RIS and RAS again!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIS and RAS again!!!!!!!
The following has been allegedly issued to a Class G radar unit , any thoughts.
Provision of RADAR SERVICES.
It has become apparent that clarification is required with regard to the required 'separation ' of aircraft in class G particularly between RAS / participating RAS/RIS and FIS traffic.
After consultation with SRG, who in turn have consulted with the Editor of MATS part 1 the following is this unit's policy.
1/ A RAS if requested is of course the best service to be offered however if a RIS is requested it shall be offered.
2/ MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, Para 1.2.2 re establishing what service is required shall be adhered to.
3/ Standard separation shall be applied to RAS traffic and a/ other RAS traffic and b/ any known IFR traffic on any service.
4/ Traffic on a RIS or FIS is NOT participating in the RAS.
5/ Not withstanding the MATS Pt 1 rules, Standard separation is NOT required between a RAS and a RIS VFR or Known Identified FIS VFR. However the following shall 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.
D/ An attempt to achieve Standard separation shall be applied between RAS traffic and Known Unidentified VFR traffic.
6/ VFR traffic shall not, unless they agree be turned for identification.
7/ In order to avoid confusion over service provision VFR FIS traffic Identified by the Geographical Method shall not be informed of the Identification.
8/ VFR traffic identified by other methods shall be left in no doubt of the type of service provided.
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.
I am acutely aware that this is a complex and grey area but the above is the way in which the issues will be resolved and LCE's will be monitoring compliance.
In Summary,
RAS vs. RAS = Standard separation
RAS vs. IFR RIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. IFR FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. Unidentified FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. VFR RIS = Deconfliction
RAS vs. VFR Identified FIS = Deconfliction
IFR RIS vs. IFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any VFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
VFR vs. VFR = Assist in preventing collisions.
Provision of RADAR SERVICES.
It has become apparent that clarification is required with regard to the required 'separation ' of aircraft in class G particularly between RAS / participating RAS/RIS and FIS traffic.
After consultation with SRG, who in turn have consulted with the Editor of MATS part 1 the following is this unit's policy.
1/ A RAS if requested is of course the best service to be offered however if a RIS is requested it shall be offered.
2/ MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, Para 1.2.2 re establishing what service is required shall be adhered to.
3/ Standard separation shall be applied to RAS traffic and a/ other RAS traffic and b/ any known IFR traffic on any service.
4/ Traffic on a RIS or FIS is NOT participating in the RAS.
5/ Not withstanding the MATS Pt 1 rules, Standard separation is NOT required between a RAS and a RIS VFR or Known Identified FIS VFR. However the following shall 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.
D/ An attempt to achieve Standard separation shall be applied between RAS traffic and Known Unidentified VFR traffic.
6/ VFR traffic shall not, unless they agree be turned for identification.
7/ In order to avoid confusion over service provision VFR FIS traffic Identified by the Geographical Method shall not be informed of the Identification.
8/ VFR traffic identified by other methods shall be left in no doubt of the type of service provided.
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.
I am acutely aware that this is a complex and grey area but the above is the way in which the issues will be resolved and LCE's will be monitoring compliance.
In Summary,
RAS vs. RAS = Standard separation
RAS vs. IFR RIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. IFR FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. Unidentified FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. VFR RIS = Deconfliction
RAS vs. VFR Identified FIS = Deconfliction
IFR RIS vs. IFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any VFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
VFR vs. VFR = Assist in preventing collisions.
RAS RIS class G
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OCEAN WUN ZERO
IFR RIS vs. IFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
I don't see IFR RIS vs IFR RIS on that list, btw.
Does the unit in question also provide Approach Control? If so, there's a potential for misunderstanding, as an IFR aircraft putting itself under the control of an Approach Control unit in class G would expect separation from other such traffic, regardless of the level of radar service provided (MATS Pt 1 Section 1 Ch 3 1(g)).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with regard to your first sentence, is this unit wholly class G?
If so why not simplify things.... regardless of IFR or VFR, if under a FIS - pilot responsible for separation.
RAS A/C separated from everything. If the controller needs to, he/she/it can identify FIS traffic and ask it to fly not above/not below etc etc for separation against RAS traffic,
A/C inbound to the field requesting vectors or a radar approach get a RAS... end of story.
This would stop things from being complicated and would let the controller control and not worry about silly semantics. It has worked very succesfully for years at very busy mil airports with only class G protection.
It can be part of the arrival brief that all inbounds would be under a RAS
If so why not simplify things.... regardless of IFR or VFR, if under a FIS - pilot responsible for separation.
RAS A/C separated from everything. If the controller needs to, he/she/it can identify FIS traffic and ask it to fly not above/not below etc etc for separation against RAS traffic,
A/C inbound to the field requesting vectors or a radar approach get a RAS... end of story.
This would stop things from being complicated and would let the controller control and not worry about silly semantics. It has worked very succesfully for years at very busy mil airports with only class G protection.
It can be part of the arrival brief that all inbounds would be under a RAS
Another thing - that would mean imposing a service on a pilot rather than reaching a contract.
In Oceans spiel para 9 he says 'unable to maintain VFR'; surely this should be 'unable to maintain VMC'?
In Oceans spiel para 9 he says 'unable to maintain VFR'; surely this should be 'unable to maintain VMC'?
If this is correct, that this has been agreed by one unit with SRG and the Editor MATS Part 1, WIH do they all think they are playing at?
The provision of services certainly need to be clarified - and at first sight this seems fairly sensible (but my brain hurts too much at this time of day to study it too closely) - but where is the sense in clarifying it in respect of one unit - or individual units? Therein lies further confusion and lack of continuity.
More to the point if SRG gets a grip on the overall problem.
