Untie my hands
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
throw a dyce et al,
Alluding to the coroner's court is leading us inexorably towards the never-ending, but still unresolved dilemma facing controllers where CAA rules prohibit us from doing something, but duty of care says we should. Personally, I reckon a half-baked solicitor's clerk could drive a coach and horses through the MATS Pt 1, and I would always tend towards moral duty rather than sheltering behind regulations. But this discussion has been beaten to death in previous threads, so I'll return to the Easter bottle of Rioja.
Alluding to the coroner's court is leading us inexorably towards the never-ending, but still unresolved dilemma facing controllers where CAA rules prohibit us from doing something, but duty of care says we should. Personally, I reckon a half-baked solicitor's clerk could drive a coach and horses through the MATS Pt 1, and I would always tend towards moral duty rather than sheltering behind regulations. But this discussion has been beaten to death in previous threads, so I'll return to the Easter bottle of Rioja.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly some more positive replies.
SATCO , I would suggest " Tfc believed to be North/south /west /east etc, no height information"
Vintage do you have a contact at EGSH who could supply the necessary info?
Don't tell um and Radarman ,don't forget the most important para in MATS pt 1
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers
providing air traffic services. Nothing in this Manual prevents controllers from using
their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
I would like to hear from someone at EGLL Where I believe these "extra uses were first bought to the attention of SRG ,thus instigating the changes in MATS pt one. Is ther any basis to this rumour?
SATCO , I would suggest " Tfc believed to be North/south /west /east etc, no height information"
Vintage do you have a contact at EGSH who could supply the necessary info?
Don't tell um and Radarman ,don't forget the most important para in MATS pt 1
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers
providing air traffic services. Nothing in this Manual prevents controllers from using
their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
I would like to hear from someone at EGLL Where I believe these "extra uses were first bought to the attention of SRG ,thus instigating the changes in MATS pt one. Is ther any basis to this rumour?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it's duty of care? I seem to remember these words were introduced after the incident at Brum - several years ago, when the ADC ATCO used the ATM to establish that an arriving a/c was making an approach to the wrong runway and was able to avoid the inevitable prang.
If you don't make full use of the equipment available to you and provide the full information that appears on an ATM, and two aircraft collide because you haven't given them information to assist them in avoiding each other, then you probably will be proved culpable in some way.
Vintage, no, there were never any such procedures in place, but that fact that we have an approval to operate radar from the VCR alongside the ADC as well as from downstairs, may have led you to believe otherwise, (the ATM is in fact a fully functioning radar console, when not in use as a radar it's wound down to 20nm for use as an ATM).
Of course, on a night shift, operating procedurely, one might be tempted to sneak a look at the radar just to ensure that there's nothing else in the way, or that certain aircraft are where and at the levels they say they are at...
If you don't make full use of the equipment available to you and provide the full information that appears on an ATM, and two aircraft collide because you haven't given them information to assist them in avoiding each other, then you probably will be proved culpable in some way.
Vintage, no, there were never any such procedures in place, but that fact that we have an approval to operate radar from the VCR alongside the ADC as well as from downstairs, may have led you to believe otherwise, (the ATM is in fact a fully functioning radar console, when not in use as a radar it's wound down to 20nm for use as an ATM).
Of course, on a night shift, operating procedurely, one might be tempted to sneak a look at the radar just to ensure that there's nothing else in the way, or that certain aircraft are where and at the levels they say they are at...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally speaking, I think it is true to say that most ATM's these days appear to be, as niknak says, a fully functioning radar console. As such I would certainly use the ATM under duty of care if I thought it would avoid a dangerous situation. There are a number of phrases to use to pass traffic information without indicating you are providing a recognised radar service.
However, regardless of outward appearances and functionality, I seem to remember that SRG have a regulatory problem regarding using ATM's to provide a full radar service. It stems from the fact that ATM's are not designed for this purpose, and although they may outwardly appear to be normal consoles, the engineering protocols used in their design and installation may not be as robust as required for those in the radar room.
However, regardless of outward appearances and functionality, I seem to remember that SRG have a regulatory problem regarding using ATM's to provide a full radar service. It stems from the fact that ATM's are not designed for this purpose, and although they may outwardly appear to be normal consoles, the engineering protocols used in their design and installation may not be as robust as required for those in the radar room.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Vintage, no, there were never any such procedures in place, but that fact that we have an approval to operate radar from the VCR alongside the ADC as well as from downstairs, may have led you to believe otherwise,
It was a long time ago, probably misunderstood.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRAC
Procedure already being used by some of the staff. Just today I had to use it and the traffic concerned was very thankfull for the heads up. We are about to embark on an application for the advanced ATM use, with the backing of TC Ops, but I can see a rocky battle coming up with SRG (who will be reading this I am sure).
Radarman
Yes, for sure the CAP670 requirements for the installation and Safety Case for an ATM are far less than for a 'full radar' but if your ATM meets CAP670 as far as redundancy, reliability and accuracy are concerned then surely there should be some leeway for its extended use by APS rated controllers.
Procedure already being used by some of the staff. Just today I had to use it and the traffic concerned was very thankfull for the heads up. We are about to embark on an application for the advanced ATM use, with the backing of TC Ops, but I can see a rocky battle coming up with SRG (who will be reading this I am sure).
