UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use the Force at present I do not terminate a RIS or a RAS when I transfer to the tower, perhaps i should? If I wish to pass traffic we have an intercom that puts me straight through to the ATCO .If he was busy then there would appear to be very little I could do apart from keep trying.
Chev I suppose in that case I would be giving a Limited service either RIS or RAS due to equipment. Under the new procedures a TS or a Deconfliction but again limited.
I might be wrong but people seem to be developing an irrational fear with regards to the new procedures .A/C are no more likely to get closer than they do at present .The Duty of care has been talked about for years so nothing new there in short it'll be same SH!t different day except that I no longer Have to provide standard separation to IFR flights outside CAS when providing an Approach control service, BUT thats another Debate
Chev I suppose in that case I would be giving a Limited service either RIS or RAS due to equipment. Under the new procedures a TS or a Deconfliction but again limited.
I might be wrong but people seem to be developing an irrational fear with regards to the new procedures .A/C are no more likely to get closer than they do at present .The Duty of care has been talked about for years so nothing new there in short it'll be same SH!t different day except that I no longer Have to provide standard separation to IFR flights outside CAS when providing an Approach control service, BUT thats another Debate
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
airac:
Or "Traffic Service with Reduced Traffic Information due to...." if CAP 774 is to be followed. I live in hope that a more concise shorthand will become accepted.
NS
Under the new procedures a TS or a Deconfliction but again limited
NS
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: IoW
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duty of care
"May I ask all practitioners of LARS - Regardless of the new rules, if you have identified an aircraft which is in receipt of a FIS, and you see that it is going to get extremely close to another aircraft, would you tell it or not?
I know I would, the only reason I wouldn't is if I had a higher service aircraft that needed my attention due to a safety related issue.
Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.
Duty of Care should take everything into consideration"
It's called progress!
From now on I'm going to really fasten my seat belts and really keep my eyes out of the cockpit whilst I fly in the "even more" unknown FIR, (yeah ok, I know we should be doing this in the first place), knowing the poor radar controller has his/her hands tied. If he/she passes observed traffic then they might be hit over the head with the CAP774 by the LCE if interpreted as not being a "DEFINITE" risk (i.e.. when you're about to hit the b***** thing), or being hung by the b**** by some greedy legal type if you guys fail to pass traffic under 'duty of care'! If I was a radar controller, I know what I'd do!
"May I ask all practitioners of LARS - Regardless of the new rules, if you have identified an aircraft which is in receipt of a FIS, and you see that it is going to get extremely close to another aircraft, would you tell it or not?
I know I would, the only reason I wouldn't is if I had a higher service aircraft that needed my attention due to a safety related issue.
Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.
Duty of Care should take everything into consideration"
It's called progress!
From now on I'm going to really fasten my seat belts and really keep my eyes out of the cockpit whilst I fly in the "even more" unknown FIR, (yeah ok, I know we should be doing this in the first place), knowing the poor radar controller has his/her hands tied. If he/she passes observed traffic then they might be hit over the head with the CAP774 by the LCE if interpreted as not being a "DEFINITE" risk (i.e.. when you're about to hit the b***** thing), or being hung by the b**** by some greedy legal type if you guys fail to pass traffic under 'duty of care'! If I was a radar controller, I know what I'd do!
Last edited by Billy Goat; 1st Feb 2009 at 15:55.
Duty of care under FIS/BS - sorry, it's easy - less than 1nm and 500ft separation call it, more than that, don't. Think about what it's like in the cockpit, the guys has asked for a FIS/BS for a reason and when you're fg, a miss-distance of 1nm is HUUUUGE! I think people are over-analysing just because something has been written down talking about duty of care. It's always been there.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www,
If I wait until the aircraft are 1nm apart before calling traffic, it's going to be too late if they haven't spotted each other already. Do the maths: Interpret my message; visually acquire the other guy; decide on avoiding action; wait for aircraft inertia to take up new heading .......... Bang!
Two aircraft on reciprocal tracks, same level, could easily be a definite risk of collision when they're 10 miles apart. At what range would you step in with traffic info?
