ATCO Training - Dealing with infringements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO Training - Dealing with infringements
Hi
Can anyone tell me how ATCO's are taught to deal with infringements during their training, especially of the GA kind?
I've been looking for the NATS ATCO syllabus among the CAP's but can't quite find it. Is there a publically available version somewhere?
Now that the PPL training for ATCO's is long gone, in the UK at least, is there any connection anymore with the "pilot perspective" during training or is it fully ATC simulators that are now used?
Any countries still offering flight training or experience of any kind to controllers?
Many thanks
BFA
Can anyone tell me how ATCO's are taught to deal with infringements during their training, especially of the GA kind?
I've been looking for the NATS ATCO syllabus among the CAP's but can't quite find it. Is there a publically available version somewhere?
Now that the PPL training for ATCO's is long gone, in the UK at least, is there any connection anymore with the "pilot perspective" during training or is it fully ATC simulators that are now used?
Any countries still offering flight training or experience of any kind to controllers?
Many thanks
BFA
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its quite an expansive topic as it can involve controlled airspace (temporary and permanent), uncotrolled airspace (infringement of ATZs) and Danger Areas.
During practical training you'll be taught how deal with a general scenario, but as you'll find when you are validated and although some infringements have a recurring theme dependent upon where you are, each situation has to be dealt with tactically on the day. The London TMA is a prime example.
As you get more experience in a radar or aerodrome environment, you'll hopefully become more adept at spotting the potential infringements before they occur, at least that gives you a fighting chance of doing something to help aircraft you are talking to even if the miscreant isn't in contact with you.
Meanwhile, a bit of bedtime reading for you
:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf
During practical training you'll be taught how deal with a general scenario, but as you'll find when you are validated and although some infringements have a recurring theme dependent upon where you are, each situation has to be dealt with tactically on the day. The London TMA is a prime example.
As you get more experience in a radar or aerodrome environment, you'll hopefully become more adept at spotting the potential infringements before they occur, at least that gives you a fighting chance of doing something to help aircraft you are talking to even if the miscreant isn't in contact with you.
Meanwhile, a bit of bedtime reading for you
:http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: EGLF
Age: 38
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening niknak - hows things?
Better from above;
I can only give you an idea from the NATS training perspective, and at the college very little was taught. I think during my Approach Radar course we only had one simulated "unauthorised infringement of controlled airspace", so it wasn't really something that any of us thought much about.
The real world however is a very different story....infringements are daily occurrences and happen for all sorts of reasons - unfamiliarity with the airspace, weather, lost, incorrect or no maps (following the GPS is a favourite - although what type of gps is questionable sometimes, especially when they are following roads!!!) and you just have to deal with them the best you can. There is no specific laid down training for dealing with the infringing aircraft (just get it out as expeditiously as possible!!!), but there are separation minima that you have to achieve with other aircraft that you may be working against said infringement, this can be found in the MATS pt 1 (cap493)
Hope that this helps
Better from above;
I can only give you an idea from the NATS training perspective, and at the college very little was taught. I think during my Approach Radar course we only had one simulated "unauthorised infringement of controlled airspace", so it wasn't really something that any of us thought much about.
The real world however is a very different story....infringements are daily occurrences and happen for all sorts of reasons - unfamiliarity with the airspace, weather, lost, incorrect or no maps (following the GPS is a favourite - although what type of gps is questionable sometimes, especially when they are following roads!!!) and you just have to deal with them the best you can. There is no specific laid down training for dealing with the infringing aircraft (just get it out as expeditiously as possible!!!), but there are separation minima that you have to achieve with other aircraft that you may be working against said infringement, this can be found in the MATS pt 1 (cap493)
Hope that this helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infringements
I've been going through CAP493 (MATS1) and there's something not quite clear.
I can see en-route IFR and arr/dep separation standards covered in Chapter 3, but apart from some mention of Mode C transponding a/c and vertical separation in Chapter 5, I can't figure out yet what are the criteria within a Control Zone (e.g. a classic UK Class D or Class A in case of Heathrow) for separation between IFR and VFR traffic?
Would these criteria be particular to the Control Zone concerned, i.e. specified in the relevant MATS2?
Thanks
BFA
I can see en-route IFR and arr/dep separation standards covered in Chapter 3, but apart from some mention of Mode C transponding a/c and vertical separation in Chapter 5, I can't figure out yet what are the criteria within a Control Zone (e.g. a classic UK Class D or Class A in case of Heathrow) for separation between IFR and VFR traffic?
Would these criteria be particular to the Control Zone concerned, i.e. specified in the relevant MATS2?
Thanks
BFA
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see en-route IFR and arr/dep separation standards covered in Chapter 3, but apart from some mention of Mode C transponding a/c and vertical separation in Chapter 5, I can't figure out yet what are the criteria within a Control Zone (e.g. a classic UK Class D or Class A in case of Heathrow) for separation between IFR and VFR traffic?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reportyourlevel - does "maintain separation" in that context mean that of standard en-route IFR criteria or the arr/dep criteria?
