5 unfortunately is all so true with a basic service. And as for a traffic all it does is lull the unwary into a false sense of security where apon they get thier backsides bitten as the OP did.

[whowhenwhy]

Not much to add to a lot of what has been said before but...

The ATCO was wrong to impose a service and the pilot was wrong to accept that imposition. It is down to the pilot to determine the type of ATS that they require and for the ATCO to provide it. There may be occasions when a specific ATS cannot be provided but this must be explained by the ATCO and alternatives offered. If a pilot is in receipt of a Traffic Service and receives information on a conflicting aircraft that he cannot or does not expect to see (and hasn't been told tht Deconfliction Service is not available), then they should request Deconfliction Service and thus receive collision avoidance advice.

I also tire of hearing ATCOs who say that the volume of traffic in their airspace precludes the provision of deconfliction service, so they only offer a Traffic Service. Bolleaux. You reduce the provision of the Deconfliction Service, perhaps also warning the pilot that deconfliction minima may not be achieved and you then do your best. We must acknowledge that, in Class G airspace, the pilot is simply seeking the ATCOs assistance to miss other aircraft thereby avoiding MAC. ATCOs need to lose the mentality of 5nms or nothing because that is why pilots perceive that a Deconfliction Service is useless (because they don't make track progress) and therefore don't ask for it.

Regarding pilots barely having a grasp of the UK FIS, has anyone ever considered that that might have more to do with the underlying training and examination system than the complexity of the FIS themselves? PPL training organisations, perhaps understandably, focus on aircraft handling and passing the exams - if the exams don't feature any real requirement to understand the ATS, the pilot won't understand them. Practically, student pilot exposure to the UK FIS is by copying their instructor (monkey see, monkey do) which limits the amount of exposure of the UK FIS to 'what works best' for the instructor. Moreover, whilst this will be heresy to many ATCOs, there just isn't that much difference between the 2009 UK FIS and the pre-2009 RIS/RAS/FIS. If all our pilots had a full understanding of RIS/RAS/FIS and flew around and just called them by their new names the fact is that they'd be fine. That leaves you with the inevitable conclusion that it's the training and examination system that's at fault. A conclusion that's being reached elsewhere within the system.

As for a future edition of CAP 774 enabling the provision of collision avoidance advice under a Traffic Service, I can tell you now that that will not happen. The CAP has been clearly written to delineate exactly what you get and don't get under each ATS and what you have to do if you wish to receive collision avoidance advice. Now if you were to give me a clean piece of canvas to redesign UK ATS, I'd start with flight rules and the requirements of the operators, then to the airspace needed to satisfy those requirements and then the type of ATS within. But be careful all those who sit in the 'give me ICAO FIS' camp, because not one country in Europe does FIS the same way!

PS Hi Moli!

[Northern ATCO]

But be careful all those who sit in the 'give me ICAO FIS' camp, because not one country in Europe does FIS the same way!

True, but none in the same, quite unique, manner as the UK.

Regarding pilots barely having a grasp of the UK FIS, has anyone ever considered that that might have more to do with the underlying training and examination system than the complexity of the FIS themselves?

I do not work ATSOCAS so this is merely my take on it; but is it not simply too many variables and unknowns within uncontrolled airspace that creates the problems when controlling within it?

[mad_jock]

Northern that last statement is the crux of the matter.

The whole thing is set up to allow control in uncontrolled airspace.

And takes zero account for what flight rules that someone is operating under.

By the very nature of the way the services are designed it creats instant clash of interests and conflict when those interests don't align.


The fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in airproxs to the users of the service.

As for the hammering of ppl student and exams. We train them for european wide operations and the syllabus is already full with handling and navigation.
Not that most ATCO's qualified in the last 15 years would have a clue what its like to have thier backsides strapped to a old heap being subjected to a fis or basic service.

Which is why an increasing amount of pilots have decided that participating in a service is pointless with no gain in safety to ourselves.

And you having a laugh if you think the whole of europe is going to instruct all its pilots in the perversion which is ATSOCAS in the UK. Never mind the rest of the world.

[throw a dyce]

Wasn't ATSOCAS taken from the Military way of doing RAS/RIS/FIS?

MJ.
The Controller working in Class G,next to an RAF base,etc didn't invent the rules,but has to try and use them in an often very changing dynamic environment.I have put a Flying Instructor into a radar simulator,and the result was highly amusing.Perhaps when you are flying your old crate,not talking or squawking,give a thought that you might just be causing problems to the Class G airfield you are looking at.:uhoh:

[Moli]

TAD

Erm... I think MJ flies a modern commercial twin turbo prop and is mandated to both talk and squawk.

Moli

[throw a dyce]

Day job perhaps.Weekends?

[anotherthing]

LTP,

I too have a very good idea of the airfield involved given the description by the OP. (Release level being the biggest give away).

Now once again, if I guessed your destination right, I would invariably have been offering you to the large military radar unit located just on your right as you leave CAS.In this case you would have been wrong to do so. It is obvious that the destination airfield had radar manned (they do not always), therefore the procedure, as per MATS part 2, is to hand the aircraft to them. In the event of this particular destination airfield having radar unmanned (they still have some staffing issues), then the London controller is to first offer the traffic to the military airfield, but they often refuse to work it if they have nothing to effect.

BTW, they often refuse to work it even if they have traffic to effect if their traffic is on a Basic or Traffic service, thinking quite correctly, but totally unhelpfully, that as their own traffic is not expecting avoidance vectors, it is perfectly acceptable to have another aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, fly towards it. :ugh:

The real issue is the lack of CAS for an airfield that wants to be a bigger player in commercial aviation (something that is echoed by many airfields)

[mad_jock]

Perhaps when you are flying your old crate,not talking or squawking,give a thought that you might just be causing problems to the Class G airfield you are looking at.

Brilliant if that is the case, then they can report that the rules are a load of bollocks.

Hopefully the RAF prat that designed them has left the CAA, They can then get together a working group of ATCO's who also hold a mixture of licenses from PPL through to ATPL with instructors in there as well.

