UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
"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 ?
Your example has an infinite number of conotations. Two C152's, you can just about let the blips merge. Two restored Jet Provosts and you might be thinking about definite collision risk with about 10 miles between them.
Your imaginary student needs to be a little more flexible - that's what's wrong with the 'product' from the college these days, they think that one solution fits all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: location, location!
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading this as interested to see others thoughts on it. And in many respects I am regurgitating what Vectorline/AIRAC have eluded to.
The one thing about this is everyone seems to accept a/c are identified under a basic service, they do not need to be identified and if you are working a number of a/c who are positively identified under a traffic/deconfliction services, maybe someone on a SRA, couple of others being vectored for final approach and say maybe 10-15 a/c a mixture of local based out general handling & transit a/c on a basic service are you really going to try and identify all of those a/c increasing you workload massively? This is not an uncommon scenario where I work.
So what gets drops instantly when busy, calling traffic to basic service a/c, so why lull pilots into a false sense of security and give them above what is asked on a basic service when you are quiet and able to do so because the day you can't is they day they will not be keeping as good look out as they should.
Have you also considered some pilots (especially when out with students) and in asking for basic service do not want to hear ATC giving them information they have not asked to receive and are trying to teach there student the art of looking out?
Furthermore, what if you give traffic to an a/c and an incident does happen, its on a basic service and you have not positively identified (yes I know you can still identify on basic and not say) maybe in an area of high activity, and it turns out your actions contributed to it?
No ATCO will ever intentionally do something that may lead to a incident, and at the same time not step in if you feel you need, but why muddy the waters and keep FRISSING to basic service a/c (as may do at present under a FIS) when the whole point of them being rewritten is to try & stop the ambiguity?
But then this is air traffic and nothing is ever right apart from what's in ones own mind.
The one thing about this is everyone seems to accept a/c are identified under a basic service, they do not need to be identified and if you are working a number of a/c who are positively identified under a traffic/deconfliction services, maybe someone on a SRA, couple of others being vectored for final approach and say maybe 10-15 a/c a mixture of local based out general handling & transit a/c on a basic service are you really going to try and identify all of those a/c increasing you workload massively? This is not an uncommon scenario where I work.
So what gets drops instantly when busy, calling traffic to basic service a/c, so why lull pilots into a false sense of security and give them above what is asked on a basic service when you are quiet and able to do so because the day you can't is they day they will not be keeping as good look out as they should.
Have you also considered some pilots (especially when out with students) and in asking for basic service do not want to hear ATC giving them information they have not asked to receive and are trying to teach there student the art of looking out?
Furthermore, what if you give traffic to an a/c and an incident does happen, its on a basic service and you have not positively identified (yes I know you can still identify on basic and not say) maybe in an area of high activity, and it turns out your actions contributed to it?
No ATCO will ever intentionally do something that may lead to a incident, and at the same time not step in if you feel you need, but why muddy the waters and keep FRISSING to basic service a/c (as may do at present under a FIS) when the whole point of them being rewritten is to try & stop the ambiguity?
But then this is air traffic and nothing is ever right apart from what's in ones own mind.
Airac, you've shot your own argument in the foot. In your example you would never have given the aircraft traffic information on the basic service, because there was no risk of collision.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whowhenwhy
In your example you would never have given the aircraft traffic.
Precisely, but some would.
Quite honestly at this stage I really dont give a
If some controllers consider it to be their, duty of care, to pass traffic info to a/c on a basic service then so be it
Obviously one of the main reasons for the change ,i.e to remove the 37 or so differences between Mil procedures and Civil procedures and unit to unit is totally bl--dy lost on them. The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care.
As ATCO's we have a choice follow procedures and thus fullfill our duty of care or act as individuals out side of the agreed procedures and by doing so lay ourselves wide open to a shafting.
Look at the following ,MATS part one before, states,
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
MATS part one following the change will state ,
The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein.
