Cap 774
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Cap 774
The CAA issued CAP 774 today. It sets out the new definitions of ATSOCAS (Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service etc). But I can't see anywhere in the document which says that these new definitions only apply from March 2009. Won't this generate a lot of confusion between now and next March?
NS
NS
Guest
Posts: n/a
But the point that NorthSouth makes - quite correctly in my view - is that unless you've read ATSIN 130 you wouldn't know you're not supposed to do what it says until next March.
If you just take the document - which sets out the rules - it appears to be in force now. It's dated today and the web site says it's current. What status does an ATSIN have - by definition, it's only information? I wonder how the CAA would react if someone said "Well, we didn't follow that rule in our Part 2, even though it's current, because we decided to wait a few weeks"? In the UK we have a convention that rules from the CAA are in force when they are published unless it says otherwise.
The only exception, which I think rather proves the rule, is MATS Part 1 which as I recall is issued with lots of fanfare saying 'here is the next amendment but it doesn't come into force for three months in order to give you time to prepare' - which is supposedly why this one has been published early. Doesn't the MATS amendment have pages dated the day they come into force rather than the day they are published?
Which reminds me, having got used to a MATS Part 1 amendment every three months I'm kind of missing them - maybe because we've got a new edition we don't need amendments any more?
If you just take the document - which sets out the rules - it appears to be in force now. It's dated today and the web site says it's current. What status does an ATSIN have - by definition, it's only information? I wonder how the CAA would react if someone said "Well, we didn't follow that rule in our Part 2, even though it's current, because we decided to wait a few weeks"? In the UK we have a convention that rules from the CAA are in force when they are published unless it says otherwise.
The only exception, which I think rather proves the rule, is MATS Part 1 which as I recall is issued with lots of fanfare saying 'here is the next amendment but it doesn't come into force for three months in order to give you time to prepare' - which is supposedly why this one has been published early. Doesn't the MATS amendment have pages dated the day they come into force rather than the day they are published?
Which reminds me, having got used to a MATS Part 1 amendment every three months I'm kind of missing them - maybe because we've got a new edition we don't need amendments any more?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots, unless they are also involved in the provision of ATS, do not see ATSINs therefore they will believe that CAP774 is applicable with immediate effect. What response do we give to a pilot who has read CAP774 and asks for a "Basic Service"? Should it be "GABCD, Flight Information Service. Stand-by until next March for Basic Service!"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: newcastle
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel this is a case of fixing something that isn't really broke - the current radar services are simple enough to understand. The new Services virtually sound the same, they are just re-written in a more complicated fashion. The current Services do what they say on the tin - the names of the new ones don't. Pressonitus over a bad idea I feel here...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel this is a case of fixing something that isn't really broke - the current radar services are simple enough to understand. The new Services virtually sound the same, they are just re-written in a more complicated fashion. The current Services do what they say on the tin - the names of the new ones don't. Pressonitus over a bad idea I feel here...
It's change for changes sake.
I feel it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary confusion next March, if not before.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silversurfer808 , Toadpool
Initially I was of the same opinion until the publication of the ATSIN 132 and the CAP774
Having gone through this on another thread already, the removal of the current explicit requirement provide standard separation between IFR flights in Class G airspace that are being provided with a service by an approach control unit, I.E A/C on a RIS, and the removal of the dependence on flight rules, to determine the appropriate level of service, is a major step in the right direction. It's not perfect ,nothing ever can be outside CAS but,
as someone who regularly provides ATSOCAS, I reckon we will soon get used to it. What gets me is the need to submit a training plan and hazard analysis for what should basically be an SI
Initially I was of the same opinion until the publication of the ATSIN 132 and the CAP774
Having gone through this on another thread already, the removal of the current explicit requirement provide standard separation between IFR flights in Class G airspace that are being provided with a service by an approach control unit, I.E A/C on a RIS, and the removal of the dependence on flight rules, to determine the appropriate level of service, is a major step in the right direction. It's not perfect ,nothing ever can be outside CAS but,
as someone who regularly provides ATSOCAS, I reckon we will soon get used to it. What gets me is the need to submit a training plan and hazard analysis for what should basically be an SI
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Highlands
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA issued CAP 774 today. It sets out the new definitions of ATSOCAS (Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service etc). But I can't see anywhere in the document which says that these new definitions only apply from March 2009. Won't this generate a lot of confusion between now and next March?
NS
NS
First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)
Guest
Posts: n/a
On page 4 of the document you'll find this:
First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)
First edition 12 June 2008 (effective 16 March 2009)
Is this the power of Pprune?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see there have been other changes too. CAP774 Document Status is now shown as "Future", rather than "Current" and there is also an added "Review Comment: Effective 16 March 2009" in the listing.
I believe the most visible and appropriate place to clarify this, to remove any possible ambiguity, would be within the document itself, in Forward, Paragraph 1, under the Heading of Introduction and Applicability.
JD
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the new impending rules, I could be sitting at my usual spot controlling in a class G procedural unit, with two aircraft on, one inbound for the ILS and one transitter, both IFR and IMC, within a short distance from the overhead and at the same level. In the existing system, standard separation would have been applied according to the MATS Pt 1. In the new system, if one of the aircraft elects for a basic service and one for a procedural service, I should only provide traffic information. Can't see how this makes the situation any safer...
Last edited by bottom rung; 14th Jun 2008 at 09:14. Reason: brain fade
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the world
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the new impending rules, I could be sitting at my usual spot controlling in a class G procedural unit, with two aircraft on, one inbound for the ILS and one transitter, both IFR and IMC, within a short distance from the overhead and at the same level. In the existing system, standard separation would have been applied according to the MATS Pt 1. In the new system, if one of the aircraft elects for a basic service and one for a procedural service, I should only provide traffic information. Can't see how this makes the situation any safer...
Last edited by Dizzee Rascal; 14th Jun 2008 at 10:17.
A further change seems to be that traffic information (in a Traffic Service) is only referred to as "traffic..." (as ICAO). I have always thought that the UK practice of differentiating between "traffic" (i.e. known traffic) and "unknown traffic" (what it says on the tin) is quite useful and appropriate.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems we have to do the safety case on their behalf and prove that it works. Has the person responsible for formulating this change ever been valid in a procedural class G unit?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe the most visible and appropriate place to clarify this, to remove any possible ambiguity, would be within the document itself, in Forward, Paragraph 1, under the Heading of Introduction and Applicability.
It seems we have to do the safety case on their behalf and prove that it works. Has the person responsible for formulating this change ever been valid in a procedural class G unit?