Keep clear of controlled airspace!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr 777 - the 7 pages (now 8 with this!) is debating that what you call "best practice" actually isn't in the real world! Making that unnecessary statement will not prevent some pilots from accidentally infringing. The only benefit of the statement is to clarify if a pilot has requested entry to CAS which has been denied. That being the case, I understand that ATCO has to log the refusal and the reasons why for NATS statistics. I know if I am refused a reasonable request, I log it for the next round of CAS expansion consultation!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't mind betting that the thoughtless blanket delivery of the 'ROCA' instruction was originally dreamt up by some jumped-up Local Competence Examiner exceeding his/her remit. nats has plenty of them.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
So.... from a pilot's point of view, now the phrase is in such common use, unless we hear a controller say "remain outside controlled airspace" we can assume we are now cleared in, right?
Obviously not, but some might argue it to be a reasonable excuse - IF they were on frequency in the first place.
What's next?
"When given an altitude or heading, you must maintain it, acknowledge".
"Don't drink and drive" etc? Now in common use on motorway overhead gantry signs. To which the obvious answer is: "If I've got halfway down the M1 after this many beers I ain't doing so bad....
Or "Even if I'm this pissed, do you think I'm going to turn around on a motorway?"
The phrase "ROCAS" is in the same league. It achieves little except attracts a certain level of disdain. I can see the use of the phrase having it's uses in certain circumstances, but we seem to get it an unnecessary standard reply with some ATC units.
Obviously not, but some might argue it to be a reasonable excuse - IF they were on frequency in the first place.
What's next?
"When given an altitude or heading, you must maintain it, acknowledge".
"Don't drink and drive" etc? Now in common use on motorway overhead gantry signs. To which the obvious answer is: "If I've got halfway down the M1 after this many beers I ain't doing so bad....
Or "Even if I'm this pissed, do you think I'm going to turn around on a motorway?"
The phrase "ROCAS" is in the same league. It achieves little except attracts a certain level of disdain. I can see the use of the phrase having it's uses in certain circumstances, but we seem to get it an unnecessary standard reply with some ATC units.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If none of you like the use of ROCAS, which none of you (apart from my good self of course ) apparently do, the I would suggest that you petition the CAA/SRG/NATS for its removal.....rather than flaming ATCOs, who are only DOING THEIR JOB, for using it.
) apparently do, the I would suggest that you petition the CAA/SRG/NATS for its removal.....rather than flaming ATCOs, who are only DOING THEIR JOB, for using it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have SRG just issued a recent instruction to remind ATCO's of the phrase ROCAS?
Because we have seen a huge increase in infringing aircraft into the London TMA zones, some of which have caused horrendous problems.
Even the Farnborough LARS service has not prevented some idiot pilots flying blindly into CAS.
So if you private pilots don't like the phrase I suggest you all learn to fly and navigate properly, show a marked decrease in infringers, then prove to the ATC world and SRG that you can be trusted. Then we may have no need to use the phrase ROCAS.
Until then you reap what you sow!!!
Also, in my opinion, any infringing pilot who is traced and it can be proved that they were responsible should have their flying licence immediatly removed!!!
Infringing aircraft are becoming a real menace, and if the ATCO does not achieve 5 miles and 5000ft separation from an "unknown", then it is filed as a loss of separation.
See why we are getting "jumpy", so until you flyers can prove to me that you are all capable of not infringing my zone, then I to will continue to use the phrase ROCAS and protect my arse!!!
Because we have seen a huge increase in infringing aircraft into the London TMA zones, some of which have caused horrendous problems.
Even the Farnborough LARS service has not prevented some idiot pilots flying blindly into CAS.
So if you private pilots don't like the phrase I suggest you all learn to fly and navigate properly, show a marked decrease in infringers, then prove to the ATC world and SRG that you can be trusted. Then we may have no need to use the phrase ROCAS.
Until then you reap what you sow!!!
Also, in my opinion, any infringing pilot who is traced and it can be proved that they were responsible should have their flying licence immediatly removed!!!
Infringing aircraft are becoming a real menace, and if the ATCO does not achieve 5 miles and 5000ft separation from an "unknown", then it is filed as a loss of separation.
See why we are getting "jumpy", so until you flyers can prove to me that you are all capable of not infringing my zone, then I to will continue to use the phrase ROCAS and protect my arse!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of those recent infringers were actually talking to ATC at the time? I would guess not many, so the phrase ROCAS did not come into it at all.
But I would agree that the standard of navigation and situational awareness seems to be lacking more so now than a decade ago.
But I would agree that the standard of navigation and situational awareness seems to be lacking more so now than a decade ago.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nicely put Nimmer that sums it up perfectly.
Although many PPLs can navigate, and without GPS too, there are still too many who cant find north from south.
As an ATCO and PPL I've seen both sides of this argument and I'm fully in favour of ROCAS.
Although many PPLs can navigate, and without GPS too, there are still too many who cant find north from south.
As an ATCO and PPL I've seen both sides of this argument and I'm fully in favour of ROCAS.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimmer 
And I thought it was just me....
WRONG. On the BH weekend, 2 that I filed on were actually talking to LF LARS whilst they infringed the airspace which I was working at the time.
