What Service?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Biggin Hill
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Service?
A few weeks have passed since a rather unfortunate incident occurred in the UK UIR, so hopefully I will be able to ask this question without pointing the finger too obviously.
You are controlling an airliner that is on-route in Class B Airspace, when the pilot requests an initial descent from FL350 to FL250. You check your flight strips, electronic equivalents and any other data you have to hand regarding ac working your sector, and note that there are no conflictions.
Question 1. Prior to approving the request, would you look at the radar screen to check that there was no other conflicting traffic?
Question 2. If you noted a confliction, what would your next action be?
BA
You are controlling an airliner that is on-route in Class B Airspace, when the pilot requests an initial descent from FL350 to FL250. You check your flight strips, electronic equivalents and any other data you have to hand regarding ac working your sector, and note that there are no conflictions.
Question 1. Prior to approving the request, would you look at the radar screen to check that there was no other conflicting traffic?
Question 2. If you noted a confliction, what would your next action be?
BA
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q1: Not neccessarily. You maybe the only a/c on frequency and if already in the sector (as seen previously) and the strips have shown no other conflicting traffic even due, then there is not a need to look at the radar screen, however many controllers will. Second senario is that the controller knows you'll be asking for descent and has previously noted that all conflictions have passed and already has planned to give you descent FL250 so no need to re-clarify this decision. The paper strips do/should highlight all conflictions so a decision can be made on those alone, if your airprox was with unknown traffic (military/off route civil/unlawful airspace penetration), then there is no guarantee even looking at the radar screen could have avoided the confliction.
Q2: Totally depends on the stage of the confliction, but anything from phoning another controller to gain information on their track to just giving a small heading change/stopping descent if safe (I know about TCAS involvement) to giving full avoiding action and traffic information. However with certain tracks no action is to be taken at all (according to the manual), but this just depends on where you (the aircraft) are geographically but many controllers will feel a duty to at least provide traffic information even if no action is taken directly by themselves. If I know you can see it then you'll turn out the way if it comes towards you without delay.
Q2: Totally depends on the stage of the confliction, but anything from phoning another controller to gain information on their track to just giving a small heading change/stopping descent if safe (I know about TCAS involvement) to giving full avoiding action and traffic information. However with certain tracks no action is to be taken at all (according to the manual), but this just depends on where you (the aircraft) are geographically but many controllers will feel a duty to at least provide traffic information even if no action is taken directly by themselves. If I know you can see it then you'll turn out the way if it comes towards you without delay.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Biggin Hill
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby
Thank you for a comprehensive and considered reply.
To clarify a couple of points:
The conflicting traffic is there legitimately, but under the control of another agency (this is Class B Airspace), at a range of 20nm and level at FL290.
Any more offers out there?
BA
Thank you for a comprehensive and considered reply.
To clarify a couple of points:
The conflicting traffic is there legitimately, but under the control of another agency (this is Class B Airspace), at a range of 20nm and level at FL290.
Any more offers out there?
BA
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By legitimately, do you mean the other agency has no onus to co-ordinate with you whilst you are operating 'on route' and within an area for which you have responsibility ??
If it is a civil/military problem you refer to within UK airspace, then the rules for co-ordination are laid down and clear. Either in the way of a Silent Co-ordination procedure, or by the standard 'on route/off route' co-ordination procedures.
I think 99% of us would do what 5milesbaby says. However, you might want to have a word with the other controller afterwards and point out the way things are supposed to work
If it is a civil/military problem you refer to within UK airspace, then the rules for co-ordination are laid down and clear. Either in the way of a Silent Co-ordination procedure, or by the standard 'on route/off route' co-ordination procedures.
I think 99% of us would do what 5milesbaby says. However, you might want to have a word with the other controller afterwards and point out the way things are supposed to work
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe I am aware of the incident to which BigginAgain refers.
The question of priority is one which frequently exercises the minds of military aircrew in particular, especially when operating below FL245. In such cases, there have been instances where FJ pilots have expressed the view (forgive my paraphrasing) that civilian commercial ac operating in Class G should give way to military, or stay in Class A if they want protection. However, that was not the issue here I believe.
As a military controller, I accept the fundamental principle that off-route manouevering traffic gives way to on-route traffic in Class B. In practice, this means that where coordination is required, it will normally be my responsibility to initiate this. Occasionally, though, we mil controllers provide services to ac in Class B which are transiting maintaining heading and level.
