Nats - A Law Unto Itself
BALIX and others,
The problem with offering RIS instead of RAS to CAT is that it protects no-one. A huge amount of airproxes (as you probably know!) occur under RIS. This is partly because there is no compulsion on the part of the controller to resolve the confliction and the pilots are probably unaware of the true geometry of the conflict. As mentioned in other posts/furums, some pilots are also relying on TCAS for separation, by not reacting to the controllers calls and instead waiting for the TCAS to resolve it. the problem is that by that stage you are into the 25 second window and the likely outcome is an Airprox. RAS means that at least some early action will occur and while you might not always achieve 5 miles/3000' it is far preferable to an Airprox.
But anyway, we are getting off topic. I do not think NATS are changing the rules, I think it is the lack of firm guidance by the regulator on the Licence holder that is the issue.
The problem with offering RIS instead of RAS to CAT is that it protects no-one. A huge amount of airproxes (as you probably know!) occur under RIS. This is partly because there is no compulsion on the part of the controller to resolve the confliction and the pilots are probably unaware of the true geometry of the conflict. As mentioned in other posts/furums, some pilots are also relying on TCAS for separation, by not reacting to the controllers calls and instead waiting for the TCAS to resolve it. the problem is that by that stage you are into the 25 second window and the likely outcome is an Airprox. RAS means that at least some early action will occur and while you might not always achieve 5 miles/3000' it is far preferable to an Airprox.
But anyway, we are getting off topic. I do not think NATS are changing the rules, I think it is the lack of firm guidance by the regulator on the Licence holder that is the issue.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post jack-o... certainly got us talking.
The semantics about whether it is NATS or the CAA, DAP or whoever else may lay claim to control our airspace is, I suggest, irrelevant... Take the case of the "new" third class of airway you mention i.e. we have the "classic", the ADR and now the Class D... isn't it making things a tadge complicated?.. I dare say an alert, up-to-date ATCO might stand a chance of keeping up with such variety... but what about a non-UK based pilot flying into Aberdeen for the first time... will (s)he relly understand the nature of the airspace they are occupying? Of course not! (I have always been curious as to what exactly a VFR clearance into Class D achieves... if the traffic is pegged down to specific level or route, he may no longer be able to maintain VMC?... but I'm sure a PPRuNer will enlighten me?)
Why does it make a difference which side of the FIR boundary you are on, in Class G, whether or not you can get RAS?
Back to your point... I am amazed that there is such a mis-match between ScATCC and LATCC SOPs... I know there is an U/FIR and national boundary, heck there's even the Scottish Parliament to take into account... but I was under the impression that both were regulated by the same bodies(?) and therefore cannot see why such deviation is tolerated?
The semantics about whether it is NATS or the CAA, DAP or whoever else may lay claim to control our airspace is, I suggest, irrelevant... Take the case of the "new" third class of airway you mention i.e. we have the "classic", the ADR and now the Class D... isn't it making things a tadge complicated?.. I dare say an alert, up-to-date ATCO might stand a chance of keeping up with such variety... but what about a non-UK based pilot flying into Aberdeen for the first time... will (s)he relly understand the nature of the airspace they are occupying? Of course not! (I have always been curious as to what exactly a VFR clearance into Class D achieves... if the traffic is pegged down to specific level or route, he may no longer be able to maintain VMC?... but I'm sure a PPRuNer will enlighten me?)
Why does it make a difference which side of the FIR boundary you are on, in Class G, whether or not you can get RAS?
Back to your point... I am amazed that there is such a mis-match between ScATCC and LATCC SOPs... I know there is an U/FIR and national boundary, heck there's even the Scottish Parliament to take into account... but I was under the impression that both were regulated by the same bodies(?) and therefore cannot see why such deviation is tolerated?
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
Pierre
It isn't a case of tolerating a deviation. At LACC they don't have to worry about providing RAS as there aren't any sectors that oblige their controllers to operate any ATSOCA at all in Class G airspace (I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge on this should any LACC controller want to put me right).
