Atsin 89

[Toadpool]

This ATSIN, which requires controllers not only to obtain a readback of the radar service provided, but to also ensure that there is no confusion in the pilot's mind as to the level of service provided, is , in my view, unworkable.
Most foreign civilian pilots do not understand RIS/RAS, which are unique to the UK, and certainly are not aware that a readback is required. Only this morning it took me four attempts to get the crew of a foreign airliner to readback RAS. Bad enough when quiet, impractical when busy.
Is it only me that thinks that the UK airprox board and SRG have their heads up their collective back ends .

[Lifes2good]

Toadpool I agree in some ways this ATSIN is impracticable. However CAP413 basically says you should establish what service is being requested and given. I suppose its a sort on contractual agreement pilot to controller.
If only more things in the aviation world could be thought out practically and not just for cover your a--e syndrome. Just a sign of modern day thinking perhaps????

[Not Long Now]

But at least if anything does ever go wrong they will be able to say they did something to try and prevent it. So that's alright then.

[Inverted81]

Originally Posted by Toadpool

This ATSIN, which requires controllers not only to obtain a readback of the radar service provided, but to also ensure that there is no confusion in the pilot's mind as to the level of service provided, is , in my view, unworkable.
Most foreign civilian pilots do not understand RIS/RAS, which are unique to the UK, and certainly are not aware that a readback is required. Only this morning it took me four attempts to get the crew of a foreign airliner to readback RAS. Bad enough when quiet, impractical when busy.
Is it only me that thinks that the UK airprox board and SRG have their heads up their collective back ends .

Yep.. although the atsin only refers to something thats been in the MATS1 a long time...
Yes it can be complicated to ensure that the correct service is understood by the crew, however, if it takes too long and workload does not permit you to chase it anymore, downgrade it to a RIS and make sure its on the tapes. But of course provide the best service you can if able! If your really that busy, the question, should a RAS be given anyways? Quite often a FIS may be the only realistic option. Especially in class G.

As MATS says, A RIS will be provided when a RAS is inpracticable (excuse the spelling, its late)
Happy days

[Lifes2good]

As I said cover your a--e syndrome !!!!

[Inverted81]

Originally Posted by Lifes2good

As I said cover your a--e syndrome !!!!

Well to a certain extent it is, however, essentially focusing your attention on a situation, and being distracted from most likely your primary task, could prove more costly

[LostThePicture]

Is it only me that thinks that the UK airprox board and SRG have their heads up their collective back ends.

Nope, you can count me in as well. Clearly those that published this ATSIN have successfully distanced themselves far enough from the live traffic environment to neither know nor care whether something is workable to the common ATCO.

I'm lucky enough not to have to provide ATSOCAS to foreign pilots very often, but when I do, you're unlikely to hear me change the service - for the very reasons you have mentioned. If the pilots don't readback RAS and if RAS doesn't exist in their country, do they even know what a RAS is? Or what their responsibilities are under a RAS?

As a final point, the ATSIN states that any queries or comments should be made to a Mr Richard Taylor, somewhere in Penpusherland. I can't say that anything as half-baked as this ATSIN makes me want to engage in dialogue with the man, but if any other ATCO wants to pour scorn on this silly little piece of bureaucracy, they know where to write.

LTP

[Toadpool]

however, if it takes too long and workload does not permit you to chase it anymore, downgrade it to a RIS and make sure its on the tapes.

Surely this means yet another readback.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by Toadpool

Is it only me that thinks that the UK airprox board and SRG have their heads up their collective back ends.

No. I suspect that this ATSIN may have been triggered by a recent airprox in which I was involved. Scenario: Public transport IFR a/c descending on ILS in Class G about to be transferred to tower. Unknown light twin departs same runway VFR and turns downwind opposite direction and climbs head-on to ILS traffic. Light twin freecalls on approach radar. Light twin identified and approach controller faced with immediate provision of traffic information to minimise risk of collision. Urgent and effective traffic information ensures visual sightings by both crews. Light twin elects to pass close to IFR aircraft, airmanship aside. IFR aircraft elects to disregard resutant TCAS RA and continue ILS and land. 2 weeks elapse. Meanwhile IFR a/c passenger complains to carrier. Carrier elects to file late airprox. Result of ATC service provision - collision averted to satisfaction of both crews and ATCO despite minimal time in which to comply with service type provision requirements.
The irritating thing is that there appears to be no effective channel for right of reply by parties involved before or after publication of such reports. In the case above, because of workload (especially considering primary tasks within CAS), there was no time to dot i's and cross t's establishing service provision agreements.The urgent task was provision of essential traffic information within a very short space of time in order to obviate a mid-air collision. There is no reflection of this in the report. It is very easy for a group of investigators to be picky in a nice warm office but I do think that they need to get real and look at incidents from all points of view. At no time was I interviewed subsequent to the (delayed) written report. After 39 years and 8 months service I despair with such official bodies.

