New ATC Services outside controlled Airspace!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that the one difference Single Spey is talking about is effectively what is previously known as 'essential traffic'.
I'm afraid that for all the time and effort (and money) spent on ATSOCAS; the result has not been worth it.
The old RIS/RAS/FIS workes well and are 99% the same as the new services
I'm afraid that for all the time and effort (and money) spent on ATSOCAS; the result has not been worth it.
The old RIS/RAS/FIS workes well and are 99% the same as the new services
New ATC Services outside controlled Airspace
I must admit that I am somewhat bemused in this day and age of Safety Management that any ATC Unit contracted to provide a service to aircraft inside controlled airspace, especially the mighty NATS, would want to get involved in providing a free service to non revenue generating traffic which is outside controlled airspace and remaining so, with the potential for censure if the CAA determines that in a particular case and adequate "duty of care" has not been exercised.
My home base has a contractor to provide ATS in order to facilitate operation of public transport flights within its controlled airspace. I'm often faced with the difficulty of getting calls in because "G-XXXXXX" is blocking the frequency telling his life history and requesting (a free) service outside controlled airspace. Very few controllers appear to have the balls (sorry girls) to say "negative, please call someone who is paid to provide this service", London FIS or a LARS Unit?.
From what I have read in the new CAP, the CAA is indicating that unless a controller can provide a reason for saying "no" he/she has to provide a service. Would be very interested to hear if anyone can show if the CAA has authority to enforce this.
I'd not want to be the SATCO who has to go to his host airport to say that he could not meet contractual obligations because one of his controllers is suspended due to an incident outside controlled airspace while providing a service that he felt obliged to provide.
My home base has a contractor to provide ATS in order to facilitate operation of public transport flights within its controlled airspace. I'm often faced with the difficulty of getting calls in because "G-XXXXXX" is blocking the frequency telling his life history and requesting (a free) service outside controlled airspace. Very few controllers appear to have the balls (sorry girls) to say "negative, please call someone who is paid to provide this service", London FIS or a LARS Unit?.
From what I have read in the new CAP, the CAA is indicating that unless a controller can provide a reason for saying "no" he/she has to provide a service. Would be very interested to hear if anyone can show if the CAA has authority to enforce this.
I'd not want to be the SATCO who has to go to his host airport to say that he could not meet contractual obligations because one of his controllers is suspended due to an incident outside controlled airspace while providing a service that he felt obliged to provide.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS Fan
It may surprise you but some ATC Units are paid to provide services outside CAS.
Would love to see your suggestion in practice at somewhere like Inverness - no services available to commercial traffic from when they descend below FL195 and enter the ATZ. And this is not a reason to establish CAS just so that controllers can have the satisfaction of an easy life operating only traffic inside CAS.
Also the controlled airspace doesn't belong to your home base ATC contractor - they are only providing a service inside it.
It may surprise you but some ATC Units are paid to provide services outside CAS.
Would love to see your suggestion in practice at somewhere like Inverness - no services available to commercial traffic from when they descend below FL195 and enter the ATZ. And this is not a reason to establish CAS just so that controllers can have the satisfaction of an easy life operating only traffic inside CAS.
Also the controlled airspace doesn't belong to your home base ATC contractor - they are only providing a service inside it.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurking123, my apologies. My garbled and ancient memory told me that this courts martial was a traffic conflict issue rather than a terrain conflict issue.
However, It seems to me that the same issues of duty of care were effectively tried and came down (quite rightly) in favour of the controller.
However, It seems to me that the same issues of duty of care were effectively tried and came down (quite rightly) in favour of the controller.
Single Spey
If your airport is located in Class G Airspace you are being paid to provide a service outside CAS, fact of life. If your airport has the protection of CAS you are paid to provide a service to your arrivals and departures and transits. You are not (unless designated as LARS Unit) being paid to provide a service to aircraft outside CAS and remaining outside CAS.
Why would any ANSP want to provide a free service to this traffic and chance censure if something goes wrong? What better way to mitigate a safety or business risk, than remove it?
Does not the CAA have a duty of care to provide service to aircraft outside controlled airspace, especially under the conditions that you describe? Why should ANSPs provide it free and accept liability for it?
If your airport is located in Class G Airspace you are being paid to provide a service outside CAS, fact of life. If your airport has the protection of CAS you are paid to provide a service to your arrivals and departures and transits. You are not (unless designated as LARS Unit) being paid to provide a service to aircraft outside CAS and remaining outside CAS.
