Keep clear of controlled airspace!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'll consider the bigger picture. 25 years an air traffiker and your "just need to consider the bigger picture" phrase is exactly the sort of thing that alienates our profession.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD, for you, I'll try it again.
Firstly, having been on freq for 20 minutes and been nagged at the outset for my who, what, where, from, to etc I had rather naively thought that ATC had logged those details and may have realised I was nowhere near CAS.
Secondly, as an air traffiker who worked for both forms of NATS over 20+ years my priorities were always flight safety and service provision. Protecting my collar from being felt by management wasn't too high up my priority list.
Thirdly, if the ROCAS phrase is to be used to gay abandon, why not change the unit callsign to "xxx radar remain clear of CAS", abbreviated to "xxx, cover our ass radar". Here's a good idea, why not publish a book with some rules for entry into CAS and make the book available to all; oh, silly me, we already do.
Fourthly, please feel free to use superfluous and irrelevant phraseology as often as you like (in accordance with any guidance given in CAP 493 and whatever your Mats Pt 2 say) but be aware that i will be using my "ATC aint what it used to be" phrase equally often.
Fifthly (I can't actually remember my fifth point). Was it something to do with Prestwick and the relevance of the ROCAS phrase?
Sixthly, I'm definitely giving up now, going for that second wee dram and a long lie down.
Firstly, having been on freq for 20 minutes and been nagged at the outset for my who, what, where, from, to etc I had rather naively thought that ATC had logged those details and may have realised I was nowhere near CAS.
Secondly, as an air traffiker who worked for both forms of NATS over 20+ years my priorities were always flight safety and service provision. Protecting my collar from being felt by management wasn't too high up my priority list.
Thirdly, if the ROCAS phrase is to be used to gay abandon, why not change the unit callsign to "xxx radar remain clear of CAS", abbreviated to "xxx, cover our ass radar". Here's a good idea, why not publish a book with some rules for entry into CAS and make the book available to all; oh, silly me, we already do.
Fourthly, please feel free to use superfluous and irrelevant phraseology as often as you like (in accordance with any guidance given in CAP 493 and whatever your Mats Pt 2 say) but be aware that i will be using my "ATC aint what it used to be" phrase equally often.
Fifthly (I can't actually remember my fifth point). Was it something to do with Prestwick and the relevance of the ROCAS phrase?
Sixthly, I'm definitely giving up now, going for that second wee dram and a long lie down.
- that's much better ...Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cows getting bigger
Thirdly, if the ROCAS phrase is to be used to gay abandon, why not change the unit callsign to "xxx radar remain clear of CAS", abbreviated to "xxx, cover our ass radar".
If you were rx a BS and had been on freq for 20 mins, how would the ATCO know where you were ? As long as you were OCAS then usually, they don't care.Also, maybe there was a change of ATCO so he/she reiterated the dreaded phrase, or maybe there was a similar c/s on freq. There are many scenarios to justify the situation you describe.
We cannot make up phraseology just because we don't like the recommended phrase. I have been in ATC, both Mil and civil,within and outside NATS for many years and unfortunately it is becoming a 'cover your ass' exercise. Times are changing and not necessarily for the better. No longer can we exercise discretion or common sense. Please don't shoot the messenger. We do what we are told to do by those who think they know better, usually non operational, long time away from the coal face types.It sometimes seems they have nothing better to do than fix what ain't broken. My 2 penny worth anyway
Thirdly, if the ROCAS phrase is to be used to gay abandon, why not change the unit callsign to "xxx radar remain clear of CAS", abbreviated to "xxx, cover our ass radar".
If you were rx a BS and had been on freq for 20 mins, how would the ATCO know where you were ? As long as you were OCAS then usually, they don't care.Also, maybe there was a change of ATCO so he/she reiterated the dreaded phrase, or maybe there was a similar c/s on freq. There are many scenarios to justify the situation you describe.
