Keep clear of controlled airspace!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To qualify, I'm not a pilot or ATCO.
What about this situation. A VFR calls up, returning to the field. A direct track would take it inside controlled airspace. It is told to report at a VRP for join. The contact is not identified, but is 'believed to be' the one steaming along toward CAS. A simple 'XYZ, ensure your flight remains outside controlled airspace' hopefully encourages the pilot to check on his position, level or both. Infringement averted.
What about this situation. A VFR calls up, returning to the field. A direct track would take it inside controlled airspace. It is told to report at a VRP for join. The contact is not identified, but is 'believed to be' the one steaming along toward CAS. A simple 'XYZ, ensure your flight remains outside controlled airspace' hopefully encourages the pilot to check on his position, level or both. Infringement averted.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landedoutagain,
As soon as you give avoiding action in class G, you are instantly providing a deconfliction service and since you are now vectoring the aircraft you are responsible for terrain separation and separation from other flights.
Regardless of the airspace class, the pilot may choose to disregard your avoiding action in favour of alternative action they have derived in the cockpit.
Jumbo Driver,
Very hard to provide information about the things you have listed if you don't know where the flight is and where they are going.
The problem is a lack of knowledge. Few controllers (or pilots) for example realise that ATIS is part of the provision of Flight Information Service provided to flights.
As for alerting, an alerting service is provided to every flight that the ATS unit know of. You don't even need a radio. If you file a flight plan to XYZ (an aerodrome in class G with ATC), non-radio, have a DEP sent and an ETA of 1200, if you have not turned up by 1230, they will start overdue action eventhough you have no radio and are not in receipt of anything other than an alerting service from that unit.
Furthermore, if you are listening to an Approach Radar unit while operating in their area, and on a listening squawk, you can guarantee that you are not getting a basic service but as soon as you report a problem on the frequency the alerting service kicks in and you will get all the help you need regardless of how many commercial flights might be delayed.
Regards,
DFC
As soon as you give avoiding action in class G, you are instantly providing a deconfliction service and since you are now vectoring the aircraft you are responsible for terrain separation and separation from other flights.
Regardless of the airspace class, the pilot may choose to disregard your avoiding action in favour of alternative action they have derived in the cockpit.
Jumbo Driver,
Very hard to provide information about the things you have listed if you don't know where the flight is and where they are going.
The problem is a lack of knowledge. Few controllers (or pilots) for example realise that ATIS is part of the provision of Flight Information Service provided to flights.
As for alerting, an alerting service is provided to every flight that the ATS unit know of. You don't even need a radio. If you file a flight plan to XYZ (an aerodrome in class G with ATC), non-radio, have a DEP sent and an ETA of 1200, if you have not turned up by 1230, they will start overdue action eventhough you have no radio and are not in receipt of anything other than an alerting service from that unit.
Furthermore, if you are listening to an Approach Radar unit while operating in their area, and on a listening squawk, you can guarantee that you are not getting a basic service but as soon as you report a problem on the frequency the alerting service kicks in and you will get all the help you need regardless of how many commercial flights might be delayed.
Regards,
DFC
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As soon as you give avoiding action in class G, you are instantly providing a deconfliction service and since you are now vectoring the aircraft you are responsible for terrain separation and separation from other flights.
CAP 774
A Deconfliction Service shall only be provided to aircraft operating at or above the ATC unit’s terrain safe level, unless on departure from an aerodrome when climbing to the ATC unit’s terrain safe level, or when following notified instrument approach procedures. In all other circumstances, if a pilot requests descent below ATC unit terrain safe levels, controllers shall no longer provide a Deconfliction Service but should instead, subject to surveillance and RTF coverage, apply a Traffic Service and inform the pilot. If a controller detects a confliction when an aircraft is below the ATC unit terrain safe level whilst departing from an aerodrome and climbing to the ATC
unit terrain safe level, or when following notified instrument approach procedures, traffic information without deconfliction advice shall be passed. However, if the pilot requests deconfliction advice, or the controller considers that a definite risk of collision exists, the controller shall immediately offer such advice as follows:
• For aircraft on departure, controllers shall provide avoiding action advice and a terrain warning.
