Mil/Civ Operations
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been my experience that Mil controllers will deal in absolutes where as civil controllers deal more in common sense. This does not mean that mil controllers have no common sense or civil controllers don't know the rules. Mil controllers have been taught, sometimes by bitter experience, that absolutes will not bite you on the arse. This may appear on the surface that they are unable to think outside the box and in certain people, this is quite true. However, the annual ritual of public humiliation, known more commonly as the ATCEB visit, does not encourage freethinking, but absolutely insists in compliance with the letter of the regulations that are published. Looser interpretations of, what is and has always been, are not encouraged.
Equally, it has been my experience that civil controllers try and transfer certain aspects of controlling inside CAS to controlling outside, this is only to be expected but it does cause differences concerning the interpretation of RAS which leads on to requirements for co-ordination etc.
The differences all revolve around conflicting VFR traffic, as far as mil is concerned RAS states that "separation is to be provided between participating traffic and the bearing distance and if know level of conflicting traffic will be passed along with advisory avoiding action to resolve the confliction" this is the same definition as civil work to; however, to the mil this means separation is to be provided on all ac; irrespective of the flight rules or type of service that the conflicting ac may be under, by its act of requesting a service from anyone it is PARTICIPATING. If co-ordination cannot be agreed, then avoiding action is to be given.
Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not, because in their eyes it is neither PARTICIPATING or UNKNOWN but should comply with the rules of the air and avoid other ac.
Whilst I will probably be slated by many, it has been my experience that this difference of interpretation lies at the heart of our problems and will hopefully be fixed with the ongoing review of ATSOCAS.
Equally, it has been my experience that civil controllers try and transfer certain aspects of controlling inside CAS to controlling outside, this is only to be expected but it does cause differences concerning the interpretation of RAS which leads on to requirements for co-ordination etc.
The differences all revolve around conflicting VFR traffic, as far as mil is concerned RAS states that "separation is to be provided between participating traffic and the bearing distance and if know level of conflicting traffic will be passed along with advisory avoiding action to resolve the confliction" this is the same definition as civil work to; however, to the mil this means separation is to be provided on all ac; irrespective of the flight rules or type of service that the conflicting ac may be under, by its act of requesting a service from anyone it is PARTICIPATING. If co-ordination cannot be agreed, then avoiding action is to be given.
Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not, because in their eyes it is neither PARTICIPATING or UNKNOWN but should comply with the rules of the air and avoid other ac.
Whilst I will probably be slated by many, it has been my experience that this difference of interpretation lies at the heart of our problems and will hopefully be fixed with the ongoing review of ATSOCAS.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not
As a civil controller I would not, under any circumstances, do what you suggest above with RAS traffic. The rules for RAS are unambiguous - attempt to achieve 5nm or 3000ft against unknown traffic, or 3nm/1000ft against identified and known being worked by myself. If the conflict is IFR v VFR it makes no difference - the IFR on a RAS will not have its protective "bubble" broken no matter what, and that goes for all civil ATCO's I know.
It's been often said that civil apply ATSOCAS, and especially RAS differently to the military, yet what I've written above looks like the same application to me. Unless people can state actual ocurrences then I think this is an "urban myth" perpetuated by constant rumour and hearsay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jack-oh, sorry but I second CM's views and think you are wrong.
How anyone could interpret the above statement as allowing a controller to ignore VFR traffic when providing a RAS confounds me.
PA has hit the nail on the head. There are significant standardisation issues here, not only between mil/civil, but also within the two communities.
MATS Pt 1
Radar Advisory Service
A Radar Advisory Service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this
procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions.
Radar Advisory Service
A Radar Advisory Service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this
procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions.
PA has hit the nail on the head. There are significant standardisation issues here, not only between mil/civil, but also within the two communities.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a stated fact that there are different interpretations between civil and mil applications of RAS, this was bourne out by phase 1 of the CAA ATSOCAS review. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but there are differences and in my experiance this is the main one. If it were not so, why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when recieving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. The answer is, in order to provide separation iaw with the mil interpretation of RAS standard separation has to be achieved between all ac and not just the ones flying IFR.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Chilli Monster on this regarding RAS, we apply the same separation standards against all traffic.
Jack-oh could you explain to me about what you mean by restrictions in the following statement
We are not able to restrict VFR flights in Class G airspace all we can do is make requests of them, do your rules say something different ?
