ATSOCAS
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I am saying that I believe the services as laid down on a piece of paper are fit
And I operate as GA IFR and VFR, CAT VFR and IFR
And as a Captain in CAT in G you just have to accept your level of risk is more than inside CAS. And you have to alter your own personal methods to take this into account. I might add it doesn't matter if your dealing with a procedural service or radar service or tower only. Your are on your own and its only your own actions which can help minimise the risk. You will never completely remove it but, by using your flight profile you can minimise your risk exposure. By exposing yourself in the 1k to 5k region for the least amount of time is one of the big ones. Its a mental click with the pilot that they don't have any rights of protection. Its quite hard to get it into new Captains heads when you are line training them that they are on there own even if they are talking to a "radar controller"
So you either have to accept that you can't get a safe service in uncontrolled or you don't operate in uncontrolled.
Now we do have a last ditch mitigation device onboard most CAT aircraft, certainly all that carry scheduled pax ie TCAS but that requires the other aircraft to have a transponder.
With a blankish bit of paper.
You need to look at both sides the way the CAT/IFR is dealt with and also the way that the VFR is dealt with. Currently the IFR is given the same profiles as inside controlled airspace. They need to be pulled in towards the airports and kept higher in G. Unless of course they accept and request to get dropped into dragon country unprotected.
I would slap a 10 radius mile zone of class E+ round each of the airports with scheduled pax. That's without the current gold plating bollocks of requiring radar and a separate approach service. Do it as a country wide consultation and no input from individual airports and the cost goes into the airport licensing costs for the whole of the UK. They have a choice then of either speaking to you or having a transponder working.
The CAT want this environment and should pay for the certification of a cheap functional approved portable transponder which microlights and gliders can carry and any permit aircraft. CoA aircraft have to use the current approved units. 2-3 hours battery life and replaceable battery units aka digital camera type. It only needs to be able to work up to 20 or 30 miles away and 10k feet. And they can turn it off for all I care while away from licensed airports. 5 quid on every landing fee for CAT in the UK will cover it. or if you can get EASA involved a couple of euros on each airways flight.
If there is a radar feed available allow the visual twr control to use it if required. It works in the rest of Europe.
Have minimum decent levels for IFR before the approach even on visual until within a certain range. And ban the practise of clearing airspace in the event of the CAT wanting a straight in visual. Ie give a safety area which all GA pilots know they can go in without getting screwed around. I suggest up to 4k outside 15, 2.5k outside 10 and 1.5 until 6 agl. If the CAT wants to go inside that, that's their problem and should be communicated "You are responsible for your own traffic separation"
The concept of if the VFR traffic can see the IFR traffic it is separated is a fundamental concept and to be honest is the biggest annoying ball ache with the current system. When you can see the sodding thing for miles away, there is zero chance your going to get near it even if you tried or were stupid enough. But no the approach wants to move me out the way at my expense at 3 quid a minute. That happening to me three times in close succession was my breaking point of this whole thing being a pile of w
k. Have visual approach way points with set heights defined for each runway and one for straight and one on each base. Don't give a visual approach until the CAT is at those points and height. 6 mile final/ 4 mile final with 2 mile dog leg on base at 1.8k. Once its set, a standard way of dealing with it will be put in place by operators. Yes it might mean some of us can't crack in at 200 knts plus to 6 miles. But such is life we can take own traffic separation if we want to do that.
Two services.
FIS and Radar.
FIS is your standard FIS. Don't pretend it is anything more than it is. It is a set standard country wide. Don't try changing the name it just causes confusion.
Radar is the best radar service you can give. I would also put a warning on the Instrument plates the limitations of the service. Ie we will do the best we can but you are responsible for your own separation.
The differential between the current traffic service and deconfiction can be obtained on the first vector.
"Traffic in your 3 o'clock, turn left heading xxx to maintain radar separation"
bigbird "left heading xxx" or "Roger looking for traffic"
If they take the vector continue giving them vectors if they give it the looking for traffic just keep passing them the traffic.
Procedural control should be just that, none of this nonsense of what type of service do you want. If your IFR you getting it like it or not. If you don't want it cancel IFR. It confuses the hell of the foreigners and they don't understand the difference to a basic service. 99% of pilots will do as they are told anyway. And the 1% that don't will be the local regulars who know their poo anyway.
