RIS and RAS again!!!!!!!

[Take up the Hold]

FLYBYWYRE We prioritise the traffic. Those in CAS then those on ADRs and ignore the rest. 'Radar service terminated Flight Information Service' and give traffic information. Would that be OK for 'Duty of Care'?

TUTH

[Flybywyre]

The issue I am interested in is "downgrading" from RIS to FIS. Given that the information for the FIS in this case is still derrived from radar, then surely by default this is stil a RIS ? Or is there some jargon somewhere that clearly defines the difference between a FIS without radar and a FIS with radar ?
Regards
FBW

[Take up the Hold]

FLYBYWYRE

I have heard the phrase 'Lots of military activity keep a good look out' The controller then goes on to deal with his primary tasks of dealing with aircraft in controlled and advisory airspace. He does not give a RIS once the radar service is cancelled. He gives a FIS and passes information on known traffic and a joining clearance of CAS if required.

The point you make is valid of course if a controller subsequently uses the radar data to provide traffic information even if he has terminated the radar service. Perhaps that is where 'Duty of Care' comes in.

regards
TUTH

[Jerricho]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old ATCO

Is this not the whole point. These days the lawyers are the ultimate regulators not SRG.

It is. Expecially considering when the poor operational sector/tower controller's "common sense" doesn't equate to some slimy law-type on a cash grab or judicial enquiry looking for a scapegoat..........Mr Hold West sums it up perfectly

Originally Posted by Hold West

This statement invalidates the entire "procedure".

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

New instruction

It is alleged that the instruction has been changed to a Supplementary Instruction for inclusion in the MATS part 2 thus.........
ATCSI XX/06
Provision of Radar Services
1. General
1.1 It has become apparent that clarification is required with regard to the required 'separation ' of aircraft in class G airspace particularly between RAS, RIS and FIS traffic.
1.2 After consultation with SRG, who in turn have consulted with the editor of MATS Part 1, the following is to be adopted as unit policy.
2. Procedures
2.1 A RAS if requested is, of course, the best service to be offered. ATCO’s shall endeavour to provide a RAS whenever requested, subject to traffic and controller workload. If a RIS is requested it shall, whenever possible, be offered.
2.2 MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, Para 1.2.2 re establishing what service is required outside controlled airspace, shall be adhered to.
2.3 Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles) shall be applied between RAS traffic and:
a) other RAS traffic and
b) any identified IFR traffic on any service.
2.4 Traffic on a RIS or FIS is NOT deemed to be “participating traffic” as detailed in the RAS section of the MATS Part 1.
2.5 Not withstanding the MATS Part 1 rules, where it states that separation is NOT required between IFR traffic and VFR traffic, this unit will seek to achieve at least 1000ft or 3 miles between the RAS aircraft and identified VFR traffic. The following shall also be borne in mind:
a) ATC Common sense shall prevail.
b) Such traffic will be deconflicted to the best of our ability.
c) It is acceptable to reach an Agreement of Solution with a potential conflicting VFR aircraft, but non-agreed vectoring or level restrictions shall not be imposed.
d) If the VFR traffic does not agree to be deconflicted and the RAS traffic is not happy to continue (after traffic information has been passed) the RAS traffic shall be vectored to achieve deconfliction.
2.6 VFR traffic shall not, unless they agree, be turned for identification.
2.7 In order to avoid confusion over service provision VFR FIS traffic, identified by the geographical method, shall not be informed of the identification.
2.8 VFR traffic identified by other methods, shall be left in no doubt of the type of service provided.
2.9 Any VFR Traffic that has agreed to a course of action to deconflict shall be asked to 'advise at anytime if they are unable to maintain VFR' and if they at any time indicate a problem maintaining VFR an alternative course of action shall be offered.
2.10 In Summary:
RAS vs. RAS = Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles)
RAS vs. IFR RIS or IFR identified FIS = Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles)
RAS vs. VFR RIS or VFR identified FIS = Seek to achieve separation of 1000ft or 3 miles
RAS vs. any unidentified traffic = Seek to achieve separation of 5 miles
(3000ft not to be used due to no SSR).
Any RIS vs. any RIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any unidentified traffic = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any FIS vs. Any FIS = Whenever possible, assist in preventing collisions.



This will mean that subject to an internal safety analysis it will be LAW????

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

New instruction

If this gets into the where ever part 2 and therefore is SRG sanctioned should there not be an ATSIN with guidance for others????

[Inverted81]

Are the beloved RIS vs RAS debate. I am relatively new to the business so excuse me if i say anything inaccurate. Having very recentlly studied this area so in depth as an approach controller heres my understanding. Why do the "big bods" insist on making it more complicated than it really is.

In the simple form, my understanding is thus:

RAS will only be provided to IFR when requested. (because of turns/climbs into IMC)
This is Traffic info PLUS any associated Avoiding action if it all goes tits up. Until conflict (if any) is resolved. Seperation: 5nm or 3000ft vertically on Mode C (unknown tfc) 1000ft/5nm (Known traffic)

RIS To IFR or VFR when requested. Traffic Info ONLY wll be provided. Continually updated (if practicable) No sep reponsibility for ATCOs.

RAS Vs RAS = not an issue unless the controller has lost the plot or an unuasual situation arises.

RAS Vs RIS = TI & AA to RAS a/c. TI to RIS a/c. but as both are "known" again shouldn't be an issue.

RIS Vs RIS Vs FIS TI ONLY

Duty of care is the ONLY caviat. As a controller, if i see a situation that i COULD do something to prevent of course human instinct should prevail, and you wouldn't just sit and watch. Downgrading of services will only occur when the controllers primary function (controlled airspace) is compromised due to traffic levels.