At ScACC, however, certain sectors, Tay being the prime example, regularly 'control' flights in Class G. What's more, that Class G airspace is a popular playground for the military. Management decided that we would not provide traffic in that airspace with a RAS. Despite me being a cynical old bastard, for once I agree with them, we can't provide a RAS as it is written in the AIP. As I said before, I'd go further and not provide any radar service in Class G at all. Why? Because I feel that RAS/RIS as they stand could cause a controller to end up in prison having copped the blame for something that isn't his/her fault.
It isn't a case of tolerating a deviation. At LACC they don't have to worry about providing RAS as there aren't any sectors that oblige their controllers to operate any ATSOCA at all in Class G airspace (I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge on this should any LACC controller want to put me right).
At ScACC, however, certain sectors, Tay being the prime example, regularly 'control' flights in Class G. What's more, that Class G airspace is a popular playground for the military. Management decided that we would not provide traffic in that airspace with a RAS. Despite me being a cynical old bastard, for once I agree with them, we can't provide a RAS as it is written in the AIP. As I said before, I'd go further and not provide any radar service in Class G at all. Why? Because I feel that RAS/RIS as they stand could cause a controller to end up in prison having copped the blame for something that isn't his/her fault.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought we had a groovy little system in the UK, whereby NATS worked everything in the airways and the Mil worked everything outside, to the benefit of all. Why is this not being done North of 55N and why do LATCC(Mil) arbitrarily direct civil traffic requiring a radar service in class G to piss off and call London Information? Anyone?
Oh yeah, another thing ... We were reminded today that airways clearances must not be sought for Mil formations, they must be worked by Mil to the FIR boundary. It seems Jack-Oh is right, but I happen to think that a good idea for the reasons given earlier.
Oh yeah, another thing ... We were reminded today that airways clearances must not be sought for Mil formations, they must be worked by Mil to the FIR boundary. It seems Jack-Oh is right, but I happen to think that a good idea for the reasons given earlier.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix... you say
I'm afraid I disagree... providing ATSORA is tricky, sometimes bloody frustrating (for those at both ends of the radio)... but IMHO, under RAS/RIS there is no obligation on the Controller to provide separation ... and I quickly add... just a remit to "aim to provide it". As long as a Controller makes reasonable efforts to keep traffic apart, I suggest, they should not be penalised for failing to provide separation... and thus I doubt they'd end up in Prison - unless guilty of negligence? (there are plenty of PPRuNe users qualified to give an opinion on my assumption... please)
I have worked in many places, but not Scotland... so do not have first hand knowledge of regulations there... I don't see why, irrespective of the situation that exists South of the Border (is there any similar restriction on LATCC if the need required it?)... why the management at SCATTC believe they need to say no to ATSORA? What right has a unit to "cherry-pick" what services it is or is not going to provide, when there is a demand for it... Sounds like a case of tail wagging the dog to me?
I feel you are niave to say that you should not provide ATSORA and leave Class G to the Military... firstly there are plenty of airspace users, who quite legitimately, want/need to fly in Class G... and not to provide them with some form of service is probably neglectful... or maybe just "jobsworth"
Secondly, forget about the big players for a moment... I work at a mixed traffic developing regional airport. No Controlled airspace for miles... the Airport is building passenger/flight numbers quite well... but until it reaches a magic figure DAP will not entertain any suggestion of establishing CAS... so in the meantime passenger carrying flights (and others) are obliged to transit a sizeable portion of Class G to get into us... If we don't get the flights we won't get the airspace, but from what you're suggesting... if we didn't provide a service I doubt we'd get the flights?
I'd go further and not provide any radar service in Class G at all. Why? Because I feel that RAS/RIS as they stand could cause a controller to end up in prison having copped the blame for something that isn't his/her fault.
I have worked in many places, but not Scotland... so do not have first hand knowledge of regulations there... I don't see why, irrespective of the situation that exists South of the Border (is there any similar restriction on LATCC if the need required it?)... why the management at SCATTC believe they need to say no to ATSORA? What right has a unit to "cherry-pick" what services it is or is not going to provide, when there is a demand for it... Sounds like a case of tail wagging the dog to me?