If I am correct, in the incident to which Biggin refers, the controller of the transiting mil ac looked at the civil ac at range and considered that adequate separation existed for him to take Charlie Sep. However, at about 15 miles, and without warning, the airliner commenced a fairly rapid descent. There being insufficient time to initiate coordination, the mil controller called an avoiding action to achieve standard separation.
In following up the incident, the mil controller was surprised that the civ ATCO was unrepentent, claiming on-route status, even though he was manoeuvering against traffic that was straight and level. He/she was apparently supported by his/her supervisor
My personal belief is that controllers (mil or civil) who are providing Radar Control should be doing exactly that. It is insufficient to rely on flight strips alone (isn't this a form of procedural service?) and I am astonished that it is considered normal not to monitor the radar screen prior to approving a manoeuvre. The second issue is that of on-route status. I have discussed this with colleagues, and it is a generally held belief that civil traffic should not expect to retain this privilege once it manoeuvers except for changes in heading associated with the route being followed. This was not the case here.
Let loose the dogs of war ....
STH
PS
BigginAgain, sorry if this was not what you were referring to.
The question of priority is one which frequently exercises the minds of military aircrew in particular, especially when operating below FL245. In such cases, there have been instances where FJ pilots have expressed the view (forgive my paraphrasing) that civilian commercial ac operating in Class G should give way to military, or stay in Class A if they want protection. However, that was not the issue here I believe.
As a military controller, I accept the fundamental principle that off-route manouevering traffic gives way to on-route traffic in Class B. In practice, this means that where coordination is required, it will normally be my responsibility to initiate this. Occasionally, though, we mil controllers provide services to ac in Class B which are transiting maintaining heading and level.
If I am correct, in the incident to which Biggin refers, the controller of the transiting mil ac looked at the civil ac at range and considered that adequate separation existed for him to take Charlie Sep. However, at about 15 miles, and without warning, the airliner commenced a fairly rapid descent. There being insufficient time to initiate coordination, the mil controller called an avoiding action to achieve standard separation.
In following up the incident, the mil controller was surprised that the civ ATCO was unrepentent, claiming on-route status, even though he was manoeuvering against traffic that was straight and level. He/she was apparently supported by his/her supervisor
My personal belief is that controllers (mil or civil) who are providing Radar Control should be doing exactly that. It is insufficient to rely on flight strips alone (isn't this a form of procedural service?) and I am astonished that it is considered normal not to monitor the radar screen prior to approving a manoeuvre. The second issue is that of on-route status. I have discussed this with colleagues, and it is a generally held belief that civil traffic should not expect to retain this privilege once it manoeuvers except for changes in heading associated with the route being followed. This was not the case here.
Let loose the dogs of war ....
STH
PS
BigginAgain, sorry if this was not what you were referring to.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Toppam, I'm afraid you won't find many civil guys agreeing. If we are controlling traffic on a UAR in class B airspace, we generally assume that it is 'ours'. You mil guy can use it but have to keep out of the way of our traffic, whether straight and level or climbing/descending. En-route status applies to the whole route at all levels.
In practice, most controllers will glance at the screen prior to issuing climbs and descents but even is we see a military squark in the vicinity, we may legitamately issue an executive instruction on the assumption that the mil controller will avoid.
Oh, and believe it or not, civil ATC is still supposedly a procedural system backed up by radar. Hard to believe, I know
In practice, most controllers will glance at the screen prior to issuing climbs and descents but even is we see a military squark in the vicinity, we may legitamately issue an executive instruction on the assumption that the mil controller will avoid.
Oh, and believe it or not, civil ATC is still supposedly a procedural system backed up by radar. Hard to believe, I know
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All those expensive radars and controllers are still (highly effectively) doing the job with a few flight strips. Don't shout that one too loud or some bean counter in CTC will identify another cost saving measure. 
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question 1; ALWAYS look; never assume someone else is doing his job properly. In more than 35 years the only airmiss I had was with military traffic that shouldn't have been there (BTW it was a non-radar environment)
Question 2; Ensure separation is maintained; by saying "Stand-by due traffic" and/or checking what the other guy is doing
Question 2; Ensure separation is maintained; by saying "Stand-by due traffic" and/or checking what the other guy is doing
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I am very surprised by some of the responses here. I am, of course, fully aware of the part flight strips play in the Civ ATC world, but the suggestion that even the noted presence of mil traffic in the vicinity would not prevent approval being given for descent is frankly worrying.