Jack-oh could you explain to me about what you mean by restrictions in the following statement
why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sea Level
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil/Civ Operations
Mil/Civ Operations
In my experience The Military Controllers offering a service to IFR traffic continue to request they fly not above a certain level. This can of course only be a request to VFR traffic in class G.
I must agree with "flower" and ask Jack-oh to elaborate on his previous post.
"why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. "
Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!!
As throughout this thread standardisation and interpretation of the rules appears to be the common problem.
In my experience The Military Controllers offering a service to IFR traffic continue to request they fly not above a certain level. This can of course only be a request to VFR traffic in class G.
I must agree with "flower" and ask Jack-oh to elaborate on his previous post.
"why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. "
Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!!
As throughout this thread standardisation and interpretation of the rules appears to be the common problem.
Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!!
Or am I just missing the point as usual.....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no requirement for any aircraft to speak to ATC when operating in Class G. To call it poor airmanship is a bit sweeping, however there are times when operating in the vicinity of certain airports without speaking to ATC I would have to agree.
However the most we can do is ask them to fly not above a level but even then how can you really base separation on that when they have to maintain VMC and that level may not allow them to do so. It is a procedure we use but even so it is only on a request basis. Perhaps the phraseology used is different. I for example will say to the aircraft " can you fly not above altitude** B737 descending on top" they pilots are invariably completely and utterly helpful and I have not heard any specific grumbles in that procedure. Do the military have to phrase it differently ?
However the most we can do is ask them to fly not above a level but even then how can you really base separation on that when they have to maintain VMC and that level may not allow them to do so. It is a procedure we use but even so it is only on a request basis. Perhaps the phraseology used is different. I for example will say to the aircraft " can you fly not above altitude** B737 descending on top" they pilots are invariably completely and utterly helpful and I have not heard any specific grumbles in that procedure. Do the military have to phrase it differently ?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
jack-oh:
In my experience of regularly flying VFR in Class G under a FIS from two nearby units, one civil, one military, it tends to come down to differences in phraseology.
The civil unit will invariably say: "advise if you wish to climb above XXXXft". Since I know that the reason for this is so he can descend IFR inbounds to 1000ft above, it is only in rare circumstances (e.g. under time pressure on a detail which requires climb to height e.g. stalling) that I will insist on the climb, knowing that to do so will force the controller to either keep the IFRs higher or vector them to maintain 3nm.
I should add that this civil unit has a very good record of providing radar-based traffic info to us when operating just outside their zone on a FIS.
At the military unit the FIS tends to mean no traffic info at all but when they have an IFR descending above they will say "c/s for co-ordination purposes request you operate not above XXXXft". Again, I almost always say yes to the request but there have been occasions when I have wished I didn't e.g. in the middle of some manoeuvring in a non-transponder aircraft and the controller asks me to maintain my heading and report that heading, then turn 30 degrees for ident, then he gets involved with some other traffic and doesn't speak to me for ages, then eventually by the time he's ID'd me the confliction's passed anyway. All a bit of a waste of time which the poor student is paying for - 5 mins of b***ering around instead of learning is an extra £10 on their bill at the end of the flight.
We have also had some controllers at this unit trying to issue avoidance vectors to our traffic operating VFR outside their MATZ. I suspect this stems from the difficulties of MATZs being effectively CAS for military traffic but open Class G to civil.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the military unit, just adding my experiences to the debate. I recognise that mil units operate in a very different environment with very different sorts of traffic.
NS
why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when recieving a service from the mil as opposed to civil.
The civil unit will invariably say: "advise if you wish to climb above XXXXft". Since I know that the reason for this is so he can descend IFR inbounds to 1000ft above, it is only in rare circumstances (e.g. under time pressure on a detail which requires climb to height e.g. stalling) that I will insist on the climb, knowing that to do so will force the controller to either keep the IFRs higher or vector them to maintain 3nm.
I should add that this civil unit has a very good record of providing radar-based traffic info to us when operating just outside their zone on a FIS.
At the military unit the FIS tends to mean no traffic info at all but when they have an IFR descending above they will say "c/s for co-ordination purposes request you operate not above XXXXft". Again, I almost always say yes to the request but there have been occasions when I have wished I didn't e.g. in the middle of some manoeuvring in a non-transponder aircraft and the controller asks me to maintain my heading and report that heading, then turn 30 degrees for ident, then he gets involved with some other traffic and doesn't speak to me for ages, then eventually by the time he's ID'd me the confliction's passed anyway. All a bit of a waste of time which the poor student is paying for - 5 mins of b***ering around instead of learning is an extra £10 on their bill at the end of the flight.