I feel you are niave to say that you should not provide ATSORA and leave Class G to the Military... firstly there are plenty of airspace users, who quite legitimately, want/need to fly in Class G... and not to provide them with some form of service is probably neglectful... or maybe just "jobsworth"
Secondly, forget about the big players for a moment... I work at a mixed traffic developing regional airport. No Controlled airspace for miles... the Airport is building passenger/flight numbers quite well... but until it reaches a magic figure DAP will not entertain any suggestion of establishing CAS... so in the meantime passenger carrying flights (and others) are obliged to transit a sizeable portion of Class G to get into us... If we don't get the flights we won't get the airspace, but from what you're suggesting... if we didn't provide a service I doubt we'd get the flights?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bex
I don't normally jump up and down at your posts but this time I have to disagree.
If, like some other Countries, NATS was the only ATC company perhaps, but only perhaps, you might be right. But in the UK there are many companies providing ATC services.
As 055166k correctly says,when NATS and CAA got divorced there were no clear boundaries or responsibilities for each organisation for many of the bits they got custody of. The international things that NATS get involved in are often, technically, Government or State issues. So, when NATS go to these shindigs and agree to things they are doing so on behalf of the UK. Surely that should be the CAA's job. And why, if NATS get to make these decisions, don't ATC at Exeter, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds and many others also have a say?
I refer you back to 055166k's post where the reasons are quite neatly summed up.
international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority.
and
But that's the way it's supposed to be. CAA is supposed to REGULATE the proposals and agreements (amongst other things).
and
But that's the way it's supposed to be. CAA is supposed to REGULATE the proposals and agreements (amongst other things).
If, like some other Countries, NATS was the only ATC company perhaps, but only perhaps, you might be right. But in the UK there are many companies providing ATC services.
As 055166k correctly says,when NATS and CAA got divorced there were no clear boundaries or responsibilities for each organisation for many of the bits they got custody of. The international things that NATS get involved in are often, technically, Government or State issues. So, when NATS go to these shindigs and agree to things they are doing so on behalf of the UK. Surely that should be the CAA's job. And why, if NATS get to make these decisions, don't ATC at Exeter, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds and many others also have a say?
I refer you back to 055166k's post where the reasons are quite neatly summed up.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't mind disgareements, never have, never will, SPITOON. It's always possible that I could have made an error or misunderstood. So, no problem.
I am bit confused however. NATS is the licenced AREA provider, and the only provider with INTERNATIONAL obligation. It is overseen by CAA ATSSD.
I'm unsure what input ATC at the non NATS regional airports would actually want regarding European Agreements, but I do know that they do indeed have a voice through CAA SRG if they need to.
The Split between NATS / CAA confused everyone (including me). In ATC we were never used to the regulatory approach used by the CAA with the Airlines, where the CAA is oversees and monitors through the airlines [b]own/b] safety systems.
Instead CAA SRG used to be much, much more proactive and specific.. ATSSD now uses the Airline regulation model, for reasons that I'm sure they can explain. It's very different, and we haven't all got used to it... yet.
Rgds BEX
I am bit confused however. NATS is the licenced AREA provider, and the only provider with INTERNATIONAL obligation. It is overseen by CAA ATSSD.
I'm unsure what input ATC at the non NATS regional airports would actually want regarding European Agreements, but I do know that they do indeed have a voice through CAA SRG if they need to.
The Split between NATS / CAA confused everyone (including me). In ATC we were never used to the regulatory approach used by the CAA with the Airlines, where the CAA is oversees and monitors through the airlines [b]own/b] safety systems.
Instead CAA SRG used to be much, much more proactive and specific.. ATSSD now uses the Airline regulation model, for reasons that I'm sure they can explain. It's very different, and we haven't all got used to it... yet.
Rgds BEX
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
Pierre
Perhaps I am being a little 'jobsworth' but, alas, it is the world we live in. I'd be more than happy providing a service to traffic in Class G if that service were written up in such a way that made it 'fair'. The thing is, RAS does compel you to provide separation, though it adds a little footnote to the effect that 'standard' separation cannot be guaranteed. RIS, on the other hand, compels you to provide traffic information on unknown traffic.
