AT service after Radar Control
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT service after Radar Control
Hi everyone,
Recent experience prompts the question. After leaving radar control as we leave the zone ATC downgraded to Traffic Service (at this point just about 2 miles from the boundary). Opposite traffic (I mean really opposite, dead ahead) just out of cloud and no warning from ATC. Vertical separation confirmed as 300 feet and no lateral separation. So advice please on what if anything should be reported (I did very politely ask for an explanation when on the ground later) and should we have expected a timely warning of traffic? It does go to prove the old saying of "Keep a good lookout" but not so easy when in and out of cloud base. BTW the service was downgraded to traffic info by ATC and not by us.
Thanks
Recent experience prompts the question. After leaving radar control as we leave the zone ATC downgraded to Traffic Service (at this point just about 2 miles from the boundary). Opposite traffic (I mean really opposite, dead ahead) just out of cloud and no warning from ATC. Vertical separation confirmed as 300 feet and no lateral separation. So advice please on what if anything should be reported (I did very politely ask for an explanation when on the ground later) and should we have expected a timely warning of traffic? It does go to prove the old saying of "Keep a good lookout" but not so easy when in and out of cloud base. BTW the service was downgraded to traffic info by ATC and not by us.
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What level were you at? If you were below the units minimum terrain safe level, then the choices available to you would have been basic, and traffic service. - (We can't give a deconfliction service below the units minimum terrain safe level)
You could always have turned down the traffic service and asked for a deconfliction service instead. (Level permitting, obviously)
You could always have turned down the traffic service and asked for a deconfliction service instead. (Level permitting, obviously)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Hard.There could be a multitude of reasons that the traffic was not called. ATC workload,no radar contact on the conflicting traffic,the traffic was a low level pop up that the ATCO had no time to call to you,the ATCO was busy working higher priority traffic inside CAS.....to name a few.
Bear in mind that when you fly outside CAS,the responsibilty for separation from other traffic remains the pilots,no matter which service you are in receipt of from ATC. Out of interest where was this, and what was the answer you got when asking for your explanation?
To recap,you are in "see and avoid" airspace and shouldn't assume that the ATCO can call all the traffic to you.
None of the above would prevent you from filing an airprox report(a situation in which,in the opinion of a pilot or a controller,the distance between the aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised) should you feel the situation warranted one.
Cheers,rolaaand.
Bear in mind that when you fly outside CAS,the responsibilty for separation from other traffic remains the pilots,no matter which service you are in receipt of from ATC. Out of interest where was this, and what was the answer you got when asking for your explanation?
To recap,you are in "see and avoid" airspace and shouldn't assume that the ATCO can call all the traffic to you.
None of the above would prevent you from filing an airprox report(a situation in which,in the opinion of a pilot or a controller,the distance between the aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised) should you feel the situation warranted one.
Cheers,rolaaand.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer what has been asked so far; the height was well above min for terrain clearance. it was in the UK and the explanation I received was "due to controller workload". The opposite trafic was Mode C equipped which is why we know the separation distance, and was heading directly for the airport we had just left. I really do not want to identify where as I have no wish to "elevate" what was a shock to say the least and I am sure if the controller concerned fealt anything could be learned by it she would do so. I am asking the question so that I might learn and anyone else who cares to read the responses.
Thanks again
Thanks again
WorkingHard
It certainly sounds as if the controller could have "called" the traffic or at least stated "reduced traffic information" in the time it took to specify the change of service. However, not all the factors are ever apparent until a full investigation is conducted.
It really does illustrate the status of Class G airspace though. With all due respect to Rolaaand, it is not so much "see and avoid" but more "keep your fingers crossed" status and this does emphasise the pilot's responsibility for collision avoidance and terrain clearance and that any service from ATC is a bonus but not necessarily all embracing. However, in other respects CAP774 does rather imply that the services are available on demand and will maintain a safe environment though, which is far from the truth.
Your obvious concern illustrates that an airprox report would be appropriate. Do not think that you are filing "against" an individual (either a controller or yourself!) and implying blame - it is the facts of life of flight outside controlled airspace that need to be on record if any aspects are going to be improved.
2 s
It certainly sounds as if the controller could have "called" the traffic or at least stated "reduced traffic information" in the time it took to specify the change of service. However, not all the factors are ever apparent until a full investigation is conducted.
It really does illustrate the status of Class G airspace though. With all due respect to Rolaaand, it is not so much "see and avoid" but more "keep your fingers crossed" status and this does emphasise the pilot's responsibility for collision avoidance and terrain clearance and that any service from ATC is a bonus but not necessarily all embracing. However, in other respects CAP774 does rather imply that the services are available on demand and will maintain a safe environment though, which is far from the truth.
Your obvious concern illustrates that an airprox report would be appropriate. Do not think that you are filing "against" an individual (either a controller or yourself!) and implying blame - it is the facts of life of flight outside controlled airspace that need to be on record if any aspects are going to be improved.
2 s
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively was there a problem at all?
If as you claim it happen right on the boundary the other aircraft may have been (probably) subject to a clearance. 500ft vert is a valid vertical standard with certain types of aircraft if one is VFR? Traffic is provided workload permitting when using 500ft... ie not a traffic service but a separation service.
