UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
Mr Grumpy,read the post above and it's definitions.You may think that my comments betray me,but you don't know my background and I'm certainly capable of using my own intelligence to provide an ATS.I've worked in similar environments to that you describe and I stand by my previous post.There's no point quoting the ICAO FIS when we both know that the UK has always done it's own thing,with different service definitions.We are where we are because the CAA and the military allowed the lines to be blurred,not enough standardization between providers and a lack of understanding by foreign pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and Gals
Spare a thought for us APP/Procedural units OCAS in very busy airspace and with no airspace to play with (eg msa..oops old term!!... ranges from 2100 to 2300 and CAS starts at 2500....... imagine a manic Sunday afternoon all the GA pilots don't want BS as they think there is not enough Traffic given so the only other option they have is to ask for Procedural service..... bingo... were now having to deconflict 20/30 VFR a/c in no airspace. Sounds like fun!
Spare a thought for us APP/Procedural units OCAS in very busy airspace and with no airspace to play with (eg msa..oops old term!!... ranges from 2100 to 2300 and CAS starts at 2500....... imagine a manic Sunday afternoon all the GA pilots don't want BS as they think there is not enough Traffic given so the only other option they have is to ask for Procedural service..... bingo... were now having to deconflict 20/30 VFR a/c in no airspace. Sounds like fun!
No problemo - they are all "instructed" to fly beyond the restricting CAS, No 1 climbs to FL190, No 2 to FL180 etc. That should learn 'em to request a PS!!
2 s
2 s
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whowhenwhy,
UK has not filed a difference on FIS and until 12 March the UK provides FIS as defined in ICAO Doc 4444. After that date we will provide services in accordance with CAP774 and in my opinion the level of service will be worse than before. A point well made by pumuckl.
The reason this has happened is apparently because the CAA wanted to make delivery more consistent and improve education of both pilots and controllers. Well, controllers are being re-educated but it remains to be seen how well that process will go with pilots, given that it took 20 years for a majority to have a vague idea of what the services are, and I don’t expect this will improve the education of foreign pilots one little bit. As far as delivery is concerned, I suspect northsouth is spot on:
In the event, although I think the guidance in CAP774 is to be welcomed, that, and re-education is as far as we needed to go, and the new procedures are a retrograde step. I am prepared to bet that they utterly fail to address the perceived problems they were designed to fix.
Still, the good news is that they won’t last too long because when EASA take over in a couple of years they intend to harmonise services across Europe!
UK has not filed a difference on FIS and until 12 March the UK provides FIS as defined in ICAO Doc 4444. After that date we will provide services in accordance with CAP774 and in my opinion the level of service will be worse than before. A point well made by pumuckl.
The reason this has happened is apparently because the CAA wanted to make delivery more consistent and improve education of both pilots and controllers. Well, controllers are being re-educated but it remains to be seen how well that process will go with pilots, given that it took 20 years for a majority to have a vague idea of what the services are, and I don’t expect this will improve the education of foreign pilots one little bit. As far as delivery is concerned, I suspect northsouth is spot on:
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.
Still, the good news is that they won’t last too long because when EASA take over in a couple of years they intend to harmonise services across Europe!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: nearby
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frtol Exam
Hopefully the examiners will be given a heads up on how it will happen. Not all examiners are controllers so other than the disc and CAP what training will they have had?
Last edited by agent007; 25th Feb 2009 at 21:17. Reason: spelling!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: IoW
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whowhenwhy
I wonder how many of you 'chaps' are pilots and actually fly on a regular basis in 'red indian territory'?? I do.
