New ATC Services outside controlled Airspace!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS , Do not confuse the need for deconfliction minima with standard separation. At the moment two IFR A/C on a RIS ,you would have to separate ,new system TIS, you wouldn't
Two A/C on a RAS seek to achieve etc, new system virtually the same
CAP 774 Chapter 4 page 2 , it is recognised that controllers cannot guarantee to achieve these deconfliction minima; however, they shall apply all reasonable endeavours.
Publication of ATSIN 132
This is consistent with the advisory nature of ATSOCAS, in which the controller provides advice in order to enable the pilot to fulfil his/her responsibilities for safe deconfliction from other aircraft.
Accordingly, it is therefore necessary to remove the current explicit requirement within CAP 493 to provide standard separation between IFR flights in Class G airspace that are being provided with a service by an approach control unit.
Two A/C on a RAS seek to achieve etc, new system virtually the same
CAP 774 Chapter 4 page 2 , it is recognised that controllers cannot guarantee to achieve these deconfliction minima; however, they shall apply all reasonable endeavours.
Publication of ATSIN 132
This is consistent with the advisory nature of ATSOCAS, in which the controller provides advice in order to enable the pilot to fulfil his/her responsibilities for safe deconfliction from other aircraft.
Accordingly, it is therefore necessary to remove the current explicit requirement within CAP 493 to provide standard separation between IFR flights in Class G airspace that are being provided with a service by an approach control unit.
Last edited by airac; 3rd Jul 2008 at 08:49.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
You've obviously never heard of the 'Babb vs. Merit' case that was appealed in the UK High Court and where the plaintiff (who was the recipient of the contracted service) won.
The Judgement held that a professionally-qualified employee has a personal Duty of Care towards his/her employer's customers. This case is about 10 years old but as far as I know, nothing has subsequently happened to overturn the Judgement.
As far as the Duty of Care is concerned despite the CAA and MOD blurb and bull****, the bottom line is that it's all down to "reasonableness" and not ultimately, down to the type of service being provided.
Thus, even under FIS (or 'Basic Service' after March 12th next year), if you have two aircraft that you know or could reasonably be expected to know, having regard to the information available to you, are on a collision course, simply sticking to the 'new' ATSOCAS rules just won't wash especially if damage (= death, injury, financial loss or significant emotional trauma) arises and it ends up in a civil court with a claim for damages.
It's still an absolute can of worms which is why several leading non-NATS units located inside CAS still refuse to participate in the UK LARS service (BTW, the income received by those that do, doesn't even begin to cover the cost of service provision anyway...).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: roundabout Milton Keynes
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh! what a lot of shouting and screaming! Still, I feel the need to add to it.
"What gives the CAA the right to mandate the services?" - ICAO don't mandate any air traffic services in Class G airspace but the UK feel the need to provide them. A difference is filed and the UK regulating authority (guess who) has to provide appropriate procedures (Duty of Care??). They don't say you must provide services OCAS but if you do - here are the ones you must use.
"Duty of Care" - the only place this is defined is in the Heath and Safety at Work Act 1974. The particular issue is the secondary DoC that requires employers to to provide a safe environment for other people using their premises, goods and service "as far as is reasonably practical" (afarp). Hang onto afarp - you'll need it. Note also it is an EMPLOYER liability. The employee has a duty to follow the employers requirements and to act in a professional and responsible manner. So employer decides it is reasonable or neccessary to provide service ocas. The employer then provides the appropriate tools (afarp), the correct training and procedures for the task (afarp) and the professional staff (afarp) and, in ATC, additional checks on the competence of said staff which ensures that they act in a professional and responsible mannner (afarp). So if you provide the service in a correct manner, your employer has to indemnify you in the case of claims from other parties. Legal opinion was (probably still is) that for the individual to be found in breach of duty of care they would have to be guilty of culpable negligence i.e.- knew something bad was going to happen, was able to do something to prevent it (very important this in ATC), and conciously decided not to intervene. (Come to think of it, I knew that controller)
Much as it pains me to say it, the CAA,s latest bit of paper mogadon does give the best advice available on the subect.
Consider also that the airline owes a more direct DoC to passengers and electing to fly in a "less safe" environment may well breach their DoC before yours is ever called into question.
And don't get me started on the basic aims of the ATC service!
"What gives the CAA the right to mandate the services?" - ICAO don't mandate any air traffic services in Class G airspace but the UK feel the need to provide them. A difference is filed and the UK regulating authority (guess who) has to provide appropriate procedures (Duty of Care??). They don't say you must provide services OCAS but if you do - here are the ones you must use.
