New ATC Services outside controlled Airspace!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New ATC Services outside controlled Airspace!
I have just read and looked at the new ATC services that are being introduced to replace the old FIS, RIS and RAS.
Who on earth thought that changing their names would increase flight safety!!
And how much has all this B*****s cost!!
How can confusing all the experienced pilots / controllers increase safety!!
END OF RANT!!!
PS I'm a pilot. Has anybody spotted any differences apart from name changes?
Who on earth thought that changing their names would increase flight safety!!
And how much has all this B*****s cost!!
How can confusing all the experienced pilots / controllers increase safety!!
END OF RANT!!!
PS I'm a pilot. Has anybody spotted any differences apart from name changes?
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
Cov,
No!
But someone is perhaps making a career out of this. On another thread I posed the question why could the existing names not have been kept and a CD sent out to educate the few that don't know.....
Am I making the mistake of trying to put pilot's logic into the equation?
PS I'm a pilot. Has anybody spotted any differences apart from name changes?
But someone is perhaps making a career out of this. On another thread I posed the question why could the existing names not have been kept and a CD sent out to educate the few that don't know.....
Am I making the mistake of trying to put pilot's logic into the equation?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - Deconfliction service available under both VFR and IFR.
Controllers can apply a Deconfliction Service below the radar safety altitudes to aircraft on climb-out and approach but will only give vectors to assist with collision avoidance (not separation) along with a terrain warning.
The duty of care has been clarified - pilots are emphatically responsible for collision avoidance and terrain separation at all times. Controllers may assist with separation (Deconfliction Service) or Situational Awareness (Trafic Service/Basic service) and may assist with collision avoidance under any service.
No instructions are mandatory. Class G airspace safety is underpinned by 'see and avoid' principle as applied to the pilot, not the controller.
Controllers can apply a Deconfliction Service below the radar safety altitudes to aircraft on climb-out and approach but will only give vectors to assist with collision avoidance (not separation) along with a terrain warning.
The duty of care has been clarified - pilots are emphatically responsible for collision avoidance and terrain separation at all times. Controllers may assist with separation (Deconfliction Service) or Situational Awareness (Trafic Service/Basic service) and may assist with collision avoidance under any service.
No instructions are mandatory. Class G airspace safety is underpinned by 'see and avoid' principle as applied to the pilot, not the controller.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Spey....
I am not totally convinced by your assetion that " The duty of care has been clarified - pilots are emphatically responsible for collision avoidance and terrain separation at all times. Controllers may assist with separation (Deconfliction Service) or Situational Awareness (Trafic Service/Basic service) and may assist with collision avoidance under any service.
No instructions are mandatory. Class G airspace safety is underpinned by 'see and avoid' principle as applied to the pilot, not the controller."
In my previous posting on the CAP 774 thread, I referred to the CAP 774 appendix on Duty of Care...
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.
I then, quoting from the UK ANO, asked...
"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 ???
I then continued, after mulling it over for a bit, with reference to the third paragraph..."Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS."
How can we clearly owe a duty of care if the two aircraft commanders have opted for the VFR option in Class 'G' ?
I suspect that third paragraph is correct, and the duty of care will remain unestablished until someone is unlucky enough to end up in court...
HB
I am not totally convinced by your assetion that " The duty of care has been clarified - pilots are emphatically responsible for collision avoidance and terrain separation at all times. Controllers may assist with separation (Deconfliction Service) or Situational Awareness (Trafic Service/Basic service) and may assist with collision avoidance under any service.
No instructions are mandatory. Class G airspace safety is underpinned by 'see and avoid' principle as applied to the pilot, not the controller."
In my previous posting on the CAP 774 thread, I referred to the CAP 774 appendix on Duty of Care...
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.
I then, quoting from the UK ANO, asked...
"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 ???
I then continued, after mulling it over for a bit, with reference to the third paragraph..."Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS."
How can we clearly owe a duty of care if the two aircraft commanders have opted for the VFR option in Class 'G' ?
I suspect that third paragraph is correct, and the duty of care will remain unestablished until someone is unlucky enough to end up in court...
HB
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HershamBoys
How can we clearly owe a duty of care if the two aircraft commanders have opted for the VFR option in Class ‘G’?
Your job description is
4.1 An ATC service is provided for the purpose of:
a) Preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
If you are not working said traffic then clearly you owe them nothing
But if you are
This means that the person who is alleged to have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the events
I suspect that third paragraph is correct, and the duty of care will remain unestablished until someone is unlucky enough to end up in court...
