UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking to the man from SRG he mentioned that some european regs mean that the word Radar cannot be used in identifing the type of service.....hence the name changes....
Except when he transits Class D controlled airspace, by request, then there is a requirement to upgrade the service to a "Radar Control Service", or is that terminology going to change as well?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't mention the word "Radar"?
I'm sorry, isn't Radar the thing that goes round and shows the controllers where all the planes are?
Invented by a Scotsman I believe, - quality equipment.
(Radar, not Scotsmen).
I'm sorry, isn't Radar the thing that goes round and shows the controllers where all the planes are?
Invented by a Scotsman I believe, - quality equipment.
(Radar, not Scotsmen).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I would, the only reason I wouldn't is if I had a higher service aircraft that needed my attention due to a safety related issue.
Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.
Surely this is one of the reasons for the change.
A pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of Controller/FISO work load.
If one day you tell the pilot about traffic and the next day you don't, the pilot will not know which day he has to maintain a good look out.
With the Basic Service being available to non radar units there is a chance that pilots could assume they are always going to be passed traffic that is on a "collision course".
The whole duty of care thing will be decided in the courts, perhaps sooner rather than later. I for one will attempt to stick to the agreed contract and follow the written down procedures. By doing this I will hopefully be fullfilling my DOC .
From the CAP774
Although every case depends upon its particular facts, there is one key question that normally arises: is there any relevant set of standards or procedures? If there is, the issue of whether or not a person has discharged his duty of care is likely to be heavily influenced by whether or not he has complied with those relevant standards and procedures.
I look forward to the Glorious 12th,
I wonder why that date was chosen
Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.
Surely this is one of the reasons for the change.
A pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of Controller/FISO work load.
If one day you tell the pilot about traffic and the next day you don't, the pilot will not know which day he has to maintain a good look out.
With the Basic Service being available to non radar units there is a chance that pilots could assume they are always going to be passed traffic that is on a "collision course".
The whole duty of care thing will be decided in the courts, perhaps sooner rather than later. I for one will attempt to stick to the agreed contract and follow the written down procedures. By doing this I will hopefully be fullfilling my DOC .
From the CAP774
Although every case depends upon its particular facts, there is one key question that normally arises: is there any relevant set of standards or procedures? If there is, the issue of whether or not a person has discharged his duty of care is likely to be heavily influenced by whether or not he has complied with those relevant standards and procedures.
I look forward to the Glorious 12th,
I wonder why that date was chosen
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
' a pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of controller/FISO workload'
How is that possible? service is regularly limited due to high workload,other aircraft taking priority etc As long as pilots are informed.
How is that possible? service is regularly limited due to high workload,other aircraft taking priority etc As long as pilots are informed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of controller/FISO workload
If one day you tell the pilot about traffic and the next day you don't, the pilot will not know which day he has to maintain a good look out
Every day, inside CAS, outside CAS under any sort of service, the onus is on the pilot to maintain a good lookout!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airac,
Ref your post 23. I would very strongly advise you not to shelter behind a CAP in trying to prove you have complied with DOC. Once a QC has established that you were looking at a radar screen, and were trained and validated in its use, you'll be hung, drawn and quartered if it was established that you chose not to use that radar information to attempt to avoid a collision. The legal profession want only blood, and are like sharks when they smell it. Just make sure it is not yours they are after.
Ref your post 23. I would very strongly advise you not to shelter behind a CAP in trying to prove you have complied with DOC. Once a QC has established that you were looking at a radar screen, and were trained and validated in its use, you'll be hung, drawn and quartered if it was established that you chose not to use that radar information to attempt to avoid a collision. The legal profession want only blood, and are like sharks when they smell it. Just make sure it is not yours they are after.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pelton Level, Irony my dear chap or have you never heard of what happens to other flying bodies on that day
Tribekey
Offering a Limited the service is not the same as one day passing traffic info because you have time and the next day not because your attention is drawn to, what is perceived to be, more important matters. If you cannot maintain a particular level of service, then don’t offer it.
COM Jam see the above
Radarman . I Can assure you I will not be sheltering behind any CAP .If I think there is an increased risk of collision then Traffic will be passed BUT, and that’s a big BUT, your perceived risk of collision could be a larger or smaller distance than mine .
I believe what the authorities are trying to achieve is a uniformity of service levels, that at the present time do not exist, as we can clearly see from the other posts.
If you read the document you will see that Traffic information (for aircraft on a basic service) should not be expected outside an ATZ. Yet if you read the revised MATS part one, it still states
2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;
Do you therefore comply with the CAP774 or Mats part one?
Rest assured, my main task will be to assist preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
However that is now qualified by the revise caveat
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 are, or will be, covered by the procedures herein
None of the above is meant to be taken in a derogatory way it is meant merely to be thought provoking
2sheds too much Braveheart and not enough wine
Tribekey
Offering a Limited the service is not the same as one day passing traffic info because you have time and the next day not because your attention is drawn to, what is perceived to be, more important matters. If you cannot maintain a particular level of service, then don’t offer it.