I may be being a bit fatalsit here but I can forsee a situation where a Tay controller is busy sorting out airways traffic at Newcastle and his one Eastflight into Aberdeen is hit by a Tornado who is quite legally dogfighting over the North Sea. Had that Eastflight been on a RAS, said controller ends up in court having to explain why he didn't provide separation. Even under a RIS, had he not provided traffic information, he would still be in trouble.
As it stands, if you provide a RAS you have to have your eyes constantly on that aircraft. Military area controllers can do this. Civil area controllers can't, unlesss they are very quiet. The system just doesn't allow for it. As an airfield controller, your modus operandi might be sufficiently different to allow you to get away with it. But I'm afraid area control and RAS don't go together very well at all.
Now if they rewrote the procedure it might be a different matter. Separation guaranteed between participating aircraft only would be a start.
Perhaps I am being a little 'jobsworth' but, alas, it is the world we live in. I'd be more than happy providing a service to traffic in Class G if that service were written up in such a way that made it 'fair'. The thing is, RAS does compel you to provide separation, though it adds a little footnote to the effect that 'standard' separation cannot be guaranteed. RIS, on the other hand, compels you to provide traffic information on unknown traffic.
I may be being a bit fatalsit here but I can forsee a situation where a Tay controller is busy sorting out airways traffic at Newcastle and his one Eastflight into Aberdeen is hit by a Tornado who is quite legally dogfighting over the North Sea. Had that Eastflight been on a RAS, said controller ends up in court having to explain why he didn't provide separation. Even under a RIS, had he not provided traffic information, he would still be in trouble.
As it stands, if you provide a RAS you have to have your eyes constantly on that aircraft. Military area controllers can do this. Civil area controllers can't, unlesss they are very quiet. The system just doesn't allow for it. As an airfield controller, your modus operandi might be sufficiently different to allow you to get away with it. But I'm afraid area control and RAS don't go together very well at all.
Now if they rewrote the procedure it might be a different matter. Separation guaranteed between participating aircraft only would be a start.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sargasso Sea
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALIX
Jobsworth is certainly the word! There are two reasons why you do noyt provide RAS in the Scottish FIR.
First of all the Union has a very strong lobby and protects it's controllers. Tough luck for the aircrew.
Second. You are trying to get more CAS. The way you intend to do that is to log all occurences when military traffic comes within 5nm or 1000ft of your RIS tracks. By building up this database you will have a good strong lobby to get CAS. Dare I say it the odd Airprox probably helps as well. If you were to provide RAS, there would be no such occurrences, so not data for your base and then no CAS. Cart this is Horse over.
Jobsworth is certainly the word! There are two reasons why you do noyt provide RAS in the Scottish FIR.
First of all the Union has a very strong lobby and protects it's controllers. Tough luck for the aircrew.
Second. You are trying to get more CAS. The way you intend to do that is to log all occurences when military traffic comes within 5nm or 1000ft of your RIS tracks. By building up this database you will have a good strong lobby to get CAS. Dare I say it the odd Airprox probably helps as well. If you were to provide RAS, there would be no such occurrences, so not data for your base and then no CAS. Cart this is Horse over.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RC - your percis of why ScOACC proscribed RAS bears no relationship to the truth as I recall it.
Following an AIRPROX several years ago (B**26C into EGPE I recall), and after a sucession of critical incident reports where NATS controllers were panned by SRG for not achieving standard separation with aircraft under a RAS, a series of steps were agreed [between civil ATSPs, Airlines and M.o.D.] to improve the Safety of aircrew and ATS operations within the ScOACC AOR. This included a radar service for Inverness inbounds (provided by Lossie) and the proscription of RAS outside CAS and Class F airspace (to coerce those who could reasonably fly in both to do so and not route point to point in splendid ignorance of what was going on around them).
Whilst much has moved on since then, the issue for BALIX and his colleagues at ScOACC (regardless of shirt colour
) is the safety of what is provided so that passengers and aircrew alike get home safely after every trip / sortie.
Inaccurate speculation of the ATCOs TU motive or of a lever for CAS establishment, whilst entertaining for those of us know different, does little to improve safety.