• For aircraft conducting pilot interpreted instrument approaches, controllers shall provide avoiding action advice and an associated terrain safe level to climb to or fly at. It is assumed that conformity with such advice will necessitate repositioning.
• For aircraft being provided with Ground Controlled and Surveillance Radar
Approaches:
• If the terrain safe area for the procedure is known to the controller or indicated on the surveillance display, avoiding action may be passed without an associated climb instruction, as long as the controller ensures that the aircraft remains within the terrain safe area, and the turn instruction is such that the controller considers that the approach can be continued without the need for repositioning.
• If the controller anticipates that the avoiding action turn will result in flight outside the terrain safe area or the approach not being able to be completed, a terrain safe level to fly at will also be provided, and repositioning will be necessary.
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.
unit terrain safe level, or when following notified instrument approach procedures, traffic information without deconfliction advice shall be passed. However, if the pilot requests deconfliction advice, or the controller considers that a definite risk of collision exists, the controller shall immediately offer such advice as follows:
• For aircraft on departure, controllers shall provide avoiding action advice and a terrain warning.
• For aircraft conducting pilot interpreted instrument approaches, controllers shall provide avoiding action advice and an associated terrain safe level to climb to or fly at. It is assumed that conformity with such advice will necessitate repositioning.
• For aircraft being provided with Ground Controlled and Surveillance Radar
Approaches:
• If the terrain safe area for the procedure is known to the controller or indicated on the surveillance display, avoiding action may be passed without an associated climb instruction, as long as the controller ensures that the aircraft remains within the terrain safe area, and the turn instruction is such that the controller considers that the approach can be continued without the need for repositioning.
• If the controller anticipates that the avoiding action turn will result in flight outside the terrain safe area or the approach not being able to be completed, a terrain safe level to fly at will also be provided, and repositioning will be necessary.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought even on a deconfliction service the responsibility for separation and terrain avoidance still ultimately lay with the pilot
Not a radar controller btw so try not to mock me
Not a radar controller btw so try not to mock me
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another problem with Remain clear of Controlled Airspace is that it is a general statement that really is too all-embracing. For instance, for how long should I remain clear of CAS? A few minutes, and hour, or what? (Maybe a lifetime if mr.777 has anything to do with it!) And which particular piece of CAS are they referring to? Should I ask them, or make an assumption?
And on what authority is this instruction being made? It can only be locally or in some cases regionally, but if I leave the CI Zone nowadays I will be told "ROCAS" even though I will be joining CAS to go into Southampton. Jersey has no authority outside of the CIZone to instruct me to ROCAS, so why are they saying it? (Because someone has told them to say it.)
They sometimes say "Remain VFR" and this is equally irrelevant, because if I wish to fly IFR in Class G airspace, I don't need a clearance. I can fly IFR if I wish to and it might be wise to do so. Therefore being "instructed" to remain VFR is wrong and should not be said - in this circumstance. (I appreciate that there are others where it probably would be appropriate.)
RB
And on what authority is this instruction being made? It can only be locally or in some cases regionally, but if I leave the CI Zone nowadays I will be told "ROCAS" even though I will be joining CAS to go into Southampton. Jersey has no authority outside of the CIZone to instruct me to ROCAS, so why are they saying it? (Because someone has told them to say it.)
They sometimes say "Remain VFR" and this is equally irrelevant, because if I wish to fly IFR in Class G airspace, I don't need a clearance. I can fly IFR if I wish to and it might be wise to do so. Therefore being "instructed" to remain VFR is wrong and should not be said - in this circumstance. (I appreciate that there are others where it probably would be appropriate.)
RB
Riverboat
Is this just a wind-up? How many times do we have to say, it's ",,,outside...", not "...clear..." - or do you not appreciate how the misuse of that word could be misunderstood?
To answer your question (are you really serious?), how long do you really think the "instruction" (or "caution" if you will) applies? Get real - if you subsequently obtain clearance to enter CAS, that then applies.
2 s
a good candidate to tell "ROCAS", chaps!
Is this just a wind-up? How many times do we have to say, it's ",,,outside...", not "...clear..." - or do you not appreciate how the misuse of that word could be misunderstood?