Something sensible can be created which none UK pilots have a clue how it works. Hint call the normal ICAO FIS a FIS. It can be based on flight rules and use the idea that aircraft that can see each other will avoid each other.

Then put this current utter abortion of a system out of its misery.

Then maybe the number of airprox's will reduce to previous levels.

The old heap is about right.

But the mandate to squawk and talk for a commercial TP is just the same as a SEP light aircraft in the various flavours of controlled airspace. Ie if we are VFR or IFR in class G we have no requirement to talk to anyone. BUt duty of care and arse covering with pax onboard means we will. Empty is a different ball game.

[throw a dyce]

MJ,
Just curious but do you fly for an operator that uses Class G,when they could fly in Class A,D,E....With passengers?
Load of Bollocks Service....Has a certain ring to it!! Describes a lot of my radar vectoring.:eek:

[mad_jock]

yep when I was working in the UK, in fact 4 different operators.

As you well know you just have to look at the east coast routes up to ABZ to know that many aircraft do it everyday. Direct from St Abbs to ABZ instead of going to talla and up the airway.

And yes to get an aircraft back to maintenance with a departure slot which would have taken us over duty hours the company has request we take the plane back VFR/IFR through class G. As do some much bigger aircraft in the south. I have been on frequency when a 747 was doing the same thing both of us on London Info.

Also as well if your bring an aircraft back from the continent if you go via the airways system you will end up zigzagging all the way up the UK and getting vectored around the shop to get you out the way of London then East Mids/BHX then you will screw with Man in and out bounds. London FIR boundary ask to go north with London Mil in class G and your straight up the east coast to St Abbs, briefly speaking to the Geordies onto Scottish mil and onto Scottish for P600. Takes 20% off your flight time. I am pretty sure the airways/terminal controllers are more than happy our slow heap isn't getting in the way.

And far from being dangerous there is nobody out there at FL170-FL190 in class G. The only thing you might get is a request to help with a DnD exercise to piss off all the yanks off on 121.5.

[whowhenwhy]

Correlating an increase in airprox because of the introduction of DS/TS/BS is the same as finding a correlation between the rate of snowfall in Scotland and the location of diamonds in South Africa. It's a co-incidence. There are too many variables that you can't account for - improved reporting system in the MOD, improved safety culture, industry seeing airprox reports as a means of gathering evidence to justify airspace change, improved education from CAA/UKAB etc about reporting etc etc). Just because you've changed the name of something (and that is effectively ALL we did) then you can't say that it caused an increase in airprox. We did change anything fundamental about the ATS themselves; therefore, they haven't caused an increase in the number of airprox. I've heard this line touted before and there is no, I repeat no, evidence or analysis to support it.

As far as being an ATCO qualified in the last 15 years and their familiarity with a cockpit is concerned, albeit it was 17 years ago I qualified as an ATCO, how about adding an SEP FI and glider pilot to your list grab you? I also know of another 2 ATCOs who are CPL holders and FIs

Agree that the UK's version of FIS is different to that of the rest of Europe and, IMHO, the reason for that is we're trying to use Class G for a purpose that it's not intended for. Providing 'separated' or 'deconflicted' flight for IFR flights in uncontrolled airspace. Consequently, I agree with a lot of you again, we're trying to provide 'control' in an 'uncontrolled' environment. The consultation o n ATSOCAS in 2008/9was clear, GA and the MOD wanted ICAO FIS - give us traffic information and help us miss stuff when we ask you for it. The commercial operators wanted to be separated by 5nm and 5000 ft from all non-participating traffic in Class G because, parly, of the financial burden associated with operating within CAS. Someone somewhere decided to try and please both camps so we've got what we have today.

The problem that we have is how do you completely revolutionise the system so that it meets the challenges of today? Stop flying for a week while we re-set everything? Don't think so. Consequently, we're left with tinkering round the edges and doing one bit at a time.

If it helps, people in the right places do know that there are problems and what the right solutions could be. But can we please think before uttering the kind of garbage mentioned earlier that the change in 2009 caused more airprox?

[mad_jock]

Its not garbage.

You have an event and the statistics change immediately after that event.

Burying your head in the sand doesn't change that fact. It just smacks of management uttering in the face of fact.

And I operate in class G in the rest of Europe and we don't have this rubbish.

Someone was an utter fanny and has decreased safety through out the whole of the UK in class G.

And for a growing number of pilots ATSOCAS is something we won't participate in because adds nothing to our safety.

[Moli]

MJ
How can you hand on heart say that ATSOCAS (as of yesterday now defunct now called UK FIS) adds nothing to a pilots safety? If you are referring to BS, I whole heartedly agree but DS & TS surely aid safety by increasing the pilots SA at the very least?

As for airprox reporting, in recent years there has been an enormous culture change in the reporting of incidents. Whereas before ATCOs could exercise judgement and often a quick phone call after would set all parties straight, now we are mandated to report all manner of incidents to ensure they are recorded tracked and trends highlighted.
Moli

[whowhenwhy]

Well said Moli.

MJ, I'm showing my hand more than I'd like but it is garbage because I've been involved in the analysis to determine whether there's any truth in the matter, alongside reviewing a host of other aspects of operations in Class G related ATS. The reporting statistics didn't change immediately after the introduction of UK FIS in 2009. I can't put my hand to the report right now (because my non-typing hand is holding hobgoblin, not a work laptop as it's Friday night) but there is no correlation with the introduction in 2009.

As Moli says, there has been a huge push in both the civilian and military aviation communities to report on aviation safety matters to improve safety for everyone and we are now in a position where the gliding community are actively reporting airprox and discussing the utility of RT - the key here being that we ATCOs need to realise that asking them to operate "not below x thousand feet" is wasted effort.

Class G in the UK in its current guise can work (despite the fact that my personal opinion is that it is a fudge that should and could be improved upon) but it requires everyone operating within it to have the same level of understanding of their differing roles and responsibilities. Training is the key.

