Keep clear of controlled airspace!

[ShyTorque]

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!!!

How does the ATCO know the pilot is a PPL from an initial call? Or any call.

I've been flying in a professional capacity for some thirty two years and it grates to routinely and blindly get told "ROCAS" in the reply to my initial call, whatever the request might have been for. I have absolutely no doubt about my responsibility to avoid CAS without relevant clearance. Maybe we should prefix our calls with "Remaining outside controlled airspace until cleared......request..........".

If a controller more appropriately replies "Standby, call you back", I consider implementing plan B; I sometimes change to plan B even before my initial call if it sounds like the controller is very busy; to avoid increasing his/her workload.

It still surprises and disappoints me that some ATCOs can be so intransigent and aggressive when it comes to dealing with pilots. Perhaps I should know better. Many years ago, on my first visit to a Military Air Traffic School in Shropshire I was told not to stand at "their" end of the bar to order a drink because I was a pilot.

[criss]

My experience is that whenever we issue a revised departure clearance ("after departure continue runway heading blahblahblah"), readback ends with "cleared for take-off", even though it was never mentioned - and that's from ATPLs, not PPLs. That's why we would always add at the beginning of such an instruction "hold position". You could argue it's superflous, the same way as ROCAS. But I don't think you will persuade majority of ATCOs.

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by criss

... That's why we would always add at the beginning of such an instruction "hold position". You could argue it's superflous, the same way as ROCAS. But I don't think you will persuade majority of ATCOs.

It's not the same, criss, there is one fundamental difference.

The "hold position" in those circumstances is specifically required by MATS Part 1 ... whereas, for most of the time it is used, "ROCAS" is not.


JD

[criss]

I'm not in the UK. And anyway, the point stands (including ROCAS probably wouldn't change the argument about it being "superflous").

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by criss

... And anyway, the point stands

No, it doesn't. One's a requirement - the other one isn't.

JD

[Vino Collapso]

ATC over the last decade has picked up a ton of additional r/t generated by the regulators response to 'incidents'. Most of it to cover pilot errors. ( I am a 33+ year pilot so do not take this as ATC criticism of flying ability).

Line up Rwy xx from holding point XX is garbage even though preached by NATS. The aircraft is either already at that holding point or receives taxy instructions to the holding point. If it is conditional upon another aircraft movement, landing or take off, that will be stated so it matters not if he uses the wrong holding point, the 'condition' is king.

ROCAS is only useful if a pilot has requested to enter CAS but clearance cannot be given at the moment. If a pilot has not requested joining clearance then he/she will be expected to remain outside and ROCAS is a waste of breath.

The answer to an ATC inspectors cross examination on an airspace bust...."why did you not say ROCAS?"

"because the pilot never requested permission to enter it."

[throw a dyce]

Vino,
Well you might have 33+ years but that's the world we now live in.Most of the extra bumf is trying to prevent incidents.
About conditions.It's was amazing how many pilots failed to readback the word ''after''.
I have got used to using the holding point with the line up clearance.It's a double check for ATC as well.At our airfield we can have more than half of the traffic intersection departures,and it has prevented traffic lining up in front of departures.
I have only used ROCAS once EVER,and guess what the pilot came in anyway.Microlite,No SSR,no primary contact,Fein wonderful.
It's also noticeable that there seems to be a big difference in SOME pilots abilities.Unable to follow line features,unable to ROCAS,unable to talk on the R/T.There are some I wouldn't let on a pushbike,but it's their necks not mine if they screw up.
ATCO 29years,PPL,night rated not current though

[GunkyTom]

I have discussed' this whole issue with colleagues today and although we cannot find a ref to instruct its use before a req has been made, the boss said if there is an investigation about an infringement and the phrase hasn't been uttered as part of the initial reply, then he would have to include that in the report as potentially a 'contributing factor'. So, I can't speak for all ATCO's but this one will still use it, maybe not everytime but more often than is probably necessary- sorry

[PPRuNe Radar]

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!!!

As others have said, would you expect the same rule to apply to ATCOs who make operational errors ? If not, why not ? The effects on air safety due to the ATCO error could be exactly the same. Maybe YOUR licence would be pulled some day and your job lost.

Or maybe use the system Denmark had in place a few years back (maybe they still do), where ATCOs were fined for operational errors in the courts, with removal of licence after 3 'strikes'. A great system for encouraging the reporting of errors and mistakes to enable corrective actions to be put in place ... NOT !!

A 'just' safety system should apply to both pilots and ATC alike. If there is deliberate negligence or recklessness, then appropriate licencing and other actions can be applied. If it's due to human errors or system errors, then the important thing is to educate those involved (as well as the industry)and remove any factors which caused the problem in the first place. Unless of course you're perfect, like some posters claim to be

[M609]

Or maybe use the system Denmark had in place a few years back (maybe they still do), where ATCOs were fined for operational errors in the courts, with removal of licence after 3 'strikes'. A great system for encouraging the reporting of errors and mistakes to enable corrective actions to be put in place ... NOT !!

In 2001 a manager in Naviair (ATM provider) claimed that Demark was much safer than Norway and Sweden, because Denmark had so few reported incidents pr year.

Now, it made him look like a tool when Denmark introduced blame free reporting (Just Culture) in 2002 or 2003. Reporting went through the roof!!!! Litterally hundreds of reports from the ATS units during the first few months.

[Jumbo Driver]

Thanks very much for the feedback, GunkyTom - and I understand your position within your unit.

However, your boss seems to be sitting on the fence - he seems to be effectively encouraging you to use ROCAS indiscriminately, despite there being no documented need, thereby just perpetuating this "ar$e-covering" practice. What would be his professional justification for this, I wonder? Surely it is his responsibility to ensure that, in his unit, MATS 1/2 are fully complied with?