They have, in Japan
No body particularly likes change, and I can see why some people think that the services are the same as RIS and RAS the differences are there. My whinge would be that when it is introduced I will have to deconflict VFR traffic by a specific minima ; we don't even do that in CAS. Wait till the MATS part one is revised and then you'll see the major change. Remember
If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen
edited ,how the hell did RAS become rosebud never trust a spell checker
How can we clearly owe a duty of care if the two aircraft commanders have opted for the VFR option in Class ‘G’?
Your job description is
4.1 An ATC service is provided for the purpose of:
a) Preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
If you are not working said traffic then clearly you owe them nothing
But if you are
This means that the person who is alleged to have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the events
I suspect that third paragraph is correct, and the duty of care will remain unestablished until someone is unlucky enough to end up in court...
They have, in Japan
No body particularly likes change, and I can see why some people think that the services are the same as RIS and RAS the differences are there. My whinge would be that when it is introduced I will have to deconflict VFR traffic by a specific minima ; we don't even do that in CAS. Wait till the MATS part one is revised and then you'll see the major change. Remember
If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen
edited ,how the hell did RAS become rosebud never trust a spell checker
Last edited by airac; 29th Jun 2008 at 16:17.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"Class G airspace safety is underpinned by 'see and avoid' principle"
And what a nonsensical statement (not getting at you, Single Spey) that is. Where is any mention of "see and avoid" enshrined in the law? The fact of the matter is that frequently it is a matter of "fly at the correct quadrantal to minimise the risk, then keep fingers crossed when climbing and descending through cloud".
And what a nonsensical statement (not getting at you, Single Spey) that is. Where is any mention of "see and avoid" enshrined in the law? The fact of the matter is that frequently it is a matter of "fly at the correct quadrantal to minimise the risk, then keep fingers crossed when climbing and descending through cloud".
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is any mention of "see and avoid" enshrined in the law?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just briefly flicked down the posts with respect to the new sevices......I am OJTI.LCE UTO and have worked all types af airspace in the past ( Not " A " )...There ARE subtle changes to the services.....ATCO s should be prepared. Yes...Duty of Care gives you a leeway...But its to do with litigation and to stop " FRISING"......pilots would have you in court at the blink of an eye cos ATCO s were giving you TOO much Info under a FIS cos ATCO was using radar and providing a better service ....could mis lead a pilot into thinking he was getting a RIS.....Ok....airprox in the FIR....whose fault,,,,Adept to the changes and play the game....saves the possible aggro,
With respect, S.S., the analogy doesn't really hold up. You do, indeed, rely to a large extent on other road users obeying the law. My point was that "see and be seen" was mentioned above and by the ATSOCAS working group but is a very misleading phrase; it can hardly apply when you are descending through cloud at 220 kt when you could have a perfectly legal collision with another aircraft. One does not do the equivalent on the road in fog (OK, somebody will say that some drivers do!) .
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
If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without having read any of the online information and without having received the CD or having been aware of any of its contents. I took the CAA online test and got 18 out of 20 questions correct. (I am not admitting which ones I failed on.
)
Thus it would seem to me that for all pactical purposes there is not much new stuff, and one wonders why they bothered ( Jobs for the boys? or more likely The CAA wishing to be seen to be doing something, indeed almost anything, about the perceived increase in infringements, for which read increased reporting of infringements.)
)Thus it would seem to me that for all pactical purposes there is not much new stuff, and one wonders why they bothered ( Jobs for the boys? or more likely The CAA wishing to be seen to be doing something, indeed almost anything, about the perceived increase in infringements, for which read increased reporting of infringements.)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The duty of care has been clarified...
How the heck the CAA (at least the UK MOD doesn't claim an aspiration to be ICAO-compliant) can assert that it is striving to remove as many Differences from ICAO as possible yet can support this dustbin of worms, heaven knows.
Anybody care to speculate how many non-UK private, corporate & air transport pilots will know, let alone understand all this?
And as for ATC no longer being required to separate IFR aircraft in Class G airspace unless the pilot specifically requests a "deconfliction service" ~ yeh, right, what was that about a controller's Duty of Care...??
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airac
You state - Your job description is
4.1 An ATC service is provided for the purpose of:
a) Preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
I humbly suggest this basic principal is further developed by the establishment of procedures for ATSOCAS, which introduce varying levels of assistance/separation for flights operating therein. I can't get worked up about these proposed new procedures, and obviously I will work them.