'though slightly OT bear in mind that potential solutions to the lowering of the DFL to FL195 / Class F Review may actually establish CAS where we currently have Class F .... and all with NATS and UK M.o.D. agreement
Time will tell once a final solution is agreed.
BALIX, a jobsworth, I think not
... RT
Following an AIRPROX several years ago (B**26C into EGPE I recall), and after a sucession of critical incident reports where NATS controllers were panned by SRG for not achieving standard separation with aircraft under a RAS, a series of steps were agreed [between civil ATSPs, Airlines and M.o.D.] to improve the Safety of aircrew and ATS operations within the ScOACC AOR. This included a radar service for Inverness inbounds (provided by Lossie) and the proscription of RAS outside CAS and Class F airspace (to coerce those who could reasonably fly in both to do so and not route point to point in splendid ignorance of what was going on around them).
Whilst much has moved on since then, the issue for BALIX and his colleagues at ScOACC (regardless of shirt colour
) is the safety of what is provided so that passengers and aircrew alike get home safely after every trip / sortie.Inaccurate speculation of the ATCOs TU motive or of a lever for CAS establishment, whilst entertaining for those of us know different, does little to improve safety.
'though slightly OT bear in mind that potential solutions to the lowering of the DFL to FL195 / Class F Review may actually establish CAS where we currently have Class F .... and all with NATS and UK M.o.D. agreement
Time will tell once a final solution is agreed.BALIX, a jobsworth, I think not
... RT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are now getting to the heart of the subject. NATS when privatised took with it all its higher functions and left the CAA under funded and exposed. Rather than setting standards and dictating policy to the licensed service provider (such as OFCOM or Rail Track for instance) the CAA is left to catch up with whatever NATS dictates as the way ahead or the way in which it will provide services (imagine for instance BT declaring that it wouldn't provide phone lines to people who lived in areas of the country that are windy, because there is a possibility of the phone lines being blown over).
Now, no one is suggesting that the controllers employed by NATS don't have the safety of ac as their number 1 priority. However, in the past this has been the only concern where as now the legal position of its controllers is also a concern for its employees and the employer. The pace of growth in air travel, although predicted long ago, still seems to be a bit of a shock to those that regulate and as such, they have been rather slow to react to this change (although they appear to be catching up as indicated by the past 2 years worth of airspace changes). As a backlash to this NATS (or the controllers unions) have had to implement protections for themselves to counter the demands placed upon them.
I have heard that the CAA is about to put more pressure on NATS to provide RAS in Class G, primarily because it not to long ago stated that flying in Class G was just as safe as CAS if the ac was under a RAS. It obviously failed to point out that the national license holder didn’t actually provide this service. There is however not a lot the CAA can do if NATS say no (I presume) and it would not surprise me if the definition of RAS was to change to be more accommodating to the demands of controllers before any movement was made on this issue. The other points I raised were just to highlight deviations from policy, but providing the mil is content on working its own traffic or restricting it to fit in with NATS requirements then I see no reason why these decisions would not stay in place.
Now, no one is suggesting that the controllers employed by NATS don't have the safety of ac as their number 1 priority. However, in the past this has been the only concern where as now the legal position of its controllers is also a concern for its employees and the employer. The pace of growth in air travel, although predicted long ago, still seems to be a bit of a shock to those that regulate and as such, they have been rather slow to react to this change (although they appear to be catching up as indicated by the past 2 years worth of airspace changes). As a backlash to this NATS (or the controllers unions) have had to implement protections for themselves to counter the demands placed upon them.
I have heard that the CAA is about to put more pressure on NATS to provide RAS in Class G, primarily because it not to long ago stated that flying in Class G was just as safe as CAS if the ac was under a RAS. It obviously failed to point out that the national license holder didn’t actually provide this service. There is however not a lot the CAA can do if NATS say no (I presume) and it would not surprise me if the definition of RAS was to change to be more accommodating to the demands of controllers before any movement was made on this issue. The other points I raised were just to highlight deviations from policy, but providing the mil is content on working its own traffic or restricting it to fit in with NATS requirements then I see no reason why these decisions would not stay in place.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.... lots more innaccuracies from JACK , but here's one I would like to see evidence of:
Who, where and when? 
