UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexa
The problem is that providing ATSOCAS when your main task is within CAS is very difficult and most units are not resourced for it. Now we tend to default to a lower service (FIS) but try and improve it where possible – to provide the best service we can. So if we are unable to provide RIS we will still try and provide something.
Under the new services the problem remains the same but now if we cannot provide TS we will default to BS but will not be allowed to provide any improvement.
We want to help so we will try and keep an eye on you, as we do now, we just won’t tell you about anything unless it’s likely to hit you. Some improvement!
The problem is that providing ATSOCAS when your main task is within CAS is very difficult and most units are not resourced for it. Now we tend to default to a lower service (FIS) but try and improve it where possible – to provide the best service we can. So if we are unable to provide RIS we will still try and provide something.
Under the new services the problem remains the same but now if we cannot provide TS we will default to BS but will not be allowed to provide any improvement.
We want to help so we will try and keep an eye on you, as we do now, we just won’t tell you about anything unless it’s likely to hit you. Some improvement!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Mr G:
I'm not convinced that's what will happen. Don't forget that traffic info can come in numerous forms:
"G-CD the gliding site at Soarville is active"
"G-CD multiple contacts observed in the Somewhere area"
"G-CD traffic information a Robin DR400 just airborne departing the zone to the west"
"G-CD traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles right to left indicating 500 feet above"
Only the last of those is both specific and radar-derived and could therefore - arguably - be the sort of thing controllers won't give you under a BS. But you wouldn't have got it on a FIS either (except very exceptionally). I can't see anything in CAP 774 which stops controllers from giving the other kinds of traffic info.
NS
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
"G-CD the gliding site at Soarville is active"
"G-CD multiple contacts observed in the Somewhere area"
"G-CD traffic information a Robin DR400 just airborne departing the zone to the west"
"G-CD traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles right to left indicating 500 feet above"
Only the last of those is both specific and radar-derived and could therefore - arguably - be the sort of thing controllers won't give you under a BS. But you wouldn't have got it on a FIS either (except very exceptionally). I can't see anything in CAP 774 which stops controllers from giving the other kinds of traffic info.
NS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a GA point of view, Alexa would appear to have got the answers to the question posed by the thread originator, and I like the idea the BS = Basic Service; I always thought it meant something else...
My question is this: with the new terminology, are we going to hear less of the stupid waste of breath statements like 'terrain clearance is your own responsibility' and 'land (at your discretion)'? What complete tosh. As aircraft commander, I know that I am always responsible for not flying into the ground and wasn't it always my discretion as to whether or not I go ahead and land after being given a clearance?? Surely, it's part of that old-fashioned pilot skill we used to call 'Airmanship'.
I fly offshore helicopters too. We have to ask the Helideck Landing Officer if 'the deck is available' (for landing, obviously). In the old days we used to ask for 'deck clearance'. No doubt (due to some 'duty of care' BS-er) it was decided that the 'deck is available for landing at your discretion' is a more appropriate approval than the more succinct 'clear for landing'. Believe me, on a foul weather day with a lot of traffic about, the last thing anyone wants is the frequency tied up with unnecessary bo**ocks such as this! I now sometimes say ' c/sign HLO, request deckability'. It seems to work too!
Sorry; rant over.
WW
My question is this: with the new terminology, are we going to hear less of the stupid waste of breath statements like 'terrain clearance is your own responsibility' and 'land (at your discretion)'? What complete tosh. As aircraft commander, I know that I am always responsible for not flying into the ground and wasn't it always my discretion as to whether or not I go ahead and land after being given a clearance?? Surely, it's part of that old-fashioned pilot skill we used to call 'Airmanship'.
I fly offshore helicopters too. We have to ask the Helideck Landing Officer if 'the deck is available' (for landing, obviously). In the old days we used to ask for 'deck clearance'. No doubt (due to some 'duty of care' BS-er) it was decided that the 'deck is available for landing at your discretion' is a more appropriate approval than the more succinct 'clear for landing'. Believe me, on a foul weather day with a lot of traffic about, the last thing anyone wants is the frequency tied up with unnecessary bo**ocks such as this! I now sometimes say ' c/sign HLO, request deckability'. It seems to work too!
Sorry; rant over.
WW
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I am after an en-route service in Class G, I will request RIS. I can see no reason not to and every reason to do so. Most of the time I will be given RIS, which provides me more pertinent traffic information, the controller has a verified squawk and my comfort level is much greater. In practice I find that I am only denied RIS or bumped to FIS if I am below SSR coverage.
So, from 12 March, I guess I shall be requesting Traffic Service ...
