Atsocas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North of Dover
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When providing DS or TS, I contract to provide a defined service. If I then have to reduce the level of service, I must inform the pilot of the reduction along with the reason and probable duration ‘but all elements of the service will still be provided’. If I am providing such a service to a handful of aircraft and workload suddenly goes through the roof (quite common) how do I comply with those requirements if I can’t get a word in (quite common)? The pilot thinks he is receiving a defined service when I am unable to provide it or tell him I am not providing it. I am in breach of contract and if something goes wrong, the legal implications are not pleasant. I look forward to seeing my unit’s risk assessment on that one!! How many of us in that position will simply not risk putting ourselves or the pilot at risk and will not provide DS or TS?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the proposed system there is no requirement for an agreement to be reached between pilot and controller.
The pilot requests a service and the controller provides the type of service requested. There would also appear to be no scope for limiting a particular service due workload,
I also seem to remember reading that individual units will not need to carry out safety assessments as this has been considered to have already been carried out by the review board.
I don't care what you call a service as long as both the pilot and controller know what is expected of them. The problem has always been ,and the proposals will not change anything, the foreign pilots who do not understand the fact that we can provide a service , with radar ,that does not include traffic avoidance.
The pilot requests a service and the controller provides the type of service requested. There would also appear to be no scope for limiting a particular service due workload,
I also seem to remember reading that individual units will not need to carry out safety assessments as this has been considered to have already been carried out by the review board.
I don't care what you call a service as long as both the pilot and controller know what is expected of them. The problem has always been ,and the proposals will not change anything, the foreign pilots who do not understand the fact that we can provide a service , with radar ,that does not include traffic avoidance.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
airac:
I think you've missed it:
[Draft CAP 774 para 1.12 - ATSOCAS RIA Annex E]
also
There is, it's just called something different (and rather more specific in my view):
[CAP 774 para 1.13]
I think the term "reduced traffic information" is more likely to be understood by pilots than e.g. "limited radar information service due to poor radar performance".
NS
Under the proposed system there is no requirement for an agreement to be reached between pilot and controller
Agreement to provide a service and acknowledgement of that level of service by a controller/FISO and pilot respectively, establishes a ‘contract’ that binds both parties to the definitions of that service as stated herein.
also
There would also appear to be no scope for limiting a particular service due workload
Reduced Traffic Information
When providing a Deconfliction Service or a Traffic Service, there may be circumstances that prevent the calling of traffic e.g. due to workload or when traffic is not displayed to the controller. When this is anticipated, the pilot shall be informed of a reduction in traffic information along with the reason and the probable duration of the reduction if known.
When providing a Deconfliction Service or a Traffic Service, there may be circumstances that prevent the calling of traffic e.g. due to workload or when traffic is not displayed to the controller. When this is anticipated, the pilot shall be informed of a reduction in traffic information along with the reason and the probable duration of the reduction if known.
I think the term "reduced traffic information" is more likely to be understood by pilots than e.g. "limited radar information service due to poor radar performance".
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North of Dover
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North south, under the present system I may limit the service how I see fit, in advance, according to circumstances. The new proposals are much more prescriptive and the contract 'binds both parties to the definitions of that service' as stated in the draft CAP.
However, although I am allowed to reduce traffic information (or DS), that ‘does not negate any aspects of the service provision’, ‘all elements of the service will still be provided’ i.e. I still continue to provide the exact same service, just to a ‘lesser degree’ (whatever that means). If It suddenly gets very busy and I am unable to provide the service, how do I renegotiate the contract?? Would someone like to explain that?
However, although I am allowed to reduce traffic information (or DS), that ‘does not negate any aspects of the service provision’, ‘all elements of the service will still be provided’ i.e. I still continue to provide the exact same service, just to a ‘lesser degree’ (whatever that means). If It suddenly gets very busy and I am unable to provide the service, how do I renegotiate the contract?? Would someone like to explain that?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
DS: I agree the wording on RTI doesn't help because it suggests that you still have to provide TI on every potential conflict (but perhaps only provide the info at a closer range), whereas the current MATS Pt 1 wording on limiting implies that you may well miss some traffic completely.
But there has never been a commonly agreed definition of what limiting means. In the not too distant past there was an SI on ATSOCAS in MATS Part 1 and it said "limiting a service should not be viewed as a failure to provide the desired service but a useful and sensible way for a controller to indicate to a pilot that the full service cannot be provided. However, the controller is still willing to offer assistance to fulfil the primary objectives of the service." A definition? Yes. But it was withdrawn a couple of years later!
Given that (1) the purpose of limitation - and of RTI in the future - is to send a message to the pilot, and (2) pilots don't know what the controller is looking at so have no clear idea of how limitation should change their behaviour, it's a very blunt instrument and is as much a way for controllers to offload responsibility than anything else. If this is to change under the new rules then, as so many people have already said on this thread and elsewhere, there needs to be a major effort put into educating pilots. But when all's said and done there are times when you just have to accept there's nothing you can do, e.g. "G-XX limited radar information service due to high traffic density". Since in most cases pilots have already, by that stage, committed to flying through that piece of airspace, they can't turn round or go a different route - but just at the time they need more info they're told they'll get less. I don't believe any change in the terminology for ATSOCAS can change that.
