Atsocas
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acer101 here at the Ice Station we are providing ATSOCA's to approx 75% of our traffic (inbound and outbound) so in the order of 300+ aircraft on a weekday - every weekday. As well as interfacing with ScACC Mil/Leuchars/Lossie/Kinloss and all the fast jet activity over the North Sea.
DD
DD
At my airfield the figure is 100% ATSOCAs with RAS to commercial flights up to 180/day, plus around that number of LARS movements being provided with RIS/RAS; that doesn't include FIS traffic which totals another 150 - 200 per day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Acer101
Also, bear in mind that 99% of ATSOCAS traffic (and I'm not talking about FIS!) is controlled by the military anyway
As for the training and stuff.....there's nothing new to all this - I learned the basics some 30 years ago, and have used it on and off ever since. Just give me the new rules and I'll get on with it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acer, you need to get out more, there's plenty of civil ATC done outside CAS.
As for the training and stuff.....there's nothing new to all this - I learned the basics some 30 years ago, and have used it on and off ever since. Just give me the new rules and I'll get on with it.
As for the training and stuff.....there's nothing new to all this - I learned the basics some 30 years ago, and have used it on and off ever since. Just give me the new rules and I'll get on with it.
It's good to see that we're all out there in the "weeds" providing ATSOCAS
There was a perception in the military that civil didn't really care about the changes as they didn't cover ATSOCAS in great detail during training. This would mean that the majority of the work would fall to Shawbury in making changes to their course without the civil colleges doing much at all.
Sure, we're all right in the field - a bit of OJT, change the words and carry on, we're all good at that and we've done it all before. But if you are going to teach this to ab-initio's, then there is a lot of work to be done before the first student graduates.
Just a few things that spring to mind:
Classroom lessons
CBT Excercises
Phraseology
Radar Exercises
Simulator Driver training (civilians)
Instructor standardisation
Bearing in mind that this has to be done whilst still providing the normal output, and that instructors will be teaching both the old and the new procedures as students can't cope with a change half way through (3 overlapping courses running at any one time), you start to see what a big job this is!
Add to this a planned introduction date of 1 Apr 08 and it all starts to look a bit rushed - especially if ALL parties have reservations about the procedures.
I remember the debacle of the QNH replacing QFE change.
Hawk inbound with a rough running engine -
"PAN **** QHN 1018, airfield elevation 249 ft"
"I don't care what the airfield elevation is, just give me the QFE!"
Another brilliant idea
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sargasso Sea
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole review was sparked off by several recommendations from the UKAB. This was after several Airprox occurred, where the aircraft concerned should have quite clearly been under a RAS or some form of positive control. A RAS in many of these Airprox, had been refused, often due to the "policy" of the organisations concerned, rather than individuals limiting a service. The review has become a self licking lollipop and rather than looking at policing of existing services and mandating certain ANSPs to provide them under their licence, it has gone down the road of trying to re-invent the wheel. What are we trying to do? Prevent collisions between aircraft and between aircraft and obstructions. Yes there are a few pilots who do not understand RAS/RIS, but that is an education problem, that is significantly less than having to re-educate everyone. The current services work well, we just need to ensure that they are provided when asked for, across the whole of the UK.
This whole review was sparked off by several recommendations from the UKAB. This was after several Airprox occurred, where the aircraft concerned should have quite clearly been under a RAS or some form of positive control. A RAS in many of these Airprox, had been refused, often due to the "policy" of the organisations concerned, rather than individuals limiting a service. The review has become a self licking lollipop and rather than looking at policing of existing services and mandating certain ANSPs to provide them under their licence, it has gone down the road of trying to re-invent the wheel. What are we trying to do? Prevent collisions between aircraft and between aircraft and obstructions. Yes there are a few pilots who do not understand RAS/RIS, but that is an education problem, that is significantly less than having to re-educate everyone. The current services work well, we just need to ensure that they are provided when asked for, across the whole of the UK.
Spot On RC!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reborn
Why would NERL be mandated to provide certain services outside controlled airspace? (that's who you're talking about right? since they are the only ANSP to operate under a 'licence') - no other ANSP is mandated. That's like mandating that all pilots be under a service outside controlled airspace (although it would be a damn sight safer it that was the case). Mr MOD and Mr GA would stand up and scream, "Leave our class G alone" if that was tried.
I understood that UKAB recommended thae review, not because traffic was under a RIS instead of RAS, but because there were different expectations between pilot and controller and among controllers as to who was reposnsible for what under each service.
Reborn....Rethink
Why would NERL be mandated to provide certain services outside controlled airspace? (that's who you're talking about right? since they are the only ANSP to operate under a 'licence') - no other ANSP is mandated. That's like mandating that all pilots be under a service outside controlled airspace (although it would be a damn sight safer it that was the case). Mr MOD and Mr GA would stand up and scream, "Leave our class G alone" if that was tried.
