Not above/below XXXXft?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gdit n B`lady reading the manual may be good for passing exams
is your local SRG office aware you consider the manual optional? If so then i would prefer to work in your srg region, cos i'm
sure i'm not allowed to opt out !
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original point was that MATS 1 contains conflicting instruction.
Section 1, Chapter 1, Page 2, para 5.1 (c) Flight Information Service "Controllers are not responsible for seperating or sequencing aircraft."
Section 1, Chapter 3, Page 1, Provision of Standard Separation "Standard separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between:......................IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit"
If providing a FIS which of the above applies. You can't do both.
Section 1, Chapter 1, Page 2, para 5.1 (c) Flight Information Service "Controllers are not responsible for seperating or sequencing aircraft."
Section 1, Chapter 3, Page 1, Provision of Standard Separation "Standard separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between:......................IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit"
If providing a FIS which of the above applies. You can't do both.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: HERE AND THERE
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonup
The MATS does contain many conflictions. It has been that way for years. It wasn't such a problem in the old days, but we now live in a blame culture. If something were to go wrong some lawyer type, possibly with little aviation experience, will look to lay blame, a process that might start by examining the relevant standardsand procedures - essentially MATS1 and MATS2. Thus it is essential for the 'protection' of the individual that one is provided with workable standards and procedures, where one identifies a discrepancy then provision from ats provider (or someone higher!!) should be sought.
At present there seems to be a lack of an adequate process to rectify the MATS1.
As for those troublesome IFR customers outside CAS :
Section 1, Chapter 1, Page 2, para 5 provides general guidance on the provision of a FIS. This is guidance for all those providing a FIS.
Section 1, Chapter 3, Page 1 provides more specific direction for an approach control unit.
(Section3, chapter1 page1, para 1 details the services an approach control unit shall provide, i.e all three, but this was already explored in some detail in the recent 'freecallers' thread. )
I don't have an answer for how you're supposed to separate them all, but the fact remains the requirement is to do so.
Made more workable the MATS1 would be our friend
The MATS does contain many conflictions. It has been that way for years. It wasn't such a problem in the old days, but we now live in a blame culture. If something were to go wrong some lawyer type, possibly with little aviation experience, will look to lay blame, a process that might start by examining the relevant standardsand procedures - essentially MATS1 and MATS2. Thus it is essential for the 'protection' of the individual that one is provided with workable standards and procedures, where one identifies a discrepancy then provision from ats provider (or someone higher!!) should be sought.
At present there seems to be a lack of an adequate process to rectify the MATS1.
As for those troublesome IFR customers outside CAS :
Section 1, Chapter 1, Page 2, para 5 provides general guidance on the provision of a FIS. This is guidance for all those providing a FIS.
Section 1, Chapter 3, Page 1 provides more specific direction for an approach control unit.
(Section3, chapter1 page1, para 1 details the services an approach control unit shall provide, i.e all three, but this was already explored in some detail in the recent 'freecallers' thread. )
I don't have an answer for how you're supposed to separate them all, but the fact remains the requirement is to do so.
Made more workable the MATS1 would be our friend
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And maybe the latest NATS pay deal will be acceptable to all.
Acceptable = loads more , to ATCOs & ATSAs in NATS
Acceptable = pay cut, to everyone else
Guest
Posts: n/a
tonup, I don't really see your problem. The MATS Part 1 reference that you cite (Section 1, Chapter 3, Page 1) says that you have to separate IFR flights that are participating in the approach control service (from each other) that you are providing.
Are you saying that you have separate them from everything else?
Are you saying that you have separate them from everything else?