Why would any ANSP want to provide a free service to this traffic and chance censure if something goes wrong? What better way to mitigate a safety or business risk, than remove it?
Does not the CAA have a duty of care to provide service to aircraft outside controlled airspace, especially under the conditions that you describe? Why should ANSPs provide it free and accept liability for it?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
TCAS fan, the tone of your post seems very narrow minded and selfish. Surely you weren't born and trained wholly inside CAS?
A pilot operating close to CAS calling for a service can be mutually beneficial to the controller and to pilots inside that airspace. Ask Doncaster, Cranfield or Coventry controllers how they feel about a mere 2.5 nm ATZ, I know they are often grateful to know who is out there, to everyone's mutual benefit and safety.
We are all in this aviation thing together. We should learn to give and take a little. The LARS system has some big gaps in it, not a pilot's fault. London Info is not the best agency to give a FIS in many circumstances. Nothing against that unit; they do a fine job, but info such as local traffic and local QNH are far more relevant when operating near or under CAS.
Some GA pilots certainly do need to sharpen up when passing details, no doubt about it. Especially the ones who seem to have learned via Dad's Army to speak only with a plum in each cheek and say "Over" after every transmission....then not listen out
A pilot operating close to CAS calling for a service can be mutually beneficial to the controller and to pilots inside that airspace. Ask Doncaster, Cranfield or Coventry controllers how they feel about a mere 2.5 nm ATZ, I know they are often grateful to know who is out there, to everyone's mutual benefit and safety.
We are all in this aviation thing together. We should learn to give and take a little. The LARS system has some big gaps in it, not a pilot's fault. London Info is not the best agency to give a FIS in many circumstances. Nothing against that unit; they do a fine job, but info such as local traffic and local QNH are far more relevant when operating near or under CAS.
Some GA pilots certainly do need to sharpen up when passing details, no doubt about it. Especially the ones who seem to have learned via Dad's Army to speak only with a plum in each cheek and say "Over" after every transmission....then not listen out
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybymike, you are correct. If you ask controllers to look at the actions of the controller concerned with the Ben Macdui crash, I'm pretty sure many would say that the pilots were provided with a pretty poor set of 'instructions'. However, those instructions were correctly interpreted in the courts martial as advisory and therefore the burden of responsibility remained clearly upon the pilots. I would like to think that this particular accident clearly demonstrated where responsibility lies and, personally, I can only imagine a controller being sent down if they really did fail to meet the most basic set of professional obligations whereupon negligence would be completely obvious.
A quick Google of "Duty of Care" and "negligence" makes interesting reading.
A quick Google of "Duty of Care" and "negligence" makes interesting reading.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airac et al
I cannot escape from the fact that I have no confidence that a 'non-aviation' entity would not pursue any ATCO in the event of an incident even if that ATCO had perfectly discharged his/her responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of a 'Traffic' service. A person from outside the aviation environment would probably say "Yes, you did your job, but you still could have prevented this incident, even if it meant departing from the provisions of the service you were providing." I still fail to see why I, operating in 'G', acquire the duty of care for for preventing collisions between two aircraft whose pilots have decided to fly VFR outside a 'controlled' environment on a see-and-avoid basis, particularly in the light of their responsibilities under the ANO. The whole point of 'uncontrolled' airspace is that is an uncontrolled environment available for general use by those who do not wish to utilise CAS [or are, due to inadequate provision of CAS, forced to transit outside CAS to join it]. The majority of flights are not forced to operate outside CAS. It is their choice.
ANSPs and the military have developed over the years the provision of services outside CAS, but in the main these duties are secondary to their fundamental role. Increasingly these services receive some funding, but in truth they are a freebie for a non-contributory GA community. For ATC to acquire a duty of care in this 'uncontrolled' operating arena does not seem to be a just imposition.
HB
I cannot escape from the fact that I have no confidence that a 'non-aviation' entity would not pursue any ATCO in the event of an incident even if that ATCO had perfectly discharged his/her responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of a 'Traffic' service. A person from outside the aviation environment would probably say "Yes, you did your job, but you still could have prevented this incident, even if it meant departing from the provisions of the service you were providing." I still fail to see why I, operating in 'G', acquire the duty of care for for preventing collisions between two aircraft whose pilots have decided to fly VFR outside a 'controlled' environment on a see-and-avoid basis, particularly in the light of their responsibilities under the ANO. The whole point of 'uncontrolled' airspace is that is an uncontrolled environment available for general use by those who do not wish to utilise CAS [or are, due to inadequate provision of CAS, forced to transit outside CAS to join it]. The majority of flights are not forced to operate outside CAS. It is their choice.