If I wait until the aircraft are 1nm apart before calling traffic, it's going to be too late if they haven't spotted each other already. Do the maths: Interpret my message; visually acquire the other guy; decide on avoiding action; wait for aircraft inertia to take up new heading .......... Bang!
Two aircraft on reciprocal tracks, same level, could easily be a definite risk of collision when they're 10 miles apart. At what range would you step in with traffic info?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Radarman:
Depends. Two 90kt aircraft on a 10 degree converging course starting 1nm apart (a not unusual situation) are almost 4 minutes from collision. Two x 90kts 12 o'clock reciprocal are 20 seconds from collision. So I'd agree on the latter but in probably most cases, given that most people on a FIS are light aircraft, you've loads more time than that.
On a related topic, went to a NATS presentation on new ATSOCAS the other night. Very interesting but unfortunately it was given by an En Route radar ATCO whose appreciation of the situation for GA VFR pilots and civ/mil aerodrome LARS providers seemed to be rather sketchy in places.
Also, it seems very unclear whether CAA/NATS are giving any guidance on the potentially disruptive results of lots of VFR pilots asking for Deconfliction Service. Almost none of them will have a proper understanding of (a) what 5nm looks like (b) that you have to be above Min Vectoring Altitude (que?) to get the service in the first place and (c) that having vectored you way off track to keep you clear of something that was never a threat in the first place, the controller will then dump you in the big black hole called "Resume Own Navigation", leaving you to work out where the hell you are.
No doubt there will be some VFR pilots who will try it out and quickly find that it's not for them, but it seems a waste of controller and pilot workload to have to put them through it needlessly.
NS
If I wait until the aircraft are 1nm apart before calling traffic, it's going to be too late if they haven't spotted each other already
On a related topic, went to a NATS presentation on new ATSOCAS the other night. Very interesting but unfortunately it was given by an En Route radar ATCO whose appreciation of the situation for GA VFR pilots and civ/mil aerodrome LARS providers seemed to be rather sketchy in places.
Also, it seems very unclear whether CAA/NATS are giving any guidance on the potentially disruptive results of lots of VFR pilots asking for Deconfliction Service. Almost none of them will have a proper understanding of (a) what 5nm looks like (b) that you have to be above Min Vectoring Altitude (que?) to get the service in the first place and (c) that having vectored you way off track to keep you clear of something that was never a threat in the first place, the controller will then dump you in the big black hole called "Resume Own Navigation", leaving you to work out where the hell you are.
No doubt there will be some VFR pilots who will try it out and quickly find that it's not for them, but it seems a waste of controller and pilot workload to have to put them through it needlessly.
NS
Sorry - I'm not suggesting waiting until they're 1nm/500ft apart, that's crazy 
I'm suggesting that if the cpa of the ac is going to be 1nm/500ft or less, then I'd call the traffic under a FIS/basic service, giving warning at a suitable point based on relative positions and speeds. If the cpa is going to be more than that I wouldn't, because when you're flying VFR you've elected to do that because you don't want to be bothered and you have sufficient weather to see and avoid. Then, 1nm is a huuge distance. Hope that clears things up? 
I'm suggesting that if the cpa of the ac is going to be 1nm/500ft or less, then I'd call the traffic under a FIS/basic service, giving warning at a suitable point based on relative positions and speeds. If the cpa is going to be more than that I wouldn't, because when you're flying VFR you've elected to do that because you don't want to be bothered and you have sufficient weather to see and avoid. Then, 1nm is a huuge distance. Hope that clears things up?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negligence and Duty of Care in wikipedia.
BS = pilot knows he is totally responsible for his own flight and missing other flying things. If he bangs into another aircraft and I didn't notice because my attention was elsewhere, then that's his fault and I can't be held to account.
How is anyone going to prove that you actually foresaw the impending disaster when CAP774 quite clearly states that you don't have to be looking for conflicting traffic to provide a BS?