300 feet separation (based on mode C) is certainly within the Mode C tolerances; which by the way within 200ft of cleared level; ie you 200 up them 200 down mode C is showing 100ft apart, but you are using the 500ft standard.
If as you claim it happen right on the boundary the other aircraft may have been (probably) subject to a clearance. 500ft vert is a valid vertical standard with certain types of aircraft if one is VFR? Traffic is provided workload permitting when using 500ft... ie not a traffic service but a separation service.
300 feet separation (based on mode C) is certainly within the Mode C tolerances; which by the way within 200ft of cleared level; ie you 200 up them 200 down mode C is showing 100ft apart, but you are using the 500ft standard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blockla, I did not say there was a problem, nor did I "claim" anything, I merely stated what had occurred and was seeking advice from those for whom it is a profession. Do you have some kind of a problem with that? Why not read what is written before getting on one's high horse?
So far the answers have been pretty much as expected so it is good to know one's current knowledge is not far wrong.
So far the answers have been pretty much as expected so it is good to know one's current knowledge is not far wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest Working Hard, perhaps you'd like to read what I wrote again... You did write
In my ATC world I would say this is 'right on the boundary' and the inference you wrote is there was a issue to which you were seeking clarification; I simply stated an alternate view to a simple traffic service and what might have occurred in your circumstance.
I'm in no way standing on my high horse in offering an alternate view of what actually might of happened; geez you asked...
(at this point just about 2 miles from the boundary). Opposite traffic (I mean really opposite, dead ahead) just out of cloud and no warning from ATC.
I'm in no way standing on my high horse in offering an alternate view of what actually might of happened; geez you asked...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 sheds is spot on.
Without knowing the circumstances it's impossible to infer cause or apportion blame. However, upon you leaving CAS you do become ultimately responsible for avoiding other traffic as even in this day and age, occasionally aircraft are not visible continuously on radar. By offering a TFC service, the controller might have been too busy to offer a DEC service. On the other hand, if they had the capacity to offer the TFC instead of merely a BAS service, there is an implied contract whereupon the controller will call conflicting traffic to you, unless it had been limited (due wx, workload, radar coverage issues etc), which I assume you weren't notified about and therefore expected at least a 'call' on visible conflictions.
I'd echo the advice to file an AIRPROX report, as you were concerned. Assuming the radar and r/t recordings are still archived (30 days min), the AIRPROX board can put a comprehensive picture together for all parties. This is how past failings have been identified and corrected, whether it be a matter of radar performance, controller training or whatever.
Without knowing the circumstances it's impossible to infer cause or apportion blame. However, upon you leaving CAS you do become ultimately responsible for avoiding other traffic as even in this day and age, occasionally aircraft are not visible continuously on radar. By offering a TFC service, the controller might have been too busy to offer a DEC service. On the other hand, if they had the capacity to offer the TFC instead of merely a BAS service, there is an implied contract whereupon the controller will call conflicting traffic to you, unless it had been limited (due wx, workload, radar coverage issues etc), which I assume you weren't notified about and therefore expected at least a 'call' on visible conflictions.
I'd echo the advice to file an AIRPROX report, as you were concerned. Assuming the radar and r/t recordings are still archived (30 days min), the AIRPROX board can put a comprehensive picture together for all parties. This is how past failings have been identified and corrected, whether it be a matter of radar performance, controller training or whatever.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for the helpful and positive comments about the ATC side of the "contract". I did say we wished to understand a bit more of the situation and I think we now do. I think also one must choose words and phrases very carefully on PPRUNE as it appears a misunderstanding can very quickly arise. thanks again to all.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Hard
A couple of other things to bear in mind.
You should have been asked what service you required outside controlled airspace. This is one of the many new changes to the ATSOCA'S. Also traffic should be passed on a Traffic Service if the aircraft passes within 3 miles and 3000 ft. This is also a change to what used to be RIS.
As far as flight rules outside CAS as someone alluded to earlier as a reason for not being given a DEC service it doesn't matter it's now available IFR or VFR.
I would echo what someone said earlier if you felt in any way that in your opinion safety may have been compromised file a report otherwise there can be no lesson learning and next time ....!!!!!
A couple of other things to bear in mind.
You should have been asked what service you required outside controlled airspace. This is one of the many new changes to the ATSOCA'S. Also traffic should be passed on a Traffic Service if the aircraft passes within 3 miles and 3000 ft. This is also a change to what used to be RIS.
As far as flight rules outside CAS as someone alluded to earlier as a reason for not being given a DEC service it doesn't matter it's now available IFR or VFR.
I would echo what someone said earlier if you felt in any way that in your opinion safety may have been compromised file a report otherwise there can be no lesson learning and next time ....!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its true that the pilot is ultimately responsible for seperation, however, the controller should have, in an ideal world have given you the full ' limited traffic service, little or no warning of traffic due to controller workload...etc etc' , that way at least you would have an idea that the controller was busy and that you may have to pay more attenetion to whats going on outside the cockpit.. Easy to say after the fact , i know,been there , done that, had the little chat in the office, but with the current ass covering tendency that the company seems to be adopting, the controller would have been up a certain creek without a propulsion device had the worst occurred. The large duty of care segment in the paperwork supplied about the new services brought that home to me. lots of lawyer speak. as has been mentioned , we're only human and mistakes can be made. if you feel that a mistake was made that could be learned from , then by all means file a report.
