Atsin 89

[AlanM]

To be fair to DR and his chums and chumesses, some pilots always fly back up the IFR arrival runway (not helped by only having one IFR arrival direction with a visual manouevring I would guess)

But hten loads of 7000 squawks refuse to call anyone and go straight through it on transits......

You can't legislate for fools!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Seems to me there is a disjoint in ATC MATS Part 2. Who cares about contractual rights, shouldn't Tower be co-ordinating with Approach as per MATS Part 1 ?? And vice versa ??

[AlanM]

So - a VFR flight says to the units APP unit that he is going east to clear the IFR arrival and then DOESN'T do as he is asked. (But doesn't tell anyone)

Now when you say "Approach" do you mean
"Approach Procedural" or "Approach Radar" who are two separate entities, at differnt locations one of which is sub-contracted.

What then?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Without the hindsight of more details of the incident, are you saying there are no procedures for Approach to advise of inbounds (X mile checks), and for Tower to adivise of conflicting traffic leaving the ATZ ?? And no procedures for traffic information to be passed ??

Actually now you mention it .... my only airborne Airprox (Class B) was because a pilot departed 180 degrees from the direction he said he was going to... and the Tower guy didn't spot it, combined with the fact that the pilot didn't know what the 'left hand rule' for line features was. Fortunately, they moved to Spain and downsized after that before they had something more serious ... although many now fly for BA

[Dizzee Rascal]

Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar

snip... are you saying there are no procedures for Approach to advise of inbounds (X mile checks), and for Tower to adivise of conflicting traffic leaving the ATZ ?? And no procedures for traffic information to be passed ??

If I'm correct in guessing where TDM and AlanM are referring to, if you mean the co-ordination between APP (as in the units own procedural approach) and TWR, then not only do we co-ordinate as per MATS pt 1 but on many other occasions as defined in the MATS pt 2.

If on the other hand you mean the contracted Radar and the unit approach then still, I don't believe there to be any co-ordination issues and yes, Radar provide range checks at 10 or 20NM and sometimes 30, 40 or the coast depending on circumstances...and who’s on!)

If anything at our place needs changing (although I don't think it does) then I'm sure it will be picked up by SRG when they visit in the next few weeks

Back to the ATSIN me hopes!

[Talkdownman]

Ensuring 'type of air traffic service provision' would not have averted a mid-air collision in this case. The urgent provision of essential traffic information did, resulting in successful sightings, even by passengers. What on earth was this pilot thinking by flying the wrong way along an IAP FAT? I think that SRG need to get the problem in perspective. Instead of controller-bashing they should ensure that the CAA Flight Operations Department and CAA GAD push hard to ensure that airmanship improves considerably. Daily, controllers are frustrated by severe failures in airmanship by pilots of aircraft in Class G airspace. In the same way that instructors and aircraft owners are sent GASIL I think that all active UK pilots should be sent a report of serious incidents caused by poor airmanship, including infringements, to focus their attention.

[AlanM]

TDM and DR are right as always.

At the end of the day, we give DR a range check on the IFR inbound. He can tell his VFR about it BUT the VFR can (and often does!) either deliberately or inadvertantly fly the wrong way up the FAT. And of course the VFR is within it's rights do what it wants at the edge of the ATZ (ie Squawk standby and turn the radio off if they want)

The saving grace in TDMs case is that the outbound did call radar. Not all do. (which is ironically how it should be!!) Despite the fact that there is no service provision for VFR tracks they still call a busy TC radar unit. Most don't even want to cross the nearby Class D zone - and we often haven't the time to talk to them.

Airmanship seems to be getting worse. The numbeof plonkers who we get it show poor airmanship from their first contact with us is staggering. As said, more should be done to educating these people, not pumping out ATSINs just for ATCOs, who largely know the rules.

I say again... You can't legislate for fools.

[2 sheds]

And, perhaps, more to the point, the CAA should provide a CTR - at the very least, Class E - around aerodromes with IAPs currently in Class G airspace. The present indication on the charts of a feather on the IAP FAT in fact encourages many to fly across the FAT at 5 nm final at around 1500 ft - very useful. Even if some VFR transit aircraft chose to exercise their rights in Class E and not contact ATC, at least the CTR would indicate to them the area utilised by the procedural and radar vectored IAPs and therefore the area of potential confliction. The CAA panders to too many factions who insist on their "rights" - any intelligent member of the public who had a few facts about Class G operations explained would probably be appalled (particularly if he were a passenger on one of the IFRs!).