BEX
I have heard that the CAA is about to put more pressure on NATS to provide RAS in Class G, primarily because it not to long ago stated that flying in Class G was just as safe as CAS if the ac was under a RAS
BEX
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack-oh, the more this thread goes on the more I feel you need to air your interest in the subject as your thoughts/comments are sounding more and more like a Media interest or agenda. You failed to respond to this request in the beginning of the thread, can you now please tell us more about your background/interest.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix
Firstly, I agree with you entirely about the need to re-word the regulations on Class G services... but, that's for another thread and I don't think an excuse to ignore the current definitions?
Under the definition I have available, when providing RAS the aim is "to provide standard separation from non-participating traffic"... if a Controller doesn't do it, and providing they weren't neglectful, I don't see how they can be to blame. In the scenario you describe, I believe you might have overlooked that....
a. The traffic that's paying for the airways service probably should get higher priority that the Class G traffic (easily, and legitimately, defined in unit procedures/orders if not already done)... therefore the ATCO is correct to be concentrating their attention on the CAS track (see below)
b. You can, and should, limit RAS whenever there is a possibility of not achieving standard separation... i.e. Controller high workload, handling dispersed traffic, higher priority tasking.
So said, unfortunate, controller should never have to explain to the beak why they didn't provide separation... there's no obligation and, I believe, simply a question of best efforts?
But... what about all those times when the Tay Sector Controllers (and others) are not working to capacity, and traffic in Class G requests a service?... SCATCC restrictions seem to be denying that pilot the best service legitimately available i.e. RAS; and therefore, IMHO, they are not exercising a duty of care (Corporate Maslaughter???) when the service is available south of the border (albiet, perhaps, theoretically?)
Finally, I'm sure that the ego of many military controllers has been unnecessarily massaged by your comments about their abilities to cope with such a situation.
PS. Smilesbaby... I can vouch for Jack-o, as I know him personally and assure you he is not a "stringer" but quite legitimate... maybe just an ATCO concerned/frustrated by this situation?
Firstly, I agree with you entirely about the need to re-word the regulations on Class G services... but, that's for another thread and I don't think an excuse to ignore the current definitions?
Under the definition I have available, when providing RAS the aim is "to provide standard separation from non-participating traffic"... if a Controller doesn't do it, and providing they weren't neglectful, I don't see how they can be to blame. In the scenario you describe, I believe you might have overlooked that....
a. The traffic that's paying for the airways service probably should get higher priority that the Class G traffic (easily, and legitimately, defined in unit procedures/orders if not already done)... therefore the ATCO is correct to be concentrating their attention on the CAS track (see below)
b. You can, and should, limit RAS whenever there is a possibility of not achieving standard separation... i.e. Controller high workload, handling dispersed traffic, higher priority tasking.
So said, unfortunate, controller should never have to explain to the beak why they didn't provide separation... there's no obligation and, I believe, simply a question of best efforts?
But... what about all those times when the Tay Sector Controllers (and others) are not working to capacity, and traffic in Class G requests a service?... SCATCC restrictions seem to be denying that pilot the best service legitimately available i.e. RAS; and therefore, IMHO, they are not exercising a duty of care (Corporate Maslaughter???) when the service is available south of the border (albiet, perhaps, theoretically?)
Finally, I'm sure that the ego of many military controllers has been unnecessarily massaged by your comments about their abilities to cope with such a situation.
PS. Smilesbaby... I can vouch for Jack-o, as I know him personally and assure you he is not a "stringer" but quite legitimate... maybe just an ATCO concerned/frustrated by this situation?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But... what about all those times when the Tay Sector Controllers (and others) are not working to capacity, and traffic in Class G requests a service?... SCATCC restrictions seem to be denying that pilot the best service legitimately available i.e. RAS; and therefore, IMHO, they are not exercising a duty of care (Corporate Maslaughter???) when the service is available south of the border (albiet, perhaps, theoretically?)
London Mil have taken on the old Pennine Radar area, WHEN they have enough staff available.