We cannot make up phraseology just because we don't like the recommended phrase. I have been in ATC, both Mil and civil,within and outside NATS for many years and unfortunately it is becoming a 'cover your ass' exercise. Times are changing and not necessarily for the better. No longer can we exercise discretion or common sense. Please don't shoot the messenger. We do what we are told to do by those who think they know better, usually non operational, long time away from the coal face types.It sometimes seems they have nothing better to do than fix what ain't broken. My 2 penny worth anyway
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... Please don't shoot the messenger. We do what we are told to do by those who think they know better, usually non operational, long time away from the coal face types.It sometimes seems they have nothing better to do than fix what ain't broken. My 2 penny worth anyway
However, I really don't think Cows getting bigger is "shooting the messenger". The initiative for this repeated and extended use of "ROCAS" does not come directly from any legislation/documentation - this thread seems to have already established that. Where does it come from, then? It must either be from the LAS/LCE community or ATCOs themselves. Whichever group it is seems to be taking it upon themselves to use a perfectly adequate phrase from the proper context (see the now infamous para. 21 in CAP493) and then using it in an unrecommended and unnecessary context, apparently in an attempt to simply try and protect their own backsides. Against this, no evidence has been produced that such repeated use has any effect on CAS "busts", nor is it taken into account that the piloting community are, in very many cases, irritated by the repeated trotting out of this unhelpful phrase. Indeed, many say that to them it has now become little more than "background noise" or clutter on the R/T.
So, who exactly are you talking about when you say
"We do what we are told to do by those who think they know better, usually non operational, long time away from the coal face types."
JD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: way out there
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major contribution to the cover your six attitude has a lot to do with the changes in the that lovely paragraph in the front of MATS pt 1. it used to say " nothing in this manual prevents a controller from using his own initiative " (or something very similar)
The new amendment now says "nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein" So if ROCAS is in your unit procedures you are stuffed.
The new amendment now says "nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein" So if ROCAS is in your unit procedures you are stuffed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver
Sorry for the delay, I am on days off at the mo and don't have access to docs but changes normally reach the unit via an ATSIN and then dependant on the issue (its impact on your operations) it is modified to suit your situation via the MATS pt 2. In this case, I would guess unit instructions advise when you HAVE to say the recommended phrase. Re the non op comment- my opinion only-well,the opinion of most I work with but we have long suspected that when there is a staff change in the departments that issue these changes, the new boy makes his mark by introducing a new procedure/phraseology etc. Sometimes it can be a step forward but oftentimes confusion reigns. Think of the recent ILS phraseology, Vortex Wake now wake turb,climbing above an SID level. etc etc All have raised comments and confusion issues on both sides. All I can say is if a unit is reiterating this phrase, you can bet your bottom dollar, they have to and if they don't the LCE/SRG will pick them up
Sorry for the delay, I am on days off at the mo and don't have access to docs but changes normally reach the unit via an ATSIN and then dependant on the issue (its impact on your operations) it is modified to suit your situation via the MATS pt 2. In this case, I would guess unit instructions advise when you HAVE to say the recommended phrase. Re the non op comment- my opinion only-well,the opinion of most I work with but we have long suspected that when there is a staff change in the departments that issue these changes, the new boy makes his mark by introducing a new procedure/phraseology etc. Sometimes it can be a step forward but oftentimes confusion reigns. Think of the recent ILS phraseology, Vortex Wake now wake turb,climbing above an SID level. etc etc All have raised comments and confusion issues on both sides. All I can say is if a unit is reiterating this phrase, you can bet your bottom dollar, they have to and if they don't the LCE/SRG will pick them up
Last edited by GunkyTom; 14th May 2009 at 11:15. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rogervisual, I'm not quite sure what your angle is on this change to the paragraph in MATS Part 1, Section 1.
Whereas it used to say ...
Also, where you say ...