[Talkdownman]

If ATSIN 089 is triggered by Airprox 45/06 then I am actually OFFENDED by it. I try extremely hard under difficult circumstances fending off traffic for which we have NO MANDATE to provide a service to, but still it continues to be an intrusion and imposition compromising the primary task and, therefore, flight safety. We do not have the spare capacity do deal with pseudo-LARS requests. The old NATCS /Civil Service culture was to do your best for every user all of the time. In this commercial world sadly that is no more and ATSOCA controllers in particular spend a great deal of time covering their back-sides in a licence-losing environment where ridiculous sutuations develop because of POOR AIRMANSHIP. I desperately attempt to ensure compliance with ATSIN 089 whilst trying to minimise the serious disruption that such itinerant traffic causes. I look forward to the day that CAA and NATS and DAP TAKE POSITIVE ACTION to rectify this dangerous situation. ATSIN 089 does not contribute to this. If anything, the authorities would better spend their time clarifing the AVAILABILITY of the services to which ATSIN 089 refers.

[Spitoon]

Sorry still to go on about the incident that TDM and other describe. But, even if the Approach Radar is only contracted to provide a service to IFR flights, surely the co-ordination procedures between ADC/APP require radar to be advised of outbound (or any known) VFR traffic that is headinfg toward the FAT so that radar can provide appropriate traffic information.

And back to the ATSIN, I agree that telling a pilot what service he is receiving will not prevent an incident/AIRPROX from occurring. But we have to work with what we are given and I would prefer to have to tell the pilot what he's getting (although getting the readback is too challenging sometimes) than have to try and explain why I ignored the rules to a judge!

[AlanM]

Spitoon - to reiterate:

If a VFR outbound is told of the inbound IFR, and agrees to stay clear, there is little we can do to stop him actually turning 45 degrees towards the IFR when in class G!

We can all plan, set up and monitor unknowns but when a known does other than it says what do you do?? I know, we endeavour to actually avoid a collision (as per TDMs actions) as opposed to striking up a contract between aircraft.

It is not all black and white mate. Bit like FIS/RIS/Limited RIS/RAS blah blah!

[2 sheds]

So are we actually saying that the VFR was given traffic information and a routeing/instruction to remain away from the FAT?

And is TDM's concern that, for reasons we all understand, perhaps he omitted to have a long discussion with the IFR pilot and establish an agreement on the level of service?

[Spitoon]

Responding specifically to AlanM's comments, I realise that it's not all black and white etc. I also know that the rules cannot cover every situation. BUT, in class G, for me it seems obvious that it helps to cover yourself by passing traffic info to the IFR flight on known VFR flights. Even if the VFR has agreed to remain clear of the FAT what does that mean? It certainly won't stop the IFR pilot filing an AIRPROX if he or she suddenly sees it nearby - and ATC doesn't look very clever if we knew about the VFR but chose not to mention it to the IFR flight.

I quite agree that this is not a black/white situation but it seems that the co-ordination procedures between ADC and APR compound the likelihood of the situation described occurring.

And before you ask, yes, I've done many years of APR in class G.

[withins]

Back to the original thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I take it that the new Atsin does not apply whilst vectoring a/c onto the approach of the following airfields runways:-

Birmingham RW24
Bournemouth RW08
Bristol RW27
Cardiff RW12
Durham Tees Valley RW05
Edinburgh RW30
Leeds Bradford RW14
London City RW28

As ENR-1-6-1-3 Para 4 clearly states:-

Radar Vectoring-Controlled Airspace

At certain airfields where the airspace does not encompass the radar vectoring area, aircraft may be vectored outside the notified airspace for approaches to certain runways (Listed Above).

and then says

Whilst the a/c is outside CAS a RAS will be provided.
and
To reduce RTF loading, pilots will not be informed of the change of service given in these circumstances.

i.e. not only do you not require a correct readback for the change in service, you don't even need to tell him in the first place!