What nags me is this: here I am, providing a Traffic service to two VFR aircraft in Class G, supplying them with copous traffic information, and watching them blunder towards each other. The ANO tells me that it is the pilots' responsibility to avoid collision, I continue to point them out to each other, and in the usual GA fashion they are blind as bats. They end up having a close one or at worst they splat.
In the subsequent investigations, I am certain that fingers would be pointed at ATC for not 'doing something', and in reality, if it really looked a dead ringer, I probably would have 'overstepped the mark' by offering some sort of avoidance, but that is not acceptable 'cos its a Traffic service....
I ask again, in this situation, how have I acquired a duty of care to 'do something' about these aircraft when the commanders have made the choice to fly outside CAS and operate for the VFR option ? Where does their exercising of their 'right' to do so suddenly engender a 'duty of care' on me if I have discharged the Traffic service in accordance with the published procedures ?
If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen - OK, as a later poster stated, working in 'G' is going to be undesirable and a minefield best avoided.
HB
You state - Your job description is
4.1 An ATC service is provided for the purpose of:
a) Preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
I humbly suggest this basic principal is further developed by the establishment of procedures for ATSOCAS, which introduce varying levels of assistance/separation for flights operating therein. I can't get worked up about these proposed new procedures, and obviously I will work them.
What nags me is this: here I am, providing a Traffic service to two VFR aircraft in Class G, supplying them with copous traffic information, and watching them blunder towards each other. The ANO tells me that it is the pilots' responsibility to avoid collision, I continue to point them out to each other, and in the usual GA fashion they are blind as bats. They end up having a close one or at worst they splat.
In the subsequent investigations, I am certain that fingers would be pointed at ATC for not 'doing something', and in reality, if it really looked a dead ringer, I probably would have 'overstepped the mark' by offering some sort of avoidance, but that is not acceptable 'cos its a Traffic service....
I ask again, in this situation, how have I acquired a duty of care to 'do something' about these aircraft when the commanders have made the choice to fly outside CAS and operate for the VFR option ? Where does their exercising of their 'right' to do so suddenly engender a 'duty of care' on me if I have discharged the Traffic service in accordance with the published procedures ?
If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen - OK, as a later poster stated, working in 'G' is going to be undesirable and a minefield best avoided.
HB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP774 Traffic service
Whether traffic information has been passed or not, a pilot is expected to discharge his collision avoidance responsibility without assistance from the controller.
HershamBoys
CAP774 Duty of care guidance
I ask again, in this situation, how have I acquired a duty of care to 'do something' about these aircraft when the commanders have made the choice to fly outside CAS and operate for the VFR option ? Where does their exercising of their 'right' to do so suddenly engender a 'duty of care' on me if I have discharged the Traffic service in accordance with the published procedures ?
CAP774 Duty of care guidance
Duty of care requirements have been a primary consideration in the production of the procedures in this document and, where possible, specific actions have been published that are considered to meet these requirements. 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.
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.
HershamBoys
how have I acquired a duty of care to 'do something' about these aircraft when the commanders have made the choice to fly outside CAS and operate for the VFR option ? Where does their exercising of their 'right' to do so suddenly engender a 'duty of care' on me if I have discharged the Traffic service in accordance with the published procedures ?
As you can see, discharging your duty can involve passing avoiding action to traffic receiving a Traffic Service. Controllers accept remuneration for exercising their professional skills and accepting this duty of care.
HershamBoys
However, service providers will be required to report occasions when the requested service is not made available.
HershamBoys
working in 'G' is going to be undesirable and a minefield best avoided.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hersham boys I couldn't help but be amused by your assertion that GA pilots are as blind as bats, since on the surface it would seem to be true. Certainly I personally have tremendous difficulty in finding the traffic so obligingly pointed out by ATC even when only receiving FIS , (and incidentally I dont object to traffic information when only receiving FIS.)
I dont know whether you fly yourself, but of course difficulty in finding traffic which is perfectly obvious to the controller on the screen is not just the prerogative of GA and applies just as much to airline pilots as well as GA. It is just that airline pilots don't have much call to look out for other traffic: It is done for them
I can sympathise with your fears of being criticised for "over provision of service" if I may call it that. However the recent courts martial acquittal of the military controller who found himself ( I believe) criticised for "under provision" of traffic information whilst providing only a FIS seems to indicate that the authorities would take a pragmatic view of any incident, and I can't see the courts throwing the law of contract completely out of the window because of some perceived over riding duty of care.
If I ask for FIS ( or "basic" or whatever daft name it is to have) then that is all I expect. Further information is nice , but I wouldnt take you to court if I dont get it.