... are you suggesting that such regular use of "ROCAS" may be written only in a unit's MATS Part 2? Personally, I would think that is unlikely ... but I'm willing to be proved wrong ...
JD
Whereas it used to say ...
The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
... it now says (wef 12 March 2009) ...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.
I read this change as being more restrictive on using your own initiative which, it seems, is now limited to "unusual circumstances, which may may not be covered by the procedures herein." So, applying this principle, the current regular use of "ROCAS" to "cover one's ass" in routine circumstances would seem to be now no longer sanctioned by MATS Part 1.Also, where you say ...
"So if ROCAS is in your unit procedures you are stuffed."
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GunkyTom, thanks for the reply.
Certainly, most changes to phraseology and the like are promulgated by ATSIN or, more latterly, by an SI. In fact, SI 2008/02 (issued 5Nov08 and now withdrawn) confirmed the use of ""ROCAS" in accordance with Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of CAP493. However, it is in no way permissive of the current extended - sometimes even routine - use which we are discussing.
I agree with your thinking that the authorisation for the current use should be found within unit instructions, if nowhere else - but there seems to be no evidence. Despite my asking, nobody has actually been able to confirm the justification as a MATS Part 2 ...
Enjoy your days off...
JD
Certainly, most changes to phraseology and the like are promulgated by ATSIN or, more latterly, by an SI. In fact, SI 2008/02 (issued 5Nov08 and now withdrawn) confirmed the use of ""ROCAS" in accordance with Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of CAP493. However, it is in no way permissive of the current extended - sometimes even routine - use which we are discussing.
I agree with your thinking that the authorisation for the current use should be found within unit instructions, if nowhere else - but there seems to be no evidence. Despite my asking, nobody has actually been able to confirm the justification as a MATS Part 2 ...
Enjoy your days off...
JD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver,
Quite likely, in fact.
For example, MATS Pt1 states that when giving a line-up clearance, the controller should include the runway entry point when not using the normal full length entry point. Across NATS units, in an effort (misguided IMHO) to reduce runway incursions (lining up in the wrong order) we must include the runway entry point in every line up clearance. You'll find no reference to this requirement in anything other than NATS' documents.
Also, MATS Pt1 allows multiple conditional line up clearances, if a series of departing aircraft are in a line. My MATS Pt2, as well, as far as I know, all other NATS units, stipulates we can only have one conditional line up clearance.
... are you suggesting that such regular use of "ROCAS" may be written only in a unit's MATS Part 2? Personally, I would think that is unlikely ... but I'm willing to be proved wrong ...
For example, MATS Pt1 states that when giving a line-up clearance, the controller should include the runway entry point when not using the normal full length entry point. Across NATS units, in an effort (misguided IMHO) to reduce runway incursions (lining up in the wrong order) we must include the runway entry point in every line up clearance. You'll find no reference to this requirement in anything other than NATS' documents.
Also, MATS Pt1 allows multiple conditional line up clearances, if a series of departing aircraft are in a line. My MATS Pt2, as well, as far as I know, all other NATS units, stipulates we can only have one conditional line up clearance.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nats, making up their own rules........again?
nats, a law unto themselves?
nats, too big for their own boots?
nats, a too bigger beast for CAA ATSD to regulate?
nats, a law unto themselves?
nats, too big for their own boots?
nats, a too bigger beast for CAA ATSD to regulate?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver,
The important part of the new statement in MATS 1 is "in response to unusual circumstances".
In the first example, there was no limit on controllers using their own discretion / initiative.
That clearly said that unless you could prove that their actions were illegal or unsafe a controller could make up their own rules and rely on said statement when they did not comply with MATS 1.
The new statement tightens up the legal position and in simple terms now only permits controllers to make things up as they go / ignore MATS 1 "in response to unusual circumstances".
Every argument for the ROCAS other than the one standard version where a pilot requests an join or crossing clearance falls down when the pilot decides to enter class E airspace VFR.