From what I've said, I think MJ that you can tell that I'm not burying my head in the sand and that things need to change but telling yourself that the problems we experience in Class G in the UK aren't replicated elsewhere in Europe is a little naive. It may be exacerbated in part by density/complexity in parts of the country but the problems are not unique. And I'm also interested to know how you have measured safety in Class G airspace and determined that safety has reduced? What statistics have you used, what have you used for your start/end point of analysis, how have you corrected for all of the changes introduced through FLARM, TCAS, STCA, availability of LARS, changes introduced to traffic information phraseology to improve its accuracy, increase in recreational GA traffic levels, GPS based navigation, local operator engagement in joint civil/military user groups, incident reporting etc etc?

[mad_jock]

Well for the majority of GA VFR traffic those services are unobtainable for a variety of reasons. All they can get is a Basic and the only time any attention is paid to them is when the control kicks in and they are moved out the way of the big shiny machine.

DC the only time it has ever been given to me is when I have been in the works machine. And note the given I hadn't asked for it nor wanted it as it was CAVOK I had asked for a TS. But the 3 GA lights still got actively moved out the way even though I reported them in sight.

IFR in IMC more often than not only a basic service is available. Its only when you interfere with something else you will be upgrade moved and then dumped again. Unless you are a CAT arrival forget it. Which I why the airprox for DC have reduced in my opinion because no bugger ever gets it apart from a select few.

Regional airports are only interested in the inbound traffic if your anyone else, zero interest, zero service and radio 5 contains more SA.

Lest face it a traffic service is only an attempt at providing a radar service you still on your tod the same as basic.

But as been shown in this thread as soon as something goes wrong the bleating starts about how ATSOCAS ATCO has no responsibility and its up to the pilot to maintain separation and the pilot should do this and do that.

But god help that pilot if they refuse a suggestion under any of the services. Bad airmanship, danger to every air space user accusations will be pointed at the pilot. If the pilot is clued up enough to tell them to go poke it and quotes the regs. Then the wining starts about what the rules are and its the only way we can provide a safe expeditious service to CAT aircraft etc etc.

And them some units have the cheek to start quoting there MATZ part 2 as some sort of legal document that applys to pilots and it should be taken as some form of bylaws that apply to the airspace that the unit works.

The whole thing is a joke, and its interpretation between different units means that most pilots don't have a clue what they are going to get, it even depends which shift is on in a unit. What they are meant to do, if they are going to get into an argument when they want to just fly unmolested from A to B.

Radio 5 stops all this nonsense. You know exactly what service your getting. You know exactly what rules you are operating under. There is zero chance of having discussions and arguments. And you flight is an altogether more pleasant experience. And to boot the airpox data indicates you have less chance of having an airprox.

If CAT wants a controlled environment they can pay for it. Trying to turn uncontrolled airspace into pseudo controlled airspace is never going to work because of the basic rules of said airspace. Pilots have a right of veto from using the service and they are using it. Bullying them by using terms like bad airmanship etc isn't washing.

But no doubt it will take a flaming wreck of a 737 or A320 with a microlight sucked into one of the donk's before this ****e will get put to bed. The poor sods that were driving the CAT will go to their maker believing they had some form of protection in class G because they were on a Deconfliction service when that have sod all. The microlight won't have a clue as usual. And it will be 3-4 years of people arguing the toss about radar sensitivity's, what some RT manual says, and what good airmanship says the pilot should have be speaking to the approach controller. What ever happens its not going to make more pilots speak to a useless service.

You can bleat as much as you like and use "should" "airmanship" etc. If there is nothing in it for the pilot and getting a service is a huge ballache and you get nothing in return they won't use it as is their right in class G.

[fisbangwollop]

Mad Jock......and here was me thinking you enjoyed talking to me even if I only gave you a BS. :(

[mad_jock]

I do mate, and you are a cracking man to have on box one for if we have to stick her down somewhere and for getting WX passing ETA's etc. You provided a service which is appreciated.

But realistically I have no expectations that you can keep me away from harm with separation from other traffic, and neither will you try and move me in G.

ATSOCAS providers from regional airports give me absolutely nothing but grief and bollocks. They are only talking to me for their benefit. If I don't get in the way of their CAT inbounds or outbounds I get absolutely nothing in the way of a functional safety service apart from being able to shout mayday and that can just as well be done on 121.5.

[whowhenwhy]

I think that MJ may have hit the nail on the head. The original concept of ATSOCAS was to ensure consistent service provision between all ATS providers. Part of the problem is that this doesn't appear to be happening. I know that ATS provision is common across some of the Class G ATS providers, but this doesn't appear to be a level playing field. That's wrong.

MJ also hints towards the funding model for UK ATS in Class G airspace. Aside from the protection of their own aerodrome's IFR traffic, what real imperative is there for civilian ATS providers to provide the UK FIS to transiting traffic, irrespective of the flight conditions of that traffic? Sadly none, which means that the user stops trying to use it, as MJ highlights.

MJ, I only hope that if the CAA runs a consultation on this issue within the next few years, you choose to comment on it to ensure that these thoughts and experiences are captured.

[mad_jock]

whowhenwhy

Thanks for that considered reply.

Its actually a bit of fresh air not being treated as a "clueless" pilot that just doesn't understand the intricacy's of modern day ATS.

The service is a consistent ****e one in my experience apart to be honest from the old hand grumpy sounding auld fart ATCO's that provide something usefull, but I suspect they are operating outside unit policy.

There is a real danger because CAT pilots who normally don't operate in that environment don't have a clue how much risk exposure they are accepting with the services. Encorebaby is not unique.

I now work mainly outside the UK, but my operator now has banned all but two of us from going to pick up/drop off aircraft in the UK in class G. Everytime they send a none UK pilot to an airport outside controlled airspace there has been an incident and some form of MOR to be resolved.

Is this really the way UK ATC should be that operators have to ban none UK pilots from operating there for safety reasons?

To be honest the old hand ILS to ILS CAS UK pilots are just as much ignorant as the foreigners unless they fly lights in their spare time.