I do work on the Tay sector, and I feel at times that the only service off-airways I should be providing is FIS, as separating aircraft in two different geographical AIRWAYS locations (P600 and L602/P18) at the same time is awkward.
I have every sympathy with Eastern Airways, who cop most of the encounters over the North Sea, and am pleased they are now asking for RAS from Scot Mil on occasion.
I do not think my employers are "A law unto themselves", but do believe the time will soon come where radar services outside of the airways system will be a luxury we cannot afford to supply.
We DO have P18 available some of the time, and the way to go is for our customers to put pressure on the relavant authorities to make it H24.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
To add to the debate about the ScACC policy of RIS only outside CAS, has anyone seen the recent circular from the CAA Flight Ops Department to airlines about accepting vectors on a RIS? It says that it has come to their notice that some operators (no prizes...), when given vectors under a RIS, are choosing not to take them, and advises that they should.
Question: when is a RIS with avoidance vectors not a RAS?
Answer: When it's being provided by ScACC controllers who aren't allowed to call it a RAS?
NS
Question: when is a RIS with avoidance vectors not a RAS?
Answer: When it's being provided by ScACC controllers who aren't allowed to call it a RAS?
NS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bex says
Yes, NATS is the present licenced provider for area services - but, without wishing to stir up too many hornets nests, that could change in the future. I'm not sure - is NATS the only licensed area provider? How does Warton, for e.g., do what it does sometimes?
Perhaps there might be other providers that become licenced to provide certain area services in he UK in future. With the advent of functional airspace blocks I presume that providers from other countries may be providing services in UK airspace.
International agreements are made on behalf of the State and should be made by the State - not by a single service provider that just happens to hold the area licence at present. Granted that NATS may have the expertise to provide advice to the State. Granted that there's little liklihood of any provider other than NATS becoming the predominant area service provider in the UK. But the national interests should be served by such decisions rather than those of a single service provider which may well be swayed by commercial interests.
Then we must consider what those international agreements cover. I'm not sure what you have in mind but I'm not convinced that some of the agreements that NATS make on behalf of the UK do not have significant knock-on effects on other UK service providers. But unless we consider particular examples I guess it's difficult to take this point any further.
Perhas one of the problems is that the divorce that 055166k referred to did not clearly set out who was responsible for what in many areas. One of those areas seems to be representation at international meetings. I have no problems with NATS representing the UK at such meetings - just as long as the whole of the UK is represented and has a chance to advise NATS of any knock-on effects that may not be immediately obvious to what is predominantly an area and big airport ATC service provider.
NATS is the licenced AREA provider, and the only provider with INTERNATIONAL obligation.
Perhaps there might be other providers that become licenced to provide certain area services in he UK in future. With the advent of functional airspace blocks I presume that providers from other countries may be providing services in UK airspace.
International agreements are made on behalf of the State and should be made by the State - not by a single service provider that just happens to hold the area licence at present. Granted that NATS may have the expertise to provide advice to the State. Granted that there's little liklihood of any provider other than NATS becoming the predominant area service provider in the UK. But the national interests should be served by such decisions rather than those of a single service provider which may well be swayed by commercial interests.
Then we must consider what those international agreements cover. I'm not sure what you have in mind but I'm not convinced that some of the agreements that NATS make on behalf of the UK do not have significant knock-on effects on other UK service providers. But unless we consider particular examples I guess it's difficult to take this point any further.
Perhas one of the problems is that the divorce that 055166k referred to did not clearly set out who was responsible for what in many areas. One of those areas seems to be representation at international meetings. I have no problems with NATS representing the UK at such meetings - just as long as the whole of the UK is represented and has a chance to advise NATS of any knock-on effects that may not be immediately obvious to what is predominantly an area and big airport ATC service provider.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Downtown
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where, exactly, does LACC or MACC provide RAS these days?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEXIL160
As far as I am aware the NEAT report stated that it was safe for CAT to fly in calss G with a RAS. Secondly this is a rumour network. I heard a rumour.
As far as I am aware the NEAT report stated that it was safe for CAT to fly in calss G with a RAS. Secondly this is a rumour network. I heard a rumour.