ANSPs and the military have developed over the years the provision of services outside CAS, but in the main these duties are secondary to their fundamental role. Increasingly these services receive some funding, but in truth they are a freebie for a non-contributory GA community. For ATC to acquire a duty of care in this 'uncontrolled' operating arena does not seem to be a just imposition.
HB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HershamBoys
At one time I would have been proud to be considered a professional who provided ATC services to anyone who required them within the limits of my capability - but with your attitude towards the 'job' I think I'd prefer to tell everyone I play the piano in a brothel.
At one time I would have been proud to be considered a professional who provided ATC services to anyone who required them within the limits of my capability - but with your attitude towards the 'job' I think I'd prefer to tell everyone I play the piano in a brothel.
Hersham Boys
Right on, if you ever consider taking Single Spey's advice, I'll join you after I've had the piano lessons. I'll even do your risk assessments, in respect of those that are paying for the services!
Lets all remember, most ANSPs are not registered charities, why act like them and expose yourself to the liabilities?
Right on, if you ever consider taking Single Spey's advice, I'll join you after I've had the piano lessons. I'll even do your risk assessments, in respect of those that are paying for the services!
Lets all remember, most ANSPs are not registered charities, why act like them and expose yourself to the liabilities?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At one time I would have been proud to be considered a professional who provided ATC services to anyone who required them within the limits of my capability - but with your attitude towards the 'job' I think I'd prefer to tell everyone I play the piano in a brothel.
Er....how much does it pay, and are there any perks ?
HB
Er....how much does it pay, and are there any perks ?
HB
Hersham Boys
Perks ? I'll do the risk assessments, and share QA with you! Will give freebies to ATCOs who are suspended pending investigation for an incident outside CAS, in the hope that it may (at least temporarily) take their minds off it! Their manager may get surcharged, for not exercising a duty of care to staff.
Perks ? I'll do the risk assessments, and share QA with you! Will give freebies to ATCOs who are suspended pending investigation for an incident outside CAS, in the hope that it may (at least temporarily) take their minds off it! Their manager may get surcharged, for not exercising a duty of care to staff.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you two actually bothered to look at the legal definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability before spouting-off on this forum, you may just enlighten yourself. Alternatively, you could just keep the TUC conference going. 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurkin
- the legal definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability
Do you mean this ?
"Employers' liability for the negligence of their employees:
the common law rule is that an employer is vicariously liable for an act of negligence by one of its employees acting in the course of her or his employment"
I've tried wiki'ing all three but can't find anything concise.
Is the employer not somewhat taken out of the loop given the ability of the ATCO to respond to the particular circumstances ??
"However, the nature of the ATS task in Class F/G airspace means that it is not possible to be totally prescriptive about all actions to be taken, particularly with regard to unknown traffic and the passing of advice and warnings on high risk conflictions to pilots who have
requested lower level services (i.e. Basic Service and Traffic Service).
Consequently, there is a need for controllers/FISOs to remain free to use their professional judgement to determine the best course of action for them to take for any specific situation."
If you can provide a link to a decent definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability I would be obliged.
HB
- the legal definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability
Do you mean this ?
"Employers' liability for the negligence of their employees:
the common law rule is that an employer is vicariously liable for an act of negligence by one of its employees acting in the course of her or his employment"
I've tried wiki'ing all three but can't find anything concise.
Is the employer not somewhat taken out of the loop given the ability of the ATCO to respond to the particular circumstances ??
"However, the nature of the ATS task in Class F/G airspace means that it is not possible to be totally prescriptive about all actions to be taken, particularly with regard to unknown traffic and the passing of advice and warnings on high risk conflictions to pilots who have
requested lower level services (i.e. Basic Service and Traffic Service).
Consequently, there is a need for controllers/FISOs to remain free to use their professional judgement to determine the best course of action for them to take for any specific situation."
If you can provide a link to a decent definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability I would be obliged.
HB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HershamBoys
Have you tried reading the Appendix in CAP774 on this very subject? This is the authoritative document that describes what the services and regulations will be when the new ATSOCAS come into force, and as a dedicated professional I would hope you have informed yourself of the forthcoming changes.
If you can provide a link to a decent definitions of duty of care, negligence and vicarious liability I would be obliged.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spey
Have you tried reading the Appendix in CAP774 on this very subject?