I'm just trying to get my head round the 4D "bubble" that ATCO's are trying to maintain around the infringing VFR aircraft.
I realise in force majeure, it may be "whatever works" in getting the GA out of the zone or CT out of its way.
I seem to remember hearing some horizantal and vertical figures from a Heathrow controller at a CAA talk, but can't find a clear reference.
Thanks
BFA
I'm just trying to get my head round the 4D "bubble" that ATCO's are trying to maintain around the infringing VFR aircraft.
I realise in force majeure, it may be "whatever works" in getting the GA out of the zone or CT out of its way.
I seem to remember hearing some horizantal and vertical figures from a Heathrow controller at a CAA talk, but can't find a clear reference.
Thanks
BFA
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't twig you meant to separate from an infringer, I assumed you meant known traffic. For known traffic, there would be no VFR in class A and in class D there is no IFR/VFR separation standard, traffic information is sufficient.
In the case of an infringer, you're need 5nm miles separation on the situation display or 5000 feet vertical from the mode C. In the case of unverified mode C, there is the additional requirement that the returns must not merge.
The other relevant point is that you don't necessarily know what flight rules the infringer is operating under - they're probably not talking to you!
In the case of an infringer, you're need 5nm miles separation on the situation display or 5000 feet vertical from the mode C. In the case of unverified mode C, there is the additional requirement that the returns must not merge.
The other relevant point is that you don't necessarily know what flight rules the infringer is operating under - they're probably not talking to you!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify that, the 5000 feet comes from Section 1 Chapter 5 Page 10. The 5nm comes from Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 13, and is therefore specified in the MATS Pt 2. In our case, we can use 3nm between identified targets (under certain conditions) but must increase to 5nm if one of the targets is not identified. This may well be different at different units.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reportyourlevel - many thanks for the very clear reply! Can tell you're an ATCO ;-)
Yes, it's the tactical criteria indeed I was wanting to understand and must have been quoted by the Heathrow controller. Remember at the time thinking that is quite a substantial vertical "cylinder" of airspace compared to the horizontal separation.
Is that due to the potential doubts there may be on height information? QNH being used?
That must effectively mean, for all UK CZ's, even for a Mode C ALT transponding infringer, that it's a 5nm vertical exclusion zone that reaches from the surface up to the roof of the CZ, right?
Yes, it's the tactical criteria indeed I was wanting to understand and must have been quoted by the Heathrow controller. Remember at the time thinking that is quite a substantial vertical "cylinder" of airspace compared to the horizontal separation.
Is that due to the potential doubts there may be on height information? QNH being used?
That must effectively mean, for all UK CZ's, even for a Mode C ALT transponding infringer, that it's a 5nm vertical exclusion zone that reaches from the surface up to the roof of the CZ, right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably any SVFR traffic in Class A, say in LHR's zone, is therefore considered as IFR, unless on a specified SVFR route (e.g. heli-lanes)?
I'm thinking about cleared SVFR on non-official routings, such as in LHR's zone, a GA routing BUR-Ascot, an overhead PFL at Denham, or photo-shoots around the zone.
A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?
Sorry for picky questions!
I'm thinking about cleared SVFR on non-official routings, such as in LHR's zone, a GA routing BUR-Ascot, an overhead PFL at Denham, or photo-shoots around the zone.
A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?
Sorry for picky questions!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RYL - Hope I got the latest version of MATS1, but Sec1 Ch3 P13 in the July 2009 edition talks about wake turbulence separation....is that right? That's intriguing if true!
So, it looks like 5nm is the prime criteria for unknown traffic in a CZ with a roof less than 5000' QNH? Is that an over-simplification?
So, it looks like 5nm is the prime criteria for unknown traffic in a CZ with a roof less than 5000' QNH? Is that an over-simplification?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that due to the potential doubts there may be on height information? QNH being used?
If the aircraft is wearing a conspicuity squawk (not verified), the level hasn't been checked and may not be right. In this case you can use 5000 feet, but must not let the returns touch or merge - this ensures that even if the mode C is vastly wrong there won't (or at least shouldn't!) be a collision.
That must effectively mean, for all UK CZ's, even for a Mode C ALT transponding infringer, that it's a 5nm vertical exclusion zone that reaches from the surface up to the roof of the CZ, right?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, that reference should be page 14, it's just after the wake turbulence stuff. The 5000 feet is only for unknown traffic, for known traffic you can use 1000' vertical.
For ATS surveillance system (we used to be able to call that radar) separation between known traffic this will be specified in the MATS Part 2. In our case it is 3nm between identified targets or 5nm otherwise (note that unidentified and unknown are not the same - confusingly!).
