Safety case for commercial ops outside CAS

[Mister Geezer]

The harsh but worrying truth is that the current arrangement of ATSOCA is very poorly understood by the foreign pilot population with the exception of those who operate on a regular basis outside CAS. To be honest... some UK crews have a ropey knowledge and when going into LF recently the ATCO asked what service we needed outside CAS and I replied with a RAS. My F/O openly admitted that he would not know what to ask for if he was put on the spot since he didn't know the difference between the different services! Part and parcel of routine ops inside CAS I am afraid!

It is SRG that should be doing a safety case in making an effort to make crews aware of what a FIS/RIS/RAS are all about. I laughed when I saw the ATSIN instructing ATCOS to insist on a read back on the service issued - It is the crews who do not respond who clearly have no idea of what service they are under and a read back is not going to help the situation either!

And I have heard of exchanges just like ATCO Fred’s on London Mil and it is cringe worthy yet worrying to listen to! One foreign crewmember replied with 'We need the full service please!’ On one occasion the pilot who was being asked what service he wanted was so confused the controller had to tell him what service he was getting. I guess the most dangerous situation is when an aircraft is under a RIS who has no idea that he will not receive any avoiding action who then ploughs through to have an airprox or even worse!

Rant directed at SRG and not controllers at the front line!

[London Mil]

MG, the one saving grace is that mil controllers tend to give a RAS when it is obvious a pilot doesn't know what he wants.

[Red Four]

London Mil
Except if the pilot is VFR shurely?

[London Mil]

Red Four, find me a bucket & spade airline that operates VFR (Ryanair excepted)

[aluminium persuader]

Hmmm. Sneaky!

I have a nasty feeling that the CAA have issued this FODCOM as preparation for unilaterally imposing Controlled Airspace over the entire UK. I think they'll take all the problems thrown up by all the safety-cases and use them as a lever to push the CAS.

It could be a huge problem fo the GA community and aviation in the UK as a whole.

Call me a cynic, but....

[Mister Geezer]

Would not surprise me since the CAA are doing a sterling job in squeezing G/A out of this country!

[Single Spey]

Not CAS, but Mode S. If enough airlines state that they have TCAS but the risk is increased because of non-Mode S equipped GA aircraft, then the CAA have the statistics (ie the safety cases) to prove and qualitatively assess that from the operators point of view, mandated Mode S equippage for GA would improve safety. This was the one area of their Mode S RIA that was not substantiated.

[NorthSouth]

ap:

the CAA have issued this FODCOM as preparation for unilaterally imposing Controlled Airspace over the entire UK

Now how exactly would they do that? DAP considering an application from, errrrmmm, DAP to put CAS round an airport that hasn't asked for it? We seem to have established that pretty much all the UK airlines that want to start services from a new airport have already done it and they won't be asked to do a retrospective SC. In any case, where is there an airport with commercial services and no CAS that isn't already in the process of applying for it?
NS

[NorthSouth]

Single Spey:

they have TCAS but the risk is increased because of non-Mode S equipped GA aircraft

That's not an argument for Mode S, it's an argument for Mode C (and/or Mode S). As regards the current non-transponders, if airlines think that it's risky to make approaches which require them to fly close to gliding sites which were there long before the airline was (and I can think of at least two UK airports where this is the case) then they really should think about what measures they can take to reduce the risk. I don't see Mode S being the solution to that particular problem.
NS

[Not Long Now]

"I have a nasty feeling that the CAA have issued this FODCOM as preparation for unilaterally imposing Controlled Airspace over the entire UK. I think they'll take all the problems thrown up by all the safety-cases and use them as a lever to push the CAS"

Hmmm, given that there aren't enough controllers to manage the present airspace, and that there would be no revenue gain from it, I think that's probably a bit of a non starter.

[London Mil]

Ahem, its not just NATS who have the privelege of controlling within CAS. There was a few hours of today when I felt like send a bill for my services direct to Eastflight, Thomspon and KLM. Certainly no military customers. I'm pretty sure there is an untapped customer base out there.

[danieloakworth]

As mentioned before, having spoken to the bloke who drafted the 'regulation' this is, in the first instance, about ensuring that airlines are fully aware of the issues involved in operating out of such airports. ThomsonFly did a risk assessment before they started out of RHADS and have told CAA that they found it invaluable in identifying potential problems. CAA have grasped the idea and decided to align it better with CAP 760. It's good for a conspiracy theory but can't see a credible one tbh.

[NorthSouth]

ThomsonFly did a risk assessment before they started out of RHADS

I wonder if it included a risk assessment of having wet-lease crews operate your flights out of RHADS and completely ignoring or failing to understand the NPRs
NS