The revised ATSOCAS will be contained herein
Make your own mind up
In your example you would never have given the aircraft traffic.
Precisely, but some would.
Quite honestly at this stage I really dont give a
If some controllers consider it to be their, duty of care, to pass traffic info to a/c on a basic service then so be it Obviously one of the main reasons for the change ,i.e to remove the 37 or so differences between Mil procedures and Civil procedures and unit to unit is totally bl--dy lost on them. The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care.
As ATCO's we have a choice follow procedures and thus fullfill our duty of care or act as individuals out side of the agreed procedures and by doing so lay ourselves wide open to a shafting.
Look at the following ,MATS part one before, states,
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
MATS part one following the change will state ,
The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein.
The revised ATSOCAS will be contained herein
Make your own mind up
Last edited by airac; 8th Feb 2009 at 07:01.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airac,
I'm not sure your conviction that following procedures passed by the CAA lawyers automatically clears you for duty of care. Wasn't "Just following Orders" thrown out at Nurenburg?
I'm not sure your conviction that following procedures passed by the CAA lawyers automatically clears you for duty of care. Wasn't "Just following Orders" thrown out at Nurenburg?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure your conviction that following procedures passed by the CAA lawyers automatically clears you for duty of care. Wasn't "Just following Orders" thrown out at Nurenburg?
Just how stupid can one get eh?
Just how
stupid can one get eh?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the point here that 'duty of care' IS open to interpretation.
This despite the fact that; 'The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care' .
Therefore controllers will interpret it differently depending on their experience, mindset, circumstances of the incident etc. It follows that the apparently strict set of rules for each new service will become a little blurred.
All that was needed was a sentence stating something along the lines of 'If their is an incident involving an aircraft receiving a service then the controller will be immune from prosecution if the strict rules of each service have been adhered too'
Why isn't it in the new entries in mats etc? Simple, the issue is clouded by duty of care and even the legal bods couldn't strictly define it.
This despite the fact that; 'The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care' .
Therefore controllers will interpret it differently depending on their experience, mindset, circumstances of the incident etc. It follows that the apparently strict set of rules for each new service will become a little blurred.
All that was needed was a sentence stating something along the lines of 'If their is an incident involving an aircraft receiving a service then the controller will be immune from prosecution if the strict rules of each service have been adhered too'
Why isn't it in the new entries in mats etc? Simple, the issue is clouded by duty of care and even the legal bods couldn't strictly define it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are all arguing here from the ATC point of view. But it won't be a controller who decides the DOC issue in court. Has anybody got a mate in the legal profession whose opinion they could ask? It would be interesting to hear how a lawyer might interpret the liability issues should a BS aircraft slam into another and the controller says he sat back and watched it all on radar.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today I thought I had made a conscious decision to try my best with the CAP774.
Alas at the end of the day I think it will still all end in tears.
On a day of poor visibility I was struggling to define the types of service to experienced pilots a month and half before it all changes. What hope is there?
Have we missed the point here, was it the services or is it the pilot education that is the problem?
What is my duty of care to the majority of foreign jet pilots who do not understand the services we have now? Is it to offer them the best level of service, even on fair weather delays which could end in extensive delays? Is it to offer them the service what I think is right for the situation or due to the weather that they might fly into. You ask what service they require and the same reply always comes back, "vectors to the ILS".
The civilian method in class G however hazy it might have become of separating IFR aircraft from one another and passing traffic information on known VFR aircraft seemed correct as it resembled something similar to the class D airspace they had to learn to pass the course at their respective colleges. Class D airspace, believe it or not Military dudes is it what every single civil radar controller learns at their various colleges in approach radar with very limited ATSOCA training. The proper class G airspace training begins at the unit with a mix of ideas from experienced civil, ex mil, new controllers, it was bound to get hazy eventually as the MATS 1 has always contradicted it self.