[mad_jock]

But the fundamental concept of the method of service is what is completely throwing the whole system out.

You have to have something which starts out on the definition of the difference between IFR and VFR and the concept of see and avoid separation.

Any thing which doesn't base its foundations on these basic concepts which are know and understood by every pilot world wide is doomed to failure and a reduction in air safety.

The whole thing needs started again on a fresh bit of paper. The mil types should be banned from anything to do with it. And for gods sake get some international input into the mix. If it confuses the hell out of other countries ATCO's it sure as hell will confuse the hell out of the pilots.

[kcockayne]

The basic situation in Class G , without blaming professional pilots , private pilots , military pilots , procedural ATCOS or Radar ATCOS, is that Class G & the attempt to provide any sort of competent ATC service within it, IS dangerous.
This is so because in this day & age "see & be seen" is an anachronism. It was fine in the 30s & 50s; even in the 60s & 70s, when there were fewer high performance a/c about & pilots had a reasonable chance of seeing other a/c. Nowadays, this simply is not the case. Giving traffic information cannot guarantee avoidance of collisions. It was given by Coventry ATC to both a/c involved in a fatal collision . It did not work !
There is often too much traffic about for the ATCO to accurately assess just what he has to do & do it ; even if he gets his assessment & actions broadly correct he cannot know what unknown traffic is doing, or going to do; & very often he cannot identify which aircraft is which on radar to do anything effective in the first place.
In short, he has NO CONTROL over the situation he finds himself in. And CONTROL is precisely what he needs to be able to do anything effective.
So, if he has no control over a situation , how can he do anything positive about it ?
Take Coventry. Almost totally in Class G , with the exception of a small portion of Birmingham's Class D to the North & West & over the airfield. Aircraft bound to & from NW & SE in the DTY area between East Midlands & Birmingham CAS & below LACC's CAS ( & there is an awful lot of it at times); some of which call for a RDR service & others which don't. Some of the a/c in the vicinity call on frequency others don't. Some have SSR others don't. Some comply with ATC requests others don't. The radio freq., nevertheless, swamped with a/c & ATC transmissions.
Please tell me how the ATCO is going to be able to deliver a 100% effective & safe service in that situation.
In short, he can't.
I've seen it at first hand & tried to deliver what is considered to be a safe service. I was largely unable to do so. I don't mind admitting it.
I grew up & worked for 37 years in Class A. To my mind, that is the ONLY type of ATC (emphasis on "CONTROL" & safety) service that should be provided. Because, if you want 100 % safe ATCS that IS the ONLY airspace within which it can be guaranteed (if the ATCO doesn't make a mistake).
One in which the ATCO knows which a/c is which, the pilot has to be in r/t contact & has to do what ATC tell him, ATC knows what the pilot is doing & that he will comply with instructions etc.
I am a PPL, also. I never felt over controlled in Class A & when I questioned other local PPLS in Jersey, they never felt over controlled either. They said that Class A made them feel safe. &, based on my experience at Coventry, so they should have done !
I have vectored 737s for the ILS on 25 at BE skilfully, & with luck, at times, avoiding unknown a/c outside CAS by the required margins only to have to issue emergency avoiding action to them when they were in descent on the ILS within 7nm of touchdown because a microlight (or what might have been a microlight) suddenly popped up in the vicinity of Wolvey ( about half a mile to a mile west of the 25 ILS path) without calling me. & the CRIMINAL aspect of this is that THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED TO CALL ME !, or to do anything which I might have asked them to do !
On occasion, having given the 737 avoiding action (sometimes against spurious traffic which was, in reality, not there !), I was faced with the situation of having nowhere to go with the 737 where I could apply the appropriate separation from other unknown traffic, which had previously not been in confliction with it (before it turned off the ILS).
How can anyone expect ATC to provide a safe service in that situation ? How can the ATCO do it ?
Any attempt to provide "separation" in Class G is threatened by all these types of scenarios. It CANNOT be done with anything like a guarantee of success being given, or with a 100% success rate being achieved !
Get real & embrace this FACT.

[mad_jock]

But to get anything else means the airspace isn't class G.

Maybe a better solution should be a risk assessment of the suitability for 50 plus pax aircraft to be operating into these Class G airports at all.

Lest face it the only reason they are is to reduce costs. So they are willing to take an increased risk for a lower landing and handling fee.

If ATS can't give a safe service stop pretending you can, trying to fudge the basic premise of class G airspace is never going to work.

And to add I also believe that CAT pilots should have further training and also a rating similar to the LVO rating to be able to operate into them commercially. Although this wouldn't initially help as the UK services are so far away from any known international standard most European pilots still won't have a clue what's going on. But at least they would know that they have no real protection.

[Moli]

MJ

You operate within Class G as both a GA aviator, I assume usually under VFR, and also as a CAT pilot under IFR with fare paying pax.

Blank(ish) piece of paper, What would you advocate that can realistically be achieved to afford you the safety you require for your CAT IFR ops whilst facilitating aviation in class G that wants to operate with freedom to manoeuvre in what is uncontrolled airspace?

This is genuine question as I feel the present services in Class G are just about okay but I am always open to learn how they can realistically be improved.

What I do feel very strongly is, that there is insufficient capacity/coverage in the UK to accommodate the majority of Class G airspace customers and that some ATCOs don't apply the services as they should to offer the best service available. The original post demonstrates part of my point; if the post is accurate the pilot had TS imposed on him (SSR or not, he should have been asked what TOS) and then once he came into conflict with ac at the same level, (its not clear if the radar vector given introduced that conflict or not) the ATCOs responsibilities under duty of care mean he should have offered some sort of alternative plan to mitigate the risk of collision (that doesn't mean applying standard separation just making sure they don't meet). However, for his part the pilot admits to flying in thick IMC and he should have requested DS as TS relies on see and avoid which you obviously cannot do in IMC.
Another aspect that I feel is perhaps not being applied as best it could, far too many ATCOs when asked for a TS say too busy have a BS. When ATCOs are busy and asked for a TS/DS very few take the option of giving the service that has actually requested and limiting the service due to workload and or traffic density..... as a result of that more and more light GA is saying thanks but no thanks to BS as they perceive it gives them nothing and going on route which helps no-one. When I say it helps no one I completely get why it happens as I do it myself with some ATSUs.