I don't doubt that the procedures being described are being employed, but where is it laid down that military traffic operating in the vicinity of an Upper Air Route can be deemed not to exist? Let's be honest, if you are not looking at the tube, that is effectively what is going on. Are the CAA happy with this? Are you airline pilots out there happy with this?
How is a mil controller (or any controller for that matter) expected to apply C Separation with any degree of confidence if other controllers take no notice of other traffic in the vicinity?
Any other mil controllers have a view on this?
STH
I don't doubt that the procedures being described are being employed, but where is it laid down that military traffic operating in the vicinity of an Upper Air Route can be deemed not to exist? Let's be honest, if you are not looking at the tube, that is effectively what is going on. Are the CAA happy with this? Are you airline pilots out there happy with this?
How is a mil controller (or any controller for that matter) expected to apply C Separation with any degree of confidence if other controllers take no notice of other traffic in the vicinity?
Any other mil controllers have a view on this?
STH
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know well of the incident that STH refers to (and that may be the source of BA's question ?).
If not, then I think that 5milesbaby and PR have given fair summary [without too much detail] of what may be a reasonable approach.
On the other hand .... let me put a little more flesh on the bone to allow a healthy debate
Firstly, the military controller made an assumption that both his aircraft and the civil traffic would continue at their current level - civil teaching is never assume. A quick call to the correct sector would have provided a succesful co-ordination however, had the traffic been controlled by the co-located radar unit, SCP would have resolved the conflict. Nevertheless, in the absence of a co-ordination the military controller did exactly the right thing.
The reality was that before the civil traffic reached FL310 they tried to co-ordinate with the military controlling unit. This took 2 telephone calls (the first [answered] call took almost a minute to be transferred into cyberspace) and by the time both ATCOs managed to speak [about 90 seconds later] the need for co-ordination had passed though the civil ATCO felt the need to assert that the military aircraft remained clear of the civil (which was done is an assertive but professional manner).
A (the?) civil view is that traffic operating within CAS (for which the civil unit is notified as the controlling authority) is not "manoevering" in the sense that military ATSOCAS traffic does. Traffic climbing and descending on UARs is "meat and veg" to the civil world and, as PR says, there are clear co-ordination requirements for this.
Perhaps this discussion suggests that the clarity is not making it through in all our training programmes ? Perhaps we should make more of an effort to get civil ATCOs to ASACS units and V/V to see how each other operate (?)
I think this exagerates the true level of civil practice and doesn't, with an informed veiw of what was going on in the civil unit, reflect the issues accurately. It is not "normal" practice to pass instructions without looking at a radar but in this case the instruction was given by the sector "2 before" the final controlling sector. It is with this civil complexity in mind that we have such clear co-ordination requirements. The "generally held beliefs" [assumptions ?] aren't held in the civil world so I'm unsurprised that wasn't the case here.
Finally, feedback was exchanged between both units together with information about how such debates can be had to improve co-ordination through the military safety regulator. I'd like to think that that option will be used as a debate on PPRuNe, always a worthwhile activity
, will achieve nothing in terms of revised procedures or training.
However, that is based on STH's assumed event so if this isn't what BA had in mind please get us back on track (?)
RT
If not, then I think that 5milesbaby and PR have given fair summary [without too much detail] of what may be a reasonable approach.
On the other hand .... let me put a little more flesh on the bone to allow a healthy debate
If I am correct, in the incident to which Biggin refers, the controller of the transiting mil ac looked at the civil ac at range and considered that adequate separation existed for him to take Charlie Sep. However, at about 15 miles, and without warning, the airliner commenced a fairly rapid descent. There being insufficient time to initiate coordination, the mil controller called an avoiding action to achieve standard separation.
The reality was that before the civil traffic reached FL310 they tried to co-ordinate with the military controlling unit. This took 2 telephone calls (the first [answered] call took almost a minute to be transferred into cyberspace) and by the time both ATCOs managed to speak [about 90 seconds later] the need for co-ordination had passed though the civil ATCO felt the need to assert that the military aircraft remained clear of the civil (which was done is an assertive but professional manner).
In following up the incident, the mil controller was surprised that the civ ATCO was unrepentent, claiming on-route status, even though he was manoeuvering against traffic that was straight and level. He/she was apparently supported by his/her supervisor
Perhaps this discussion suggests that the clarity is not making it through in all our training programmes ? Perhaps we should make more of an effort to get civil ATCOs to ASACS units and V/V to see how each other operate (?)