[Spitoon]

The real problem is that in the UK we routinely provide ATS to big passenger carrying aircraft in Class G. Other countries don't need RIS/RAS - and so foreign pilots don't know what it is - because they use CAS where such flights regularly go (as ICAO intended). We all know the reasons - airspace is a limited resource and proposals to extend it meet well supported opposition from mil. GA and glider fraternaties.

But it leads to incredible situations like that described by talkdownman - whether the trigger for the ATSIN or not. How can we expect a service to be reliable and if it is possible to be vectoring to an ILS and other aircraft are using the runway without it being known to the ATCO?

But on the other hand, I have some sympathy for those who write these ATSINs and so on. Having been involved in proposals to change airspace it is quite clear that the CAA is not one united body moving in the same direction but a group of disparate - and usually individually well meaning - departments all with their own agendas.

[chevvron]

I frequently provide radar services to foreign pilots in class G, and agree that you wonder whether they actually know the difference between RAS and RIS; only one company as far as I know actually tells its pilots to ask for 'RAS and nothing less'.
If SRG had consulted a few class G radar units before writing this, it could have been phrased a lot better. (and I've only done 37 yrs 5 mths)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<How can we expect a service to be reliable and if it is possible to be vectoring to an ILS and other aircraft are using the runway without it being known to the ATCO?>>

Spitoon.. Not sure what you mean but that scenario happens six million times a day at single runway airports, where there is usually more than one ATCO. What happened in the above situation was that two pilots appear to have behaved in an extraordinarily dangerous manner, and there ain't much ATC can do about that!

It should all be Class A!

[throw a dyce]

I reckon SRG reckon that only low and slow traffic flies in Class G.By the time you give all the ident,position,verbal agreement info,the type of aircraft we vector have travelled 10 miles.We are talking about EFIS equipped,that can fly to centrefixes,with 160 pax.They know where they are.How are you supposed to vector them towards the ILS without a RAS?
As usually it comes to the Approach controller to take the rap.If a military a/c smacks into an airliner in Class G,then who's going to be in the dock?
The Class G south of Aberdeen is some of the most dangerous airspace I have seen anywhere in the world.With up sometimes 6 different agencies operating in there,with allsorts of traffic and services,how can airliners be safe.Cannot be done especially with military all over the place.These airlines should be in CAS when ever possible,and not risking their passengers lives to save a few quid and 5 minutes.
(Only 26 years and 7 months)

[2 sheds]

Talkdownman

It's really going off the thread but since you volunteered the information, could you explain? How can you be vectoring IFR traffic to the ILS and unknown conflicting traffic depart the same runway - and it not be given a routeing instruction by aerodrome control, or at the very least, traffic information, to keep it away from the ILS traffic?

2 s

[chevvron]

He's just been flying so I expect he'll reply when he gets down.

[AlanM]

In the absence of TDM (we have finished with yr 0467 thanks Chevvers!! )

The incident was at an airfield which is in Class G, for which the airport has a Tower and Approach Procedural frequency, and where TDM, as a radar controller put the ILS traffic to the airfield - who had just transferred the twin departing the ATZ to radar - all in Class G.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by AlanM

The incident was at an airfield which is in Class G, for which the airport has a Tower and Approach Procedural frequency, and where TDM, as a radar controller put the ILS traffic to the airfield - who had just transferred the twin departing the ATZ to radar - all in Class G.

2 Sheds,the Approach Radar Control Unit in question is contracted to provide service only to IFR flights. VFR traffic is not normally notified to the Approach Radar Control Unit. VFR traffic, however, will often freecall the radar unit for FIS, as in this case.

[2 sheds]

Thanks for that, chaps - identified! (not that it matters).

However, surely you have described an airprox continuously waiting to happen? Are you saying that the ADC/APP controller would have released the VFR aircraft with no restriction on its track (albeit advisory) or even traffic information even in the most general terms ("IFR traffic on long final")?

Incidentally, I find this of more interest than SRG's latest rant about ATSOCA - but - TDM - are you sure the latter was triggered by this? Seems to me that SRG ought to be applying their minds to rather more fundamental aspects!

2s

[Talkdownman]

I am unable to confirm if the ADC/APC impose any restrictions to VFR departures other than for environmental reasons. I am also unable to confirm whether ATSIN 089 was triggered by the Airprox Report (045/06) but it seems highly likely. The latter contains comment from ATSI similar to that in ATSIN 089.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Something similar happened today at the very same place as described by AlanM and TDM.....if I'm thinking of the same place as them!

I weren’t involved in either but both incidents are fairly common, as a result, a few of us regularly check the Flight International Jobs section!!

Edited to say that: Despite given a restriction to either remain east/west of the ILS FAT and traffic info, some still get mighty confused and I've been told by a pilot or two (actually, he was the same one twice!) telling me it's outside the ATZ and CAS so he did as he pleased, the so called professionals are the worse for this as they know it all!!!:-)