I guess I am saying that I believe the services as laid down on a piece of paper are fit, however a lack of ATSUs to provide that service (the biggest problem IMHO) and a lack of application on both sides lead to a lot of pilots unhappy with the present setup.

Moli

[kcockayne]

mad jock

I completely agree with you. High performance commercial,private or military, a/c have no business being in Class G airspace.
ATC must accept & admit that it cannot perform the service to which it is committed, & withdraw it; & NATS / CAA must withdraw the fiction which is perpetrated about the ATSOCAS requirement to perform a radar service which can never be totally safe or effective, or properly provided.
The choice is to withdraw Class G & have CAS everywhere; or, to leave it as Class G for the use of certain classes of air traffic only. Anything else is a fudge & is not sustainable.

[mad_jock]

I guess I am saying that I believe the services as laid down on a piece of paper are fit

They would be if... they were common to the rest of Europe at least, if not the world.

And I operate as GA IFR and VFR, CAT VFR and IFR

And as a Captain in CAT in G you just have to accept your level of risk is more than inside CAS. And you have to alter your own personal methods to take this into account. I might add it doesn't matter if your dealing with a procedural service or radar service or tower only. Your are on your own and its only your own actions which can help minimise the risk. You will never completely remove it but, by using your flight profile you can minimise your risk exposure. By exposing yourself in the 1k to 5k region for the least amount of time is one of the big ones. Its a mental click with the pilot that they don't have any rights of protection. Its quite hard to get it into new Captains heads when you are line training them that they are on there own even if they are talking to a "radar controller"

So you either have to accept that you can't get a safe service in uncontrolled or you don't operate in uncontrolled.

Now we do have a last ditch mitigation device onboard most CAT aircraft, certainly all that carry scheduled pax ie TCAS but that requires the other aircraft to have a transponder.

With a blankish bit of paper.

You need to look at both sides the way the CAT/IFR is dealt with and also the way that the VFR is dealt with. Currently the IFR is given the same profiles as inside controlled airspace. They need to be pulled in towards the airports and kept higher in G. Unless of course they accept and request to get dropped into dragon country unprotected.

I would slap a 10 radius mile zone of class E+ round each of the airports with scheduled pax. That's without the current gold plating bollocks of requiring radar and a separate approach service. Do it as a country wide consultation and no input from individual airports and the cost goes into the airport licensing costs for the whole of the UK. They have a choice then of either speaking to you or having a transponder working.

The CAT want this environment and should pay for the certification of a cheap functional approved portable transponder which microlights and gliders can carry and any permit aircraft. CoA aircraft have to use the current approved units. 2-3 hours battery life and replaceable battery units aka digital camera type. It only needs to be able to work up to 20 or 30 miles away and 10k feet. And they can turn it off for all I care while away from licensed airports. 5 quid on every landing fee for CAT in the UK will cover it. or if you can get EASA involved a couple of euros on each airways flight.

If there is a radar feed available allow the visual twr control to use it if required. It works in the rest of Europe.

Have minimum decent levels for IFR before the approach even on visual until within a certain range. And ban the practise of clearing airspace in the event of the CAT wanting a straight in visual. Ie give a safety area which all GA pilots know they can go in without getting screwed around. I suggest up to 4k outside 15, 2.5k outside 10 and 1.5 until 6 agl. If the CAT wants to go inside that, that's their problem and should be communicated "You are responsible for your own traffic separation"

The concept of if the VFR traffic can see the IFR traffic it is separated is a fundamental concept and to be honest is the biggest annoying ball ache with the current system. When you can see the sodding thing for miles away, there is zero chance your going to get near it even if you tried or were stupid enough. But no the approach wants to move me out the way at my expense at 3 quid a minute. That happening to me three times in close succession was my breaking point of this whole thing being a pile of w:mad:k.

Have visual approach way points with set heights defined for each runway and one for straight and one on each base. Don't give a visual approach until the CAT is at those points and height. 6 mile final/ 4 mile final with 2 mile dog leg on base at 1.8k. Once its set, a standard way of dealing with it will be put in place by operators. Yes it might mean some of us can't crack in at 200 knts plus to 6 miles. But such is life we can take own traffic separation if we want to do that.

Two services.

FIS and Radar.

FIS is your standard FIS. Don't pretend it is anything more than it is. It is a set standard country wide. Don't try changing the name it just causes confusion.

Radar is the best radar service you can give. I would also put a warning on the Instrument plates the limitations of the service. Ie we will do the best we can but you are responsible for your own separation.

The differential between the current traffic service and deconfiction can be obtained on the first vector.

"Traffic in your 3 o'clock, turn left heading xxx to maintain radar separation"

bigbird "left heading xxx" or "Roger looking for traffic"

If they take the vector continue giving them vectors if they give it the looking for traffic just keep passing them the traffic.

Procedural control should be just that, none of this nonsense of what type of service do you want. If your IFR you getting it like it or not. If you don't want it cancel IFR. It confuses the hell of the foreigners and they don't understand the difference to a basic service. 99% of pilots will do as they are told anyway. And the 1% that don't will be the local regulars who know their poo anyway.

This contract "control" rubbish should just die a death with VFR traffic. You wouldn't believe the amount of stress and work load it gives low experienced pilots. And the huge annoyance factor it gives experienced. Yes you can ask that they report any alterations to their intentions but some controllers are using not replying to calls as a method of locking VFR aircraft on headings and alts as if they were IFR. Quite often with zero appreciation of cloud and terrain. I have given it hey ho off the frequency I go, when I was ignored for 4 calls trying to avoid cloud. Which did trigger a response I might add, it was a scream "remain on my frequency", which got the reply "QSYing good day". Its uncontrolled airspace you will never be able to change that fact.