Reading through all the threads, it appears that there are quite a few 'desk pilots' who maybe don't appreciate what it's really like in said territory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Some people need to wind things back and look at the basic concept of the term Visual Flight Rules...VFR. When you fly VFR in the open FIR it is a 'see and be seen' enviroment, ie. You stay in VMC so you can keep yourself away from other aircraft, cloud, terrain and obstructions.....and on top of that you keep a B****Y GOOD LOOKOUT! If a controller then gives us some traffic info.(no matter how it's derived) that he or she CONSIDERS its relvant, any pilot worth their salt, will be gratefull for the 'heads up' on it (this is generally what happens now, BUT, we should appreciate that it is subject to the controller's workload...AND DON'T EXPECT IT ALL THE TIME!).
This business of 'blurring' the service with a FRIS, really is aload of joke,
.....all I can find is FIS, RIS and RAS in the books, no mention of FRIS?? However, what we are getting is a FIS and traffic info. as a BONUS BUT NOT EXPECTING ALL THE TIME, this is the point that any educated pilot should appreciate, and if he/she does'nt this is where the weakness lies and with not the controller.
In my experience, I have had absolutely no problems with the proffesional service over 30 years of flogging around the FIR, with both the civil and military guys....you do a good job and sometimes under alot of pressure
I wonder how many of you 'chaps' are pilots and actually fly on a regular basis in 'red indian territory'?? I do.
Reading through all the threads, it appears that there are quite a few 'desk pilots' who maybe don't appreciate what it's really like in said territory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Some people need to wind things back and look at the basic concept of the term Visual Flight Rules...VFR. When you fly VFR in the open FIR it is a 'see and be seen' enviroment, ie. You stay in VMC so you can keep yourself away from other aircraft, cloud, terrain and obstructions.....and on top of that you keep a B****Y GOOD LOOKOUT! If a controller then gives us some traffic info.(no matter how it's derived) that he or she CONSIDERS its relvant, any pilot worth their salt, will be gratefull for the 'heads up' on it (this is generally what happens now, BUT, we should appreciate that it is subject to the controller's workload...AND DON'T EXPECT IT ALL THE TIME!).
This business of 'blurring' the service with a FRIS, really is aload of joke,
.....all I can find is FIS, RIS and RAS in the books, no mention of FRIS?? However, what we are getting is a FIS and traffic info. as a BONUS BUT NOT EXPECTING ALL THE TIME, this is the point that any educated pilot should appreciate, and if he/she does'nt this is where the weakness lies and with not the controller.
In my experience, I have had absolutely no problems with the proffesional service over 30 years of flogging around the FIR, with both the civil and military guys....you do a good job and sometimes under alot of pressure
What Billy Goat says! And to expand on that...
Although it is a term widely used, even, regrettably, by CAA, there is no mention of "see and be seen" in the ANO. The reality of VFR flight in Class G, particularly in visibility down to 1500 metres, is more like "see if possible, hope to be seen, keep your fingers crossed and utilise traffic information to supplement the aforesaid".
The concern of some controllers is that the provision of BS will be considered inadequate (specifically as required by CAA, with only very generic TI), more VFR flights will therefore request TS or even DS or PS, with resultant increased workload.
2 s
Although it is a term widely used, even, regrettably, by CAA, there is no mention of "see and be seen" in the ANO. The reality of VFR flight in Class G, particularly in visibility down to 1500 metres, is more like "see if possible, hope to be seen, keep your fingers crossed and utilise traffic information to supplement the aforesaid".
The concern of some controllers is that the provision of BS will be considered inadequate (specifically as required by CAA, with only very generic TI), more VFR flights will therefore request TS or even DS or PS, with resultant increased workload.
2 s
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2sheds
The concern of some controllers is that the provision of BS will be considered inadequate (specifically as required by CAA, with only very generic TI), more VFR flights will therefore request TS or even DS or PS, with resultant increased workload.
And what happened to essential traffic?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Why on earth would a VFR flight request a PS? They won't get it from a radar unit unless the radar's u/s and if it's from a non-radar unit they would have to be sure they could either accept flight in IMC or be sure they wouldn't encounter IMC. In any case if they're already in contact with a unit that's providing a PS to someone else, they'll hear that PS traffic getting traffic info on them, so what would be the point in getting a PS themselves? But in no circumstances can a controller giving a PS give traffic info on aircraft not speaking to him so BS traffic which is already on frequency can gain nothing by asking for a PS.