Being a wee PPL holder also i have great concerns over how little (at least i was) taught about radar services etc. I think there is a huge knowledge gap in the training of weekend pilots etc. And no i'm not biased as i can see the side of the story from both aspects. Hopefully things have changed since i got my licence.

81

[vintage ATCO]

Just highlights the folly of trying to write everything down, a trend which, regretfully, is all too prevalent in today's ATC. Roll on retirement

[safety case]

If the guidance has indeed come from SRG then you are bolxed ,you now have a responsibility/ duty of care to seperate everything from everything whether or not they are VFR or IFR, FIS or RIS
Surely this cannot be the case?? We do not seperate VFR in the UK (see and be seen) infact in the FIR we do not seperate IFR, according, to the Airac.
From what OWZ has written A/C are going to get a better service OUTSIDE CAS than they do inside. I would agree with the previous, Grumpy old ATCO get the ATSIN out ASAP, or better still wait until the review of ATSOCAS is completed before making impossible demands on the poor sods concerned who will have the sword of damacles hanging over them.

[London Mil]

I stand by my last post. Looking at the conundrum over "duty of care", it would appear that:

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

sums things up rather nicely. Let us not forget that we are all 'trained professionals' who are capable of making reasonable decisions as to the levels of service that we will 'contract' to provide. Whilst not necessarily guaranteeing a level of service, it give controllers the opportunity to apply the service they deem to be most appropriate. After all, we do get paid for making decisions.

[tubthumper]

[QUOTE][/OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS

12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?QUOTE]

Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit.

But they're both flying quadrantal levels anyway, so they'll miss by at least 1000 feet, right?

[Dont tell um pike]

"Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit."

but they've requested a RIS which is what they are getting , so traffic info only till avioding action is requested then upgrade to a RAS.

Grey area anyone ?

DTUP

[rodan]

Originally Posted by Dont tell um pike

"Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit."
but they've requested a RIS which is what they are getting , so traffic info only till avioding action is requested then upgrade to a RAS.
Grey area anyone ?
DTUP

This is the nub. Where does MATS 1 say that the requirement for an approach control unit to separate IFR flights is over-ruled if either or both tracks are receiving a RIS or a FIS? There are two (three if you count FIS) structures - approach control vs radar service - mandating the separation or not of IFR flights outside CAS. They don't agree with each other, and there is nothing to say which has precedence over the other in a given circumstance. A prosecution lawyer would have a field day if the worst happened.

[2 sheds]

How can you seriously suggest that either "structure" should take precedent over the other? As has been correctly stated, there is no such precedence specified, therefore they must be considered complimentary.

If a very basic principle is separation of IFR flights, it is not logical - just because you are a radar unit - to provide no separation at all until you are getting close to losing it, then pass traffic information and expect one or both pilots to request avoiding action and, by implication, an upgrade of service.

In the situation of IFR flights requesting "only" a RIS, the latter service should be viewed as a bonus (i.e. radar-based traffic information) in addition to separation from other, known, IFRs.

[Dont tell um pike]

What a bit like a RAS you mean ?

[2 sheds]

No......................

[Dont tell um pike]

That must be a whole new service then , what shall we call it ??
Approach
Radar
Separation
Enhancement
i say i think we're onto something !!
P.S i totally agree that two IFR's on a RIS should be separated , but the rules should not be open to interpretation.
DTUP

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

IFR RIS vs IFR RIS

How do we take this forward?
ATC Common sense seems to say they need to be separated but by the numbers Pt1 says not!!
What do we teach/ examine tomorrow????!!!!!
Looks to me SRG are saying ' as long as it is no worse than part 1 and there is a paper trail that does not implicate them do as you please'.
ANARCHY???.........

[NorthSouth]

Originally Posted by Flybywyre

The issue I am interested in is "downgrading" from RIS to FIS. Given that the information for the FIS in this case is still derrived from radar, then surely by default this is stil a RIS ? Or is there some jargon somewhere that clearly defines the difference between a FIS without radar and a FIS with radar ?

I have received on many occasions what is in effect a very good RIS from controllers from whom I only requested and got a FIS. It tends to be down to individual controllers. I know I am only getting a FIS so have no illusions but I accept the MATS 1 point that pilots should be in no doubt that they are not getting a radar service (errr, even though they are )
Regarding the IFR RIS/IFR RIS 12 o'clock reciprocal situation:

Originally Posted by tubthumper

But they're both flying quadrantal levels anyway, so they'll miss by at least 1000 feet, right?

Surely this deals with it? We're talking here about two aircraft getting a service from the same controller. He'll have confirmed their levels and altimeter setting and if for any reason (climb/descent/manouevring) one or both are not quadrantal, then next thing is surely to confirm in-flight conditions of both and if one/both not VMC, only then do you get into the problem of deciding on whether to advise avoidance turns even when only on a RIS.
Here's another perspective. Last May the CAA Flight Ops department put out a circular which said:

Many Commercial Air Transport (CAT) aircraft need to operate in Class G airspace. Air Traffic Services often provide a Radar Information Service (RIS) to these aircraft and have raised concerns that avoiding headings are not being taken in response to information about conflicting traffic.

So clearly some controllers give avoidance vectors to a/c on a RIS, without it being a RAS
NS

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

Originally Posted by NorthSouth

I have received on many occasions what is in effect a very good RIS from controllers from whom I only requested and got a FIS.



So clearly some controllers give avoidance vectors to a/c on a RIS, without it being a RAS
NS

IMHO if these ATCO's had been under examination the should have failed, and outside the formal examination their LCE's should at least be having words.


GOA