JD
PS Like so many others, I really don't see the need for this change ...
Originally Posted by US Herk
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.
Here's the book (CAP744).
Here's the Website.
Cheers,
LXGB
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Whirlwind,
Phraseology such as "terrain clearance is your own responsibility" is currently not in the civil bible of Air Traffic and should not in general be said. The only time a controller might say that, is because a vector has been given below sector safe altitudes, which currently is a no no. They could of course also be saying it because you may have told them you are IMC, they have told you the sector safe altitude and you elect to fly below it. This is arse covering!
Come the 12th of March!
"taking your own terrain clearance" is going to be said! This is because under a traffic service we are allowed to try and turn you into a hill
. You will be hearing plenty of painfully long winded phraseology about limiting a service 
, phraseology explaining what the new services are 
. VFR PPL's trying out deconflicting service and being vector around the sky before they hopefully tell you that they can not fly in cloud 
Reference "land at your discretion", is usually just for something to say when you land off airfield and call final. The word "Final" comes and naturally we must say something back to you with the word "Land" in it.
Phraseology such as "terrain clearance is your own responsibility" is currently not in the civil bible of Air Traffic and should not in general be said. The only time a controller might say that, is because a vector has been given below sector safe altitudes, which currently is a no no. They could of course also be saying it because you may have told them you are IMC, they have told you the sector safe altitude and you elect to fly below it. This is arse covering!
Come the 12th of March!
"taking your own terrain clearance" is going to be said! This is because under a traffic service we are allowed to try and turn you into a hill
. You will be hearing plenty of painfully long winded phraseology about limiting a service , phraseology explaining what the new services are . VFR PPL's trying out deconflicting service and being vector around the sky before they hopefully tell you that they can not fly in cloud Reference "land at your discretion", is usually just for something to say when you land off airfield and call final. The word "Final" comes and naturally we must say something back to you with the word "Land" in it.
Sorry, I'm going to bite. The reason why we're having this thread is because the mil and CAA didn't get around the table years ago and ensure that the suite of services that we were giving was standardised. Units started going off the piste and doing exactly the kind of thing that's mentioned here. For example paraphrasing an earlier post, well we were giving FIS because we were too busy to give RIS, but we tried to provide traffic info as and when we could if we were quiet. Absolute tosh. You should have provided one or the other. Provide FIS with "duty of care" collision warnings, or RIS and limit it for high traffic density, controller workload or both. And sorry, but frankly I believe that the rot started on the civil side. Having seen the way that civil colleagues around the UK interpret the provision of RAS, it is far removed from the original intent. What I am hearing from some civil units about how they're going to apply the new ATSOCAS is similarly concerning. For instance "we're not going to keep mentioning this "with terrain alert" thingy, because all of our pilots know about it" from a major airport in northern England. Yes, but CAP774 states exactly what people are to say and if we all start dropping bits here and there to suit ourselves, we're going to be straight back to where we are now.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a long-term civilian flyer, I'm as puzzled as most as to why these changes are being brought about. It seems to me that some reading between the lines is needed and, in this regard, whowhenwhy's post is interesting. Are we to believe this is really just about a war between military and civil ATSUs?
However, in trying to look at this logically, certain basic questions come to my mind, viz.,
I am a civvie flying around in Class G and need a Flight/Radar Service, should I expect to be able to obtain one? If so, why is it that both civil and military ATSUs seem to only offer me the service as an "extra" to their other commitments? If the service is justified on safety grounds, then surely it should be properly resourced? Next, why do these new provisions in CAP774 make it so complicated that the average Bloggs finds it difficult to understand all the details of service offered, to differentiate between them, to know which responsibility is whose, under what circumstances it can happen, etc. ...? It seems the intrusion of 'elf & Safety, Duty of Care and the like are in danger of becoming counter-productive to the provision of the services themselves. For example, what sort of non-standard gobbledegook is "taking your own terrain clearance..." ?
I could go on - but I have to say that I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the existing (FIS/RIS/RAS) arrangements - with the possible exception that RAS is only available under IFR. The present names of the services describe their function, the practices are well established and pilots (generally) know what to expect. Overall, it seems to me that what we need is better resources to provide the existing services, rather than changes to the services themselves.
I know it is a tired cliché but, surely, if it ain't broke don't fix it ...