Thinking of some of the non-radar IFR airfields around the UK, I simply don't believe that the advent of BS from 12 March will lead to controllers no longer giving traffic info on IFR arrivals/departures to the potentially conflicting VFR traffic they have on frequency. It just would not make any sense and I can't see controllers agreeing to do such a thing.
NS
Thinking of some of the non-radar IFR airfields around the UK, I simply don't believe that the advent of BS from 12 March will lead to controllers no longer giving traffic info on IFR arrivals/departures to the potentially conflicting VFR traffic they have on frequency. It just would not make any sense and I can't see controllers agreeing to do such a thing.
NS
Why on earth would a VFR flight request a PS?
But probably because (a) they will be entitled to - the CAA is now encouraging it, (b) for the same reason as "why climb a mountain?" and (c) they might be flying in cr@p weather conditions. However, it will cease to seem like a Good Idea when they are required to climb another 5000 ft and probably go into IMC.
Agree entirely with the comment about non-radar aerodromes - it really has not been properly thought through.
2 s
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NorthSouth
Why on earth would a VFR flight request a PS? They won't get it from a radar unit unless the radar's u/s and if it's from a non-radar unit they would have to be sure they could either accept flight in IMC or be sure they wouldn't encounter IMC. In any case if they're already in contact with a unit that's providing a PS to someone else, they'll hear that PS traffic getting traffic info on them, so what would be the point in getting a PS themselves? But in no circumstances can a controller giving a PS give traffic info on aircraft not speaking to him so BS traffic which is already on frequency can gain nothing by asking for a PS.
edit
Dammit ninja'd by 2 sheds
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: way out there
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote - Why on earth would a VFR request a PS ?
Agree with the reasons 2 sheds puts forward , except if in (a) because the CAA is now encouraging it. If when it is up and running and more VFR A/C request it than
what is normal now the ATC service at not radar AD's could get more of a hinderance
to VFR A/C rather than helping them.
Having worked in both non-radar and radar units outside CAS i see pros/cons for both types of units and if anything more pros to the non-radar units. This issue i have is the changes mentioned in the SI 2008/03 first two pages, which i think has been missed by most people but affects everybody working inside or outside CAS. They are changing the caveat at the begining of the MATS pt 1
Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their
own discretion and initiative in any particular circustance.
Many years ago when i began my training i was taught by wise experienced ATCO's
that the day they get rid of the above caveat is the day to reconsider your career. Well they have not got rid of it but the wording has changed and the question has to be asked does the change affect us.
They say it has been changed due to a formal review of liability, negligence and duty of care and requests for clarification and was agreed that it had the potential to be incorrectly applied. When they requested input about ATC services OCAS i do not recall anything being asked about the caveat(although i might of missed it). I personally believe it did not need clarifing and made sense as it was written. I have been led to believe the clarification request has come from college instructors not the ATCO's at the sharp end. The new wording of the caveat has got rid of "any particular circumstance" and replaced it with "in reponse to unusual circumstances which may not be covered by the procedures within" .which smacks of lawyers interferring with it.
Agree with the reasons 2 sheds puts forward , except if in (a) because the CAA is now encouraging it. If when it is up and running and more VFR A/C request it than
what is normal now the ATC service at not radar AD's could get more of a hinderance
to VFR A/C rather than helping them.
Having worked in both non-radar and radar units outside CAS i see pros/cons for both types of units and if anything more pros to the non-radar units. This issue i have is the changes mentioned in the SI 2008/03 first two pages, which i think has been missed by most people but affects everybody working inside or outside CAS. They are changing the caveat at the begining of the MATS pt 1
Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their
own discretion and initiative in any particular circustance.