VL
BS = pilot knows he is totally responsible for his own flight and missing other flying things. If he bangs into another aircraft and I didn't notice because my attention was elsewhere, then that's his fault and I can't be held to account.
How is anyone going to prove that you actually foresaw the impending disaster when CAP774 quite clearly states that you don't have to be looking for conflicting traffic to provide a BS?
VL
Luvverley!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: --
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duty Of Care
OK, so some folks are saying, "well, it's always been there, so what's the fuss?"
That's true. We HAVE always, where possible, provided info in respect of that. What I, and some of my colleagues, are uncomfortable about is it being put into writing in a CAP. It makes us perhaps more vulnerable to legal action.
Our job has, in many repsects has become more and more "arse covering." With regard to Flight Safety, this is no bad thing - learning from others' mistakes, potentially. A good TrUCE discussion.
I think the real worry is the threat of speculative legal action in the event of an a/c accident. Some clever lawyer somewhere may well find the legalese to put an ATCO who - amongst his/hers real peers has done their absolute best to prevent an incident/accident - in the proverbial. Loss of licence could be the least of their worries.
I do hope I'm being paranoid on this count.
That's true. We HAVE always, where possible, provided info in respect of that. What I, and some of my colleagues, are uncomfortable about is it being put into writing in a CAP. It makes us perhaps more vulnerable to legal action.
Our job has, in many repsects has become more and more "arse covering." With regard to Flight Safety, this is no bad thing - learning from others' mistakes, potentially. A good TrUCE discussion.
I think the real worry is the threat of speculative legal action in the event of an a/c accident. Some clever lawyer somewhere may well find the legalese to put an ATCO who - amongst his/hers real peers has done their absolute best to prevent an incident/accident - in the proverbial. Loss of licence could be the least of their worries.
I do hope I'm being paranoid on this count.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxy, I think you're being a little paranoid. 
That sort of element of 'responsibility' was always there (dare I mention Ben McDui without starting a massive discussion?) ISTR that it is ATC who have asked for the clarity in CAP774. Also, I think your "amongst his peers" bit is an interesting comment as that would relate to the accepted understanding of negligence. I think that any legal action would have to demonstrate negligence with the use of expert peer opinion. Got many friends in ATC? 
Spinning this around, what would you like the definition to say?
That sort of element of 'responsibility' was always there (dare I mention Ben McDui without starting a massive discussion?) ISTR that it is ATC who have asked for the clarity in CAP774. Also, I think your "amongst his peers" bit is an interesting comment as that would relate to the accepted understanding of negligence. I think that any legal action would have to demonstrate negligence with the use of expert peer opinion. Got many friends in ATC? Spinning this around, what would you like the definition to say?
Luvverley!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: --
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxy, I think you're being a little paranoid.
Personally, I don't think Duty of Care needs defining. Surely any one of us would exercise it anyway? I take it as read that it is an important aspect of the job, part and parcel of holding a licence.
ISTR - sorry, that's an abbreviation I don't know
I think I catch your drift though. It just so happens that many (and there are many!) of my ATCO friends think the same as me. None of us remember this being in consultation at all, TBH, but the Duty of Care bit is not something any of us feel particularly comfortable with. NOT because we are routinely negligent I add (quite the opposite), but because we fear that that any one of us could find ourselves, through no fault of our own, in a situation where, if an incident did result in serious injury or death, Clever Lawyer could make a case against us aven if we weren't really at fault. Putting it in writing can be interpreted as a bit of extra ammunition. However, that said, it's certainly something that'll keep me knife-edge sharp from now on! I'm glad I'm being paranoid....
Time for me cornflakes. Sorry if I've rambled a bit - lates last night, and woken up too early by the 'kin rain!
All of which means that, despite what has been said from some quarters and the CAA, the limits of the service, particularly BS provided by a radar unit, are inevitably going to be blurred. On one hand you must stick to the "rules" of the service; on the other, you have a duty of care.
2 s
2 s
DoC
Hmm - let's turn this round.....