We have also had some controllers at this unit trying to issue avoidance vectors to our traffic operating VFR outside their MATZ. I suspect this stems from the difficulties of MATZs being effectively CAS for military traffic but open Class G to civil.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the military unit, just adding my experiences to the debate. I recognise that mil units operate in a very different environment with very different sorts of traffic.
NS
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we all play by the same rules as suggested, how come i was given traffic info from a mil controller on traffic she was working at FL290 and was NON SQUAWKING.
How come the mil can do this and yet it is clearly against the rules of the air?
How come the mil can do this and yet it is clearly against the rules of the air?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Larsman, probably because the UK AIP (ENR 1.6.2) says:
PS. I see nothing in the "Rules of the Air", as defined in section 2 of the ANO that precludes such flight.
3 Transponder Failure
3.1 Failure before intended departure
3.1.1 If the transponder fails before intended departure and cannot be repaired pilots shall:
(a) Plan to proceed as directly as possible to the nearest suitable aerodrome where repair can be made;
(b) inform ATS as soon as possible preferably before the submission of a flight plan. When granting clearance to such aircraft, ATC will take into account the existing and anticipated traffic situation and may have to modify the time of departure, flight level or route of the intended flight;
(c) insert in item 10 of the ICAO flight plan under SSR the letter N for complete unserviceability of the transponder or in the
case of partial failure, the letter corresponding to the remaining transponder capability as specified in ICAO Doc 4444, Appendix 2.
3.2 Failure after departure
3.2.1 If the transponder fails after departure or en-route, ATS Units will endeavour to provide for continuation of the flight in
accordance with the original flight plan. In certain traffic situations this may not be possible particularly when the failure is detected shortly after take-off. The aircraft may then be required to return to the departure aerodrome or to land at another aerodrome acceptable to the operator and to ATC. After landing, pilots shall make every effort to have the transponder restored to normal operation. If the transponder cannot be repaired then the provisions in paragraph 3.1.1 apply.
3.1 Failure before intended departure
3.1.1 If the transponder fails before intended departure and cannot be repaired pilots shall:
(a) Plan to proceed as directly as possible to the nearest suitable aerodrome where repair can be made;
(b) inform ATS as soon as possible preferably before the submission of a flight plan. When granting clearance to such aircraft, ATC will take into account the existing and anticipated traffic situation and may have to modify the time of departure, flight level or route of the intended flight;
(c) insert in item 10 of the ICAO flight plan under SSR the letter N for complete unserviceability of the transponder or in the
case of partial failure, the letter corresponding to the remaining transponder capability as specified in ICAO Doc 4444, Appendix 2.
3.2 Failure after departure
3.2.1 If the transponder fails after departure or en-route, ATS Units will endeavour to provide for continuation of the flight in
accordance with the original flight plan. In certain traffic situations this may not be possible particularly when the failure is detected shortly after take-off. The aircraft may then be required to return to the departure aerodrome or to land at another aerodrome acceptable to the operator and to ATC. After landing, pilots shall make every effort to have the transponder restored to normal operation. If the transponder cannot be repaired then the provisions in paragraph 3.1.1 apply.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I always try and pose restrictions to GA ac as a request, I have been to forums in which continuious requests to do things for the purposes of separation have not gone down well. Especially as the pilot complying with the request never wanted separation in the first place. These requests have been taken as an imbugerance by some and this is where the feeling of "grumbles" comes from.
It would however appear from the replys that there is no difference in the fundemental application of RAS, it therefore begs the question where are the differences, why do we appear to be a profession divided by a common language.
If everyone is so uniform why have we spent 4 pages disagreeing with each other.
It would however appear from the replys that there is no difference in the fundemental application of RAS, it therefore begs the question where are the differences, why do we appear to be a profession divided by a common language.
If everyone is so uniform why have we spent 4 pages disagreeing with each other.
have been to forums in which continuious requests to do things for the purposes of separation have not gone down well. Especially as the pilot complying with the request never wanted separation in the first place.
The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they didn't want separation are they prepared to erode against traffic that obviously does? If yes, then I refer the Rt Hon Gent to the answer I gave earlier - slack airmanship. These guys need educating and reminding that one day THEY will be the ones being cocked about by others 'not wanting separation'.
The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?
I can't help wonder if such instances and attitudes displayed by some ATC 'over controllers' put off more GA pilots from talking to ATC when they are not obliged to, rather than encouraging them that it might be in their interests to communicate with us.