"Duty of Care" - the only place this is defined is in the Heath and Safety at Work Act 1974. The particular issue is the secondary DoC that requires employers to to provide a safe environment for other people using their premises, goods and service "as far as is reasonably practical" (afarp). Hang onto afarp - you'll need it. Note also it is an EMPLOYER liability. The employee has a duty to follow the employers requirements and to act in a professional and responsible manner. So employer decides it is reasonable or neccessary to provide service ocas. The employer then provides the appropriate tools (afarp), the correct training and procedures for the task (afarp) and the professional staff (afarp) and, in ATC, additional checks on the competence of said staff which ensures that they act in a professional and responsible mannner (afarp). So if you provide the service in a correct manner, your employer has to indemnify you in the case of claims from other parties. Legal opinion was (probably still is) that for the individual to be found in breach of duty of care they would have to be guilty of culpable negligence i.e.- knew something bad was going to happen, was able to do something to prevent it (very important this in ATC), and conciously decided not to intervene. (Come to think of it, I knew that controller)
Much as it pains me to say it, the CAA,s latest bit of paper mogadon does give the best advice available on the subect.
Consider also that the airline owes a more direct DoC to passengers and electing to fly in a "less safe" environment may well breach their DoC before yours is ever called into question.
And don't get me started on the basic aims of the ATC service!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal opinion was (probably still is) that for the individual to be found in breach of duty of care they would have to be guilty of culpable negligence i.e.- knew something bad was going to happen, was able to do something to prevent it...and conciously decided not to intervene.
It would be no defense for a controller to claim that under 'Basic Service' no avoiding action advice is required and therefore, no such action was taken.
If information is available to the controller that an imminent collision risk is present it could indeed be held that there was a breach of Duty of Care if no additional action was taken merely because the new rules didn't require it.
The Employer's indemnification of an employee only extends to to the actions taken by that employee where such actions are entirely in accordance with the procedures and requirements laid down by that employer and/or its regulatory body.
Ultimately, the level of personal breach, degree of reasonableness, extent of personal culpability, etc., can only be established in Court - which is precisely what the CAA/MOD guidance now says.
As far as the airlines' Duty of Care outside controlled airspace, the CAA has stated several times that provided everyone participates in the (current) Radar Advisory Service (and by definition, presumably its replacement after March 2009) the necessary Target Level of Safety (TLS) can be achieved. However, the CAA has never actually stated (at least not publicly) what that TLS actually is (e.g. one loss of separation per 100,000 flights or one loss of separation per 250,000 flights, etc). Therefore, if the airline in question requires its flight crew always to operate under RAS when outside controlled airspace, then it could claim that since it's complying with its Regulator's advice, it is taking all "reasonable" steps to mitigate the risk to its customers i.e. passengers for whom it has a responsibility, and so is discharging its Duty of Care.
The truth is that anyone who has any knowledge of civil air transport ops and who doesn't "stick their head in the sand" knows that avoiding action issued to say, an E145 or Boeing 757 with pax on board some of whom (depending on the stage of flight) may well be walking about down the back is a totally different situation to issuing avoiding action to a military fast-jet, trainer or even a C130 or EC135.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: roundabout Milton Keynes
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ebenezer - sorry I missed the point, must have been distracted by all the noise of axes being ground!
To clarify - culpable negligence isn't not responding to available information that there may be a risk of collision, its knowing that there will be one, being able to prevent it (right there and then) and deliberately deciding not to intervene. Proving that may be just a tad hard.
Accepting your scenario(s), you might take comfort in the idea that if you were following the nationally approved procedures and the worst happened and you ended up in court, the bloke stood next to you would, inevitably, be from the CAA!
TLS for class G is published by ICAO - no I can't quote it - and UK demonstrates compliance. Of course we beat it because we provide air traffic services where none are required.
airline DoC - consider, any airline that allows passengers to move around or be served hot drinks when flying in an environment where avoiding action is very likely to be given is more in breach of a DoC than the ATCO who, legitimately, gave the AA.
Right, back to retirement - don't you just love it!
To clarify - culpable negligence isn't not responding to available information that there may be a risk of collision, its knowing that there will be one, being able to prevent it (right there and then) and deliberately deciding not to intervene. Proving that may be just a tad hard.
Accepting your scenario(s), you might take comfort in the idea that if you were following the nationally approved procedures and the worst happened and you ended up in court, the bloke stood next to you would, inevitably, be from the CAA!
TLS for class G is published by ICAO - no I can't quote it - and UK demonstrates compliance. Of course we beat it because we provide air traffic services where none are required.
airline DoC - consider, any airline that allows passengers to move around or be served hot drinks when flying in an environment where avoiding action is very likely to be given is more in breach of a DoC than the ATCO who, legitimately, gave the AA.
Right, back to retirement - don't you just love it!