Special VFR is done differently at different units and I can't comment on Heathrow (I don't work anywhere near). At my unit we can use "deemed separations" where SVFR aircraft operating in certain areas under certain conditions are separated from IFR aircraft operating in other areas. Most units will have some sort of "deemer" like this I would think.
For ATS surveillance system (we used to be able to call that radar) separation between known traffic this will be specified in the MATS Part 2. In our case it is 3nm between identified targets or 5nm otherwise (note that unidentified and unknown are not the same - confusingly!).
Special VFR is done differently at different units and I can't comment on Heathrow (I don't work anywhere near). At my unit we can use "deemed separations" where SVFR aircraft operating in certain areas under certain conditions are separated from IFR aircraft operating in other areas. Most units will have some sort of "deemer" like this I would think.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
betterfromabove.... you need to visit an ATC radar unit and see what goes on!
<<A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?>>
Why should it need to? All SVFR traffic will be identified and ATC will provide standard separation (1000ft vertical or 3nm horizontal) between it and IFR or other SVFR traffic.
During my time at Heathrow I must have seen hundreds of zone infringers (curse them!). We did our best to maintain horizontal separation and provide information to other pilots. If they saw the infringer they could provide their own separation, which could be considerably less than that provided by ATC.
<<A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?>>
Why should it need to? All SVFR traffic will be identified and ATC will provide standard separation (1000ft vertical or 3nm horizontal) between it and IFR or other SVFR traffic.
During my time at Heathrow I must have seen hundreds of zone infringers (curse them!). We did our best to maintain horizontal separation and provide information to other pilots. If they saw the infringer they could provide their own separation, which could be considerably less than that provided by ATC.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any countries still offering flight training or experience of any kind to controllers?
Offers a (mandatory) PPL between 1st and 2nd year of initial training.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
Thank you all for your comments. As often appears the case with aviation, there appear to be rules, then sub-rules and then pragmatic further tweaking to allow things to function!
So, as I understand it, it's essentially 5nm OR 5000' in the worst of cases, but may be reduced in steps to a situation of (IFR) pilot-assured visual maintenance of separation in the best of cases.
I should explain my interest in the subject....aside from being a PPL, am currently working on technology in the infringement reduction area.
Have been trying to arrange a visit to an ATC unit through some contacts, as would be extremely useful to see if from the ATCO's perspective. Aside from a flying club-led visit, is there any other way to organise this?
I'm in the London area, so would equally be happy to tag along with any clubs visiting a facility in the coming months.
Many thanks again
BFA
Thank you all for your comments. As often appears the case with aviation, there appear to be rules, then sub-rules and then pragmatic further tweaking to allow things to function!
So, as I understand it, it's essentially 5nm OR 5000' in the worst of cases, but may be reduced in steps to a situation of (IFR) pilot-assured visual maintenance of separation in the best of cases.
I should explain my interest in the subject....aside from being a PPL, am currently working on technology in the infringement reduction area.
Have been trying to arrange a visit to an ATC unit through some contacts, as would be extremely useful to see if from the ATCO's perspective. Aside from a flying club-led visit, is there any other way to organise this?
I'm in the London area, so would equally be happy to tag along with any clubs visiting a facility in the coming months.
Many thanks again
BFA
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One way of reducing infringements would be better training of pilots. OK, infringments don't happen every day but those that do usually reveal exceptional stupidity on the part of the pilot. Like the one who took off from Denham to fly to Elstree but set his gyro 180 degrees out and ended up half way to White Waltham, for example.
It's not always PPLs.. One evening a light twin flew the airways system from France inbound to Elstree. A few miles before Biggin Hill he descended out of Controlled Airspace and then flew direct to Elstree, through the London Control Zone. He had descended to around 2300 ft to get below the TMA but had not taken account of the London Control Zone going down to ground level! Caused some chaos for a while, believe me. It turned out to be an airline pilot flying! Another airline pilot scared us all one day... Flying a CL-44 from Luton to Lasham, he contacted Leavesden as he flew past. The controller at Leavesden said something like "I have no traffic, cleared to Lasham good day". What he meant was, I don't need to talk to you any more so you can call Lasham but the pilot thought he could fly direct Lasham... Meanwhile, a PPL had been cleared SVFR across the zone from White Waltham towards Denham... When we saw the unidentified aircraft joining the zone heading southwest from Leavesden we warned the PPL and asked him if he could see it, "Christ, it's a Britannia!" he said as the CL-44 passed him.
On another occasion an unidentified aircraft entered the zone near Fairoaks and proceeded to circle Windsor for about 10 minutes. Heathrow was on easterlies so chaos ensued.. It was a flying instructor who had decided to show his pupil Windsor castle.
How does one legislate for imbeciles?? Big problem is that when these people are taken to court the magistrates haven't a clue about aviation so let them off with a token fine instead of locking them up for 5 years and then hanging them.