I wonder what would happen on a validation board if the candidate gave radar derived info to aircraft on a Basic Service, was told he had failed because the Examiner thought he had broken the "rules" & he said "I was excercising my duty of care " ? I wonder how LCE's are going to handle this.......
I wonder what would happen on a validation board if the candidate gave radar derived info to aircraft on a Basic Service, was told he had failed because the Examiner thought he had broken the "rules" & he said "I was excercising my duty of care " ? I wonder how LCE's are going to handle this.......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - let's turn this round.....
I wonder what would happen on a validation board if the candidate gave radar derived info to aircraft on a Basic Service, was told he had failed because the Examiner thought he had broken the "rules" & he said "I was excercising my duty of care " ? I wonder how LCE's are going to handle this.......
I wonder what would happen on a validation board if the candidate gave radar derived info to aircraft on a Basic Service, was told he had failed because the Examiner thought he had broken the "rules" & he said "I was excercising my duty of care " ? I wonder how LCE's are going to handle this.......
'Duty of Care' is not something you do in addition - it's part of the law of negligence so it only comes into question when things go wrong. I don't believe you can enhance duty of care by doing more than you are asked to do.
In fact if you start giving radar based traffic under a BS, then if the one time you don't give it, someone smacks someone else - would you be negligent for not providing the same service as you did before?
The answer is simple - provide the service the way you are supposed to. If it all looks sh!t and you simply can't watch the horror unfold, then do something. But for goodness sake don't just start doing things because you think you are helping or 'covering your duty of care'. You'll only end up in the crap whe it all goes wrong
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer back to my post #29. A couple of years ago I was having a general social chat with a legal type, and the subject of controllers' liability came up. He asked if I had ever been negligent in my job, and I truthfully answered no, not to my knowledge, and certainly not deliberately. He then quietly asked a few innocent-seeming questions about procedures, orders, working practices etc which I answered as best I could. After a couple of minutes, to my absolute horror, he announced that from a legal aspect I had just proved that I had been negligent in my duties. 
Bear in mind that this was just a chat over a glass of Rioja. A prosecution QC in court will be highly trained in manipulating questions and answers to prove his point, and will have no mercy in exercising his professional skills in crucifying a mere ATCO. Remember that the British legal system is adversarial - it's verbal blood and guts to the death. All the QC's are interested in is winning their case to enhance their reputation, get more briefs and earn yet more money. They don't give a stuff about the poor controller they get sent down by the beak.
Sorry if this is a bit on the ranty side, but I'm of a certain age ......
Bear in mind that this was just a chat over a glass of Rioja. A prosecution QC in court will be highly trained in manipulating questions and answers to prove his point, and will have no mercy in exercising his professional skills in crucifying a mere ATCO. Remember that the British legal system is adversarial - it's verbal blood and guts to the death. All the QC's are interested in is winning their case to enhance their reputation, get more briefs and earn yet more money. They don't give a stuff about the poor controller they get sent down by the beak.
Sorry if this is a bit on the ranty side, but I'm of a certain age ......
Last edited by radarman; 5th Feb 2009 at 12:27. Reason: Mixed mataphors
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VectorLine
At last, someone who's has actually read CAP774
example,
You give traffic information to A/C on a BS and, said A/C turns, however so does the other A/C, straight into the one you passed the traffic to.
If you hadn't passed traffic the A/C would probably not have turned and thus would not have hit the otherA/C
Have you been negligent or helpful but unfortunate?
At last, someone who's has actually read CAP774
example,
You give traffic information to A/C on a BS and, said A/C turns, however so does the other A/C, straight into the one you passed the traffic to.
If you hadn't passed traffic the A/C would probably not have turned and thus would not have hit the otherA/C
Have you been negligent or helpful but unfortunate?
VectorLine / airac
I refer you to Chapter 2, page 2, para 5 of CAP 774 (see, I have read it !
)
"However,if a controller/FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot". So, has he still failed ?
I refer you to Chapter 2, page 2, para 5 of CAP 774 (see, I have read it !
)"However,if a controller/FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot". So, has he still failed ?