(UK) Etiquette on service termination
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
some units who view a basic service as a license to control you in class G
NS
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on the individual controller.
The shall we say older sounding controllers don't in general do it or give a heads up. And speaking to mates the controllers who are also pilots tend to do what they would want.
Even on the same unit the way individuals deal with the same situation is different so unless you know the voice you won't have clue what to expect.
Personally I now expect no service and if I get one its a bonus. I try and stay in or above cloud sub FL100.
It still gets pretty hairy getting dumped out of London control by decent going into say CAM on a fair wx day. Some just dump you and others keep you until your VMC.
Even getting a service the two airprox I have filed have been under the old RAS service and under a deconfliction. One with a microlight and the other a glider. So although nice to have once your VMC below cloud base I prefer to have all eyes available looking out the window than head in running on vectors.
And they are the ones that phone you and start bitching that you should have spoken to them so that you were known traffic. And they had needed to speak so they could get 5 miles deconfliction on a CAT aircraft which you could see anway and would be deemed seperated from in CAS but under ASTOCAS you would be vectored away from.
If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?
The shall we say older sounding controllers don't in general do it or give a heads up. And speaking to mates the controllers who are also pilots tend to do what they would want.
Even on the same unit the way individuals deal with the same situation is different so unless you know the voice you won't have clue what to expect.
Personally I now expect no service and if I get one its a bonus. I try and stay in or above cloud sub FL100.
It still gets pretty hairy getting dumped out of London control by decent going into say CAM on a fair wx day. Some just dump you and others keep you until your VMC.
Even getting a service the two airprox I have filed have been under the old RAS service and under a deconfliction. One with a microlight and the other a glider. So although nice to have once your VMC below cloud base I prefer to have all eyes available looking out the window than head in running on vectors.
you doesn't pay your money and you doesn't get a choice.
If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Aug 2012 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?"
Any takers from ATC on this one? Does it help us all for you to know who is where or are GA only to be spoken to "just in case"?
Any takers from ATC on this one? Does it help us all for you to know who is where or are GA only to be spoken to "just in case"?
Moderator
Thread Starter
And that - or similar - happens not infrequently in Class G !
G
And they had needed to speak so they could get 5 miles deconfliction on a CAT aircraft which you could see anway and would be deemed seperated from in CAS but under ASTOCAS you would be vectored away from.
If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?
If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?
And I've certainly heard the occasional air trafficer throw their teddy out of the cot when it happened.
2 s
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case I was describing was the traffic was known and not all units have 3nm
If both traffic are working the same unit and one VFR and the other CAT under a deconfliction it doesn't matter that the VFR can see the IFR they will still be radar seperated. Under CAS rules they don't have to be.
So you have the crazy situation that Class G airports try and keep a 10 mile by however long they normally vector the finals for sterile bit of airspace on the instrument approach and it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this. Where as in CAS there wouldn't be a problem.
Most companys SOP's tell pilost they have to take the best service available so they can't drop to a traffic service. And the units have usually got an agreement with the operator to provide a deconfliction service so the controller won't drop the service because then the crew will write a report. The the CAT is paying so the VFR traffic get moved and can collect a 10-20 mile diversion off route and usually gets dumped once clear when the controller has lost interest in them.
The more adaptable controllers will chuck both of you to tower and let them deal with it under there rules traffic permitting, but some units will hold both of you on radar.
If both traffic are working the same unit and one VFR and the other CAT under a deconfliction it doesn't matter that the VFR can see the IFR they will still be radar seperated. Under CAS rules they don't have to be.
So you have the crazy situation that Class G airports try and keep a 10 mile by however long they normally vector the finals for sterile bit of airspace on the instrument approach and it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this. Where as in CAS there wouldn't be a problem.
Most companys SOP's tell pilost they have to take the best service available so they can't drop to a traffic service. And the units have usually got an agreement with the operator to provide a deconfliction service so the controller won't drop the service because then the crew will write a report. The the CAT is paying so the VFR traffic get moved and can collect a 10-20 mile diversion off route and usually gets dumped once clear when the controller has lost interest in them.