Many years ago when i began my training i was taught by wise experienced ATCO's
that the day they get rid of the above caveat is the day to reconsider your career. Well they have not got rid of it but the wording has changed and the question has to be asked does the change affect us.
They say it has been changed due to a formal review of liability, negligence and duty of care and requests for clarification and was agreed that it had the potential to be incorrectly applied. When they requested input about ATC services OCAS i do not recall anything being asked about the caveat(although i might of missed it). I personally believe it did not need clarifing and made sense as it was written. I have been led to believe the clarification request has come from college instructors not the ATCO's at the sharp end. The new wording of the caveat has got rid of "any particular circumstance" and replaced it with "in reponse to unusual circumstances which may not be covered by the procedures within" .which smacks of lawyers interferring with it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Limited Vertical Airspace
Going back to the limited levels scenario....
The ANO states IFR requires 500 ft separation based on the quadrantal rules (QR) whilst MATS Pt1 normally requires 1000 ft vertical separation for IFR separations (500 ft may be used in an emergency). Perhaps, the use of emergency separations are about to become more usual (or more akin to the ANO) for the 'reasonable controller'. So how how would the aviation lawyers play that one?
The ANO states IFR requires 500 ft separation based on the quadrantal rules (QR) whilst MATS Pt1 normally requires 1000 ft vertical separation for IFR separations (500 ft may be used in an emergency). Perhaps, the use of emergency separations are about to become more usual (or more akin to the ANO) for the 'reasonable controller'. So how how would the aviation lawyers play that one?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than taking a PS, it is more likely that pilots will seek TI or DS to gain the level of traffic information they have been used to on FIS - Yes, we all know the standard stock FIS phrase "not receiving a radar service, but, traffic believed to be you has traffic...o'clock.....miles...." Can't see that one being used on BS or PS!
Last edited by Bennyclub; 27th Feb 2009 at 18:03.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
2sheds:
So let me get this right. Are you saying that someone flying in marginal VMC on a BS from a radar-equipped unit would ask for a PS in order to get better traffic info? That really doesn't make any sense. First of all, radar units with serviceable radars won't offer anyone a PS because they've got better and easier things to offer. Second, even if the alleged VFR was given a PS, they'll only get traffic info on other PS traffic, not on unknowns. If they ask for a TS they'll get all the traffic info they need but won't be sent on wild goose chases around the sky.
If on the other hand you're saying our marginal VFR friend will only ask for PS at non-radar units, then why is he not doing this now? Asking for a PS in the conditions you state is effectvely a request to change to IFR. They can do that now. The only difference is that now it doesn't really have an official name (although ICAO calls it 'Procedural Control').
But go to Carlisle, Dundee, Cranfield, Oxford and you'll see people getting a procedural service all the time. But none of them will be VFRs looking for better traffic info, now or in future.
Bennyclub:
It can't be used on a PS because the controller won't be giving radar-based traffic info and only gives tfc info on participating traffic. But there's no reason why a controller can't give that sort of warning to BS tfc if he believes there's a risk of collision, just as he would do currently when there's a perceived risk of collision with FIS traffic.
NS
they might be flying in cr@p weather conditions. However, it will cease to seem like a Good Idea when they are required to climb another 5000 ft and probably go into IMC
If on the other hand you're saying our marginal VFR friend will only ask for PS at non-radar units, then why is he not doing this now? Asking for a PS in the conditions you state is effectvely a request to change to IFR. They can do that now. The only difference is that now it doesn't really have an official name (although ICAO calls it 'Procedural Control').
But go to Carlisle, Dundee, Cranfield, Oxford and you'll see people getting a procedural service all the time. But none of them will be VFRs looking for better traffic info, now or in future.
Bennyclub:
traffic believed to be you has traffic...o'clock.....miles...." Can't see that one being used on BS or PS!
NS