Does the ATSIN override this, I would guess not as it is in the AIP, pilots are notified of this exception and therefore expect not only to sometimes leave CAS when approaching these airfields runways but not to be told when they do

[AlanM]

Spitoon, the IFR inbound, which only gets a 7mile final max due to another close busy FAT, has to get in on a busy freq, to say established, and then be transferred to the tower/approach for a visual manouevre on the other end - with perhaps a cross runway in use as well.

It isn't an easy one, but the radar source is some 25 miles from this airfield, with terrain from 18ft to 598ft within a few miles.... so often 7000 squawks (and definitely primary returns) are rarely seen.

If we held off IFR arrivals on this airport until there were no contacts seen the ywould never get in. Neither is there time to request traffic information on the 8 in the circuit being held off, and the 4 waiting to rejoin. Simple as that.

DR hit the nail on the head - see what happens in the forthcoming SRG Audit.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Originally Posted by Spitoon

Sorry still to go on about the incident that TDM and other describe. But, even if the Approach Radar is only contracted to provide a service to IFR flights, surely the co-ordination procedures between ADC/APP require radar to be advised of outbound (or any known) VFR traffic that is headinfg toward the FAT so that radar can provide appropriate traffic information.

Thought I'd clarified that there are no co-ordination issues between the contracted radar unit and the airports own APP/ADC unit, no knowing the exact the circumstances which TDM and Alan referred to initially, I can't say whether or not there were any beak down in communications at the time of that incident, however, the MATS pt 2 does include adequate procedures for co-ordination when necessary and in these circumstances described.

Anyway, off to watch aircraft not call, go straight through the busy ILS at 2.6 miles in and out of cloud!

DR.

[Brian81]

I dont particularly know why I feel I have to add to this thread, short of clearing up a few facts on "the incident" as we're all calling it.

The radar unit, not based at the same airfield tower that I am sitting in phone up and give me a 10 mile check on an ILS approach, IFR inbound for rw 21.

At around 8.5 miles dme, the tower controller clears a VFR light single fixed wing for take off rw21 in good VMC conditions. he is told to make a right turn at 1 nm (noise abaitment) as he is (or at least WAS) departing to the west. no traffic info is given at this time as the two aircraft are effectively heading away from each other.

At this point the inbound ILS was about 6 miles.
The departing VFR decides not to depart to the west, but departs to the north from the downwind position. Its a good job that I (as the tower controller) notice this as it seems he had no intention of telling me of his change of plan.

At this point the inbound ILS was about 4 miles.
The departing VFR now chooses (after all he can, he is in class G) to fly to the north east, directly into confliction with my ILS traffic.

I give immediate and intense traffic information to the inbound aircraft and class G 'avoiding action' to the VFR aircraft who then argues with me about his apparent proximity to CAS (*he is about 4miles clear of CAS). I again give him avoiding action, advising him that he almost certainly doesnt want to hit the opposite direction aircraft.

The aircraft miss each other. Thankgod. The VFR pilot flies away to the north east, after what has just happened, I strongly adivsed he contact a radar unit and off he went.

As far as I can see. Everything in this scenario was done by the book as per mats 1 and mats 2. the only thing I have issue with is the Class G airspace and the pilots abilities and airmanship.

*ducks and runs for cover...


traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[chevvron]

Similar situations happen quite often at my unit where we have a responsibility for IFR airways traffic from 2 FISO airfields and one a/g airfield, but no mandate is given to the FISO/radio operator to tell us about VFR traffic which might conflict. None of these airfields have iap's, so we simply vector to a position where the pilot can see the airfield, then terminate radar service.

[lizsdad]

back to ATSIN 89 it is total unworkable in a high workload in class G. When it was quiet yesterday evening, it took me 5 attempts to get a Spanish crew to read back "RAS"; the MD83 by this time had travelled nearlly 10nm, wonder what would have happened if the military had been playing around in the area at that time and decided to practice "an intercept" on my traffic. If I needed to provided avoiding action without establishing the contract, where would I stand?
By the way guys, I think the airprox which triggered this might have been at Teesside with an A320 and a F3 in April 2005.

[London Mil]

Playing Devil's Advocate, assuming a pilot does understand the vagaries of ATSOCAS, how on earth is he supposed to know what he is getting if ATC do not confirm the type of service?