The example of being told ROCAS simply so that if you can't remain VFR you do not turn round and re-enter without clearance -
If any pilot leaves controlled airspace and regardless of flight rules only has the option of truning round to avoid weather then no matter if it a VFR flight trying to remain VMC or an IFR flight avoiding icing or either flights avoiding a TS they can and should turn round, ensure the safety of the flight and if no other option is available, enter the controlled airspace while letting ATC know asap of the problem.
The people who infringe controlled airspace for the most part did not realise that they were doing so. Noting they are told is going to change that.
From a stats point of view, much of the figures used are unreliable. For example -
Aircraft A is at 2400ft AMSL. The altimeter which was within the prescribed +/- 75ft on the ground is now in error by 100ft and indicates 2500ft.
The encoder to the transponder is slightly in error but within acceptable limits and indicates the aircraft at 2600ft.
ATC rules say that and aircraft is maintaining a level provided that the mode C indicates less than 300ft from that level.
Say the base of controlled airspace is 2500ft. The ATS unit will claim an infringement against that flight eventhough firstly, the aircraft is actually 100ft below the airspace and in reality, they have no way of knowing if the flight is at 2400ft or if it is at 2900ft or any level between.
Even if they verify the mode C and establish that it is indicating the altitude reported by the pilot, they have not verified the true altitude of the aircraft - just the indicated altitude.
Extreme example - pilot departs from 800ft aerodrome with static vent taped up. Decides to continue flight!. ATC ask him to report altitude - he says 800ft and guess what, the mode C says 800ft and ATC are happy. 5 minutes later, the flight passes a B737 in CAS at 2000ft.
Having verified the mode C readout, legally, if the flight if flying at 2500ft and the mode C is indicating 2700ft then they can not claim that the pilot has infringed because they are at the base level which has the lower class and even by ATC's own rules this is being confirmed by the mode C indication.
Thus unless the infringement is large enough that applying all the possible errors in favour of the pilot the flight is still above the base level. I doubt that this is being done.
Overall, unless the mode C has been verified or the pilot reports that they are inside the CTA or another aircraft reports them as being at or above their level, it is imposible to prove an infringement.
This whole ass covering exercise along with the attitude of many providers is going to cause an accident. It is only a matter of time before a pilot when asked to report their level exercises their legal right not to incriminate themselves.
Regards,
DFC
The important part of the new statement in MATS 1 is "in response to unusual circumstances".
In the first example, there was no limit on controllers using their own discretion / initiative.
That clearly said that unless you could prove that their actions were illegal or unsafe a controller could make up their own rules and rely on said statement when they did not comply with MATS 1.
The new statement tightens up the legal position and in simple terms now only permits controllers to make things up as they go / ignore MATS 1 "in response to unusual circumstances".
Every argument for the ROCAS other than the one standard version where a pilot requests an join or crossing clearance falls down when the pilot decides to enter class E airspace VFR.
The example of being told ROCAS simply so that if you can't remain VFR you do not turn round and re-enter without clearance -
If any pilot leaves controlled airspace and regardless of flight rules only has the option of truning round to avoid weather then no matter if it a VFR flight trying to remain VMC or an IFR flight avoiding icing or either flights avoiding a TS they can and should turn round, ensure the safety of the flight and if no other option is available, enter the controlled airspace while letting ATC know asap of the problem.
The people who infringe controlled airspace for the most part did not realise that they were doing so. Noting they are told is going to change that.
From a stats point of view, much of the figures used are unreliable. For example -
Aircraft A is at 2400ft AMSL. The altimeter which was within the prescribed +/- 75ft on the ground is now in error by 100ft and indicates 2500ft.
The encoder to the transponder is slightly in error but within acceptable limits and indicates the aircraft at 2600ft.
ATC rules say that and aircraft is maintaining a level provided that the mode C indicates less than 300ft from that level.