Currently I think that due to lack of knowledge on how aircraft operate that to much emphasis is given to allowing the CAT free protected range in class G during the approach phase, if they were just kept out of the sub 4k zone until a lot nearer the airport and dog legs used to put them on base to create distance for height loss the amount of clashes with GA would be greatly reduced.

Over 10 years I have had two airprox's both of which have been under a top level radar service in the UK. Both cases the traffic wasn't seen on radar both in the sub 4k zone in G descended I might before I would have preferred.

Over the same period looking after myself and keeping a bloody good look out and cancelling IFR when in VFR conditions I haven't had any issues in G. Quite often I think CAT creates problems for itself by doing full instrument procedures in visual conditions. Instead of taking them to the down wind controllers are taking them out to 10-20 miles away with slant vectors covering vast strafes of airspace sometimes 15-20 miles abeam the field and they clear them down way to early sometimes 20 miles before touch down with sterile space under them. 100 sq Nm by 6-7k thick of airspace. If they were controlling in CAS they wouldn't do that because they would be limited by the CAS dimensions.

Anyway I am sure you ATC types will see gapping holes in my blankish paper scribblings on a Saturday morning after a week of 6 sector days on earlys 4 of which involve instrument approaches in class G which shock horror have only a FISO to give me procedural traffic information.

[Moli]

MJ

Sat at EGLL waiting to collect Mrs Moli so not gonna type loads on an iPhone.
I find myself reading your post and nodding in agreement with lots of it. Sometimes I think some of what you say gets misinterpreted (by me at least) as you get or appear to get very wound up by this subject and I think your intention gets a little lost.
Anyway, I say again I agree with much of your last post, thanks for taking the time to air your thoughts, gotta go:ok:

Moli

[mad_jock]

my intention is increased safety for all users of class G.

If it comes across as anything else I apologise.

I do feel strongly about the subject because all I have experienced is a reduction in safety with the current ATSOCAS.

The focus has gone to far in the direction of what the service provider deems the User should have, instead of what the minimum the user requires never mind wants for a safe flight.

Anyway thanks for looking through the style etc and taking the time to consider my views.

[whowhenwhy]

MJ, I'm with Moli, I agree with a lot of what you have said in your last few posts. I've listened to how others in Europe do it (Danish FISOs provide surveillance based traffic information to VFR traffic in Class E, akin to the UK's military area radar Class G aerospace task) and would like to see FIS in Class G that is based on IFR and VFR. ATS units with a surveillance capability could provide information based on radar, we'd get rid of deconfliction service and collision avoidance advice would be available on request. The problems are that the overall airspace structure within the UK is wrong (the default that Class G is best is plain wrong) and the funding model in the UK is wrong because there is no profit for aerodromes to provide FIS to transiting traffic.

I think that someone needs to start examining the availability of ATS to users (and I don't mean LARS coverage) because too many pilots are saying on forums such as these that all they can get is a BS. That was never the idea. I also think that if we're forced to stick with what we have, then somehow, availability of the ATS, training and awareness needs to improve, in order to improve safety.

[mad_jock]

Well you have lost me and many other pilots to your services until you have a fundamental change to the system.

And quite how a service is meant to function with the intended users boycotting it I don't know.

To pretend you can fix the current farce is a bit naïve. I am sure there will be some sweating managers sitting in a room kidding themselves and everyone else that the can make it work in its current state so they don't have to spend any money on it.

But the those of us that actually have to use it won't be spoken to.

Anyway I am perfectly happy flying along keeping a listening watch to the approach frequency to generate my own SA its all I would get on a basic anyway. And I won't be dicked around.

This is your house to sort out, I won't be entering it in class G until you remove all the ****e from the door step.

[Good Business Sense]

MJ - absolutely spot on.

[mad_jock]

And to note you need to sort it relatively quickly if you want peoples habits to remain to speak to a service.

Yes we train them to use what ever ATS they can get. And mostly they will stay with that. Unless pushed away from it.

If the pilots come away from that it takes quite a lot to reform the habit back to always using a service.

Once they get used to not talking and have a pleasant stress free flight and nothing ever happens to them there is no real motivation to going back to speaking to an ATS.

And I think this will affect regional airport ATS more than it will the pilots. Well it definitely will because as I have learned by experience talking to nobody in class G has absolutely no effect on my flight only a reduction in workload and annoyance factor.

So someone better wake up to this problem and do something about it because it will take years to sort out the habits of pilots to come back to using a service. The longer you leave it and the more you piss pilots off the harder it gets to get people back.

Or maybe this is the cunning plan to stop pilots using the service and force all the regionals into getting controlled airspace.

If that is the plan its working a bloody treat.

BTW I don't know any Pro pilots that do still take a service when flying by themselves privately in class G.

[fisbangwollop]

Apart from you MJ.:cool:

[Helen49]

Fascinating subject and a long way from the 'safety comes first mantra'!

Can't help but agree with M. Some eminently sensible ideas. However one of the problems which it raises is that the majority of the GA fraternity [glider, parachutists, hang gliders, microlights etc etc etc] have traditionally been opposed to controlled airspace of any kind. The military have also opposed any hint of increased controlled airspace even when intended to protect the interests of commercial air transport and airports. The above groups want freedom to do as they please, a minimum of licensing requirements, a minimum of nav equipment in their aircraft and a minimum requirement to converse with ATC!

Anyone who has attended the CAA's Air Traffic Services Regulatory Advisory Committee [ATSRAC] will have heard the protestations voiced by the above communities at the slightest hint of more controlled airspace.....and as they have, or at least used to have, far more seats around the table than the airlines and airports they make life pretty difficult!

Discuss!!

H49

[mad_jock]

I will continue to use the flight information services of an area service which giving me a service (ooh er mrs) is their primary function.

[Jim59]

However one of the problems which it raises is that the majority of the GA fraternity [glider, parachutists, hang gliders, microlights etc etc etc] have traditionally been opposed to controlled airspace of any kind. The military have also opposed any hint of increased controlled airspace even when intended to protect the interests of commercial air transport and airports. The above groups want freedom to do as they please, a minimum of licensing requirements, a minimum of nav equipment in their aircraft and a minimum requirement to converse with ATC!

