Cap 774

[Use the Force]

Is it me?

I would like comments from civil ATC units outside controlled airspace.

Or is CAP 774 a load of bo***cks?

I am trying to get my head around it, but if flight rules have been disregarded and ATZs remain 2nm or 2.5nm is it not the fact that if aircraft request deconflicting service are they going to be as restricted as if they were in class B/C airspace owing to VFR joiners?

CAP 774:

The deconfliction minima against aircraft that are under the control of the same controller, or that have been subject to co-ordination, are:
• 3NM laterally (subject to surveillance capability and regulatory approval); or
• 1000 ft vertically; or

• 500 ft vertically (subject to regulatory approval).

Have airports not considered that this might effect there business, as lets face it most foreigners who fly expensive jets do not know what to ask for and your 'Duty of Care' would be to give them the best service available? Pilots can elect not to take your advice, however if they do not understand the service in the first place will they question you when you break them off the approach?

It seems to me, in some remote circumstances class D or E would be less restrictive as traffic information rather than the above about VFR aircraft would comply with the standard?

If I am missing something please help?

[whowhenwhy]

UTF, that's effectively exactly the same minima as you have now under RAS. Post Mar 09, if you ask for deconfliction service that's what we will strive to achieve for you ie, what we do now under RAS. If you want what we now call RIS, you'll have to ask for Traffic Service. These new names really trip off the tongue don't they? I couldn't find it in the CAP, has anyone seen what we're supposed to say to the pilot when we apply the service? Traffic service and deconfliction service aren't exactly easy to say compared to RIS/RAS

[2 sheds]

UTF

I think that you are quite right that many scenarios have not been thoroughly thought out and explained, specifically, as you highlight, in the case of traffic operating into and out of an aerodrome in Class G airspace.

The training package/CD is worse, with some of the RTF examples apparently derived from military useage/slang - certainly whoever compiled them seems to have no idea of some basis radio conventions.

2 s

[whowhenwhy]

But except the rules regarding provision of vectors beneath the RVC, nothing's changed from what should be being done now.

[Use the Force]

whowhenwhy, Yes it may be the same minima as RAS. However, presently once flight rules of the conflicting traffic have been established as VFR surely the minima can be acheived through traffic information? Mats 1 section 3 (rather than any JSP you might have read) VFR aircraft. Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to 'see and avoid' each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific. If flight rules are going to be disregarded in deconflicting minima than surely it becomes over restrictive. I do not see why we should have to seperate IFR aircraft from our VFR aircraft because of the service they are being provided. It is more restrictive than D and E. I was under the impression a RAS was provided to seperate known IFR aircraft from each other and unknown aircraft. I am now confused????

[Lurking123]

UTF, an interesting argument. But if you look at MATS Pt 1 Section 1, Ch5 1.4.1 it seems quite clear to me that you already must aim to provide separation between participating (ie RAS traffic) and non-participating traffic (VFR). So as far as Deconflicton vs. RAS is concerned, nothing has changed. Your quote is from the Approach Services section which essentially gives additional, sensible direction on how to integrate VFR and IFR traffic near an aerodrome outside of CAS. This sort of contradicts, to a degree, the regulations already set down in Section 1 under the definition of a RAS. However, it makes imminent sense from an operational perspective.

So, my reading would be that Deconfliction = RAS (give or take) and I would hope that the Section 3 bit of MATS Pt 1 would still stand allowing controllers to 'absolve' their separation responsibilities by following the described protocols.

Going back a few years, many of us will remember using phrases to RAS traffic along the lines of "Traffic passing down you right hand side, 1nm, same level, visual with you". I don't see that anything has changed. That said, I don't think that CAP774 has simplified anything - something I thought had been one of the aims of the whole ATSOCAS review.

[Use the Force]

Which brings me to say. WHAT IS THE POINT OF CHANGING IT???????

[Lurking123]

That, I can't answer.

[45 before POL]

Maybe change, for change sake....someone in an office looking for recognition...maybe a promotion to follow.....this was a common occurance in the RAF with a new senior officer posted in out to make his name and the next bar on his shoulder.....as for the rest of us, we got to sit and work out why???

[2 sheds]

"I do not see why we should have to separate IFR aircraft from our VFR aircraft because of the service they are being provided. It is more restrictive than D and E".

But safer when you consider the very low minima in which aircraft could be flying under VFR in Class G.