This might be the reason for change but is it a reason to make civilian and military units the same. As stated in previous threads military units have MATZs, correct me if I am wrong but they give more protection than your standard ATZ. They have mainly well trained pilots operating in and out who have in general a good understanding of the services, hence the mil pilots changing their service based on their in flight conditions rather than their flight rules. I would like to know what service a military controller in approach will give a foreign biz jet pilot who does not have a clue about what you are on about?
As with the new ILS phraseology that has changed more than once recently, why can we not do what they do in europe? This is what license we hold.
I am off to controlled airspace where life is simple.
Alas at the end of the day I think it will still all end in tears.
On a day of poor visibility I was struggling to define the types of service to experienced pilots a month and half before it all changes. What hope is there?
Have we missed the point here, was it the services or is it the pilot education that is the problem?
What is my duty of care to the majority of foreign jet pilots who do not understand the services we have now? Is it to offer them the best level of service, even on fair weather delays which could end in extensive delays? Is it to offer them the service what I think is right for the situation or due to the weather that they might fly into. You ask what service they require and the same reply always comes back, "vectors to the ILS".
The civilian method in class G however hazy it might have become of separating IFR aircraft from one another and passing traffic information on known VFR aircraft seemed correct as it resembled something similar to the class D airspace they had to learn to pass the course at their respective colleges. Class D airspace, believe it or not Military dudes is it what every single civil radar controller learns at their various colleges in approach radar with very limited ATSOCA training. The proper class G airspace training begins at the unit with a mix of ideas from experienced civil, ex mil, new controllers, it was bound to get hazy eventually as the MATS 1 has always contradicted it self.
This might be the reason for change but is it a reason to make civilian and military units the same. As stated in previous threads military units have MATZs, correct me if I am wrong but they give more protection than your standard ATZ. They have mainly well trained pilots operating in and out who have in general a good understanding of the services, hence the mil pilots changing their service based on their in flight conditions rather than their flight rules. I would like to know what service a military controller in approach will give a foreign biz jet pilot who does not have a clue about what you are on about?
As with the new ILS phraseology that has changed more than once recently, why can we not do what they do in europe? This is what license we hold.
I am off to controlled airspace where life is simple.
Last edited by Use the Force; 10th Feb 2009 at 08:38.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
should a BS aircraft slam into another and the controller says he sat back and watched it all on radar
NS
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a PPL ask a question please?
The issue I have with these changes is (pretty obviously) what the effect will be on my OCAS VFR flying. I'm perfectly happy with the current system. I believe (but am open to correction) that I understand it. It fly inside CAS on transits from time to time but usually fly outside CAS using both RIS and FIS.
Consider a route entirely OCAS.
Elstree-BNN-DTY (assume I wiggle a bit to miss the Luton CTR, rather than asking for a transit)-LIC- Tatenhill.
Today, once outside the Elstree ATZ, I'd probably not bother with Farnborough, but would talk to:-
Luton (FIS - and the nice chaps on that frequency do pass potentially conflicting traffic info, if not too busy)
Cranfield (FIS - but no radar, so you expect little and are not disappointed)
Coventry (FIS - and they pass info too)
East Midlands (FIS - and they pass info too)
Now I know that the FIS I'm getting from the radar units doesn't entitle me to radar derived information. I'm not getting a RIS - that would be entirely different. But any info I get from the controllers is gratefully received. If I hear nothing from them, I don't assume that I'm alone up there. I still look out of the window. But any additional information is better than nothing.
The controllers on this little route so obviously do their best to help - they can be horrendously busy at times, but you don't have to be a mindreader to know that they want to help you if they can, because they do - even to the extend of offering Class D transits entirely unprompted by me. This may not be true of all controllers everywhere, but it's my experience here.
Now I expect that under the new system it will be basic service all the way from these stations. The official description of the basic service (well, the one I saw several weeks ago and am struggling to remember) suggested that this helpfulness (passing radar derived traffic information) was going to end.