JD
However, in trying to look at this logically, certain basic questions come to my mind, viz.,
I am a civvie flying around in Class G and need a Flight/Radar Service, should I expect to be able to obtain one? If so, why is it that both civil and military ATSUs seem to only offer me the service as an "extra" to their other commitments? If the service is justified on safety grounds, then surely it should be properly resourced? Next, why do these new provisions in CAP774 make it so complicated that the average Bloggs finds it difficult to understand all the details of service offered, to differentiate between them, to know which responsibility is whose, under what circumstances it can happen, etc. ...? It seems the intrusion of 'elf & Safety, Duty of Care and the like are in danger of becoming counter-productive to the provision of the services themselves. For example, what sort of non-standard gobbledegook is "taking your own terrain clearance..." ?
I could go on - but I have to say that I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the existing (FIS/RIS/RAS) arrangements - with the possible exception that RAS is only available under IFR. The present names of the services describe their function, the practices are well established and pilots (generally) know what to expect. Overall, it seems to me that what we need is better resources to provide the existing services, rather than changes to the services themselves.
I know it is a tired cliché but, surely, if it ain't broke don't fix it ...
JD
Jumbo
I suppose that the basic answer, actually, is "no, only a FIS as defined by ICAO, so be grateful if there is anything more than that. That is why it is uncontrolled airspace!"
They would probably offer a "full" service in class G to all comers if the users were to finance the full cost of such a deal!
Quite so. I suggested to CAA that this is (a) unnecessary, given the very clear specification of responsibility, (b) confusing, given that it is the pilot's responsibilty and one would infer from the words that prior to this point it had not been, (c) how does a pilot "take" terrain clearance, surely the verb would be "maintain", (d) if a reminder is considered necessary, "caution - terrain clearance" would be a more appropriate phrase. Answer - we discussed this and our minds are made up. As for the introduction of - confusing - military phraseology ("report level") there was no answer.
2 s
I am a civvie flying around in Class G and need a Flight/Radar Service, should I expect to be able to obtain one?
ATSUs seem to only offer me the service as an "extra" to their other commitments?
what sort of non-standard gobbledegook is "taking your own terrain clearance..."
2 s
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please excuse a thick (ex ATPL - now PPL) pilot coming on to the ATC forum, but I have a couple of questions having watched the CD (and got 70%!!) and read CAP 774 and being still confused.
I am VFR. I am approaching the FIR after talking to Deauville who provided me with "Transit" of and above their Class D airspace. (Effectively RIS although they never actually use the phrase)
I call London Info with an ETA of the FIR boundary at position SITET. What do I ask for? BASIC?
I then cross the coast and change to Farnborough. Again what do I ask for? Not BASIC surely? DECONFLICTION? Farnborough are a very good LARS that has recently been expanded. It is no longer Military, although Military aircraft use their excellent service. All I want is what they give me before the changeover. RIS and FIS.
Advise much appreciated.
I am VFR. I am approaching the FIR after talking to Deauville who provided me with "Transit" of and above their Class D airspace. (Effectively RIS although they never actually use the phrase)
I call London Info with an ETA of the FIR boundary at position SITET. What do I ask for? BASIC?
I then cross the coast and change to Farnborough. Again what do I ask for? Not BASIC surely? DECONFLICTION? Farnborough are a very good LARS that has recently been expanded. It is no longer Military, although Military aircraft use their excellent service. All I want is what they give me before the changeover. RIS and FIS.
Advise much appreciated.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Units started going off the piste and doing exactly the kind of thing that's mentioned here. For example paraphrasing an earlier post, well we were giving FIS because we were too busy to give RIS, but we tried to provide traffic info as and when we could if we were quiet. Absolute tosh. You should have provided one or the other. Provide FIS with "duty of care" collision warnings, or RIS and limit it for high traffic density, controller workload or both.
The reality is that if my main activity is providing radar control within CAS and I have a secondary activity outside, the game is different, and often close to impossible. For example, if an aircraft wishes to transit our airspace and receive ATSOCAS, we have to negotiate an initial contract, re-negotiate when they enter, re-negotiate when they leave again and cancel the contract at the end. We also might have to limit the service for a variety of reasons. Throw in a couple of radar handovers and do it with umpteen aircraft on frequency and listen. Listen to the RT at this kind of unit on a summer Saturday – endless talk, virtually nothing being achieved.
Unfortunately if you are providing RIS and are not very careful/lucky and something unexpected happens, attention can be diverted elsewhere and someone you have contracted to provide a service has flown for 30 miles without any service at all. Should the unthinkable then happen, a friendly barrister is unlikely to be satisfied with a reply of ‘I was a bit busy’. When you have found yourself in this situation a couple of times you become very selective as to when you offer a service. In these circumstances I and colleagues do our best, ‘getting away with it’.