Perhaps there is some justification for their opposition.

When controlled airspace is being proposed it is usually stated that there will be minimal disruption to GA traffic and that all that is wanted is a known traffic environment to enhance safety for commercial traffic. All very reasonable. However, once controlled airspace in in place then priority is given to traffic using the airfield which it is there to protect. Other traffic wishing to transit is then allowed access 'subject to controller workload' which in practice means 'remain outside controlled airspace' more often than not. It is not possible to plan a flight crossing controlled airspace because there is no guarantee of being able to fly the plan, and often a very low probablility of a transit. Another issue that can arise is only being offered a transit at an altitude that requires instrument qualifications - not held by most recreational pilots.

When one considers the low traffic volumes at some airfields with Class D airspace and their reluctance to provide glider & GA transits it is not a surprise that GA is against further expansion.

[mad_jock]

which is why E+ is a good compromise.

[kcockayne]

Jim59

An interesting comment; & one with which I have no reason to disagree - as far as UK CAS is concerned. Because I have no great experience of it.
However, I was an ATCO at Jersey for 31 years. The Jersey CTR was, until recently, totally Rule 22, then Rule 21, then Class A airspace. That is, IFR only with a concession of Special VFR (where PPL VFR pilots fly the a/c visually & ATC separate them from each other & from IFR a/c).
It worked brilliantly. In those 31 years (& in the previous 15 years I spent as an a/c spotter), I do not recollect ANY VFR a/c being refused entry into CAS except for weather.
Now, I realise that the weather criteria for SVFR are higher than they are for VFR in UCAS ; & will bar VFR a/c from Class A on occasion but, I would suggest that this example indicates that ATC does not restrict VFR a/c for the fun of it, or unnecessarily.
Indeed, it was my experience that we bent over backwards to accept all types of traffic ! The proof of this could be seen in the CI CTR & at Jersey, Guernsey & Alderney airports on any sunny summer weekend - when we would (in co-operation with our 'JB & 'JA colleagues) handle in the region of 1200 IFR & SVFR flts. on any one day (of 14 operational hours ie. 85 a/c per hr., sustained throughout the day).
I KNOW that most, if not all of the ATCOS, were very much pro private flying & never restricted any of them unless absolutely unavoidable.
I also KNOW that locally based PPLS were very appreciative of our efforts & had no complaints about access to Class A.
My experience of ATCOS in the UK (gained from 1971 to '78 & in 2007 to '08) pretty much parallels my CI experience.
If VFR pilots, glider pilots & military pilots etc. were to realise what a great bunch of ATCOS they are dealing with & avoid thinking that because certain airspace in certain areas is CAS it is out of bounds to them, & that they are always not welcome within it ; &, if they were to actively participate in planning & organising new CAS; they might find that it is not quite so restrictive as they thought.
But, maybe my UK experience was different to everyone else's!

[kcockayne]

Further to the above; I do realise that the military HAS given up a lot of their airspace over the past 40 years.
I would like to thank them for that. It must be appreciated by the civilian ATCOS.

[mad_jock]

The new breed of ATCO's are nothing like what you describe.

Don't get me wrong there are some that still have the passion for anything aviation like from your day.

Unfortunately is now its just a job not an excuse to get paid to do a hobby.

I have even offered to take some up on maintenance flights, 2 hours of free lesson. Nope not interested.

Some the nly time they have ever seen the inside of a GA SEP is when they have seen a pic on the internet. And they don't have a clue what the instruments are for. But they will give you a stern lecture when you give them an altitude instead of a flight when flying at MSA above some lumpy stuff and don't realise that some planes only have one altimeter.

And the mil haven't given it up. They have just stopped having anything to do with it because they have no interest in it. And as nobody else is interested in it there is nobody looking after the traffic in it apart from an Area FISO. The only airspace civilian controllers care about is the airspace which they need to take there arrivals and departures through.

[whowhenwhy]

Yup, met ATCOs who criticise pilots for being more than 1 kt above the procedure speed because they consider it as a job, or, at worst, a computer game.

MJ, I'm slightly confused about your comment about only an area FISO showing any interest in a particular bit of airspace; can I ask you to expand on that please? PM if you like.

The thread so far has certainly stimulated professional debate today.

[kcockayne]

mad jock

So very sorry to read your post. I was, obviously, aware of some slippage in the "aviation mindedness" of some ATCOS but, if it is as bad as you say, then I very much regret it.
I am thankful that I met so many aviation enthusiasts (like myself) during my career. Great characters with great enthusiasm & great knowledge & abilities. & that's without taking into account all the ex servicemen from during & after the war.
A high point of my life to have met them all & heard all their stories.
If present day ATCOS are no longer a "chip off this old block", I hate to think of what the future holds.

[Shine On]

A very interesting thread to follow from both sides. One comment would be that when the ATSOCAS came into being they came with the caveat " Duty of Care". No clear indication was given as to the definitive definition of this phrase with many left with the opinion that this would have several connotations should they ever be tested in a court of law. Obviously no individual wanted to be the "test" case.

[mad_jock]

Doesn't need a private one.

Just the only people that really want to talk to you are the Area FISO's in Scottish or London.

Weekend when there isn't mil traffic around have a look at the amount of airspace where realistically the only person you can talk to is one of the information units.

Take a fictional transit from just south of Dalkieth remaining clear of NEW and routing down to the east of the A1 IFR (I follow roads) to say Turwesten


The only time anyone will start getting someone interested with you is when you get near Eastmids which has always been a quite a pro GA set of controllers. And actually I more than likely would speak to them.

The only thing you have is Scottish Info and then London Info.

I might have forgotten one of the RAF bases might be open for something but if it is it will be a basic service with nothing passed so you might as well not bother.

http://www.pooleys.com/images/products/1581.jpg

Thought I would add that in for educational purposes.