And if controllers become too scared to pass me any information, or only pass it in the nick of time (or not!) because they are worried about m'learned friend breathing down their necks, then I'm getting less of a service just to cover someone else's rear.
So, what's actually going to happen? Will BS end up as no service? And what, specifically, are the powers that be actually telling controllers to do?
It'd be nice to know in advance, even though I'll still be looking out of the window, come what may.
Maybe I should just keep on asking for a FIS and see what happens.
The issue I have with these changes is (pretty obviously) what the effect will be on my OCAS VFR flying. I'm perfectly happy with the current system. I believe (but am open to correction) that I understand it. It fly inside CAS on transits from time to time but usually fly outside CAS using both RIS and FIS.
Consider a route entirely OCAS.
Elstree-BNN-DTY (assume I wiggle a bit to miss the Luton CTR, rather than asking for a transit)-LIC- Tatenhill.
Today, once outside the Elstree ATZ, I'd probably not bother with Farnborough, but would talk to:-
Luton (FIS - and the nice chaps on that frequency do pass potentially conflicting traffic info, if not too busy)
Cranfield (FIS - but no radar, so you expect little and are not disappointed)
Coventry (FIS - and they pass info too)
East Midlands (FIS - and they pass info too)
Now I know that the FIS I'm getting from the radar units doesn't entitle me to radar derived information. I'm not getting a RIS - that would be entirely different. But any info I get from the controllers is gratefully received. If I hear nothing from them, I don't assume that I'm alone up there. I still look out of the window. But any additional information is better than nothing.
The controllers on this little route so obviously do their best to help - they can be horrendously busy at times, but you don't have to be a mindreader to know that they want to help you if they can, because they do - even to the extend of offering Class D transits entirely unprompted by me. This may not be true of all controllers everywhere, but it's my experience here.
Now I expect that under the new system it will be basic service all the way from these stations. The official description of the basic service (well, the one I saw several weeks ago and am struggling to remember) suggested that this helpfulness (passing radar derived traffic information) was going to end.
And if controllers become too scared to pass me any information, or only pass it in the nick of time (or not!) because they are worried about m'learned friend breathing down their necks, then I'm getting less of a service just to cover someone else's rear.
So, what's actually going to happen? Will BS end up as no service? And what, specifically, are the powers that be actually telling controllers to do?
It'd be nice to know in advance, even though I'll still be looking out of the window, come what may.
Maybe I should just keep on asking for a FIS and see what happens.
Last edited by ALEXA; 12th Feb 2009 at 14:42. Reason: an inaccuracy!
Alexa, if you do what you're doing now, then I would hope that you'll get exactly the same responses from the ATSU/FISO, including your Class D transits. If you're under a Basic Service and you are faced with a definate risk of collision, you should be told about it in exactly the same way as you are now. People don't generally have the time to give traffic info to FIS tracks unless there is a real need to. Just change the words that you use and all will be well. The bigger changes come in under Traffic and Deconfliction services. Don't worry about all of us lot, we're just being air traffic bores
If you're under a Basic Service and you are faced with a definate risk of collision, you should be told about it in exactly the same way as you are now.
2 s
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
2sheds:
The former, yes, but not necessarily the latter. I see no reason why the current formulation 'G-CD traffic believed to be you has traffic in your 12 o'clock one mile opposite direction no height information' should not continue to apply under a BS. And just as with FIS, it's contingent on the controller having the capacity to give that info.
NS
it does presuppose that the aircraft is receiving service from a radar-equipped unit and is identified
NS
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One assumes that all this fannying around all this verbose,flowery, non operational, stating the bleedin' obvious, time wasting phraseology will mean Mil Controllers (from 12 Mar 09) have their endorsements recognised by the CAA?
Nope, thought not.
The next thing we will be saying will be 'wet wet wet' when clearing a Typhoon to land!
Nope, thought not.