And I thought it was just me....
How many of those recent infringers were actually talking to ATC at the time? I would guess not many, so the phrase ROCAS did not come into it at all.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it SI 2008/02 by any chance ... because that merely re-inforced the correct use of ROCAS (i.e. para.21) and did nothing to either sanction or encourage its use in the circumstances we have been discussing here ...
JD
I do hope we are not starting to go round in circles ...
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the point is 777, Nimmer and Stressed - ROCAS is not helping.
these idiots are not going g into CAS because they don't know they are not allowed. they are going in because they don't know where it is.
If you (or at least some ATCOs) reserved it for aircraft that were just about to enter then it might do some good. But by spreading it around like expenses on MPs you are actually making it worse, because everyone ignores it.
Standard Safety principle. The more a warning is issued, the less effect it has
these idiots are not going g into CAS because they don't know they are not allowed. they are going in because they don't know where it is.
If you (or at least some ATCOs) reserved it for aircraft that were just about to enter then it might do some good. But by spreading it around like expenses on MPs you are actually making it worse, because everyone ignores it.
Standard Safety principle. The more a warning is issued, the less effect it has
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
encourage its use in the circumstances we have been discussing here ...
If you (or at least some ATCOs) reserved it for aircraft that were just about to enter then it might do some good
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRONG. On the BH weekend, 2 that I filed on were actually talking to LF LARS whilst they infringed the airspace which I was working at the time.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if you actually learnt to read what was being posted i wouldn't have to shout. Sorry, I didn't realise you were now the self-appointed moderator for the ATC forum (sub section, sevrices outside CAS).
Also, one other thing you could possibly clear up...do you actually hold an ATC licence?? You seem to have spent a lot of time on this thread telling ATCOs how they should interpret certain portions of the Mats 1 and 2...usually I reserve that privilege for my LCE.
Also, one other thing you could possibly clear up...do you actually hold an ATC licence?? You seem to have spent a lot of time on this thread telling ATCOs how they should interpret certain portions of the Mats 1 and 2...usually I reserve that privilege for my LCE.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Monday I was flying from Culdrose to Compton Abbas at Altitude 3000 in receipt of a 'Basic Service'. I was instructed to 'Remain Outside Controlled Airspace' by either Newquay or Exeter (I don't remember which, but it doesn't matter). Appropriate, or not......?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infringing aircraft are becoming a real menace, and if the ATCO does not achieve 5 miles and 5000ft separation from an "unknown", then it is filed as a loss of separation.
See why we are getting "jumpy", so until you flyers can prove to me that you are all capable of not infringing my zone, then I to will continue to use the phrase ROCAS and protect my arse!!!
See why we are getting "jumpy", so until you flyers can prove to me that you are all capable of not infringing my zone, then I to will continue to use the phrase ROCAS and protect my arse!!!
I as numpty PPL am flying 2400 ft talking to EGLF with Mode-S and for whatever reason climb to 2600 ft. Your Arse is now in the breeze because you have had a loss of separation from someone you are vectoring 4000 feet above me and and 4 miles away. I on the other hand have pulled up to avoid someone crossing 200 feet below me (separation 1/4 mile) and am looking for two other targets called within 3 miles.
or equally, I extend downwind at Fairoaks or Denhem in a strong breeze and windup turning crosswind at 2 miles and suddenly you need to breakoff traffic.
Neither of these incidedents appears to be appropriate to cause you stress and deep concern about a crisis, not saying they should be ignored as they clearly are infringements.
On the otherhand, numpty PPL, talking to no one, tracking through Luton's ILS, Mode-C off because he is not quite sure of position - clearly is a disaster in the making.
The way the argument is framed and the facts presented (by both sides) doesn't really help with identifying if this issues are predominantly with the first type of infringement or the second, the root causes or the solutions. Both sides of the argument have propossed some good and some dumb 'solutions'.
With regard to ROCAS, my local unit almost always uses the term either as part of the initial IFR clearance or gives a clue as to what airspace they are concerned about (XYZs ATZ, 2500 shelf, danger area?) and certainly doesn't use the term as part of the initial contact process. I find this use entirely reasonable, but struggle to see any benefit of using it to a pilot whose location, altitude, and intentions are as yet unknown.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a wonderful couple of drams the other night. Good to see the discussion is still going.
Maybe some of you chaps should come flying with us 'idiots'.
Regards
Cows (Ex ATCO, LCE etc. Now trying to spend my pension on flying.)
Maybe some of you chaps should come flying with us 'idiots'.
Regards
Cows (Ex ATCO, LCE etc. Now trying to spend my pension on flying.)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, in my opinion, any infringing pilot who is traced and it can be proved that they were responsible should have their flying licence immediatly removed!!!
Are you allso saying that once you as a controller get a loss of separation and your own actions where the main contributing factor, you should get your license pulled? (And don´t say it will not happen, because no controller goes through 40 years of work as a controller without a `transgression´ or two)
A functional retraining programme for the pilot in question mandated by the CAA with focus on navigation and airspace awareness? Now that might work......
Pulling licenses and sentencing people to fines is stupid in my opinion. (Unless repeated behaviour or part of pattern of other breaches of the rules/regs)
M609, ATCO/PPL