Still, the new service recognises using radar to be such an appalling act it may only be permitted if there is a definite risk of collision. Clear enough, I will stick to the rules and that will make you happy, and my service worse. However, given that the new procedures are a little more complex, and resources are the same (actually less as most units are short staffed) when Jumbo Driver calls for TS and can only have BS please remember that we would like to help, but cannot.
Just to sign off, the phrase ‘taking your own terrain clearance’ is, like ‘freecall’ illiterate. Who dreams up this nonsense?
Grumpy
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
beerdrinker:
You know it's really not that difficult. If you previously asked for RIS and FIS then just ask for Traffic Service and Basic Service respectively.
As to your specific scenario:
1. London Info has no access to radar so can only offer you a Basic Service irrespective of what you may ask them for.
2. You can ask Farborough LARS for whatever service is appropriate to your needs. If you're happy to rely on see and avoid, ask for a BS. If you'd like some idea of what other traffic is around, but don't want to be vectored all over the shop to avoid it, ask for a TS. If you want some assurance that nothing will ever come closer to you than 3nm/1000ft, and you're either not bothered about being vectored into IMC or the weather's wall-to-wall VMC, then ask for a DS.
For most pilots the new services are virtually identical to the existing ones.
NS
PS: Flying at the weekend, on VFR flights o/CAS with a discrete squawk, received very nice radar-based traffic info (of the "traffic in your vicinity" variety) despite being on a FIS. I don't believe that'll change after 12 March.
I call London Info with an ETA of the FIR boundary at position SITET. What do I ask for? BASIC?
I then cross the coast and change to Farnborough. Again what do I ask for? Not BASIC surely? DECONFLICTION?
I then cross the coast and change to Farnborough. Again what do I ask for? Not BASIC surely? DECONFLICTION?
As to your specific scenario:
1. London Info has no access to radar so can only offer you a Basic Service irrespective of what you may ask them for.
2. You can ask Farborough LARS for whatever service is appropriate to your needs. If you're happy to rely on see and avoid, ask for a BS. If you'd like some idea of what other traffic is around, but don't want to be vectored all over the shop to avoid it, ask for a TS. If you want some assurance that nothing will ever come closer to you than 3nm/1000ft, and you're either not bothered about being vectored into IMC or the weather's wall-to-wall VMC, then ask for a DS.
For most pilots the new services are virtually identical to the existing ones.
NS
PS: Flying at the weekend, on VFR flights o/CAS with a discrete squawk, received very nice radar-based traffic info (of the "traffic in your vicinity" variety) despite being on a FIS. I don't believe that'll change after 12 March.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth, you said:
Oh yes, it will change after 12 March. Have you read the last few pages of this thread? We are not allowed to give you the kind of information you are now getting from some units on a FIS when it changes to BS. The whole point is to standardise is across all units, so you will find that really helpful units at the moment will be providing a lot less information to you when on a BS!
We've had our simulator training already on the new ATSOCAS and it was actually quite difficult at times not saying something when really at the moment we would, ie. Traffic north of you, 5 miles, southbound, 500 feet below. Not gonna happen anymore 'unless a real risk of collsion exists'. You may get generic information such as 'parachute site active' but that's pretty much it.
Personally I think it's become a worse service for the pilots and with some of the new phraseology it hasn't made it easier for the ATCOs either, but I guess we'll have to see how it goes...
p.
Flying at the weekend, on VFR flights o/CAS with a discrete squawk, received very nice radar-based traffic info (of the "traffic in your vicinity" variety) despite being on a FIS. I don't believe that'll change after 12 March.
We've had our simulator training already on the new ATSOCAS and it was actually quite difficult at times not saying something when really at the moment we would, ie. Traffic north of you, 5 miles, southbound, 500 feet below. Not gonna happen anymore 'unless a real risk of collsion exists'. You may get generic information such as 'parachute site active' but that's pretty much it.
Personally I think it's become a worse service for the pilots and with some of the new phraseology it hasn't made it easier for the ATCOs either, but I guess we'll have to see how it goes...
p.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, it will change after 12 March. Have you read the last few pages of this thread? We are not allowed to give you the kind of information you are now getting from some units on a FIS when it changes to BS. The whole point is to standardise is across all units, so you will find that really helpful units at the moment will be providing a lot less information to you when on a BS!
So why on earth ask for a Basic Service ?? Why not ask for a Traffic Service ??
JD
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! I imagine a lot of pilots will be cottoning on to that and asking for a TS very quickly. This however means a lot more work for the ATCO, so you might find that in a lot of cases, especially on a busy sunny Saturday afternoon, this service will have to be limited or may not be able to be provided at all!