COM Jam see the above
Radarman . I Can assure you I will not be sheltering behind any CAP .If I think there is an increased risk of collision then Traffic will be passed BUT, and that’s a big BUT, your perceived risk of collision could be a larger or smaller distance than mine .
I believe what the authorities are trying to achieve is a uniformity of service levels, that at the present time do not exist, as we can clearly see from the other posts.
If you read the document you will see that Traffic information (for aircraft on a basic service) should not be expected outside an ATZ. Yet if you read the revised MATS part one, it still states
2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;
Do you therefore comply with the CAP774 or Mats part one?
Rest assured, my main task will be to assist preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
However that is now qualified by the revise caveat
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 are, or will be, covered by the procedures herein
None of the above is meant to be taken in a derogatory way it is meant merely to be thought provoking
2sheds too much Braveheart and not enough wine
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on base
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to a couple of points raised already.
FIS - I believe ICAO refers to all of the services available to pilots in a particualr country / area as the Flight Information Services available (including radar services), which is at odds, and apparently confusing, when compared to our existing FIS.
The word radar is deliberately ommitted from the names of the new services to stop comparisons being made to the old services with "radar" in.
12th March - Why March, prob because thats the earliest they believe everyone can sort themselves out by. (and thats been delayed once) Why the 12th? I had heard that Thursday is statistically a day with lower traffic levels than other week days.
As for availability of services, according to SRG all service providers have signed up to and are willing to provide a Deconfliction service, whereas they will not currently offer a RAS.
As for phraseology, changes are being made on both civil and mil sides of the fence; as with any change grin and bear it as after a couple of weeks usage it will feel normal again.
As for now not stating inches, but stating Mb's when below 1000, is it common for the initial 2 to be ommitted from a pressure in inches where inches is the common standard? i.e "Set QNH 9x91" rather than 29x91
FIS - I believe ICAO refers to all of the services available to pilots in a particualr country / area as the Flight Information Services available (including radar services), which is at odds, and apparently confusing, when compared to our existing FIS.
The word radar is deliberately ommitted from the names of the new services to stop comparisons being made to the old services with "radar" in.
12th March - Why March, prob because thats the earliest they believe everyone can sort themselves out by. (and thats been delayed once) Why the 12th? I had heard that Thursday is statistically a day with lower traffic levels than other week days.
As for availability of services, according to SRG all service providers have signed up to and are willing to provide a Deconfliction service, whereas they will not currently offer a RAS.
As for phraseology, changes are being made on both civil and mil sides of the fence; as with any change grin and bear it as after a couple of weeks usage it will feel normal again.
As for now not stating inches, but stating Mb's when below 1000, is it common for the initial 2 to be ommitted from a pressure in inches where inches is the common standard? i.e "Set QNH 9x91" rather than 29x91
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic information (for aircraft on a basic service) should not be expected outside an ATZ. Yet if you read the revised MATS part one, it still states
2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;
2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between:
a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;
Surely all this is saying is that you shouldnt expect traffic information on other traffic outside an ATZ, because it may not be speaking to the unit concerned. Whereas any traffic inside the ATZ will be (hopefully!) in contact, so of course you can be given TI on that if you are outside... I don't see the problem here! But then, pilots who don't look out also don't see some of the problems too....
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRAC
you stated ;
' a pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of controller/FISO workload'
Then the new procedures should include the words; ' If you fail to pass traffic information derived from any source whilst providing a basic service, resulting in an incident, on no account will you be prosecuted for not carrying out your 'duty of care' '
It doesn't, therefore the rules are open to interpretation by each controller determining what he or she thinks will stand up in court as their 'duty of care. Some will therefore use radar derived information to pass traffic information and others will not. This will vary day to day, hour to hour, exactly as it does now.
and ; 'If you cannot maintain a particular level of service, then don’t offer it.'
I assume you don't mean that i must only offer a sevice if i don't have to limit or reduce it?
you stated ;
' a pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of controller/FISO workload'
Then the new procedures should include the words; ' If you fail to pass traffic information derived from any source whilst providing a basic service, resulting in an incident, on no account will you be prosecuted for not carrying out your 'duty of care' '
It doesn't, therefore the rules are open to interpretation by each controller determining what he or she thinks will stand up in court as their 'duty of care. Some will therefore use radar derived information to pass traffic information and others will not. This will vary day to day, hour to hour, exactly as it does now.
and ; 'If you cannot maintain a particular level of service, then don’t offer it.'
I assume you don't mean that i must only offer a sevice if i don't have to limit or reduce it?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you don't mean that i must only offer a sevice if i don't have to limit or reduce it?
Not at all
What I'm saying is do not mix the services that is the whole point
you seem to be saying that you will offer the "FRIS" type of service which the new procedures are trying to get away from
Not at all
What I'm saying is do not mix the services that is the whole point
you seem to be saying that you will offer the "FRIS" type of service which the new procedures are trying to get away from
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm saying that perception of what duty of care is is different from person to person and has not been sufficiently defined. Indeed, as i said, if it comes down to it that will happen in a court. Therefore i do not want to be the person stood there.
I posted before; ' yes, m'lud, i saw it on my radar screen but my pilot was on a basic service'. Also see radarman's last post.