Yes, I read it, and it was this very Appendix which aroused my concerns and confirmed my suspicions that we are set to become either sitting ducks or piano players in brothels.
HB
Have you tried reading the Appendix in CAP774 on this very subject?
Yes, I read it, and it was this very Appendix which aroused my concerns and confirmed my suspicions that we are set to become either sitting ducks or piano players in brothels.
HB
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Now boys/girls/and those who are undecided. Let’s not get all hot under the collar.
The new system may not be perfect, remember
"you cannot please all of the people all the time",
however ,that said , at the moment under a procedural or radar service you have to provide standard separation if you are providing an approach service to IFR A/C outside CAS. Under the new guide lines you do not. MATS pt one will be changed to reflect this.
Regarding NATS units, under the present arrangements, some units WILL NOT provide any ATSOCAS (a directive from local managements, I believe, as it detracts from their primary objectives )
I doubt whether this attitude/practice will change from March next year.
Hersham to quote you
I cannot escape from the fact that I have no confidence that a 'non-aviation' entity would not pursue any ATCO in the event of an incident even if that ATCO had perfectly discharged his/her responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of a 'Traffic' service
If I had discharged my responsibilities perfectly, then I would not fear their pursuit, neither should you
Lets all just get the disc, look at it , revel in its simplicity , and just carry on.
It really isn't worth all this fuss because, discussing it on PPRUNE is not going to change the procedures (although the implementation date in the CAP was added later) until something warrants a 1261 or NATS equivalent.
Have a great Christmas .
I saw this and thought of you.
Victorian Swivel Piano Stool H.B.Brooks & Co on eBay, also Piano Stools, Piano, Keyboard Piano, Musical Instruments (end time 04-Jul-08 21:26:43 BST)
The new system may not be perfect, remember
"you cannot please all of the people all the time",
however ,that said , at the moment under a procedural or radar service you have to provide standard separation if you are providing an approach service to IFR A/C outside CAS. Under the new guide lines you do not. MATS pt one will be changed to reflect this.
Regarding NATS units, under the present arrangements, some units WILL NOT provide any ATSOCAS (a directive from local managements, I believe, as it detracts from their primary objectives )
I doubt whether this attitude/practice will change from March next year.
Hersham to quote you
I cannot escape from the fact that I have no confidence that a 'non-aviation' entity would not pursue any ATCO in the event of an incident even if that ATCO had perfectly discharged his/her responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of a 'Traffic' service
If I had discharged my responsibilities perfectly, then I would not fear their pursuit, neither should you
Lets all just get the disc, look at it , revel in its simplicity , and just carry on.
It really isn't worth all this fuss because, discussing it on PPRUNE is not going to change the procedures (although the implementation date in the CAP was added later
) until something warrants a 1261 or NATS equivalent.Have a great Christmas .
I saw this and thought of you.
Victorian Swivel Piano Stool H.B.Brooks & Co on eBay, also Piano Stools, Piano, Keyboard Piano, Musical Instruments (end time 04-Jul-08 21:26:43 BST)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airac
Under the new guidelines, if you are providing a Deconfliction service to an aircraft on approach, whilst above radar safety altitude, you still have to provide standard separation. Only once below this altitude is the requirement reduced to only providing traffic information (not standard separation) or, in extremis, avoiding action plus a terrain warning.
Hersham Boys
As you are apparently a great fan of CAS, what do you do in Class D with two VFR GA (neither of whom may be paying for the service) who are getting a bit close? Under the rules, standard separation is not applied, so do you have concerns that you may have to provide avoiding action and are therefore stepping outside the bounds of what is strictly required? And does this mean that you consider CAS should be IFR only?
How does this differ from Class G? After all by electing to fly VFR in Class D airspace a pilot should realise that he will not be provided with separation.......
under a procedural or radar service you have to provide standard separation if you are providing an approach service to IFR A/C outside CAS. Under the new guide lines you do not. MATS pt one will be changed to reflect this.
Hersham Boys
As you are apparently a great fan of CAS, what do you do in Class D with two VFR GA (neither of whom may be paying for the service) who are getting a bit close? Under the rules, standard separation is not applied, so do you have concerns that you may have to provide avoiding action and are therefore stepping outside the bounds of what is strictly required? And does this mean that you consider CAS should be IFR only?
How does this differ from Class G? After all by electing to fly VFR in Class D airspace a pilot should realise that he will not be provided with separation.......