My personal belief is that controllers (mil or civil) who are providing Radar Control should be doing exactly that. It is insufficient to rely on flight strips alone (isn't this a form of procedural service?) and I am astonished that it is considered normal not to monitor the radar screen prior to approving a manoeuvre. The second issue is that of on-route status. I have discussed this with colleagues, and it is a generally held belief that civil traffic should not expect to retain this privilege once it manoeuvers except for changes in heading associated with the route being followed. This was not the case here
Finally, feedback was exchanged between both units together with information about how such debates can be had to improve co-ordination through the military safety regulator. I'd like to think that that option will be used as a debate on PPRuNe, always a worthwhile activity
, will achieve nothing in terms of revised procedures or training.However, that is based on STH's assumed event so if this isn't what BA had in mind please get us back on track (?)
RT
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as I find it worrying that military controllers might be crossing UARs without realising that civil traffic might climb or descend.
When it gets down to it we are not providing a radar advisory service in the upper air. I'm sure no one would deliberately put his traffic into conflict with a military contact just to prove a point but we cannot be expected to spot every 'unknown' military aircraft.
When it gets down to it we are not providing a radar advisory service in the upper air. I'm sure no one would deliberately put his traffic into conflict with a military contact just to prove a point but we cannot be expected to spot every 'unknown' military aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know the details of this precise incident, but my first thought is that if the aircraft is looking for decent it must be relatively close to its destination, and therefore it would have the last 2 identifiers of the destination in the data block. If the mil unit also has this information then it shouldn't have come 'without warning' that the aircraft may descend, and if it was on route then the mil controller should have initiated some form of coordination. If the mil unit in question does not have this info and is working with squawks only then they should never assume anything with regards to the civil aircrafts intentions and again initiate coordination as the aircraft was on route.
Saying that, if i saw a mil squawk in straight and level flight in the way of my aircrafts descent i probably wouldn't drop straight through it on the basis of the mil guy seeing me and moving out the way, but would be annoyed if i had to initiate the coordination as the mil guy just transited using mode c seperation.
as has been said if this was not the incident..
blah de blah de blah
Saying that, if i saw a mil squawk in straight and level flight in the way of my aircrafts descent i probably wouldn't drop straight through it on the basis of the mil guy seeing me and moving out the way, but would be annoyed if i had to initiate the coordination as the mil guy just transited using mode c seperation.
as has been said if this was not the incident..
blah de blah de blah
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to chip in from the mil side on Balix's comment.
Be you Mil or Civ it is dangerous control practice not to use radar if you have it and rely on the assumption that just because you are in CAS you know whats there. All controllers, irrespective of airspace classification, should not assume that the way ahead is clear. If you are not spotting 'unknown' traffic on YOUR radar in YOUR airspace then you are failing as a controller. Check and never assume.
Going back to earlier comments about flight strips. Mil guys are taught from day one that their main control aid is Primary Radar with Secondary thrown in as a bonus. We use flight strips as an aide memoir to back up the big picture we are looking at on radar. Unlike civil controllers, procedural control is only employed as a last resort when we cannot provide a radar service. If we have a radar we use it, and do our damndest to keep the little/big/slow/fast sods safely apart.
but we cannot be expected to spot every 'unknown' military aircraft.
Going back to earlier comments about flight strips. Mil guys are taught from day one that their main control aid is Primary Radar with Secondary thrown in as a bonus. We use flight strips as an aide memoir to back up the big picture we are looking at on radar. Unlike civil controllers, procedural control is only employed as a last resort when we cannot provide a radar service. If we have a radar we use it, and do our damndest to keep the little/big/slow/fast sods safely apart.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly agree about one thing:
And I also acknowledge that occasional difficulties have been experienced getting through to ASACS controllers.
I can assure BALIX that his doubts are unfounded. Of course we are aware that ac climb and descend on air routes - can I assume that was banter? I still don't think it is unreasonable for a controller to take 10,000ft vertical separation when he is maintaining height and heading without bothering the Civ ATCO for coord 'just in case it descends'. Ayrprox, are you seriously suggesting that you want mil controllers to coordinate every 'potential' confliction? You are going to get a lot of calls if you operate over the North Sea! And can you explain what is meant by:
?