To answer your question (are you really serious?), how long do you really think the "instruction" (or "caution" if you will) applies? Get real - if you subsequently obtain clearance to enter CAS, that then applies.
2 s
a good candidate to tell "ROCAS", chaps!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, 2 Sheds, not a wind up. Yes, my mistake for stating "clear". I appreciate that this would not be said. But, OK, are you saying that we pilots, under these circumstances, have to make an assumption? And that any advice given (you would call it an "instruction") is only valid whilst in the area that the Unit is controlling? Can you tell me where I can read all this up, please?
And why, if I am leaving a Zone (such as the CI Zone) should I be given any instructions at all from a unit I am leaving behind? They are not alone in doing this.
Having read all the postings I do feel that ATCOs working terminal areas do see this matter differently to those working in the sticks. The former are understandably concerned about GA aircraft (in particular) inadvertently entering their airspace, and for good reason. There is no objection to them telling an aircraft to remain outside CAS but it would be helpful sometimes, I suspect, to actually to point out where the CAS is that they are maybe going to infringe.
That is not the circumstance I was, and am, concerned about, but I guess we are all ready to move on so I'll just thank the majority for their constructive comments, and do just that. But I don't think the current situation is ideal.
And why, if I am leaving a Zone (such as the CI Zone) should I be given any instructions at all from a unit I am leaving behind? They are not alone in doing this.
Having read all the postings I do feel that ATCOs working terminal areas do see this matter differently to those working in the sticks. The former are understandably concerned about GA aircraft (in particular) inadvertently entering their airspace, and for good reason. There is no objection to them telling an aircraft to remain outside CAS but it would be helpful sometimes, I suspect, to actually to point out where the CAS is that they are maybe going to infringe.
That is not the circumstance I was, and am, concerned about, but I guess we are all ready to move on so I'll just thank the majority for their constructive comments, and do just that. But I don't think the current situation is ideal.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the former are understandably concerned about GA aircraft (in particular) inadvertently entering their airspace, and for good reason.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat,
I would suggest you remain outside until you receive permission to enter again, be it the airspace you have left or the airspace you are heading for.You wouldn't be the first to plod on through further CAS and to use the excuse that you were never told to remain outside. It also is informing you that you can't turn around and re enter without permission as if you have filed vfr and encounter IMC, you may have to which sort of addresses your other point.Why don't you arrange a visit to the twr and app in Gur/Ald/Jer (wherever you are) and it can be explained. Most procedures that we have to abide by as ATCO's are brought in purely because 1 or 2 numpties usually fell foul of a procedure either by ignoring it,not being aware of it or just not understanding it.
I would suggest you remain outside until you receive permission to enter again, be it the airspace you have left or the airspace you are heading for.You wouldn't be the first to plod on through further CAS and to use the excuse that you were never told to remain outside. It also is informing you that you can't turn around and re enter without permission as if you have filed vfr and encounter IMC, you may have to which sort of addresses your other point.Why don't you arrange a visit to the twr and app in Gur/Ald/Jer (wherever you are) and it can be explained. Most procedures that we have to abide by as ATCO's are brought in purely because 1 or 2 numpties usually fell foul of a procedure either by ignoring it,not being aware of it or just not understanding it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat, CAP493 MATS Part 1 is the definitive general document for Air Traffic Services and is well worth a read (for pilots and ATCOs alike 
).
Rather interestingly, I think you will find that the only reference* to using the phrase "remain outside controlled airspace" is that which I mentioned in an earlier post, namely Section 3, Chapter 1, para. 21, which says ...
Thus, you could argue that for it to be used on any other occasion would be non-standard R/T.
JD
* in addition, of course, to Standard Phraseology in Appendix E ...
).Rather interestingly, I think you will find that the only reference* to using the phrase "remain outside controlled airspace" is that which I mentioned in an earlier post, namely Section 3, Chapter 1, para. 21, which says ...
21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.
Thus, you could argue that for it to be used on any other occasion would be non-standard R/T.
JD
* in addition, of course, to Standard Phraseology in Appendix E ...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Got the radio on.