The provision of services certainly need to be clarified - and at first sight this seems fairly sensible (but my brain hurts too much at this time of day to study it too closely) - but where is the sense in clarifying it in respect of one unit - or individual units? Therein lies further confusion and lack of continuity.
More to the point if SRG gets a grip on the overall problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Balderdash. Just another level of stuff to add to the confusion.
Not getting into the weeds, but how can standard separation be provided between partcipating traffic? In Class G, all ATC instructions are advisory (the hint is in the service RAS). Turn one aicraft to miss the another also under a RAS by 5 and he may well say "VMC/happy to continue/visual". He has not downgraded from IFR to VFR, he has merely stated his intent to continue. There is no way that standard separation can be provided unless complete compliance is obtained. In reality, this is the norm, but it is nowhere near guranteed.
It is this sort of crap that really annoys me. ATSOCAS is not a control service, it is advisory.
PS. SRG are the 'owners' of this bit of MATS Pt 1. Who on earth is the 'Editor'?
Not getting into the weeds, but how can standard separation be provided between partcipating traffic? In Class G, all ATC instructions are advisory (the hint is in the service RAS). Turn one aicraft to miss the another also under a RAS by 5 and he may well say "VMC/happy to continue/visual". He has not downgraded from IFR to VFR, he has merely stated his intent to continue. There is no way that standard separation can be provided unless complete compliance is obtained. In reality, this is the norm, but it is nowhere near guranteed.
It is this sort of crap that really annoys me. ATSOCAS is not a control service, it is advisory.
PS. SRG are the 'owners' of this bit of MATS Pt 1. Who on earth is the 'Editor'?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jerricho wrote
'Until some asshat lawyer gets hold of something'
Is this not the whole point. These days the lawyers are the ultimate regulators not SRG.
Scenario.....
2 X RIS on GOA's freq. both at the same level and blips are going to merge.
GOA applies MATS Pt 1 and issues sh1t loads of Tfc info but is too busy vectoring mega jet to an uninterupted 7 mile final and the blips merge and a large whole in the ground appears where the wreckage falls.
At the subsequent court case GOA and his boss are in the dock for manslaughter and beak asks
'Did you know that the 2 aircraft were at 'risk of collision''.... 'well yes ,sort of ,may be' says a cockey confident GOA'.
'Then why did you not apply the first page of MATS pt 1 and PREVENT THE COLLISION'
' Cos MATS pt 1 further on says NO AVOIDING ACTION SHALL BE GIVEN'
' Sorry not good enough says the non technically minded jury both of you off to jail....
who out there wants to be the test case for this........
London Mil
It may and should be advisory but do we all really think that the Part 1 adequately allows us to train the poor sods that come out of the various colleges in the true consequencies of not at least paying some kind of lip service to duty of care.
GOA
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Originally Posted by 52 North
OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?
A pilot in this situation should:
a) Take his own avoiding action.
b) Request suitable avoiding action instructions.
I was once given information as in the example (by Benson Zone, IIRC) and in the same transmission the ATCO asked "Would you like an upgrade to RAS for avoiding action?"
(Never being one to turn down a free upgrade) I immediately accepted the kind offer and was given a suitable heading to fly. Once the danger was passed, ATC downgraded to a RIS - absolutely no problem because we all knew exactly where we stood.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 52 North
OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?
Jack.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GOA, of course Duty of Care counts. I am only offering that this particular SI (?) just makes things a little more complicated.
As in the Court of Law argument, personally I'm quite convinced that any lawer worth his salt could drive a coach and horses through the regulations. Not the same, but just look at the Ben McDui ferago.
HB.
The same for RAS. The only difference being that you offer advice to maintain separation. The only time I think you may be on a sticky wicket would be if:
a. You could have been reasonably expected to notice a confliction and offer advice but failed.
b. Your advice compounded the situation.
Under the 'reasonably expected' bit, this is where, in the opinion of your peers (in court an expert witness) you should have been able to complete the task.
As in the Court of Law argument, personally I'm quite convinced that any lawer worth his salt could drive a coach and horses through the regulations. Not the same, but just look at the Ben McDui ferago.
HB.
RIS... pilot responsible for separation...
a. You could have been reasonably expected to notice a confliction and offer advice but failed.
b. Your advice compounded the situation.
Under the 'reasonably expected' bit, this is where, in the opinion of your peers (in court an expert witness) you should have been able to complete the task.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A definition of "Duty of Care" would be nice. Can you supply one London Mil?
At my unit the priority for providing a service to aircraft is the following 1) CAS (RCS)
2) ADRs (RAS) and then to traffic in Class G (RIS). If we have to downgrade a service in class G to a FIS, where does that stand with 'Duty of Care'. Do Companies/pilots have a 'Duty of Care' not to endanger passengers lives by flying in class G airspace, especially through areas where there is known, but unpublished, military activity.
TUTH
At my unit the priority for providing a service to aircraft is the following 1) CAS (RCS)
2) ADRs (RAS) and then to traffic in Class G (RIS). If we have to downgrade a service in class G to a FIS, where does that stand with 'Duty of Care'. Do Companies/pilots have a 'Duty of Care' not to endanger passengers lives by flying in class G airspace, especially through areas where there is known, but unpublished, military activity.
TUTH
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Take up the Hold
A definition of "Duty of Care" would be nice.
At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
In any particular case, once a duty of care has been established, legal arguments tend to be around what is and isn't reasonably foreseeable, and whether the damage "flowed naturally" from the breach of the duty of care.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Companies/pilots have a 'Duty of Care' not to endanger passengers lives by flying in class G airspace, especially through areas where there is known, but unpublished, military activity.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we have to downgrade a service in class G to a FIS, where does that stand with 'Duty of Care'.
Regards
FBW