We do have some access to flight plan info, but it is not straightforward for the controllers to access, and we certainly don't have code callsign conversion as such.
In the incident which we are discussing (there is much to suggest we are all talking about the same thing, or at least very similar events), IIRC the descent commenced about 60 miles south east of Leuchars, with the airliner heading west. The mil ac was heading NNE.
I note BigginAgain appears to have scarpered! Perhaps he/she lit the blue touch paper and retired!
STH
Perhaps we should make more of an effort to get civil ATCOs to ASACS units and V/V to see how each other operate
I can assure BALIX that his doubts are unfounded. Of course we are aware that ac climb and descend on air routes - can I assume that was banter? I still don't think it is unreasonable for a controller to take 10,000ft vertical separation when he is maintaining height and heading without bothering the Civ ATCO for coord 'just in case it descends'. Ayrprox, are you seriously suggesting that you want mil controllers to coordinate every 'potential' confliction? You are going to get a lot of calls if you operate over the North Sea! And can you explain what is meant by:
therefore it would have the last 2 identifiers of the destination in the data block
We do have some access to flight plan info, but it is not straightforward for the controllers to access, and we certainly don't have code callsign conversion as such.
In the incident which we are discussing (there is much to suggest we are all talking about the same thing, or at least very similar events), IIRC the descent commenced about 60 miles south east of Leuchars, with the airliner heading west. The mil ac was heading NNE.
I note BigginAgain appears to have scarpered! Perhaps he/she lit the blue touch paper and retired!
STH
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH- co-ordination with ASACS units is more than an "occasional" problem within the civil world in this area. On this occasion it was just more important due to the timing involved.
The absence (so far !) of flame suggest that, even if BigginAgain has scarperred, these helpful exchanges are worthwhile.
As for "60 SE of Leuchars ......"
The absence (so far !) of flame suggest that, even if BigginAgain has scarperred, these helpful exchanges are worthwhile.
As for "60 SE of Leuchars ......"
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the reorganistaion of the North Sea airspace 2 years ago, and the establishment of the Managed Danger Area (MDAs) all at ScACC hoped that is where you would play.
However, even when they are not active, and we stay on the UARs, we are still hassled by phonecalls for traffic information, and unbelievably, requests as to what service aircraft are receiving at FL250+
I know the fighter controllers live in a different world, but sometimes they seem to be on another planet.
Rant over.
However, even when they are not active, and we stay on the UARs, we are still hassled by phonecalls for traffic information, and unbelievably, requests as to what service aircraft are receiving at FL250+
I know the fighter controllers live in a different world, but sometimes they seem to be on another planet.
Rant over.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASACS controllers should bear in mind that the civil controllers operating in the airspace implicated in this discussion are often working a significant number of tracks simultaneously (10 or more). Yes we do always check the radar, regardless of the rules, but it is often impossible to anticipate the intentions of high-energy ASACs traffic.
If we operate off-route we clearly understand that it is our responsibilty to initiate co-ordination and in so doing we always consider the unpredictability of ASACs traffic. If we do not have the capacity to do this we stay on-route.
Vast swathes of the North Sea are not available to civil traffic during the core daytime hours, to allow military freedom to operate as they wish. This includes MDAs, Danger Areas, AEW areas and reservations for JMCs etc. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise and in the spirit of the Flexible Use of Airspace objectives, but if ASACs controllers think that we have the capacity to avoid these no go areas and initiate co-ordination against their tracks when we are on-route, whilst continuing to safely control the ever increasing civil traffic workload, they are seriously mistaken.
P.S. I was the controller!
If we operate off-route we clearly understand that it is our responsibilty to initiate co-ordination and in so doing we always consider the unpredictability of ASACs traffic. If we do not have the capacity to do this we stay on-route.
Vast swathes of the North Sea are not available to civil traffic during the core daytime hours, to allow military freedom to operate as they wish. This includes MDAs, Danger Areas, AEW areas and reservations for JMCs etc. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise and in the spirit of the Flexible Use of Airspace objectives, but if ASACs controllers think that we have the capacity to avoid these no go areas and initiate co-ordination against their tracks when we are on-route, whilst continuing to safely control the ever increasing civil traffic workload, they are seriously mistaken.
P.S. I was the controller!
