Cap 774
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bottom rung ,
It will have to go through a hazard analysis as per your units SMS however on the basis that you will be providing the service in accordance with CAP774 the following quote should be of interest.
APPENDIX C TO ATSIN 132
In the event that the unit considers the content of CAP774 can be implemented with minimal impact upon local procedures, or variances being sought from the policy, further risk assessment may not be required. However, there should be auditable evidence to support this assessment and that due processes have been completed.
As someone who will be doing just that I cannot imagine our unit will come up with many, if any variances. Hope this helps
It will have to go through a hazard analysis as per your units SMS however on the basis that you will be providing the service in accordance with CAP774 the following quote should be of interest.
APPENDIX C TO ATSIN 132
In the event that the unit considers the content of CAP774 can be implemented with minimal impact upon local procedures, or variances being sought from the policy, further risk assessment may not be required. However, there should be auditable evidence to support this assessment and that due processes have been completed.
As someone who will be doing just that I cannot imagine our unit will come up with many, if any variances. Hope this helps
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks airac. The crux of the matter is that at present the new system would not be workable in my location. I cannot see any control measure that could be applied to a risk analysis that would ensure safety. It seems reasonable for the instrument approach traffic to expect to be separated from local IFR traffic as at present; the new system allows IFR/IMC traffic to plough through, unseparated, on a basic service. As we will only be able to separate the traffic participating in a procedural service safety will be degraded. I'm quite happy to put together a risk analysis, but I'm going to have my work cut out to come up with a control measure to make it safe, orderly and ex...etc etc.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple matter is that the CAA have determined that an Approach procedural unit is safe. If they were to come clean and state " Actually it isn't really because any body can fly in class G without talking to any one" ,then half the airfields in england would have to shut.
The new system isn't really that much different, since pilots never have had to comply with approach instructions. The main difference is that now YOU don't have to provide standard separation to IFR flights.
It may not be any safer than the last set up, but it's surely got to be easier than the previous. Don't forget most pilots are already under the impression that they are not separated outside CAS unless it's a RAS.
I think the main reason the CAA have done a blanket safety case is that PROBABLY, all units SMS would not be able to sanction such a service.
The new system isn't really that much different, since pilots never have had to comply with approach instructions. The main difference is that now YOU don't have to provide standard separation to IFR flights.
It may not be any safer than the last set up, but it's surely got to be easier than the previous. Don't forget most pilots are already under the impression that they are not separated outside CAS unless it's a RAS.
I think the main reason the CAA have done a blanket safety case is that PROBABLY, all units SMS would not be able to sanction such a service.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget most pilots are already under the impression that they are not separated outside CAS unless it's a RAS.
CAP 493 Sect 1, Chaper 3, Page 1, Para 1;
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: - (my highlight).
UK IAIP ENR 1.6.1.2 para. 3.2.1. - (R.I.S.)
The pilot is wholly responsible for maintaining separation from other
aircraft whether or not the controller has passed traffic information.
CAP 493, Section 1 chapter 1 page 2 para 6.1 (c) - (F.I.S.)
c) Controllers are not responsible for separating or sequencing aircraft.
(I can't find it in the IAIP, but I'm sure it says something similar).
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever... at present we still have to separate participating IFR aircraft in class G according to the MATS Pt 1. The new rules may put me in a situation where one of my IFR aircraft specifies they want procedural separation, and the other IFR one doesn't as he wants a basic service, but continues to plough on regardless through the vicinity of the other. Given the fact that my approach procedures are based around a certain VOR, and the same VOR is a favourite of transit IFR traffic, this could be happening reasonably often. If the aircraft on a procedural service gets upset about the situation, I could still get hammered under "Duty of Care" which rears its head in print in the briefing material sent out by the CAA. The lawyers are going to have a field day. Or then again, I could be worried about nothing. As you say, the aircraft captain is responsible for separation and sequencing. All the non radar units in class G can have an early go.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toadpool
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the case at the moment.
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: - (my highlight).
If that was the case then why would they need significant revisions to MATS part one? it is therefore necessary to remove the current explicit requirement within CAP 493 to provide standard separation between IFR flights . Their words not mine.
unless otherwise specified, refers to the subsequent paragraphs
Increased Separation
Reduced Separation
Advisory Routes
Search and Rescue Escort
Think about it
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the case at the moment.
