Deconfliction Service
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deconfliction Service
CAP774 extract: 'A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in Class F/G airspace, or for positioning and/or sequencing. However, the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot responsibility.'
As we are all getting ready for the new Basic, Traffic, Deconfliction and Procedural services on 12.3.09 , I am concerned about the last sentence above.
When in IMC and using the Deconfliction Service, the pilot cannot see the conflicting traffic. The conflicting traffic may not be squarking so the TCAS would not help either. If you are issued headings and levels by a controller, apart from maintaining your situational awareness and terrain clearance, you put your trust in him/her. If the heading causes a conflict, how can that be the pilot's responsibility?
I also wonder how foreign pilots will be made aware of these changes in the UK, and will they understand them. For example when flying into Teesside (stuck in the past sorry!), Farnborough, Exeter etc, you leave CA by descent. Hopefully the DS will automatically be given instead of 'what service do you require outside CA?'. That will throw them.
I will miss the good old RAS.
D
As we are all getting ready for the new Basic, Traffic, Deconfliction and Procedural services on 12.3.09 , I am concerned about the last sentence above.
When in IMC and using the Deconfliction Service, the pilot cannot see the conflicting traffic. The conflicting traffic may not be squarking so the TCAS would not help either. If you are issued headings and levels by a controller, apart from maintaining your situational awareness and terrain clearance, you put your trust in him/her. If the heading causes a conflict, how can that be the pilot's responsibility?
I also wonder how foreign pilots will be made aware of these changes in the UK, and will they understand them. For example when flying into Teesside (stuck in the past sorry!), Farnborough, Exeter etc, you leave CA by descent. Hopefully the DS will automatically be given instead of 'what service do you require outside CA?'. That will throw them.
I will miss the good old RAS.
D
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...against all observed aircraft in Class F/G airspace...
Today, under a RAS, the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance. (If I recall correctly, haven't given a RAS in several years)
Foreign pilots (and many UK pilots) do not understand todays services, never mind the new ones. Giving a pilot a DS just because he might not understand the services is not a reasonable course of action - DS is a contract between pilot and ATCO, under which the pilot must comply with cetain things.
If the pilot does not understand his responsibilities, is it really safe (or fair on the ATCO) to give them a DS as a matter of course?
These new services are just a poor rehash (with little change) of the old services. The same problems that caused the rehash will still be around in 10 or 15 years, then we might find yet another change... back to FIS/RIS/RAS perhaps?!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are similar services are provided elsewhere - EU, US, Oz, etc., or are they unique to the UK?
On the odd occasions when I have heard a controller ask a foreign pilot what type of radar service he required the lengthy silence, followed by "roger" or "say again" suggests that few are familiar with the procedures.
On the odd occasions when I have heard a controller ask a foreign pilot what type of radar service he required the lengthy silence, followed by "roger" or "say again" suggests that few are familiar with the procedures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that.
'Today, under a RAS, the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance.'
I suppose my original question could have been aimed at the rules for RAS as well.
Farnborough approach seem to give RAS to inbound a/c as a matter of course (if you are within coverage). This is probably as they will eventually vector you onto the ILS, and maybe because the 'what service do you require' question has caused confusion in the past. This goes for Teesside as well as far as I remember.
Primary returns popping up from below must be a nightmare for the controller, but the question of liability is an interesting one.
As an analogy, a tug driver (if I remember rightly) during pushback assumes liability for collision avoidance This is presumably because he can see behind and the pilots can't.
The limitations of radar, eg. primary returns from cars on the Hogs Back (A31) at FAB (I was shown them in there radar on a visit once), small returns from gliders. Could these be the reasons for the 'disclaimer'?
The new terminology is bound to cause confusion anyway and I bet the controllers are dreading it!
D
'Today, under a RAS, the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance.'
I suppose my original question could have been aimed at the rules for RAS as well.
Farnborough approach seem to give RAS to inbound a/c as a matter of course (if you are within coverage). This is probably as they will eventually vector you onto the ILS, and maybe because the 'what service do you require' question has caused confusion in the past. This goes for Teesside as well as far as I remember.
