UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
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?
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?
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.
2s
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North South
Sorry to point out to you that you are wrong regarding PS. You pass traffic information on conflicting non-participating traffic to PS when necessary - not not-at-all as you suggest. Perhaps you are confused because you are not responsible for applying procedural separation to non-participating traffic, which of course is a different matter.
You say radar can't be used with PS. As such, you imply you would not pass radar derived traffic information to PS. Not sure that would be a reasonable action if you considered there was a definite risk of collision. For instance, think about unknown traffic attacking your traffic in a Procedural Hold in Class G. There may be very little you can do to deconflict the traffic but are you seriously suggesting you would not call it from your radar picture even if you possessed the skill?
"Traffic believed to be you has traffic....." will be defunct as BS and PS requires the passing of generic traffic information on definite collision risks - the same with PS. This is because controllers should not to imply the use of radar when passing such information. However, I am with you when it comes to using the phrase in essential circumstances (i.e collision situations). I say, if you have the skill use it. After all, I need to sleep at nights.....
Sorry to point out to you that you are wrong regarding PS. You pass traffic information on conflicting non-participating traffic to PS when necessary - not not-at-all as you suggest. Perhaps you are confused because you are not responsible for applying procedural separation to non-participating traffic, which of course is a different matter.
You say radar can't be used with PS. As such, you imply you would not pass radar derived traffic information to PS. Not sure that would be a reasonable action if you considered there was a definite risk of collision. For instance, think about unknown traffic attacking your traffic in a Procedural Hold in Class G. There may be very little you can do to deconflict the traffic but are you seriously suggesting you would not call it from your radar picture even if you possessed the skill?
"Traffic believed to be you has traffic....." will be defunct as BS and PS requires the passing of generic traffic information on definite collision risks - the same with PS. This is because controllers should not to imply the use of radar when passing such information. However, I am with you when it comes to using the phrase in essential circumstances (i.e collision situations). I say, if you have the skill use it. After all, I need to sleep at nights.....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Bennyclub:
Oh dear this is all much worse than I thought. Do you really think that the CAA is instructing you not to tell a pilot where an aircraft that's about to hit him really is, only that there might be some traffic generically out there? If that's the message controllers are getting from CAP 774 then the CAA really have made a mess of this. I remain in hope that the great Britsih controller pragmatism will win through in the end.
NS
"Traffic believed to be you has traffic....." will be defunct as BS and PS requires the passing of generic traffic information on definite collision risks - the same with PS
NS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought,
Will the RTF call-signs be changed?
'London Information' would become 'London Basic'.
If you can't say 'Radar', a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS), will be a Lower Airspace Surveillance Service (LASS).
A FISO will become a BSO.
What about Warton with their RASA? Will they become known as the Fylde Deconflictor?
etc.
- IT'S MADNESS.
Will the RTF call-signs be changed?
'London Information' would become 'London Basic'.
If you can't say 'Radar', a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS), will be a Lower Airspace Surveillance Service (LASS).
A FISO will become a BSO.
What about Warton with their RASA? Will they become known as the Fylde Deconflictor?
etc.
- IT'S MADNESS.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 3rd Mar 2009 at 07:22.
As a PPL, at present if I depart VFR from an airfield in class D airspace I always end up talking to xxx approach with a clearance to the zone boundary. Eventually, a few miles outside the zone, I ask to change to another frequency - this is approved with the request that I squawk 7000. At no time does there ever seem to be a 'contract' about the service after I leave the zone.
Now in the zone I am, presumably, receiving a control service - its never agreed if this this is radar control or simply control. As I cross the boundary I dont recollect being told that I'm now receiving FIS/RIS or RAS - I simply continue on track until either I or the controller decides enough is enough.
After Mar 12 how will this change? Am I responsible for knowing the moment I leave the zone and negotiating a BS/TS/DS - or is it down to the controller? By default what should he offer me?
Now in the zone I am, presumably, receiving a control service - its never agreed if this this is radar control or simply control. As I cross the boundary I dont recollect being told that I'm now receiving FIS/RIS or RAS - I simply continue on track until either I or the controller decides enough is enough.