The more adaptable controllers will chuck both of you to tower and let them deal with it under there rules traffic permitting, but some units will hold both of you on radar.
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Aug 2012 at 11:49.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this
Likewise, aircraft on a traffic or basic service can be asked to stick to certain limits to help deconflicting from other traffic, but the pilots are totally entitled to say no and do their own thing. Everybody can do their own thing in class G, within the limits of legality!! ATC is not sky cops
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats not the way its working in practise Legal with some units.
You won't get a deconfliction service anyway you will get a basic or if you are very very lucky a traffic service.
And as for refusing an agreement all hell lets loose.
Last time I did that it was 10 plus RT calls to which each responce was "negative" and restating what my intentions were, it finished with them issuing an avoidance instruction to the vector they wanted me on to clear their ILS by 5 miles for a loco who was 10 mins out. I went on route and got a phone call from the SATCO later who I invited to MOR me, which he declined the offer and started bleating about airmanship and stating that I would never make a commercial pilot with my attitude. The thanks mate but I am already a CAT ATPL Captain and if your CAT traffic doesn't want to downgrade to a traffic service they can take the extra track miles caused the phone to be put down.
To be honest from a pilots point of view ATSOCAS isn't fit for purpose. Its confusing and not logical for most if not all none UK pilots. And the rules about deconflicting traffic are more onerous than operating inside controlled airspace.
You won't get a deconfliction service anyway you will get a basic or if you are very very lucky a traffic service.
And as for refusing an agreement all hell lets loose.
Last time I did that it was 10 plus RT calls to which each responce was "negative" and restating what my intentions were, it finished with them issuing an avoidance instruction to the vector they wanted me on to clear their ILS by 5 miles for a loco who was 10 mins out. I went on route and got a phone call from the SATCO later who I invited to MOR me, which he declined the offer and started bleating about airmanship and stating that I would never make a commercial pilot with my attitude. The thanks mate but I am already a CAT ATPL Captain and if your CAT traffic doesn't want to downgrade to a traffic service they can take the extra track miles caused the phone to be put down.
To be honest from a pilots point of view ATSOCAS isn't fit for purpose. Its confusing and not logical for most if not all none UK pilots. And the rules about deconflicting traffic are more onerous than operating inside controlled airspace.
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Aug 2012 at 14:18.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Sorry that you view it in terms of "teddies and cots". Look on it as an understandable frustration at the occasional habit that can be hazardous for other pilots, not just for the controller's (not air trafficer, or even trafficker) blood pressure!
G
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember trying to tell the CAA that the new ATSOCA rules were not fit for purpose at the time they were introduced. They ignored flight rules, making it more restrictive than controlled airspace in some cases.
It fell on deaf ears as in the main the ex-mil guys who now have jobs in the CAA did not care what flight rules the aircraft was under when using the old system of RIS and RAS. As in the military.
I used to use the statement in the approach section of the MATS 1 to only separate known IFR even under a RAS, so if the traffic is known VFR I would only provide traffic information, similar to class D. I would avoid other known IFR and unknown aircraft. This also meant I wanted pilots to contact me just to know their flight rules, it made things a lot easier.
It fell on deaf ears as in the main the ex-mil guys who now have jobs in the CAA did not care what flight rules the aircraft was under when using the old system of RIS and RAS. As in the military.
I used to use the statement in the approach section of the MATS 1 to only separate known IFR even under a RAS, so if the traffic is known VFR I would only provide traffic information, similar to class D. I would avoid other known IFR and unknown aircraft. This also meant I wanted pilots to contact me just to know their flight rules, it made things a lot easier.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think radar is bad.
You should see the fun and games with procedural.
You can get multiple aircraft on the instrument approach who have taken a basic service because they didn't have a clue what the other one was with the controller passing traffic info to none native speakers who think they have been cleared for the procedure. With the controller more than likely with thier eyes shut and hand on the crash button.