Say the base of controlled airspace is 2500ft. The ATS unit will claim an infringement against that flight eventhough firstly, the aircraft is actually 100ft below the airspace and in reality, they have no way of knowing if the flight is at 2400ft or if it is at 2900ft or any level between.
Even if they verify the mode C and establish that it is indicating the altitude reported by the pilot, they have not verified the true altitude of the aircraft - just the indicated altitude.
Extreme example - pilot departs from 800ft aerodrome with static vent taped up. Decides to continue flight!. ATC ask him to report altitude - he says 800ft and guess what, the mode C says 800ft and ATC are happy. 5 minutes later, the flight passes a B737 in CAS at 2000ft.
Having verified the mode C readout, legally, if the flight if flying at 2500ft and the mode C is indicating 2700ft then they can not claim that the pilot has infringed because they are at the base level which has the lower class and even by ATC's own rules this is being confirmed by the mode C indication.
Thus unless the infringement is large enough that applying all the possible errors in favour of the pilot the flight is still above the base level. I doubt that this is being done.
Overall, unless the mode C has been verified or the pilot reports that they are inside the CTA or another aircraft reports them as being at or above their level, it is imposible to prove an infringement.
This whole ass covering exercise along with the attitude of many providers is going to cause an accident. It is only a matter of time before a pilot when asked to report their level exercises their legal right not to incriminate themselves.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Gonzo, I appreciate the examples.
However, I note that both the instances you cite represent a tightening on Part 1 provisions, whereas what we are talking about here would represent a relaxation of principle, as it would permit much more frequent use.
Notwithstanding all this, there is still, as far as I am aware, no specific confirmation that this extended use of "ROCAS" is a MATS Part 2 requirement for any unit.
JD
However, I note that both the instances you cite represent a tightening on Part 1 provisions, whereas what we are talking about here would represent a relaxation of principle, as it would permit much more frequent use.
Notwithstanding all this, there is still, as far as I am aware, no specific confirmation that this extended use of "ROCAS" is a MATS Part 2 requirement for any unit.
JD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe this thread has now gone to 7 pages. Over the use of one phrase.Hilarious.
It is "best practice" for us to use this phrase...which part of this do you not understand??
It is "best practice" for us to use this phrase...which part of this do you not understand??
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC rules say that and aircraft is maintaining a level provided that the mode C indicates less than 300ft from that level.
Therefore it's not relevant to an aircraft operating outside CAS and who has not been assigned a level.
In the case given, ATC assume the Mode C is showing the correct value and can file an infringement report. Any equipment errors which indicate the aircraft is at a different altitude from that observed would be identified in the investigation. It's the only mitigation the pilot has. He can't argue that because he was within 200' of the CAS base that he is deemed to be at the base altitude and therefore clear. He isn't, because as soon as he climbs above the base altitude, then he has entered CAS. It's an absolute boundary.
Mixing up level occupancy rules (which are for separation) with airspace boundaries is comparing apples with oranges.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nats, a too bigger beast for CAA ATSD to regulate?
It basically means that you write down how you want to do something, make a statement that it is in your opinion safe practice, tell the CAA, then they say ok. The CAA want to regulate without having responsibilty for their decisions, so they don't make decisions.Back to the thread.... if we do not use ROCAS and somebody busts a zone whilst working us or, indeed, had been working us a while ago, then the last bunch of CAA inspectors we had would be quite upset that we had not said ROCAS phrase. (The latest bunch haven't had chance to show their colours yet). It might not have been in any manual but nevertheless it should have been said and must be placed in the MATS part 2 (after a risk assessment of its use has been carried out in accordance with the unit Safety Management System and any possible shortfalls mitigated possibly by the use of even more words and phrases)
Ah! the modern world........such fun.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Vino, that safety assessment is where someone should be raising the risk of over-repetition of a stock warning which is well documented as a bad approach to safety management. That safety assessment should then introduce guidelines on reducing the usage.
And then everyone is happy
And then everyone is happy