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, that part of CAP 493 merely puts forward one occasion when such standard phraseology should be employed, and it does nothing to rule out other situations in which it may be used. CAP 493 doesn't comprehensively document a controllers actions in every conceivable situation, by any means.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Got the radio on.
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point, which hopefully isn't lost on you, is that it's impossible to predict and document a standard response to every possible situation in ATC. That's why licensed professionals are employed to exercise their judgement in such matters, and are given a toolkit of standard phrases in order to make themselves understood quickly and unambiguously. 'ROCAS' is one of them.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That point is certainly not lost on me Roadrunner Once, and I fully understand "ROCAS" itself appears as a standard phrase. Nor am I in any way questioning your ability as licenced professionals. (I am one too.)
My point is that, if there are frequent situations (other than that set out in para. 21) where it is thought necessary to advise "ROCAS" on a regular basis, I would have thought that CAP493 or some other publication would have reflected that ...
As far as I can see, CAP493 doesn't do so. Does any other publication do so?
JD
My point is that, if there are frequent situations (other than that set out in para. 21) where it is thought necessary to advise "ROCAS" on a regular basis, I would have thought that CAP493 or some other publication would have reflected that ...
As far as I can see, CAP493 doesn't do so. Does any other publication do so?
JD
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the CAP413 provides examples of using the phrase ROCAS without the expected clearance time, when issued by ground stations other than the controling agency and such.
I think I will continue to use the hated phrase until pilots stop infringing CAS. As an APP controller surrounded by tons of the stuff what else can I do?
I think I will continue to use the hated phrase until pilots stop infringing CAS. As an APP controller surrounded by tons of the stuff what else can I do?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where the instruction ‘remain outside controlled airspace’ is used by a ground station other than the controlling authority for the relevant controlled airspace, the time check and expected clearance time may be omitted.
JD
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than if the controller is presented with a situation not covered by the non-exhaustive examples given and uses his own judgement to devise something
App E, 5.3.2.
For instance, im sitting at a class G airport surrounded by CAS with no Radar but a handy ATM and a DF. An inbound vfr flight calls up reporting 7nm south of the field on a DF bearing that coupled with the range check puts him in CAS or about to enter it.
The only thing I can do is to instruct him to Rocas, possibly followed up with the dimensions of the airspace I believe he's infringing.
Same thing If I launch a VFR BS out and observe him steaming towards a CTA, I can't give him headings to fly on so all I can say is ROCAS.
Stop arguing, every time you make me open the CAP 493, adobe viewer kills my laptop
App E, 5.3.2.
For instance, im sitting at a class G airport surrounded by CAS with no Radar but a handy ATM and a DF. An inbound vfr flight calls up reporting 7nm south of the field on a DF bearing that coupled with the range check puts him in CAS or about to enter it.
The only thing I can do is to instruct him to Rocas, possibly followed up with the dimensions of the airspace I believe he's infringing.
Same thing If I launch a VFR BS out and observe him steaming towards a CTA, I can't give him headings to fly on so all I can say is ROCAS.
Stop arguing, every time you make me open the CAP 493, adobe viewer kills my laptop
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coolbeans, I agree to some extent, but from comments made here and elsewhere, "ROCAS" seems to be being used by some ATCOs on a regular basis, even routinely.
I fully accept that CAP493 does not and cannot cover every situation. However, as "ROCAS" is clearly being trotted out regularly by some ATCOs in other than the stated situation, surely there should be some documentary backing for its use ... ?
In other words - for isolated use for one-off situations, yes it's OK ... but for regular use in other routine situations (other than described in para. 21) - no it's not OK, unless it's an approved procedure.
JD
P.S.
Sorry, rather the same thing is happening to me - must be the same hooky software we are both using ... 
I fully accept that CAP493 does not and cannot cover every situation. However, as "ROCAS" is clearly being trotted out regularly by some ATCOs in other than the stated situation, surely there should be some documentary backing for its use ... ?
In other words - for isolated use for one-off situations, yes it's OK ... but for regular use in other routine situations (other than described in para. 21) - no it's not OK, unless it's an approved procedure.
JD
P.S.