If the controller hadn't asked them what type of service they wanted and confused matters they would have been more than happy to potter into the hold and do as thier told.
You should see the fun and games with procedural.
You can get multiple aircraft on the instrument approach who have taken a basic service because they didn't have a clue what the other one was with the controller passing traffic info to none native speakers who think they have been cleared for the procedure. With the controller more than likely with thier eyes shut and hand on the crash button.
If the controller hadn't asked them what type of service they wanted and confused matters they would have been more than happy to potter into the hold and do as thier told.
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Aug 2012 at 19:01.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since CAP774 there has been excessive 'over-controlling' of VFR traffic in Class G airspace solely to deconflict it from traffic under Deconfliction Service. The simple provision of traffic information to the VFR flights should suffice. 'Agreements to maintain a specific course of action' are often excessive and overkill.
Service provision is wildly inconsistent between ATSOCA units. Basic Service frequently includes traffic information even though the ATCO should 'avoid the routine provision of traffic information' unless s/he 'considers that a definite risk of collision exists'. The risk of collision in the majority of cases seems to be non-existent. Often the traffic information is more akin to an eye test. 'Duty of Care' is often taken to extreme. I suspect it is probably intended minimise TCAS RAs to avoid paperwork. Many 'agreements' as applied to VFR flights on Basic Service which result in tortuous deviation are often totally unnecessary. If this situation is allowed to continue pilots will be less inclined to contact those units which appear to be unable to provide the services in accordance with CAP774.
Service provision is wildly inconsistent between ATSOCA units. Basic Service frequently includes traffic information even though the ATCO should 'avoid the routine provision of traffic information' unless s/he 'considers that a definite risk of collision exists'. The risk of collision in the majority of cases seems to be non-existent. Often the traffic information is more akin to an eye test. 'Duty of Care' is often taken to extreme. I suspect it is probably intended minimise TCAS RAs to avoid paperwork. Many 'agreements' as applied to VFR flights on Basic Service which result in tortuous deviation are often totally unnecessary. If this situation is allowed to continue pilots will be less inclined to contact those units which appear to be unable to provide the services in accordance with CAP774.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it all comes down to the CAA pushing the accountability down to the service providers.
Lets face it the duty of care section is a can of worms that only a jury would decide on if the unthinkable happens.
In busy class G the procedural service is about luck, plain and simple.
Lets face it the duty of care section is a can of worms that only a jury would decide on if the unthinkable happens.
In busy class G the procedural service is about luck, plain and simple.
Last edited by Use the Force; 26th Aug 2012 at 19:53.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on who is on the desk and the pilots knowing the rules.
If the pilots doing the procedures have any misconcpetion that they have any protection at all in the procedure while flying in VMC it falls on its arse.
If the pilots doing the procedures have any misconcpetion that they have any protection at all in the procedure while flying in VMC it falls on its arse.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the traffic / deconfliction service as it is provided at the moment as the lesser of two evils - the other one being more class D airspace. And I say that with class D airspace as it is operated in the UK, where clearance is less than assured.
Here is my example: Southend now has some CAT that wants deconfliction service. Our general handling / practice area is over St Mary's Marsh, and gets in the way if they have to provide 5 miles separation to an approach from the west, especially if we do climbing/descending and stalling exercises at around 3,000ft.
I always call for a traffic service, and Southend are VERY accommodating - I do not remember a single service refusal. On occasion, they ask me to work to the west side of the marsh, or remain a bit south, or remain below 2,000ft for 10 minutes. I am always happy to oblige, and it sure beats "basic service only due controller workload" from Farnborough.
I do not see this as overcontrolling - Southend certainly is asking politely - but as a give and take.
If that particular bit of airspace became Class D as during the Olympics, we would lose this training area, and I am certain that a clearance into Class D to do some stalling would not be something I could reliably plan to obtain...