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: - (my highlight).
If that was the case then why would they need significant revisions to MATS part one? it is therefore necessary to remove the current explicit requirement within CAP 493 to provide standard separation between IFR flights . Their words not mine.
unless otherwise specified, refers to the subsequent paragraphs
Increased Separation
Reduced Separation
Advisory Routes
Search and Rescue Escort
Think about it
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airac,
I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question as to why the revision to MATS pt1 is required.
As for your understanding that the statement "unless otherwise specified" refers to the subsequent paragraphs, where does it say this? It could just as easily mean "unless otherwise specified in MATS pt 1".
If this is the case then the MATS pt1 definitions of both FIS and RIS state that the controller is not responsible for separation.
Believe me, I have thought about it, long and hard
.
I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question as to why the revision to MATS pt1 is required.
As for your understanding that the statement "unless otherwise specified" refers to the subsequent paragraphs, where does it say this? It could just as easily mean "unless otherwise specified in MATS pt 1".
If this is the case then the MATS pt1 definitions of both FIS and RIS state that the controller is not responsible for separation.
Believe me, I have thought about it, long and hard
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I please be enlightened....?
I have trawled through CAP 774 and the Appendix from which the paragraph below is extracted.
Establishing Whether a Duty of Care is Owed
To decide if a duty of care is owed by one person to another, the courts will consider the three criteria which were set out in the 1990 case of Caparo Industries v Dickman:
• First the loss suffered must have been “reasonably foreseeable”;
• Second, there must be “proximity” between the claimant and the person who has been negligent. This means that the person who is alleged to have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the events that have led to the claimant’s loss.
• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS. However, the depth and boundaries of this duty of care cannot be defined in advance for each specific scenario and situation, as they will vary depending on the exact circumstances at the time, including: the type of airspace, type of ATS, dynamics of the situation (i.e. how ‘foreseeable’ was the event?). The only time that these factors will ultimately be decided upon is in court when examining the specifics of the situation under scrutiny.
If, ultimately, it remains the responsibility of a pilot to avoid aerial collisions:
[ANO Rule of the Air, Rule 8 - Avoiding aerial collisions
8.—(1) Notwithstanding that a flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.]
How do I, working in Class G, or presumably for that matter, in D, acquire the Duty of Care to separate two aircraft whose pilots have made the choice to conduct their flight under VFR. How have we come to this ???
HB
I have trawled through CAP 774 and the Appendix from which the paragraph below is extracted.
Establishing Whether a Duty of Care is Owed
To decide if a duty of care is owed by one person to another, the courts will consider the three criteria which were set out in the 1990 case of Caparo Industries v Dickman:
• First the loss suffered must have been “reasonably foreseeable”;
• Second, there must be “proximity” between the claimant and the person who has been negligent. This means that the person who is alleged to have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the events that have led to the claimant’s loss.
• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS. However, the depth and boundaries of this duty of care cannot be defined in advance for each specific scenario and situation, as they will vary depending on the exact circumstances at the time, including: the type of airspace, type of ATS, dynamics of the situation (i.e. how ‘foreseeable’ was the event?). The only time that these factors will ultimately be decided upon is in court when examining the specifics of the situation under scrutiny.
If, ultimately, it remains the responsibility of a pilot to avoid aerial collisions:
[ANO Rule of the Air, Rule 8 - Avoiding aerial collisions
8.—(1) Notwithstanding that a flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.]
How do I, working in Class G, or presumably for that matter, in D, acquire the Duty of Care to separate two aircraft whose pilots have made the choice to conduct their flight under VFR. How have we come to this ???
HB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at this stuff again -
"• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care."
Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on an ATCO in Class G [or D] to separate aircraft whose pilots have chosen the VFR option ?
"Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS."
Clearly ? In the case of aircrew who have chosen the VFR option ? Are we now responsible for every waif and stray blundering around in Class 'G' ?
HB
"• Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care."
Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on an ATCO in Class G [or D] to separate aircraft whose pilots have chosen the VFR option ?
"Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS."
Clearly ? In the case of aircrew who have chosen the VFR option ? Are we now responsible for every waif and stray blundering around in Class 'G' ?
HB