Primary returns popping up from below must be a nightmare for the controller, but the question of liability is an interesting one.
As an analogy, a tug driver (if I remember rightly) during pushback assumes liability for collision avoidance This is presumably because he can see behind and the pilots can't.
The limitations of radar, eg. primary returns from cars on the Hogs Back (A31) at FAB (I was shown them in there radar on a visit once), small returns from gliders. Could these be the reasons for the 'disclaimer'?
The new terminology is bound to cause confusion anyway and I bet the controllers are dreading it!
D
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Global Village
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outside CAS is an unknown environment. Nobody has to tell us they are there. We will endeavour to help you avoid any traffic. However,ultimately,its your choice to fly out there.So is it not your responsibility to avoid these things?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'However,ultimately,its your choice to fly out there'
Sometimes there's a choice, but if not you want to get to Farnborough, Teesside, Exeter, Inverness etc. Even public transport flights including airlines have to fly 'outside CA' to get to these places.
Sometimes there's a choice, but if not you want to get to Farnborough, Teesside, Exeter, Inverness etc. Even public transport flights including airlines have to fly 'outside CA' to get to these places.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would make life easer to blanket cover the uk in controlled airspace apart from mil areas. but then all the strange ones in their sh1tkickers who like to fly at each other outside controlled airspace would kick up a fuss i suppose
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumbledor
Unfortunately although I know Farnborough would like some CAS (possibly by an extension of the LTMA) the GA community would be up in arms over any proposal.
I believe LF have to give you a RAS because they will, as you state, be vectoring you for the ILS.
As for the disclaimer, you've hit on two reasons... another problem seen nowadays is that small, composite aircraft do not paint as well on radar as other aircraft - again causing late or no sightings.
I personally think that compared to Germany and the like, the UK system of LARS is superior, but it does rely on all parties understanding the implications of the service offered and as LARS is optional, not all aircraft will be known to the ATCO.
The chances are (notwithstanding there is always the exception), if you are flying IMC, any aircraft in your immediate vicinity will be as well, and will therefore most likely be speakng to the appropriate unit.
The scenarin that is most dodgy is intermittent IMC, where you are popping in and out of cloud etc - you may well stumble across an aircraft manoeuvring within a clear pocket that has elected not to speak to ATC.
I think it is good that there is a 'disclaimer' as it will hopefully ensure that pilots do not overly rely on ATC i.e. pilots will not fly along fat dumb and happy thinking that a good lookout is not required... a small handful unfortunately do.
Unfortunately although I know Farnborough would like some CAS (possibly by an extension of the LTMA) the GA community would be up in arms over any proposal.
I believe LF have to give you a RAS because they will, as you state, be vectoring you for the ILS.
As for the disclaimer, you've hit on two reasons... another problem seen nowadays is that small, composite aircraft do not paint as well on radar as other aircraft - again causing late or no sightings.
I personally think that compared to Germany and the like, the UK system of LARS is superior, but it does rely on all parties understanding the implications of the service offered and as LARS is optional, not all aircraft will be known to the ATCO.
The chances are (notwithstanding there is always the exception), if you are flying IMC, any aircraft in your immediate vicinity will be as well, and will therefore most likely be speakng to the appropriate unit.
The scenarin that is most dodgy is intermittent IMC, where you are popping in and out of cloud etc - you may well stumble across an aircraft manoeuvring within a clear pocket that has elected not to speak to ATC.
I think it is good that there is a 'disclaimer' as it will hopefully ensure that pilots do not overly rely on ATC i.e. pilots will not fly along fat dumb and happy thinking that a good lookout is not required... a small handful unfortunately do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about the other traffic when in IMC. Perversely it is probably safer to fly IMC in ****e weather with most tiddlers on the ground, using RAS/DS. As you say, the other traffic in the vicinity will probably be also using the same service and are more likley to have Mode C, so they paint on the TCAS. Hazy Sunday afternoons are a more of a worry.
There are still a lot of tiddlers and gliders without transponders, so whatever the service you use, both pairs of eyes should be looking out.
