Radar Vectors outside CAS

[Go-Around]

Hi,
I should know the answer to this but it's been a while since I looked at my books.
What is the seperation/responsibilties on pilot and controller during radar vectoring for an ILS at a place such as Cambridge/Humberside? (the first two that came to mind.)
Many Thanks,
GA

[radar707]

There are no separation standards as such outside controlled airspace, we aim to achieve 5 miles / 1000ft between aircraft participating in the Radar Advisory Service.

However due to the nature of uncontrolled airspace, we don't always speak to the a/c out there so under a RAS, you will be given avoiding action with the aim to achieve separation of 5 miles / 3000ft (against unverified mode C).
A Radar Advisor Service is just that, ADVISORY, the pilot does not have to comply with ATC instructions, but once he refuses, then he becomes responsible for his own separation against conflicting traffic.

Under a Radar Information Service, details of conflicting traffic will be passed to the pilot who is responsible for maintaining his own separation. Under a RIS a pilot is also responsible for terrain clearance. Controllers may provde vectors for tactical purposes, but pilots do not have to comply

That's the basics

[matspart3]

Radar Separation applies inside or outside CAS!! That's 5NM laterally...3NM if the equipment is Approved by the CAA.

Under RAS, that separation must be provided between aircraft PARTICIPATING in the advisory service and should be provided wherever possible between non-participating.

Under RIS, no separation is required, however as an Approach Controller you are still required to provide some form of standard separation between IFR aircraft.

In practice, I will normally provide RIS but offer a series of 'tactical' vectors to final approach, whilst providing 3NM separation between 'known' traffic.

[Go-Around]

Thanks for the replies, it was just to clear up the separation applied, and who's responsible when and where.
GA

[Duke of Burgundy]

Hello matspart3 - as principally a Class A CTR/TMA ATCO with very limited exposure to Class G airspace, I have a couple of questions for you.

In your second paragraph did you mean to say " wherever possible from non-participating?

If whilst providing a "tactical" radar vector towards your final approach a conflicting unknown aircraft appears, what do you do?

The MATS Part 1 says that under RIS "vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot." Do you just leave the aircraft on your vector and call the traffic to the pilot? Surely not.

Would it not be easier to provide RAS and have done with it, then all involved would know where they stood.

:confused: :confused:

[alphaalpha]

MatsPart3 (or any ATCO)

Could you please explain what a 'tactical vector' is.
?

I'm a GA pilot and have been offered tactical vectors a couple of times. This was under a radar service outside CAS -- I forget whether it was RAS or RIS. I assumed the vector was to ensure separation from traffic inside CAS was achieved when I also entered the CAS. Am I near the mark?

[Chilli Monster]

alphaalpha

Tactical Vector: One that is applied to get you to a certain point at a certain level, either to lose or gain height, or to establish you in a sequence (for example).

duke of burgundy

There are occasions when the aircraft being vectored is operating VMC for the purposes of instrument training. Rather than vectoring the aircraft all round the sky under a RAS to achieve radar separation it's often more efficient to supply a RIS, call the traffic and when the instructor / safety pilot sees the traffic he can take a course of action which will enable him to avoid without going to the extent of 5 nm or 1000ft.

CM

[matspart3]

Duke
Yes, I did mean to say 'from'

In relation to the scenario you pose, I'd call the traffic, if the pilot was not visual, I may offer more vectors or upgrade to RAS and apply the appropriate separation depending on the situation.

As Chilli says, vectoring around the sky to achieve 5NM isn't practical, safe or sensible. To compound the problem our radar is primary only!! In these days of 'duty of care' I'm not always confident that I can safely meet the requirements of RAS in my part of the FIR, hence the provision of RIS.

IMHO Airspace Policy in the UK is the root of the problem. Anywhere with an Instrument Approach procedure should have CAS to protect it

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but if we properly utilised the ICAO airspace classifications, binned RAS/RIS etc and concentrated on VFR & IFR, life would be so much easier.:)