The next thing we will be saying will be 'wet wet wet' when clearing a Typhoon to land!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I wondered if anything would come of that meeting at the CAA almost three years ago.
I was the RAF Mildenhall SOG representative to a military flier's forum talking about what, if any, changes were required.
I was a wallflower for most of it, the discussion not really being in my lane as a visiting user of the airspace whilst stationed at Mildenhall, but I found it interesting nonetheless and did provide input when asked.
As I recall, initially there was much rejection of any change by the then current military operators. Over the course of the day, they slowly decided they did indeed wish to change a few things and the result was not radically different from what very little I've been able to glean from this thread with regards to naming conventions (ie - moving from RAS/RIS/FIS).
Indeed, I do recall FIS was to be changed precisely because it was different than the rest of Europe so as not to confuse.
I do also recall that the CAA intended to talk to civil operators in a separate forum, as well as air traffic controllers on their own forum. So whilst this may, at first glance, seem to be a surprise, it has been being worked on for at least three years.
I do not have access to the changes, but if it's available on a website somewhere, I'd be interested in reading it as I'm about to be posted back to Mildenhall in May.
Kind Regards
I was the RAF Mildenhall SOG representative to a military flier's forum talking about what, if any, changes were required.
I was a wallflower for most of it, the discussion not really being in my lane as a visiting user of the airspace whilst stationed at Mildenhall, but I found it interesting nonetheless and did provide input when asked.
As I recall, initially there was much rejection of any change by the then current military operators. Over the course of the day, they slowly decided they did indeed wish to change a few things and the result was not radically different from what very little I've been able to glean from this thread with regards to naming conventions (ie - moving from RAS/RIS/FIS).
Indeed, I do recall FIS was to be changed precisely because it was different than the rest of Europe so as not to confuse.
I do also recall that the CAA intended to talk to civil operators in a separate forum, as well as air traffic controllers on their own forum. So whilst this may, at first glance, seem to be a surprise, it has been being worked on for at least three years.
I do not have access to the changes, but if it's available on a website somewhere, I'd be interested in reading it as I'm about to be posted back to Mildenhall in May.
Kind Regards
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexa,
the radar units that will now give you FIS and pass traffic information on traffic that may be of interest will, under BS give you no traffic information unless there is a definite risk of collision. Apart from that they will, of course, continue to be as helpful (or otherwise) as they are now.
In other words the new improved procedures will ensure that you get a worse service.
the radar units that will now give you FIS and pass traffic information on traffic that may be of interest will, under BS give you no traffic information unless there is a definite risk of collision. Apart from that they will, of course, continue to be as helpful (or otherwise) as they are now.
In other words the new improved procedures will ensure that you get a worse service.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
If you are correct and BS does mean a worse service, I'd be tempted to ask for a traffic service instead.
But if I ask Luton for a TS for my trip that tracks 1 nm west of their CTR and then beneath their CTA, will they give it? Presumably not, unless they are a bit quiet (11.00 to 15.00 seem to be not too bad) and are feeling helpful.
I suppose one tactic would be to be stay as close as possible to their CAS so that they feel obliged to keep an eye on you just in case you bust it. Not my kind of airmanship though.
At present, I wouldn't dream of asking them for a RIS. I assume that only LARS units offer it - open to correction on that, of course.
Alexa
If you are correct and BS does mean a worse service, I'd be tempted to ask for a traffic service instead.
But if I ask Luton for a TS for my trip that tracks 1 nm west of their CTR and then beneath their CTA, will they give it? Presumably not, unless they are a bit quiet (11.00 to 15.00 seem to be not too bad) and are feeling helpful.
I suppose one tactic would be to be stay as close as possible to their CAS so that they feel obliged to keep an eye on you just in case you bust it. Not my kind of airmanship though.
At present, I wouldn't dream of asking them for a RIS. I assume that only LARS units offer it - open to correction on that, of course.
Alexa