Class G is not Controlled Airspace. The 'separation standards' in RAS are aims, not requirements. The standards are actually set by the pilots themselves. They are up there and operating in the environment. They can judge what is safe and what is not surely ?? And the vast majority of us winged sky gods are also personally paying for the privilege as well
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?
If someone's asked for a RAS - they're the one that gets vectored around the sky. If someone's asked for a FIS then they're the one that gets left alone. To go back to Flowers point - you can ask the VFR/FIS traffic if it doesn't mind not going above a level to achieve standard separation aginst your IFR/RAS, but that's as far as it goes. It's their choice, their decision on flight rules and service.
Sweeping statements against their airmanship for choosing that service and the freedom of operation it gives them are out of order - I say that both as an ATCO and a pilot.
And - for all those people who try and vector VFR traffic for their own aims a little reminder. The reason RAS is only available to IFR traffic is because under vectoring it's possible the traffic may be out in a position where it may go IMC. Do you really want it on your conscience that you vector a student or inexperienced pilot into inadvertant IMC - someone who's always been told not to question ATC and follows your instructions blindly. When they lose control and go spinning out of the bottom of that cloud who's fault is it going to be really?
NorthSouths comments should hit home here. You have no idea of qualifications on the end of the R/T - he could quite easily have been a low houred, newly qualified PPL rather than an instructor. This should be in the back of every ATCO's mind, both civil and military, of every aircraft they work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the diferences between mil/civil, there is a whole wedge of stuff here from the CAA as part of their ATSOCAS consultation:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...68&groupid=844
PS. You will note that the CAA paper was compiled by an RAF Officer. If this isn't an example of joined up regulatory responsibility, then I will eat my hat.
PPS. Some really good posts on this page, not least from those who actually understand what is being provided and individuals' responsibilities when operating in uncontrolled airspace.
PPPS! Obviously there is a bit of a clue in the title - Radar Advisory Service.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...68&groupid=844
PS. You will note that the CAA paper was compiled by an RAF Officer. If this isn't an example of joined up regulatory responsibility, then I will eat my hat.
PPS. Some really good posts on this page, not least from those who actually understand what is being provided and individuals' responsibilities when operating in uncontrolled airspace.
PPPS! Obviously there is a bit of a clue in the title - Radar Advisory Service.
Last edited by London Mil; 29th Sep 2005 at 06:31.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding coordination: Services in Class G is a hotbed... VFR traffic is entitled to be there, looking after themselves, not speaking to a soul (IMHO daft... but that's only my opinion?). So if I need to request complaince from a VFR pilot for coordination purposes, I will always use the minimum possible restriction. e.g. VFR pilot reports flying at 1000ft RPS and I am descending RAS traffic to 3000ft RPS... I would request the VFR pilot remains below 2000ft (2500ft if the IFR traffic is Military). That gives me the minimum vertical separation I need, and flexibility for the VFR pilot to manoeuvre if required. I aim to lift the restriction asap and always thank the pilot for his/her cooperation.
If I can't get the cooperation, or in some situations it's easier not to ask, then the RAS traffic gets the "Cooks Tour" (and probably a service limitation). Simple, No arguement!
Accepted, but please remember a similar statement can apply to the ATCO?
If I can't get the cooperation, or in some situations it's easier not to ask, then the RAS traffic gets the "Cooks Tour" (and probably a service limitation). Simple, No arguement!
(The pilot) could quite easily have been a low houred, newly qualified PPL rather than an instructor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: leicester
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mil v civil
This is my first post. I take it many of you are mil atc. Its interesting to read what you say but as a civil pilot with a 172 I try to avoid talking to mil wherever possible. Just in my experience they make life harder not easier. eg a few months back between daventry and cpt vor's i was talking to the local mil. Claggy weather meant I elected to climb into IMC rather than be down with the vfr traffic in poor conditions. Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake. In imc the atc got me to turn right 90 deg and ended up norwest of Oxford. Then he let me go, too busy, continue own nav, fis service !! i had to turn 180 deg to get back on track. Later he instructed me to remain clear of Benson MATZ..I thought the matz was not mandatory these days? I complied but was getting annoyed at this stage. On several other trips they ask if I want "clearance" through the MATZ. The point is I dont need clearance. I am happy to tell them I am coming through but i feel they constantly overstep the mark.
What do you pro's think?
What do you pro's think?