Here is my example: Southend now has some CAT that wants deconfliction service. Our general handling / practice area is over St Mary's Marsh, and gets in the way if they have to provide 5 miles separation to an approach from the west, especially if we do climbing/descending and stalling exercises at around 3,000ft.
I always call for a traffic service, and Southend are VERY accommodating - I do not remember a single service refusal. On occasion, they ask me to work to the west side of the marsh, or remain a bit south, or remain below 2,000ft for 10 minutes. I am always happy to oblige, and it sure beats "basic service only due controller workload" from Farnborough.
I do not see this as overcontrolling - Southend certainly is asking politely - but as a give and take.
If that particular bit of airspace became Class D as during the Olympics, we would lose this training area, and I am certain that a clearance into Class D to do some stalling would not be something I could reliably plan to obtain...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobalt
Don't be daft, if that bit of airspace you talk of, is available for you to fly in for what ever reason, then the you have a right to fly in it so long as you follow whatever guidelines the CAA place.
It might mean you have to file a flight plan, god forbid?
Don't be daft, if that bit of airspace you talk of, is available for you to fly in for what ever reason, then the you have a right to fly in it so long as you follow whatever guidelines the CAA place.
It might mean you have to file a flight plan, god forbid?
Last edited by Use the Force; 26th Aug 2012 at 21:32.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your visual with it why should you have to move or be restricted at all.
You are VFR in Class G.
If the airline wants deconfliction and operates into a cheap regional airport in class G they have to accept it will burn more fuel.
Your students shouldn't be paying for the loco's commercial decision to operate into that airport and the local interpretation of ATSOCA.
You are VFR in Class G.
If the airline wants deconfliction and operates into a cheap regional airport in class G they have to accept it will burn more fuel.
Your students shouldn't be paying for the loco's commercial decision to operate into that airport and the local interpretation of ATSOCA.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use the Force,
Maybe on Tatooine you need to file a flight plan for Class D
, but here we have no imperials (with Atlas control gone) so a radio call (which technically is a flight plan, too) will do. And that call would be nearly identical to a call for traffic service.
But there is no assurance that a clearance for airwork in class D will be given, and hence it will make that bit of airspace unsuitable.
Mad_jock,
I agree my students should not pay. They don't - with a bit of notice, I can arrange the general "working" direction to suit both. And Southend also is asking nicely for coordination, and are not ordering me around. If I don't like what they ask for (last week they wanted me to stay below 2,000ft when I wanted to teach stalling) I say so and offer an alternative (in that case, remaining west of a point).
It is all voluntary. I had some cases of attempts to give me instructions in class G (not as nasty as some if the examples in this thread), none of them at Southend.
Maybe on Tatooine you need to file a flight plan for Class D
, but here we have no imperials (with Atlas control gone) so a radio call (which technically is a flight plan, too) will do. And that call would be nearly identical to a call for traffic service.But there is no assurance that a clearance for airwork in class D will be given, and hence it will make that bit of airspace unsuitable.
Mad_jock,
I agree my students should not pay. They don't - with a bit of notice, I can arrange the general "working" direction to suit both. And Southend also is asking nicely for coordination, and are not ordering me around. If I don't like what they ask for (last week they wanted me to stay below 2,000ft when I wanted to teach stalling) I say so and offer an alternative (in that case, remaining west of a point).
It is all voluntary. I had some cases of attempts to give me instructions in class G (not as nasty as some if the examples in this thread), none of them at Southend.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough if your happy. But its still wrong if you are having to be seperated when your wouldn't need to be in CAS.
I have never had an issue getting access to class D and there are more than a few local agreements for training areas inside class D.
And if EZY continue the way they are going there it won't be long before there is a case for CAS. And with recent CAS approvals they will be pretty likely to get it.
I have never had an issue getting access to class D and there are more than a few local agreements for training areas inside class D.
And if EZY continue the way they are going there it won't be long before there is a case for CAS. And with recent CAS approvals they will be pretty likely to get it.
Last edited by mad_jock; 27th Aug 2012 at 05:01.