Radarman
Yes, for sure the CAP670 requirements for the installation and Safety Case for an ATM are far less than for a 'full radar' but if your ATM meets CAP670 as far as redundancy, reliability and accuracy are concerned then surely there should be some leeway for its extended use by APS rated controllers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know I'm a bit of a latecomer to this but the original question appears to be based on a serious misaprehension of how changes to MATS Part 1 (and sometimes MATS Part 2 too) get published. There are many considerations, not least compliance with ICAO and Eurocontrol standards and requirements, and how to publish the new words in such a way as to prevent the liberal interpretation that some would like to make on any procedures. And then there's any training that will be needed. And what about licensing - what rating will be required, and what of those (quite common now) that work TWR but have no radar rating or experience but seem to think it's all easy "'cos you can see where the planes are" (sorry, getting into rant mode here on account of a recent conversation!). I mention all these things because I've been on groups that have considered MATS 1 changes - trust me, it's not all as easy as it seems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon The original restrictions ,or should I say ideas for restrictions answer many of your points.
USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.
So it would not affect units that have full staffing nor tower only units. As for your other points. I certainly do not think it is easy to come up with a concensus between ATCO's, as for ICAO ,we in the UK have ,I believe, lodged more differences than any other country, so again that can't be used for an excuse.
All I am advocating is that, it has got to be safer to use modern equipment rather than ignoring it.
USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.
So it would not affect units that have full staffing nor tower only units. As for your other points. I certainly do not think it is easy to come up with a concensus between ATCO's, as for ICAO ,we in the UK have ,I believe, lodged more differences than any other country, so again that can't be used for an excuse.
All I am advocating is that, it has got to be safer to use modern equipment rather than ignoring it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
1) So what is a temporary shortage??
2) I believe much of what is proposed is already done at a couple of the 'big aerodromes' by people without APS.
3) Why? If it is safe inside an arbitrary 15 miles why not further away if all other conditions are met?
4) Why? If it's OK at night what difference does daylight make?
5) Why two aircraft? If the principal is OK for two, why not more?
6) And what about others in the air?
Maybe the problem is that you're looking at it from a manning perspective and I'm looking at it from a safety perspective (and that's what matters to SRG when they make changes to MATS 1). The simple fact that it's difficult to get a concensus between controllers means that there would need to be significant effort put into producing clear rules of application.
As for ICAO and differences, as they say in the adverts, albeit paraphrasing slightly, 'past performance may not necessarily illustrate the future' do a search for USOAP.
As it happens, I don't disagree with your proposal in principal and given the right circumstances I would support the use of the ATM in this way, I just think it needs to be developed from a safety perspective.
BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.
Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!
2) I believe much of what is proposed is already done at a couple of the 'big aerodromes' by people without APS.
3) Why? If it is safe inside an arbitrary 15 miles why not further away if all other conditions are met?
4) Why? If it's OK at night what difference does daylight make?
5) Why two aircraft? If the principal is OK for two, why not more?
6) And what about others in the air?
Maybe the problem is that you're looking at it from a manning perspective and I'm looking at it from a safety perspective (and that's what matters to SRG when they make changes to MATS 1). The simple fact that it's difficult to get a concensus between controllers means that there would need to be significant effort put into producing clear rules of application.
As for ICAO and differences, as they say in the adverts, albeit paraphrasing slightly, 'past performance may not necessarily illustrate the future' do a search for USOAP.
As it happens, I don't disagree with your proposal in principal and given the right circumstances I would support the use of the ATM in this way, I just think it needs to be developed from a safety perspective.
BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.
Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
1) 6 months to train and certify a new recruit
2 ) If it is thats what I'm trying to find out ,by asking around
3) Because our ATM is limited to 15 miles and I don't want to use it for general vectoring .
( A/c cleared to the hold at MSA a/c idented at the beacon then vectored for App)
4) During daylight hours we endeavour to have radar manned and you can't do VMC climb/descent at night
5) Only two because it would be quicker than havng two procedural approaches However also aware that Tower function is also active.
6)If we had more A/C I'm sure we could generate more income enabling company to offer terms that were more attractive thus rendering this whole proposal redundant.
BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.
It has been removed and controllers are not allowed to initiate such approaches.
Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!
Yes following on from this that is exactly the course of action I intend to take .So if you have info regarding the BIG Aerodomes please PM me .I know I'll need a pretty big stick to knock on SRG's door.
1) 6 months to train and certify a new recruit
2 ) If it is thats what I'm trying to find out ,by asking around
3) Because our ATM is limited to 15 miles and I don't want to use it for general vectoring .
( A/c cleared to the hold at MSA a/c idented at the beacon then vectored for App)
4) During daylight hours we endeavour to have radar manned and you can't do VMC climb/descent at night
5) Only two because it would be quicker than havng two procedural approaches However also aware that Tower function is also active.
6)If we had more A/C I'm sure we could generate more income enabling company to offer terms that were more attractive thus rendering this whole proposal redundant.
BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.
It has been removed and controllers are not allowed to initiate such approaches.
Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!
Yes following on from this that is exactly the course of action I intend to take .So if you have info regarding the BIG Aerodomes please PM me .I know I'll need a pretty big stick to knock on SRG's door.