As HD said, foreigners don't understand the 'what service do you require' question. If they were told 'this is a RAS or DS' this surely wouldn't throw them. Isn't this the safest option for them?
There are still a lot of tiddlers and gliders without transponders, so whatever the service you use, both pairs of eyes should be looking out.
As HD said, foreigners don't understand the 'what service do you require' question. If they were told 'this is a RAS or DS' this surely wouldn't throw them. Isn't this the safest option for them?
CAP413 states that "Where it is not self-evident pilots will normally be informed by the controller when they are under radar control, advisory or information service." I wonder if that will still apply under the new ATSOCAS with DS, TS and BS? It would certainly make life easier for controllers.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the odd occasions when I have heard a controller ask a foreign pilot what type of radar service he required the lengthy silence, followed by "roger" or "say again" suggests that few are familiar with the procedures.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the middle
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear
In reply to the question "what type of service do you require?", in the last 6 months I have had 2 particularly interesting answers -
" the best you have please sir!"
and a Netjets FO who said that:
"he only required fuel".!
" the best you have please sir!"
and a Netjets FO who said that:
"he only required fuel".!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'And this has been my own personal anathema for quite some time. How exactly do you establish the binding contract (identified type of service X - pilot reads back type of service X) when the other party to the contract is NOT aware of the conditions they must undertake within the contract. '
That's a hard one. I suppose what Farnborough radar does for it's arrivals is best. Just give RAS (later DS), if you can, stating 'this is a RAS (or DS)'. Would that be allowed under CAP774 and 413? Its the best tool available and safest all round.
On dep from FAB clear you to 3400' (TMA at 3500') and say 'remain clear of controlled airpace, contact London...'. That would throw a foreign pilot too. They are unlikely to know where the contolled airpace is. Surely the clearance to 3400' on it's own should be enough?
That's a hard one. I suppose what Farnborough radar does for it's arrivals is best. Just give RAS (later DS), if you can, stating 'this is a RAS (or DS)'. Would that be allowed under CAP774 and 413? Its the best tool available and safest all round.
On dep from FAB clear you to 3400' (TMA at 3500') and say 'remain clear of controlled airpace, contact London...'. That would throw a foreign pilot too. They are unlikely to know where the contolled airpace is. Surely the clearance to 3400' on it's own should be enough?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On dep from FAB clear you to 3400' (TMA at 3500') and say 'remain clear of controlled airpace, contact London...'. That would throw a foreign pilot too. They are unlikely to know where the contolled airpace is. Surely the clearance to 3400' on it's own should be enough?
As a GA pilot, if I go and fly in France or the US or anywhere else for that matter, I do my homework and look at their rules and regulations, buy the appropriate charts, and try and keep my nose clean. For a professional pilot operating commercially in a foreign country, why should we expect anything less ? In someways it should actually be easier for them as many will have an Ops department who can supply them with all they need in terms of support and data filtering. Professional flight guide and chart suppliers also supply the relevant text in their documentation, all it requires is someone to make the effort to read it.
Failure to prepare is to prepare to fail ..... and that's just as relevant to professional pilots as it is to GA ones IMHO.
Of course, it would help immensely if the UK just stuck to ICAO procedures, instead of using a bastardised bespoke procedure for a bastardised bespoke airspace setup.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First an apology; I am off to sandy places so therefore have placed these ATSOCAS to the back of my mind until I return and have time to research and use them.
Discussion here however has raised my curiosity and I have a couple of questions for those with much better knowledge than myself:
Are these procedures to be specific to UK only or are they JAA wide?
If they are UK specific then what procedures and services would UK military ATC deliver when operating abroad?
Like I say, the training is next week however I shall miss it and interest has been aroused, thanks, HEDP
Discussion here however has raised my curiosity and I have a couple of questions for those with much better knowledge than myself:
Are these procedures to be specific to UK only or are they JAA wide?
If they are UK specific then what procedures and services would UK military ATC deliver when operating abroad?