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toppam and good heading
The point I'm trying to make is that yes, we have radar and no, if we spot a potential confliction we won't do anything deliberate to make it an actual confliction. However, what you are failing to grasp here is that civil ATC operations and mil ATC operations are based on an entirely different premise. Our modus operandi is based on traffic filing flight plans, those flight plans being used to produce flight progress strips that (hopefully) arrive in front of the controller before the aircraft enters his sector. In other words, a known traffic environment. Those strips can then be used to plan ahead what might need to be done. That frequently involves the use of radar to separate the known traffic, so much so that the tactical controller will be looking at his screen more than the strips. However, the fact we are in a
known traffic environment means we can handle large numbers of aircraft at any one time. Do you actually expect a controller to keep an eye on twenty plus aircraft at the same time? There is no way we could operate assuming that there is unknown traffic. Military traffic that comes into conflict should be made known to us before any problem arises.
As good heading says, you guys are taught that radar is the be all and end all. As a result, you can only handle a hand full of aircraft at any one time which is as it should be. However, that would not work in a civilian environment.
When it gets down to it, if we climb, descend or turn an aircraft within a UAR (or an airway), it is up to you guys to keep out of the way. You cannot assume we will have noticed your traffic.
The point I'm trying to make is that yes, we have radar and no, if we spot a potential confliction we won't do anything deliberate to make it an actual confliction. However, what you are failing to grasp here is that civil ATC operations and mil ATC operations are based on an entirely different premise. Our modus operandi is based on traffic filing flight plans, those flight plans being used to produce flight progress strips that (hopefully) arrive in front of the controller before the aircraft enters his sector. In other words, a known traffic environment. Those strips can then be used to plan ahead what might need to be done. That frequently involves the use of radar to separate the known traffic, so much so that the tactical controller will be looking at his screen more than the strips. However, the fact we are in a
known traffic environment means we can handle large numbers of aircraft at any one time. Do you actually expect a controller to keep an eye on twenty plus aircraft at the same time? There is no way we could operate assuming that there is unknown traffic. Military traffic that comes into conflict should be made known to us before any problem arises.
As good heading says, you guys are taught that radar is the be all and end all. As a result, you can only handle a hand full of aircraft at any one time which is as it should be. However, that would not work in a civilian environment.
When it gets down to it, if we climb, descend or turn an aircraft within a UAR (or an airway), it is up to you guys to keep out of the way. You cannot assume we will have noticed your traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toppam
at scacc we have in the data block associted with an aircraft the callsign, flight level, whether the aircraft is rvsm compliant and the exit designator or if inbound to a uk field the last 2 letters of the airfield designator
eg.
pk for prestwick
ph for edinburgh
pf for galsgow etc
The point i was making was that if you had this info then you would know the aircraft is a scottish airfield lander and it would be likely to descend or it is an overflyer and you would probably be able to fly under it with a small chance of a level change.
If as you say you dont have code callsign conversion then my point was that you therefore would not have this info and could not assume anything about the aircraft's intentions and should coordinate.
oh and by the way we do get lots of phone calls on the north sea already about aircraft operating sfc to fl 400 where you'll be not above a certain level. Which dont get me wrong is great when you actually get close to us but not necessary when you are not getting within even 10000ft of us
at scacc we have in the data block associted with an aircraft the callsign, flight level, whether the aircraft is rvsm compliant and the exit designator or if inbound to a uk field the last 2 letters of the airfield designator
eg.
pk for prestwick
ph for edinburgh
pf for galsgow etc
The point i was making was that if you had this info then you would know the aircraft is a scottish airfield lander and it would be likely to descend or it is an overflyer and you would probably be able to fly under it with a small chance of a level change.
If as you say you dont have code callsign conversion then my point was that you therefore would not have this info and could not assume anything about the aircraft's intentions and should coordinate.
oh and by the way we do get lots of phone calls on the north sea already about aircraft operating sfc to fl 400 where you'll be not above a certain level. Which dont get me wrong is great when you actually get close to us but not necessary when you are not getting within even 10000ft of us
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the "don't assume" ethic is worth reinforcing.
From a mil perspective, don't assume that an ac on a UAR will maintain a pariticular course/level. This is especially true if there is no route designator.
From a civil perspective, don't assume that the mil will get out of your way if you change the profile of your aircraft.
From a mil perspective, don't assume that an ac on a UAR will maintain a pariticular course/level. This is especially true if there is no route designator.
From a civil perspective, don't assume that the mil will get out of your way if you change the profile of your aircraft.