I find that even now with mostly FIS traffic, throw in less than a handful of RIS traffic and it can become very very busy for the ATCO indeed. We won't even go into RAS! Imagine EVERYONE asking for a RIS/TS... I dare say it will be impossible to provide.
At the moment, if the workload permits, we will provide as much information as we can even on a FIS, but this will have to stop on a BS. I understand this is to stop pilots 'expecting' a certain level of service when the BS doesn't call for it just in case next time we might be too busy giving the same level of information, something happens and we get blamed for not providing what they expected!
I have a PPL myself and I know that I can't expect anything on a FIS really, so any traffic information I do get I appreciate. It has never stopped me looking out the window of course, but on a BS, there will not be any more traffic information (apart from the generic info such as gliding site active etc) unless absolutely necessary ie. I'm just about to collide with someone, but even then if the controller might be busy with something else... personally I would rather the ATCO told me about the traffic even if 5 miles away and 1000 feet separated but heading my way so I could keep an extra good look out in that direction than for me to find that I never knew about that traffic and it has changed level and is now on a collision course and the controller was busy with something else and didn't notice...
As I said, we'll have to see how it goes.
p.
I find that even now with mostly FIS traffic, throw in less than a handful of RIS traffic and it can become very very busy for the ATCO indeed. We won't even go into RAS! Imagine EVERYONE asking for a RIS/TS... I dare say it will be impossible to provide.
At the moment, if the workload permits, we will provide as much information as we can even on a FIS, but this will have to stop on a BS. I understand this is to stop pilots 'expecting' a certain level of service when the BS doesn't call for it just in case next time we might be too busy giving the same level of information, something happens and we get blamed for not providing what they expected!
I have a PPL myself and I know that I can't expect anything on a FIS really, so any traffic information I do get I appreciate. It has never stopped me looking out the window of course, but on a BS, there will not be any more traffic information (apart from the generic info such as gliding site active etc) unless absolutely necessary ie. I'm just about to collide with someone, but even then if the controller might be busy with something else... personally I would rather the ATCO told me about the traffic even if 5 miles away and 1000 feet separated but heading my way so I could keep an extra good look out in that direction than for me to find that I never knew about that traffic and it has changed level and is now on a collision course and the controller was busy with something else and didn't notice...
As I said, we'll have to see how it goes.
p.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never cease to be amazed by the number of pilots I hear who just ask for FIS. The average PPL seems to get a comfortable feeling from simply having someone to talk to while they are flying their X/C, irrespective of the actual service they are getting. Maybe it's just the way they have been brought up by their instructor ...
I have tried so many times to educate with the benefits of RIS over FIS - but generally it is to no avail.
So, I rather expect the same attitude may apply to TS after 12 March ...
JD
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
pumuckl:
I do understand how you reach that view but I think in practice we will end up with a situation not significantly different from what we have now. Here's what MATS Part 1 says about traffic info on a FIS:
I take from this that traffic info under a FIS is only given when there is a risk of collision. CAP 774 says:
The only difference between that and MATS Part 1 is the word "definite" - and how does a controller assess that? In my experience specific radar-derived traffic info is only given to a/c on a FIS when the separation distance is small - a mile or so - and the aircraft are converging and/or one or both are manoeuvring, and/or one or both aircraft has no Mode C. It seems to me that this shows that controllers are very good at assessing what traffic info is relevant to a light aircraft and when there's a risk of collision - you're not told about things 3-5 miles away but you are told about things a mile away if the controller has the capacity to do that. I have never had a problem with understanding that one is never to expect or rely on traffic info when on a FIS, but I also value it when I get it.
Unfortunately I suspect the new rules will be interpreted differently by different units and by different controllers in the same unit, so we will be no further on than we are now. But I think the current system works pretty well because controllers are pragmatic people who will always try to provide the best service possible within the constraints of rules and workload. And that's what will keep the new system sensible too.
NS
Oh yes, it will change after 12 March. Have you read the last few pages of this thread? We are not allowed to give you the kind of information you are now getting from some units on a FIS when it changes to BS
controllers will, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards to aircraft operating in Class C, D, E, F or G airspace when self-evident information from any source indicates that a risk of collision may exist. It is accepted that this information may be incomplete and the controller cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy
if a controller/FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot.
Unfortunately I suspect the new rules will be interpreted differently by different units and by different controllers in the same unit, so we will be no further on than we are now. But I think the current system works pretty well because controllers are pragmatic people who will always try to provide the best service possible within the constraints of rules and workload. And that's what will keep the new system sensible too.
NS