Like I say, the training is next week however I shall miss it and interest has been aroused, thanks, HEDP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 73
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atsoca
OH PLEASE... If its not too late lets scrap all these new "improved" services and stick with what we have, FIS, RIS & RAS. So simple and easily understood, maybe tinker with them a bit in order to update and ensure they are suitable for todays aviation environment, but that is ALL THAT IS NEEDED.
Remember Hutberts law: Improvement means Deterioration.
Remember Hutberts law: Improvement means Deterioration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'If a light aircraft pilot busted Controlled Airspace, then they would be lambasted. It should be the same for a professional pilot.
As a GA pilot, if I go and fly in France or the US or anywhere else for that matter, I do my homework and look at their rules and regulations, buy the appropriate charts, and try and keep my nose clean'
Most the bizjets flying around Europe have a set of IFR Jepps or Aerad charts. We have a S England 1/500,000 VFR chart as well for short trips outside CA from FAB to LTN for example. This clearly shows the boundaries of controlled airspace. We are not expected to have VFR charts for the whole of Europe and nor do the foreign pilots flying IFR.
I don't recall seeing the TMA boundaries denoted on the departure plates. My point was that if an a/c is cleared to 3400' which keeps them clear of CA then. The altitude clearance is enough. London then clears them to enter in the climb. We also need to remember that we have a luxury of being able to talk our own language on the radio, some don't.
To answer the question about Military radar units, the new services will be given by civil and military. I'm not sure but RAF radar units abroad (ie Gibraltar, Bruggen, Laarbruch etc if the latter ones are still open) would probably have to change at the same time.
D
As a GA pilot, if I go and fly in France or the US or anywhere else for that matter, I do my homework and look at their rules and regulations, buy the appropriate charts, and try and keep my nose clean'
Most the bizjets flying around Europe have a set of IFR Jepps or Aerad charts. We have a S England 1/500,000 VFR chart as well for short trips outside CA from FAB to LTN for example. This clearly shows the boundaries of controlled airspace. We are not expected to have VFR charts for the whole of Europe and nor do the foreign pilots flying IFR.
I don't recall seeing the TMA boundaries denoted on the departure plates. My point was that if an a/c is cleared to 3400' which keeps them clear of CA then. The altitude clearance is enough. London then clears them to enter in the climb. We also need to remember that we have a luxury of being able to talk our own language on the radio, some don't.
To answer the question about Military radar units, the new services will be given by civil and military. I'm not sure but RAF radar units abroad (ie Gibraltar, Bruggen, Laarbruch etc if the latter ones are still open) would probably have to change at the same time.
D
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Farnborough
Age: 50
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Atsocas
Just to add my bit to this debate, as a Farnborough controller...
For services outside controlled airspace, we are required to negotiate a contract over the RT with a pilot. This is achieved by asking what service the pilot requires. We do this now for RIS/RAS and are required to continue to do this for Traffic/Deconfliction.
If the pilot obviously does not understand the question, then we would impose a RAS, or Deconfliction service on March 12th.
For services outside controlled airspace, we are required to negotiate a contract over the RT with a pilot. This is achieved by asking what service the pilot requires. We do this now for RIS/RAS and are required to continue to do this for Traffic/Deconfliction.
If the pilot obviously does not understand the question, then we would impose a RAS, or Deconfliction service on March 12th.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: isz
Age: 51
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well....we are ready for the new services and have been since November....but even today I find myself explaining to a pilot why I cant CLEAR him to an altitude on a FIS.....I found that after explaining it for the 4th time I was getting nowhere and he'd passed the aircraft he was in confliction with....so I am now making a swear box for 12/3/09 and maybe it will be full enough to donate on 13/3/09 for red nose day!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'If the pilot obviously does not understand the question, then we would impose a RAS, or Deconfliction service on March 12th.'
That's very good news. You get a great service from FAB too.
At least UK pilots should know what each service does for you. I flew with a foreign pilot who had been based here for a number of years. When asked the question 'what service...?' he used to say 'radar control'. I put him was right in the end.
D
That's very good news. You get a great service from FAB too.
At least UK pilots should know what each service does for you. I flew with a foreign pilot who had been based here for a number of years. When asked the question 'what service...?' he used to say 'radar control'. I put him was right in the end.
D