It's not always PPLs.. One evening a light twin flew the airways system from France inbound to Elstree. A few miles before Biggin Hill he descended out of Controlled Airspace and then flew direct to Elstree, through the London Control Zone. He had descended to around 2300 ft to get below the TMA but had not taken account of the London Control Zone going down to ground level! Caused some chaos for a while, believe me. It turned out to be an airline pilot flying! Another airline pilot scared us all one day... Flying a CL-44 from Luton to Lasham, he contacted Leavesden as he flew past. The controller at Leavesden said something like "I have no traffic, cleared to Lasham good day". What he meant was, I don't need to talk to you any more so you can call Lasham but the pilot thought he could fly direct Lasham... Meanwhile, a PPL had been cleared SVFR across the zone from White Waltham towards Denham... When we saw the unidentified aircraft joining the zone heading southwest from Leavesden we warned the PPL and asked him if he could see it, "Christ, it's a Britannia!" he said as the CL-44 passed him.
On another occasion an unidentified aircraft entered the zone near Fairoaks and proceeded to circle Windsor for about 10 minutes. Heathrow was on easterlies so chaos ensued.. It was a flying instructor who had decided to show his pupil Windsor castle.
How does one legislate for imbeciles?? Big problem is that when these people are taken to court the magistrates haven't a clue about aviation so let them off with a token fine instead of locking them up for 5 years and then hanging them.
Heathrow Director
Agree, education is part of the problem. Just how much of the PPL syllabus is devoted to operation in controlled airspace?
With respect to ATCO training, if an ATC Unit has a history of infringements its Safety Managment System must recognise it as an operational hazard and put in place mitigation measures to reduce the resultant risk factor to "As Low As Reasonably Possible" (ALARP).
Part of the mitigation measures must be ATCO training which can be regularly required via TRUCE.
To their credit NATS has devoted considerable resources to tackling the infringement proble. While this has met with some success, an unacceptably high level of infringements still occur.
Time for the regulator to do something more?
From my too many years in the business I've seen dozens of infringements, and resultant "slap wrist" approach by CAA. This latter tactic may be a result of a lack of CAA financial resources to pursue prosecutions.
If the CAA does not have the resources to pursue each prosecution how about a "Formal Caution" approach to the problem? If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that an infringement has occurred, and thereby a criminal offence has been committed, the alleged offender is given the option of his/her day in court or admit the offence and receive a formal caution. This would remain on file for a defined period of time.
Any proven second offence within the time span would result in the FCL (whether it be PPL/CPL/ATPL) being suspended.
Agree, education is part of the problem. Just how much of the PPL syllabus is devoted to operation in controlled airspace?
With respect to ATCO training, if an ATC Unit has a history of infringements its Safety Managment System must recognise it as an operational hazard and put in place mitigation measures to reduce the resultant risk factor to "As Low As Reasonably Possible" (ALARP).
Part of the mitigation measures must be ATCO training which can be regularly required via TRUCE.
To their credit NATS has devoted considerable resources to tackling the infringement proble. While this has met with some success, an unacceptably high level of infringements still occur.
Time for the regulator to do something more?
From my too many years in the business I've seen dozens of infringements, and resultant "slap wrist" approach by CAA. This latter tactic may be a result of a lack of CAA financial resources to pursue prosecutions.
If the CAA does not have the resources to pursue each prosecution how about a "Formal Caution" approach to the problem? If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that an infringement has occurred, and thereby a criminal offence has been committed, the alleged offender is given the option of his/her day in court or admit the offence and receive a formal caution. This would remain on file for a defined period of time.
Any proven second offence within the time span would result in the FCL (whether it be PPL/CPL/ATPL) being suspended.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD - you really should write a book!
What's surprising is the wide range of experience levels involved in infringements, from student PPL's right through to ATPL's.
Have any stats been released on this? The details must be gathered in the ATC reports are they not?
Even though the consequences might not be quite so grave, in a sense, we should also include transgressions of other kind of airspace into the problem as well (e.g. para drop zones, glider sites, DA's). The essential issue is that pilots are losing SA of the hazard environment around them.
What's surprising is the wide range of experience levels involved in infringements, from student PPL's right through to ATPL's.
Have any stats been released on this? The details must be gathered in the ATC reports are they not?
Even though the consequences might not be quite so grave, in a sense, we should also include transgressions of other kind of airspace into the problem as well (e.g. para drop zones, glider sites, DA's). The essential issue is that pilots are losing SA of the hazard environment around them.
One of the worst I encountered (but not the worst) was also a Senior ATPL , who'd also been a Nav Instuctor in the RAF. Took off from Wycombe to fly to Lydd and guess what, why turn corners, let's go in a straight line. He called Farnborough and I identified him about 4nm north west of Heathrow tracking south east.