BTW that's a fancy one it has nav aids and a carbon monoxide detector.

Another example who is going to look after the airspace over fife when Leuchars radar gets cut. I really don't think Edi has enough capacity to give any meaningful service unless a plastic pig is going into Dundee.

[whowhenwhy]

MJ, thanks for the explanation and understand completely now when you mentioned weekends.

Ref the picture, the 4 metal pedals at the bottom, they're for the 2 pilots to use to wind the spinny things on the wings right? ;)

Like I said, stimulated interesting debate today that might one day result in something being done to resolve what is obviously (at least for part of the user community) a very significant issue.

[mad_jock]

As a matter of interest, and to further my own knowledge.

What were the bollocks ideas in the blankish paper scribblings?

[whowhenwhy]

MJ, frankly, that was rude and un-necessary. Most people, as indeed I did earlier in this thread, will somewhat tongue in cheek use the term bolleaux when describing the concept that you wished to convey.

Scribblings on blankish paper I'm not going to provide but what has been discussed in a number of forums over the last few years (with military and civilian operators present) are exactly the same concepts that have been covered in the last 4 pages. ICAO (read EASA) and user requirements must be the starting points, closely followed by flight rules (not the seeming current onus on meteorological conditions) and the airspace classifications and technology required to deliver all of that. Key constraints, as ever, are financial, those who are anti-radio and or anti-electronic conspicuity (and no, I don't necessarily mean a Mode S transponder) and those who are anti-controlled air space because they see Class G as the only default option after A, C and D. I believe that you mentioned earlier about E+ being a good compromise and is a premise that, personally, I see great benefit in.

Anything like this takes time and people need to remember that but make sure that they remain engaged with the process so that it actually reflects what people need.

[mad_jock]

I do apologise if you took it like that.

Its certainly wasn't meant in a rude way.

I was refering to my post. Not anyone elses. Ie what strange unworkable concepts did i come up with.

[ShyTorque]

BTW I don't know any Pro pilots that do still take a service when flying by themselves privately in class G.

Well, I do. If I think it's in my benefit, or for the benefit of either ATC or other pilots to be made aware of my presence/what I'm doing.

But I agree that sometimes, a basic service just isn't worth the paper it's written on, or can even be counter-productive.

[fisbangwollop]

Shy torque.........

But I agree that sometimes, a basic service just isn't worth the paper it's written on, or can even be counter-productive.
Thankfully there are still pilots out there that disagree with you.....otherwise I may as well hang up my headset and sign on the dole! :{

[LEGAL TENDER]

Like often happens in this forum, not long until someone suggests that a good ATCO should have an interest in aviation or being a plane spotter ;)

Waiting for Hitler and the war to come up next...

[kcockayne]

Legal Tender

No one said that.
What I said was that the majority of ATCOS in my time had an interest & enthusiasm for aviation & handled a much greater volume of traffic without "refusals to enter CAS" (not that I am saying that this is now the case - just that there was far more traffic then). I never said that it was a prerequisite for the job, There must be many ATCOS who don't fall into that category & who are still able to efficiently discharge their duties.
But, I think from the comment made by Mad Jock, & others in recent times, that being enthusiastic & interested in one's job is definitely beneficial.
Certainly, what was said by local pilots in Jersey after the body of "old style" ATCOS retired 5-10 years ago, was that the service level & professionalism of ATC had dropped.
Or, perhaps they were just being nice to us !

[ShyTorque]

Fisbang,

Thankfully there are still pilots out there that disagree with you.....otherwise I may as well hang up my headset and sign on the dole!

Don't be too upset, old chap! I did say SOMETIMES! You and I will have spoken over the airwaves quite a few times in the past and knowing what you do up north, I certainly wasn't referring to yourself.

However, the "sometimes" occurs when:

A) On dialling the appropriate frequency it becomes quickly obvious how busy it is. For example, at weekends on a nice day after a period of bad weather, many low timers go up for a jolly jaunt. No problem with that, but it seems an increasing number get airborne without correct pre-flight preparation or competency. They have either forgotten or never bothered to learn what is required in a call requesting a service. Frequencies are sometimes effectively blocked by barely competent (or worse) pilots who take three or four calls to pass the correct info, take ages to respond/read back and some call up for a service then immediately don't listen out. It's obvious that some only ask for a service (in some cases, they're still asking for FIS) because that's what they have been taught to do, but then they turn down the receive volume which makes it pointless. I can understand how much stress this places on the ATCO involved - has the non-responding aircraft crashed, gone to a different freq, or what?

B) Unfortunately there are some controllers who make it such hard work it appears they really don't want you on frequency at all and only begrudgingly provide the service. I prefer to use "listening squawks" where available, rather than a basic service , so ATC know I'm on frequency if they need to speak to me. If I need a QNH I'll listen to the ATIS or glean it when ATC call another aircraft.

Bearing in mind what little a basic service provides, having to listen to constant prattle to obtain it can SOMETIMES provide a major distraction and in those cases, in my opinion, can compromise the safe conduct of my flight. Rather than become one of those who turns down the volume and adds to the problem, I SOMETIMES leave the frequency early, or in cases, not make a call in the first place, having listened to the ongoing melee.

BTW, FIS, yesterday, during my daily grind, I spoke to five different agencies in one hour and obtained a Basic service from all of them. Hope that makes you feel slightly happier!

[fisbangwollop]

Haha....Shytorque......no problem, I think you will find everyone that uses the service that I and my colegues provide at Scottish info 119.875 appreciate the friendly and hopefully helpful service that we provide. Even that old fart Mad Jock appreciates us when he is back home in the UK, if only to tell me his balls are getting frozen in the back seat of a Piper Cub. Next time your north of the border make sure you pop up to say hello and should you ever find your self at Prestwick with time to kill please let me know and I will show you around our nice shiny ATC centre. Take care and safe flying from this old fart that still enjoys his job after 42 years.:cool::cool:

[whowhenwhy]

MJ roger, thanks. Summary of some of my thoughts in the previous post.

It's been an interesting thread, thanks all.