[Use the Force]

I think the nail has been hit on the head. Is there some reason why the ANSPs OCAS should have to bow to the pressure of a minority group, whoever they might be? I can assure you that the regional SRG we are associated with are scratching their heads just as much as we are. Is it not, airports and the commercial aircraft that use these airports that generate wealth? Should it not be us dictating to the Lords and Dames at CAA house Gatwick what we want. The RAF link can not be that far from the truth as the phaseology imployed in CAP 774 is paramount to dangerous. 'Terrain Clearance' The term 'clearance' should only be used in specific circumstances, i.e. 'Cleared for take off, cleared to land.' I still have the word 'Tenerife' rattling in my ear from college ten years ago.

[Use the Force]

2 Sheds, if it is about safety increase the weather criteria for VFR flight in class G.

[Lurking123]

I'm not sure this is an RAF driven thing, most of the RAF people I have spoken with also think the whole thing is a bag of wee.

I'm tempted to think that ASI is driving this forward; they seem to be good at big headline grabbing events that have little new substance.

[2 sheds]

UTF

Agree entirely - can you imagine the performance, though, to achieve that?



Whoever is behind it all, and whatever their experience, they certainly cannot write good English and in several instances do not seem to understand correct RTF use - just, one might add, like the authors of that dreadful RTF flipover booklet for commercial pilots.

2s

[whowhenwhy]

Lurking, thankyou I was beginning to think that I'd missed something.

Change for changes sake, ho ho ho. This is very definately not a change being driven by the military. This is not meant to be inflammatory but, if you look at the way that ATSOCAS is currently being implemented in the UK you would think sometimes that civ and mil had 2 different rule books. In addition, foreign pilots unused to flying in so much Class G airspace didn't understand our rules. As I understand it, the decision was taken to bring us more into line with the ICAO standard (fail!) thereby aiding foreign pilots fg in the UK and standardising ATSOCAS between mil and civ providers. So what we did was take what we've got already, call it something different and re-introduce the rules regarding RAS beneath the RVC that we effectively had before Ben McDhui. From a mil point of view the biggest change next year is going to be our introduction of CAP413 (that is the RT book isn't it???).

[fisbangwollop]

What a real load of Bolloks this really is going to be.......at the moment most pilots dont understand the differances between FIS/RIS/RAS but at least you get in the tin what it says on the label......surely a FIS "Flight Information Service" makes sense, a RIS "Radar Information Service" surely eans at least radar is being used to provide a service.........what now, a "Basic service" what the heck will that mean to the un educated...........I for one am not happy and am sure this time the good old CAA have opend a hge bag of worm's!!! not looking forward to the confusion that will be around next March!!

[Lurking123]

As an aside, I'm wondering whether yesterday's tragedy at Coventry will force a revisit of the Aerodrome and Approach Services element of MATS Pt 1? I'm certainly not even implying that there is any individual failing, merely that it speculation would have it that both these aircraft were talking to ATC in the vicinity of an aerodrome.

I don't personally have a view either way, but it would be remiss of the CAA not to have a look at procedures.

[Use the Force]

There is one big difference between military and civil units though. Mil units have MATZ to protect their approaches, yes I know civil aircraft do not have to care, but lets be honest how often does this happen? That is REALLY bad airmanship.
What we have, is a fillet drawn on a map, that a pilot might not have seen. If his map is old might not even indicate that there is an instrument let down area there. I also rarely see these indicated for both runways even if there is procedures at both ends.
In fact these fillets do not even extend as far as most instrument procedures go.

[Use the Force]

Oh and by the way, this is not meant to be inflammatory but the reason I bring this up is because usually at civil units OCAS, it is one human being for most of the day that provides LARS, Approach and SRAs all at the same time. We have to work with radars that MIL units sold 20 years ago. SSR is so overpriced that Airports are unwilling to pay until it reaches a point that it is considered too dangerous to continue.
If some MIL controllers considered the civil world easy money, think again.

[Pure Pursuit]

Guys, this is absolutely not driven by the RAF.

The main problem, in my opinion is that Civ & Mil controllers read from different docs. Pilots have their own idea & there is not enough commonality.

The idea of a single document is a great one however, CAP 774 is not a good read.

UTF... To suggest that the RAF have had the handle on this is pure bollox. 'Terrain Clearance' is not the phrase used. The R/T on the demo CD is pathetic & not something I would ever expect to hear from any Fighter Controller or Mil Air Traffic Controller.

The 'You Are Responsible For Terrain Avoidance' call is mandatory & is a sensible call, especially when dealing with pilots that may not be familiar with Brit radar services (USAF newly posted into Lakenheath for example). The F15 guys that were killed thought that ATC were providing a terrain avoidance service. To suggest that the call is dangerous also suggests that we lack knowledge and do not know what we are talking about.

Let's not blame the military for this utterly crap idea...

CAP 774 is so poorly written that, I believe, it is dangerous.