UK - Approach control and terrain clearance in class G
Thread Starter
UK - Approach control and terrain clearance in class G
Departing Filton yesterday, I paused for thought.
IFR departure from runway 27, requested level FL50, requested track NE. Filton sits under the Bristol CTA, so the usual procedure for non-airways is a climb to 3000 ft until clear of the CTA, before further climb.
Clearance in this case was to climb straight ahead to 2000 ft after departure. On climb-out handed to Filton Radar, given a Radar Information Service. Then instructed to turn on track, own navigation to [waypoint a long way away to the NE]. But no climb to 3000 ft yet, presumably due traffic.
So at this point, who has primary responsibility for terrain clearance? I'm an IFR flight assigned a level of 2000 ft by approach control, in an area where the 25 nm SSA on my chart is higher than my assigned level. I'm on a Radar Information Service and not receiving vectors. Should I have politely declined to maintain 2000 ft?
I hasten to add, this is an academic point. I was in VMC at 2000 ft. Filton was excellent as always, and a climb to FL50 was instructed before I left the 2000 ft ring on the MVA chart, so there was never any question of the flight's safety being compromised by terrain. But it made me wonder if I could depend on ATC for the assignment of terrain-safe levels in these circumstances.
IFR departure from runway 27, requested level FL50, requested track NE. Filton sits under the Bristol CTA, so the usual procedure for non-airways is a climb to 3000 ft until clear of the CTA, before further climb.
Clearance in this case was to climb straight ahead to 2000 ft after departure. On climb-out handed to Filton Radar, given a Radar Information Service. Then instructed to turn on track, own navigation to [waypoint a long way away to the NE]. But no climb to 3000 ft yet, presumably due traffic.
So at this point, who has primary responsibility for terrain clearance? I'm an IFR flight assigned a level of 2000 ft by approach control, in an area where the 25 nm SSA on my chart is higher than my assigned level. I'm on a Radar Information Service and not receiving vectors. Should I have politely declined to maintain 2000 ft?
I hasten to add, this is an academic point. I was in VMC at 2000 ft. Filton was excellent as always, and a climb to FL50 was instructed before I left the 2000 ft ring on the MVA chart, so there was never any question of the flight's safety being compromised by terrain. But it made me wonder if I could depend on ATC for the assignment of terrain-safe levels in these circumstances.
Thread Starter
Well indeed if you look at the book, as long as I'm not on a vector.
MATS Part 1 S1 Ch 5
13.2 Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or
So how can approach control be operated by a "radar controller" who is required to separate participating IFR flights if he cannot assign levels?
MATS Part 1 S1 Ch 5
13.2 Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or
So how can approach control be operated by a "radar controller" who is required to separate participating IFR flights if he cannot assign levels?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't recall where the reference is, but basically if you are under a RIS and recieving vectors, you (the pilot) are assumed to be participating in the service and will comply with the atcos instructions unless you expressly indicate otherwise.
I would say that at our place its pretty even mix of RIS/RAS when it comes to arriving and departing aircraft recieving an approach control service, but I've never known anyone indicate that they don't want to participate.
I would say that at our place its pretty even mix of RIS/RAS when it comes to arriving and departing aircraft recieving an approach control service, but I've never known anyone indicate that they don't want to participate.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 13.2 is very poorly worded and, as you have pointed out, doesn't make a lot of sense.
Vectored or not, I will not allocate a level below MSA, or SMAC minimum if you're inside that. I suspect most, if not all ATCO's, would do the same. On that basis I think the Filton guy did the right thing, provided had they not been able to give climb they would have then kept you inside tha SMAC chart area. I can only summise that it was assured that you would get climb before the boundary. (Though a radio fail would have made life interesting).
Sorry to have missed you there - saw your aircraft on the screen in ops, I was there between 11 and 1400 .
Vectored or not, I will not allocate a level below MSA, or SMAC minimum if you're inside that. I suspect most, if not all ATCO's, would do the same. On that basis I think the Filton guy did the right thing, provided had they not been able to give climb they would have then kept you inside tha SMAC chart area. I can only summise that it was assured that you would get climb before the boundary. (Though a radio fail would have made life interesting).
Sorry to have missed you there - saw your aircraft on the screen in ops, I was there between 11 and 1400 .
Thread Starter
On that basis I think the Filton guy did the right thing, provided had they not been able to give climb they would have then kept you inside tha SMAC chart area. I can only summise that it was assured that you would get climb before the boundary.
Sorry to have missed you there - saw your aircraft on the screen in ops, I was there between 11 and 1400 .
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting conundrum, and it prompts me to repeat a question recently posed regarding our company SOP.
On passing the local minimum safe altitude, in response to the challenge "Passing MSA" the required reaction is to confirm "Position checked" (climbing and descending), and (in the descent) state "Radar control"/"Procedural"/"Visual".
Now then, I guess "Visual" is obvious, "Procedural" means following a published, pilot-interpreted profile (or procedure), and "Radar control" is also obvious if the aircraft is in controlled airspace ... but at many regional UK airports the arrival is flown in uncontrolled airspace, so, the question:
Is it possible to be in receipt of a radar 'control' service - positively identified by an appropriate radar unit/controller, under IFR and accepting their instructions - even when outside controlled airspace?
If not, then what would be an appropriate resposne to the challenge "Passing MSA" to confirm the flight status?
On passing the local minimum safe altitude, in response to the challenge "Passing MSA" the required reaction is to confirm "Position checked" (climbing and descending), and (in the descent) state "Radar control"/"Procedural"/"Visual".
Now then, I guess "Visual" is obvious, "Procedural" means following a published, pilot-interpreted profile (or procedure), and "Radar control" is also obvious if the aircraft is in controlled airspace ... but at many regional UK airports the arrival is flown in uncontrolled airspace, so, the question:
Is it possible to be in receipt of a radar 'control' service - positively identified by an appropriate radar unit/controller, under IFR and accepting their instructions - even when outside controlled airspace?
If not, then what would be an appropriate resposne to the challenge "Passing MSA" to confirm the flight status?