On the other hand I do know some instructors who complain bitterly about their lessons being interrupted by what they consider unnecessary and unrequested traffic information. It really is a difficult area to compromise on.
I dont know whether you fly yourself, but of course difficulty in finding traffic which is perfectly obvious to the controller on the screen is not just the prerogative of GA and applies just as much to airline pilots as well as GA. It is just that airline pilots don't have much call to look out for other traffic: It is done for them
I can sympathise with your fears of being criticised for "over provision of service" if I may call it that. However the recent courts martial acquittal of the military controller who found himself ( I believe) criticised for "under provision" of traffic information whilst providing only a FIS seems to indicate that the authorities would take a pragmatic view of any incident, and I can't see the courts throwing the law of contract completely out of the window because of some perceived over riding duty of care.
If I ask for FIS ( or "basic" or whatever daft name it is to have) then that is all I expect. Further information is nice , but I wouldnt take you to court if I dont get it.
On the other hand I do know some instructors who complain bitterly about their lessons being interrupted by what they consider unnecessary and unrequested traffic information. It really is a difficult area to compromise on.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if I've got the right end of the stick here and don't know your new procedures.
Over here in Oz , our duty of care outside of controlled airspace extends to giving traffic if WORK LOAD permits. it is also communicated if the level is unverified and paint is unidentified, (if we have not been in contact and not verifed the aircraft)also if aircraft seems to be climbing , descending or currently maintaining
We can also SUGGEST a turn to avoid confliction. but we say e.g." Suggest turn right 30 degrees ". This leaves the PIC in no doubt that they are being given the best info TO OUR KNOWLEDGE and that they are being given an option for their self separation, but the decision is up to them.
Hope this helps.
We have also had the situation where an aircraft had his control services terminated, left controlled airspace, diverted from his planned track and sometime later was a CFIT.
The controller got alarms that the aircraft had flown off track outside controlled airspace, there was a push from outside motor mouths that the controller had a duty of care to advise the pilot that he was deviating from his track, even though control services had been terminated. Try 200402797 this is the report.
Over here in Oz , our duty of care outside of controlled airspace extends to giving traffic if WORK LOAD permits. it is also communicated if the level is unverified and paint is unidentified, (if we have not been in contact and not verifed the aircraft)also if aircraft seems to be climbing , descending or currently maintaining
We can also SUGGEST a turn to avoid confliction. but we say e.g." Suggest turn right 30 degrees ". This leaves the PIC in no doubt that they are being given the best info TO OUR KNOWLEDGE and that they are being given an option for their self separation, but the decision is up to them.
Hope this helps.
We have also had the situation where an aircraft had his control services terminated, left controlled airspace, diverted from his planned track and sometime later was a CFIT.
The controller got alarms that the aircraft had flown off track outside controlled airspace, there was a push from outside motor mouths that the controller had a duty of care to advise the pilot that he was deviating from his track, even though control services had been terminated. Try 200402797 this is the report.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon for the intromission, but I have a question:
Does all this talk about duty of care, liability, etc., mean that if you see two aircraft heading towards each other on a collision course, you will limit yourself to providing "information" about the other traffic (assuming FIS/RIS, or no service), but you will not issue any instructions even if the conflict persists and a collision appears imminent? Surely that's not the way it's done, is it?
Does all this talk about duty of care, liability, etc., mean that if you see two aircraft heading towards each other on a collision course, you will limit yourself to providing "information" about the other traffic (assuming FIS/RIS, or no service), but you will not issue any instructions even if the conflict persists and a collision appears imminent? Surely that's not the way it's done, is it?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybymike, pray enlighten us, which recent courts martial of a military controller are you on about? I'm only aware of one courts martial and that was nothing to do with under-provision of adequate traffic info under a FIS, it was all about safety altitudes and terrain clearance responsibility.
I do however agree with your defence of the GA pilot. In my 20+ years as an air traffic controller I have found the airline chaps to be the worst at looking out and seeing other aircraft.
I do however agree with your defence of the GA pilot. In my 20+ years as an air traffic controller I have found the airline chaps to be the worst at looking out and seeing other aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH2
See my quote from CAP774 above re guidance for duty of care.
Does all this talk about duty of care, liability, etc., mean that if you see two aircraft heading towards each other on a collision course, you will limit yourself to providing "information" about the other traffic (assuming FIS/RIS, or no service), but you will not issue any instructions even if the conflict persists and a collision appears imminent? Surely that's not the way it's done, is it?