After Mar 12 how will this change? Am I responsible for knowing the moment I leave the zone and negotiating a BS/TS/DS - or is it down to the controller? By default what should he offer me?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Jim59: in the circumstances you describe the controller should be asking you to report leaving the zone at X, and when you do, he should be saying "Flight Information Service". I fly regularly in similar circumstances and that's the norm here.
NS
PS if you're VFR inside the zone you won't be getting a radar control service, just an air trafic control service.
NS
PS if you're VFR inside the zone you won't be getting a radar control service, just an air trafic control service.
PS if you're VFR inside the zone you won't be getting a radar control service, just an air trafic control service.
2 s
On the way back to base today I was explaining to the HEMS paramedics the changes they would soon hear to voice procedure on the ATC radios.
When I told them the whole lot was going to change overnight one of them said;
"In that case they might need another Service"
"What's that then?" I said, curious at the interest in ATC matters.
"Church Service"
When I told them the whole lot was going to change overnight one of them said;
"In that case they might need another Service"
"What's that then?" I said, curious at the interest in ATC matters.
"Church Service"
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North South
CAP 774 quote:
"Pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller/FISO, as there is no such obligation placed on the controller/FISO under a Basic Service outside an Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ), and the pilot remains responsible for collision avoidance at all times. However, on initial contact the controller/FISO may provide traffic information in general terms to assist with the pilot’s situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the controller/FISO unless the situation has changed markedly, or the pilot requests an update. A controller with access to surveillance derived information shall avoid the routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft, and a pilot who considers that he requires such a regular flow of specific traffic information shall request a Traffic Service. However, if a controller/ FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot."
I guess that warning could include radar derived information or other knowledge of conflicting traffic, which is why I will continue to call such traffic. The wording in CAP774 does not oblige the controller, though, and places the onus to see and avoid firmly in the cockpit.
CAP 774 quote:
"Pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller/FISO, as there is no such obligation placed on the controller/FISO under a Basic Service outside an Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ), and the pilot remains responsible for collision avoidance at all times. However, on initial contact the controller/FISO may provide traffic information in general terms to assist with the pilot’s situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the controller/FISO unless the situation has changed markedly, or the pilot requests an update. A controller with access to surveillance derived information shall avoid the routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft, and a pilot who considers that he requires such a regular flow of specific traffic information shall request a Traffic Service. However, if a controller/ FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot."
I guess that warning could include radar derived information or other knowledge of conflicting traffic, which is why I will continue to call such traffic. The wording in CAP774 does not oblige the controller, though, and places the onus to see and avoid firmly in the cockpit.
Last edited by Bennyclub; 4th Mar 2009 at 06:42.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Bennyclub:
Yes, but what you said in an earlier post was that when there was a "definite collision risk" you were "required" by the new rules to pass only "generic traffic information". Perhaps I misinterpreted you but I would suggest that no controller, seeing an unidentified primary radar return 12 o'clock, opposite direction, one mile from their VFR on a Basic Service, would say something generic like "believed to be traffic in the XXX area". It's a collision risk, so they would tell their BS traffic what they can see on the radar, just as they do now. It would surely be a contortion of the 'duty of care' principles as well as of common sense for any controller to think that they should deliberately hold back information which they believe may stop aluminium raining out of the sky.
NS
I guess that warning could include radar derived information or other knowledge of conflicting traffic, which is why I will continue to call such traffic
NS
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North South
We are apparently violently agreeing about using radar derived information on BS. But, going back to the passing of generic traffic information in cases of definite collision risks. Without radar you can't give traffic other than generic information and why on BS would one pass information on conflicting traffic that did not constitute a definite risk of collision? The development, as I understand it, is to tone down the hitherto perceived over-passing of traffic information to FIS now we are about to change to BS.
We are apparently violently agreeing about using radar derived information on BS. But, going back to the passing of generic traffic information in cases of definite collision risks. Without radar you can't give traffic other than generic information and why on BS would one pass information on conflicting traffic that did not constitute a definite risk of collision? The development, as I understand it, is to tone down the hitherto perceived over-passing of traffic information to FIS now we are about to change to BS.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Benny: I think we are in agreement now! I think you are now saying that you would give specific radar-based traffic info to a BS when you perceive that there is a collision risk. I don't think anyone here was ever talking about a controller with no access to radar - clearly they're not in a position to give specific traffic info.