NS
But there has never been a commonly agreed definition of what limiting means. In the not too distant past there was an SI on ATSOCAS in MATS Part 1 and it said "limiting a service should not be viewed as a failure to provide the desired service but a useful and sensible way for a controller to indicate to a pilot that the full service cannot be provided. However, the controller is still willing to offer assistance to fulfil the primary objectives of the service." A definition? Yes. But it was withdrawn a couple of years later!
Given that (1) the purpose of limitation - and of RTI in the future - is to send a message to the pilot, and (2) pilots don't know what the controller is looking at so have no clear idea of how limitation should change their behaviour, it's a very blunt instrument and is as much a way for controllers to offload responsibility than anything else. If this is to change under the new rules then, as so many people have already said on this thread and elsewhere, there needs to be a major effort put into educating pilots. But when all's said and done there are times when you just have to accept there's nothing you can do, e.g. "G-XX limited radar information service due to high traffic density". Since in most cases pilots have already, by that stage, committed to flying through that piece of airspace, they can't turn round or go a different route - but just at the time they need more info they're told they'll get less. I don't believe any change in the terminology for ATSOCAS can change that.
NS
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Highlands
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural Service
http://gatco.org/
GATCO have a forum dedicated to the ATSOCAS consultation.
The post about Procedural Service makes for interesting reading, particularly if you regularly provide Procedural Approach Control in Class G airspace.
This particular service has until now been unusual and perhaps a little awkward but most folk understood it. The proposed CAP774 however asks more questions than it answers. What a dog's dinner!
GATCO have a forum dedicated to the ATSOCAS consultation.
The post about Procedural Service makes for interesting reading, particularly if you regularly provide Procedural Approach Control in Class G airspace.
This particular service has until now been unusual and perhaps a little awkward but most folk understood it. The proposed CAP774 however asks more questions than it answers. What a dog's dinner!
Last edited by Highland Director; 23rd Nov 2007 at 09:42. Reason: hyperlink didn't work
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by chevvron
Just heard confirmation of the above; changes postponed TFN probably December.
Perhaps I am dim, perhaps there was just too much verbiage to absorb from the ATSOCAS working group, perhaps too many people were involved, but what the WG was producing was mind-bogglingly overcomplicated. I think that a very good principle would be "if it ain't broken, don't try to mend it" - and it's not that bad.
When you look at ATSOCAS as practised by both civil and military, certainly there are some anomalies but nothing that could not be rectified by looking at current requirements and rationalising them, e.g. the separation requirements (or not) for aircraft flying visual contact with surface at night (and therefore IFR).
I never understood the premise that "the UK does not conform with ICAO requirements for FIS and therefore we have to change" - and then what was being proposed was so vastly different from ICAO practice and such a huge change from current UK practice and terminology that every pilot and every controller would have to re-learn everything - not a good principle.
Let's hope that this whole exercise is delayed far more than one year and preferably is consigned to File 13. I thought that I was in a minority of one but am heartened to see Leuven's post above!
2 s
When you look at ATSOCAS as practised by both civil and military, certainly there are some anomalies but nothing that could not be rectified by looking at current requirements and rationalising them, e.g. the separation requirements (or not) for aircraft flying visual contact with surface at night (and therefore IFR).
I never understood the premise that "the UK does not conform with ICAO requirements for FIS and therefore we have to change" - and then what was being proposed was so vastly different from ICAO practice and such a huge change from current UK practice and terminology that every pilot and every controller would have to re-learn everything - not a good principle.
Let's hope that this whole exercise is delayed far more than one year and preferably is consigned to File 13. I thought that I was in a minority of one but am heartened to see Leuven's post above!
2 s
Last edited by 2 sheds; 12th Jan 2008 at 22:53. Reason: Repetition/verbosity
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope the whole process is knocked on the head for ever!!!! if the waters were muddy before they certainally will be sillted up with what was proposed!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, but apparently their problem was they claimed they would need to re-train all their radar controllers!!!
Also, bear in mind that 99% of ATSOCAS traffic (and I'm not talking about FIS!) is controlled by the military anyway, who do you think will end up doing all the work for the change?
How much training do civilian controllers receive in the provision of ATSOCAS and then how often do they provide it in the field?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acer101 at ScACC we provide the full range of services every day on the Moray,West Coast and Tay
sectors usually against Mil tfc operating sfc to who knows what.There is some training in the sim on the IVC but you can't really beat real life. Roll on the next exercise
Rgds
AyrTC
sectors usually against Mil tfc operating sfc to who knows what.There is some training in the sim on the IVC but you can't really beat real life. Roll on the next exerciseRgds
AyrTC