I therefore feel that using radar derived information may be justified if i feel there is a risk of collision, even if the aircraft is on a basic service. Passed to the aircraft in a generic way. This happens at the moment ,something along the lines of.. 'traffic believed to be east of you , one mile....etc'
I should stress that i fully understand the need for standard provision, sticking to the terms of each service, but feel,as now,there will be blurring of services due to fear of being accused of neglect of duty of care.
I posted before; ' yes, m'lud, i saw it on my radar screen but my pilot was on a basic service'. Also see radarman's last post.
I therefore feel that using radar derived information may be justified if i feel there is a risk of collision, even if the aircraft is on a basic service. Passed to the aircraft in a generic way. This happens at the moment ,something along the lines of.. 'traffic believed to be east of you , one mile....etc'
I should stress that i fully understand the need for standard provision, sticking to the terms of each service, but feel,as now,there will be blurring of services due to fear of being accused of neglect of duty of care.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a question.
Will you civil controllers outside controlled airspace be terminating the radar service of an aircraft before transferring to the ADI controller? i.e. "8 miles from touch down, deconflicting service terminates, contact tower ***.***?
The transition maybe slow and you never know!
Will you civil controllers outside controlled airspace be terminating the radar service of an aircraft before transferring to the ADI controller? i.e. "8 miles from touch down, deconflicting service terminates, contact tower ***.***?
The transition maybe slow and you never know!
OK Question:
Radar controller providing 1/2 mile SRA in class G airspace using equipment which, due to a very narrow beam, is unlikely to detect conflicting traffic.
What type of ATSOCA (pre and post 12 Mar) is that controller providing?
Radar controller providing 1/2 mile SRA in class G airspace using equipment which, due to a very narrow beam, is unlikely to detect conflicting traffic.
What type of ATSOCA (pre and post 12 Mar) is that controller providing?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airac,
Read the Cap 774, not a great read! What I am referring to is similar to what has been previously stated, The interpretation of responsibility during a transition between two controllers, If I have go to court I would prefer something more substantial then a paragraph under a sub title of terrain. Is this what you refer to?
When aircraft are in the initial stages of departure or on final approach, due to limited aircraft manoeuvrability, controllers need to balance the safety impact of passing deconfliction advice at these critical stages of flight against the risk of collision presented by conflicting aircraft. Consequently, deconfliction minima do not apply in these constrained circumstances and avoiding action is instead aimed at preventing collision. Furthermore, controllers need to be aware of the high flight deck workload that is likely to be present in the event of avoiding action which is at variance to the published missed approach procedure being followed.
The procedures regarding deconfliction advice to aircraft on initial departure and final approach are designed to cater for ‘pop up’ conflictions over which the controller has no advance warning due to the uncontrolled nature of Class G airspace. Controllers should attempt to co-ordinate and deconflict observed traffic prior to allowing either the departure of an aircraft that is expected to require Deconfliction Service, or the final approach of an aircraft that is already receiving a Deconfliction Service.
Where aircraft are transferred to the Aerodrome Controller once established on final instrument approach, ATC units should use internal ATC liaison processes to ensure that warnings of conflicting traffic are passed in a timely fashion to the pilot.
What happens if the ADI controller is busy? I am trying to pass deconflicting advice and he/she is dealing with an emergency for example?
I am tilting towards making it clear that my responsibility to deconflict will end when I finish speaking to the aircraft! Self preservation Duty of Care!
Do not get me started on the gash phraseology
Read the Cap 774, not a great read! What I am referring to is similar to what has been previously stated, The interpretation of responsibility during a transition between two controllers, If I have go to court I would prefer something more substantial then a paragraph under a sub title of terrain. Is this what you refer to?
When aircraft are in the initial stages of departure or on final approach, due to limited aircraft manoeuvrability, controllers need to balance the safety impact of passing deconfliction advice at these critical stages of flight against the risk of collision presented by conflicting aircraft. Consequently, deconfliction minima do not apply in these constrained circumstances and avoiding action is instead aimed at preventing collision. Furthermore, controllers need to be aware of the high flight deck workload that is likely to be present in the event of avoiding action which is at variance to the published missed approach procedure being followed.
The procedures regarding deconfliction advice to aircraft on initial departure and final approach are designed to cater for ‘pop up’ conflictions over which the controller has no advance warning due to the uncontrolled nature of Class G airspace. Controllers should attempt to co-ordinate and deconflict observed traffic prior to allowing either the departure of an aircraft that is expected to require Deconfliction Service, or the final approach of an aircraft that is already receiving a Deconfliction Service.
Where aircraft are transferred to the Aerodrome Controller once established on final instrument approach, ATC units should use internal ATC liaison processes to ensure that warnings of conflicting traffic are passed in a timely fashion to the pilot.
What happens if the ADI controller is busy? I am trying to pass deconflicting advice and he/she is dealing with an emergency for example?
I am tilting towards making it clear that my responsibility to deconflict will end when I finish speaking to the aircraft! Self preservation Duty of Care!
Do not get me started on the gash phraseology