NS
NS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please Help!!
When I completed my ATSOCAS training I was taught that under a Traffic or Deconfliction Service the pilot may not change heading or level without approval from ATC.
However on reading the CAP under DS it says that the pilot must rquest a hdg/lvl change and approval must be given.Under Traffic Service it says the pilot must advise ATC and get a response. It says nothing about needing ATC approval.
I am now confused and would appreciate any help offered.
When I completed my ATSOCAS training I was taught that under a Traffic or Deconfliction Service the pilot may not change heading or level without approval from ATC.
However on reading the CAP under DS it says that the pilot must rquest a hdg/lvl change and approval must be given.Under Traffic Service it says the pilot must advise ATC and get a response. It says nothing about needing ATC approval.
I am now confused and would appreciate any help offered.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under TS, "the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information to assist the pilot in avoiding other traffic" and the pilot "shall not change route, manoeuvring area, or deviate from an ATC heading without first advising and obtaining a response from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot."
Under DS, "the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft" and the pilot "shall not change heading without first obtaining approval from the controller, as the flight profile may have been co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot."
Essentially what this means is that under TS the controller assists the pilot to maintain separation and under DS the controller seeks to actually achieve the separation.
Thus, under TS you need simply to notify the controller but under DS you need the controller's approval.
Hope this helps ...
JD
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really it just confirms my worst fears. I was taught the TS/DS rules as I stated and have subsequently re-taught them as as such. It was only today that this error was pointed out to me and I wanted to know what everybody else was teaching/was being taught.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: isz
Age: 51
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shame its not rednose day when the new services come in.....well....maybe we all should have a swear box on sector both days and donate it all to charity.....and yes the pilots can donate too....either that or its a basic service all round!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previously ..... "G-ABCD, identified, Radar Advisory/Radar Information Service" (instinctively, due to 25 years experience, and solid knowledge of airspace etc..)
After March 12th .... and numerous airspace changes ... which change Class depending on day of week, time of day and level, introduction of TRAs, new ATSOCA names etc..
"G-ABCD, identified (looks at radar screen) ..... Traffic Service limited due to controller workload (looks at blood pressure monitor), while I try toing work out ....
A) whether it's a weekday/weekend (looks at calendar and thinks)
B) what time of day it is (looks at watch and thinks)
C) if relevant military TRA is activated/deactivated (scrolls through and looks at .... 3 info pages ... and thinks)
D) depending on your position and level (and conditions A, B and C) whether you are actually in Class F, Class G or Class C airspace. (looks at radar, watch, calendar and the heavens ... and thinks)
<next aircraft calls before getting a chance to reply to G-ABCD ... "G-EFGH requesting a Radar Service">
Yeah, I'm REALLY looking forward to this, especially at the dinner time rush with 12 aircraft on a Radar ... errr...... no .... I ... mean ..... a Deconfliction Service
ing bureaucracy. 
After March 12th .... and numerous airspace changes ... which change Class depending on day of week, time of day and level, introduction of TRAs, new ATSOCA names etc..
"G-ABCD, identified (looks at radar screen) ..... Traffic Service limited due to controller workload (looks at blood pressure monitor), while I try to
ing work out ....A) whether it's a weekday/weekend (looks at calendar and thinks)
B) what time of day it is (looks at watch and thinks)
C) if relevant military TRA is activated/deactivated (scrolls through and looks at .... 3 info pages ... and thinks)
D) depending on your position and level (and conditions A, B and C) whether you are actually in Class F, Class G or Class C airspace. (looks at radar, watch, calendar and the heavens ... and thinks)
<next aircraft calls before getting a chance to reply to G-ABCD ... "G-EFGH requesting a Radar Service">
Yeah, I'm REALLY looking forward to this, especially at the dinner time rush with 12 aircraft on a Radar ... errr...... no .... I ... mean ..... a Deconfliction Service
ing bureaucracy.