I understood that UKAB recommended thae review, not because traffic was under a RIS instead of RAS, but because there were different expectations between pilot and controller and among controllers as to who was reposnsible for what under each service.
Reborn....Rethink
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why would NERL be mandated to provide certain services outside controlled airspace?
Reborn is pretty much on target with his/her comments. Sadly the ATSOCAS review seemed to gloss over the fundamental point of whether there should be CAS to protect passenger carrying aircraft on regularly flown routes. If CAS were established (like ICAO encourages) the rest of the problems that prompted the review would probably become insignificant.
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there going to be a whole lot of issues on this, the review is needed, but again across the uk, the provision of it differs so much, something needs to be in place that covers all those areas so it suits both the providers and those in receipt of it.
Vectorline: I don't believe that Reborn was specifically referring to NERL; ALL UK civil ATC units (ATSP's) have to have a licence irrespective of whether they provide en-route or terminal services; ATSOCA's at lower levels are traditionally provided by NSL or other ATS providers from airfield ATSU's rather than by NERL who provide the required FIS units.
I've been providing ATSOCA's under both MOD and civil ATSP procedures for over 30 years starting with VMC and IMC Radar Advisory Services, through Traffic Information Service (TIS) and RAS to the present RAS/RIS. I would say the proposed changes were in my personal opinion a retrograde step; whereas the UK/JAA has been moving towards harmonisation with ICAO procedures, the proposed system bears no resemblance to anything in ICAO documents.
I've been providing ATSOCA's under both MOD and civil ATSP procedures for over 30 years starting with VMC and IMC Radar Advisory Services, through Traffic Information Service (TIS) and RAS to the present RAS/RIS. I would say the proposed changes were in my personal opinion a retrograde step; whereas the UK/JAA has been moving towards harmonisation with ICAO procedures, the proposed system bears no resemblance to anything in ICAO documents.
Last edited by chevvron; 19th Jan 2008 at 09:36.
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There also seems to be a difference in policy between units whatever they call the service RIS/RAS, as to what controllers are expected to provide to a/c outside of controlled airspace, some units will provide RAS to commercial traffic as a matter of course, where others are almost instructed(unofficially) to never do so.
This again is something that needs to be better defined whatever the name of the service becomes
This again is something that needs to be better defined whatever the name of the service becomes
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The review however may help in giving a boost to the education of what a service actually entails for the pilot, Some A/c given a sqauwk, but told FIS still feel they are under some form of Radar service and to be given traffic avoidance/information.
Whatumean: assigning a squawk to FIS traffic can achieve one of two things:
Where a single code is assigned to all FIS traffic working that unit, it means 'I am in communication with XXXX'.
Where an individual code is assigned to FIS traffic, it means the ATSU can positively identify you and thereafter not need to take unnecessary avoiding action with their RAS traffic on an 'unknown', hence reducing pilot and controller workload. Traffic permitting in this latter case, once you are identified, ATC may warn you where there is a probability of confliction with 'other' traffic whether it is identified or not. It's not a 'radar service' as such, but intelligent use of radar derived info by the controller (as I said workload permitting - you may not be warned of all conflictions but in your periodic 'scans' of the sky, the controller tells you where to look)
Where a single code is assigned to all FIS traffic working that unit, it means 'I am in communication with XXXX'.
Where an individual code is assigned to FIS traffic, it means the ATSU can positively identify you and thereafter not need to take unnecessary avoiding action with their RAS traffic on an 'unknown', hence reducing pilot and controller workload. Traffic permitting in this latter case, once you are identified, ATC may warn you where there is a probability of confliction with 'other' traffic whether it is identified or not. It's not a 'radar service' as such, but intelligent use of radar derived info by the controller (as I said workload permitting - you may not be warned of all conflictions but in your periodic 'scans' of the sky, the controller tells you where to look)
Some A/c given a sqauwk, but told FIS still feel they are under some form of Radar service and to be given traffic avoidance/information
They can "feel" whatever they like, but the service with which they are being provided is the one they have acknowledged and read back! As chevvron has succintly stated, radar-derived information is just one source of information about traffic, known or unknown, that might present a hazard to a particular flight, albeit that the latter is under FIS.
They can "feel" whatever they like, but the service with which they are being provided is the one they have acknowledged and read back! As chevvron has succintly stated, radar-derived information is just one source of information about traffic, known or unknown, that might present a hazard to a particular flight, albeit that the latter is under FIS.
An added benefit to the pilot being identified under FIS is when there is a sudden silence from the machine driving the fan; ATC can alert any rescue services and send them to the correct field; and if there is a helicopter on frequency, vector him (with his agreement) to your last observed position. Most helicopter pilots especially military are only too glad to assist someone in trouble like this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I see that the first results from the consultation are out - details in ATSIN 125 along with a link to another doc giving a general response to the comments received.
Haven't read the thing in detail but I notice they don't know how Stansted is spelt (or should that be spelled?).
Haven't read the thing in detail but I notice they don't know how Stansted is spelt (or should that be spelled?).