JD

[GunkyTom]

Jumbo Pilot

I am guessing his justification would be 'once bitten' I agree with most of the anti overuse opinions voiced here but can't use them as my defence to disregard his instruction. I suspect that others have the same issues or possibly are at a unit where it is SOP throughout their training. Until it is officially withdrawn or published for a specific use only, I don't think things will change

[Jumbo Driver]

GunkyTom, I'm disappointed you see it like that, although I can understand your position within your unit.

Originally Posted by GunkyTom

I suspect that others have the same issues or possibly are at a unit where it is SOP throughout their training. Until it is officially withdrawn or published for a specific use only, I don't think things will change

I have to say that I don't see any justification for it being taught as an SOP at any unit, since CAP493 is quite clear on the correct usage of "ROCAS" (qv para. 21). I would suggest that para. 21 does in fact set out its "specific use" and also that there is nothing that can be "officially withdrawn", as the current liberal usage of "ROCAS" is neither documented nor sanctioned in any relevant paperwork.


JD

[Riverboat]

Jumbo Driver, you have expressed what I was trying to say (inadequately) very well. I am sure we all recognise Gunky Tom's situation, but this is a forum for ATC issues, and when I first introduced this subject, all I got from ATCO responders was insults and sarcasm, led by my new friend mr.777 and HEATHROW DIRECTOR. You have explained very well that ROCAS is being used by rote, and as such it loses its effectiveness.

I no longer respond to ROCAS, and no ATCO has ever repeated the instruction when I do not respond, so I presume they are satisfied that the expression is on the tape and their backs are covered. Is this really how ATC should operate? It rather demeans the drive to always state precisely the right words for the situation, and one is forced to conclude that air traffic management in the UK have gone down the Health and Safety path to excess.

In the USA they do not use state all these UK-arcane phrases and words, yet they are probably more likely to be sued if things go wrong than ATCOs here. I still think it is rather pathetic, but I don't blame ATCOs such as Gunky Tom who have to do what they are told.

RB

[2 sheds]

The phrase - the correct phrase, that is - has its uses. If a pilot requests CAS entry clearance which cannot be given as an immediate response, it is useful to qualify any information such as "expect clearance at ... " with "ROCAS" - and with emphasis on "expect". It is also appropriate at aerodromes that are extremely adjacent to CAS and when an aircraft's known track will take it extremely close to, or below, CAS - to emphasise the fact that no clearance/instruction to enter or leave the ATZ implies co-ordinated entry to that CAS.

However, in most other cases it is a nonsense and totally devalues its impact in situations such as the above. It really does need pilots and ATCOs to bombard the CAA with complaints if some units are being obliged to utter this claptrap by an *rs*-covering management. If only half the effort that is put into whingeing on Pprune on various subjects were directed to the CAA where it belongs... !

2 s

[Cows getting bigger]

I got a ROCAS today even though I had already been cleared into CAS (I was at 5000ft in a Class C TMA where the base level was 4500ft). After a little bit of discussion with the trainee controller's trainer, it was apparent that the controller had lunged into the statement without thinking; he actually wanted me to stay clear of an adjacent Class C CTA with a base level of 3500ft. The trainer apologised for any confusion caused.

Now we all accept that individuals make mistakes and that trainees need to learn. But my concern is that the phrase was used without any thought on behalf of the controller and it caused a degree of consternation with me and the other pilot.

[Gonzo]

JD,

It's not the same, criss, there is one fundamental difference.

The "hold position" in those circumstances is specifically required by MATS Part 1 ... whereas, for most of the time it is used, "ROCAS" is not.

But it might well be required by the unit's Part 2. Or by a TOI. Doesn't have to be in MATS Part 1 to be a requirement. That's the point I was trying to put across earlier in the thread.

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

JD,
But it might well be required by the unit's Part 2. Or by a TOI. Doesn't have to be in MATS Part 1 to be a requirement. That's the point I was trying to put across earlier in the thread.

Gonzo, I fully understand your point that it is not just Part 1 we are looking at. As I have said before, despite repeated asking on this thread, nobody has provided any supporting evidence for the repeated use of "ROCAS" being required by any unit's Part 2, or by TOI, SI, ATSIN, AIC, CAP or by any other means of promulgating such a change in phraseology or technique. Even the recent SI 2008/02 did nothing except to emphasise the need to comply with the requirements for the appropriate use of "ROCAS", which are set out in Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of MATS Part 1.

Simply put, the need to issue a "ROCAS" in any circumstance other than that required by this para. in CAP 493 (MATS Part 1) seems to have absolutely no legal backing in documentation whatever.

It seems to be down to the whim of the local SATCO, LAS or individual ATCO; in whichever case it then becomes an entirely unauthorised use.


JD

[anotherthing]

Jumbo Driver

You've hit the nail on the head with your phrase 'arse covering exercise' - particularly when it comes to NATS management.

Unfortunately there has been a growing trend of reacting to incidents by brinign in stupid rules/phraseology when in fact what should have happened is the ATCO who had the incident should have been rebriefed by his LCE.

It is an arse covering exercise we have nowadays, it's getting moreso by the day. Unfortunately it's ATCOS and pilots who have to suffer for it.

[mr.777]

RB

all I got from ATCO responders was insults and sarcasm

You REALLY need to re-read your first post on this thread to see why exactly you got the response you did....if you can't see that then that's your problem.

Also, I think you'll find that myself and HD are not the only 2 ATCOs on here to have the same opinion...there are several other ATCOs that have expressed the same opinion as us.

Love your new BF, mr.777