This contract "control" rubbish should just die a death with VFR traffic. You wouldn't believe the amount of stress and work load it gives low experienced pilots. And the huge annoyance factor it gives experienced. Yes you can ask that they report any alterations to their intentions but some controllers are using not replying to calls as a method of locking VFR aircraft on headings and alts as if they were IFR. Quite often with zero appreciation of cloud and terrain. I have given it hey ho off the frequency I go, when I was ignored for 4 calls trying to avoid cloud. Which did trigger a response I might add, it was a scream "remain on my frequency", which got the reply "QSYing good day". Its uncontrolled airspace you will never be able to change that fact.
Currently I think that due to lack of knowledge on how aircraft operate that to much emphasis is given to allowing the CAT free protected range in class G during the approach phase, if they were just kept out of the sub 4k zone until a lot nearer the airport and dog legs used to put them on base to create distance for height loss the amount of clashes with GA would be greatly reduced.
Over 10 years I have had two airprox's both of which have been under a top level radar service in the UK. Both cases the traffic wasn't seen on radar both in the sub 4k zone in G descended I might before I would have preferred.
Over the same period looking after myself and keeping a bloody good look out and cancelling IFR when in VFR conditions I haven't had any issues in G. Quite often I think CAT creates problems for itself by doing full instrument procedures in visual conditions. Instead of taking them to the down wind controllers are taking them out to 10-20 miles away with slant vectors covering vast strafes of airspace sometimes 15-20 miles abeam the field and they clear them down way to early sometimes 20 miles before touch down with sterile space under them. 100 sq Nm by 6-7k thick of airspace. If they were controlling in CAS they wouldn't do that because they would be limited by the CAS dimensions.
Anyway I am sure you ATC types will see gapping holes in my blankish paper scribblings on a Saturday morning after a week of 6 sector days on earlys 4 of which involve instrument approaches in class G which shock horror have only a FISO to give me procedural traffic information.
Last edited by mad_jock; 15th Nov 2014 at 18:14.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
Sat at EGLL waiting to collect Mrs Moli so not gonna type loads on an iPhone.
I find myself reading your post and nodding in agreement with lots of it. Sometimes I think some of what you say gets misinterpreted (by me at least) as you get or appear to get very wound up by this subject and I think your intention gets a little lost.
Anyway, I say again I agree with much of your last post, thanks for taking the time to air your thoughts, gotta go
Moli
Sat at EGLL waiting to collect Mrs Moli so not gonna type loads on an iPhone.
I find myself reading your post and nodding in agreement with lots of it. Sometimes I think some of what you say gets misinterpreted (by me at least) as you get or appear to get very wound up by this subject and I think your intention gets a little lost.
Anyway, I say again I agree with much of your last post, thanks for taking the time to air your thoughts, gotta go
Moli
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my intention is increased safety for all users of class G.
If it comes across as anything else I apologise.
I do feel strongly about the subject because all I have experienced is a reduction in safety with the current ATSOCAS.
The focus has gone to far in the direction of what the service provider deems the User should have, instead of what the minimum the user requires never mind wants for a safe flight.
Anyway thanks for looking through the style etc and taking the time to consider my views.
If it comes across as anything else I apologise.
I do feel strongly about the subject because all I have experienced is a reduction in safety with the current ATSOCAS.
The focus has gone to far in the direction of what the service provider deems the User should have, instead of what the minimum the user requires never mind wants for a safe flight.
Anyway thanks for looking through the style etc and taking the time to consider my views.
MJ, I'm with Moli, I agree with a lot of what you have said in your last few posts. I've listened to how others in Europe do it (Danish FISOs provide surveillance based traffic information to VFR traffic in Class E, akin to the UK's military area radar Class G aerospace task) and would like to see FIS in Class G that is based on IFR and VFR. ATS units with a surveillance capability could provide information based on radar, we'd get rid of deconfliction service and collision avoidance advice would be available on request. The problems are that the overall airspace structure within the UK is wrong (the default that Class G is best is plain wrong) and the funding model in the UK is wrong because there is no profit for aerodromes to provide FIS to transiting traffic.
I think that someone needs to start examining the availability of ATS to users (and I don't mean LARS coverage) because too many pilots are saying on forums such as these that all they can get is a BS. That was never the idea. I also think that if we're forced to stick with what we have, then somehow, availability of the ATS, training and awareness needs to improve, in order to improve safety.
I think that someone needs to start examining the availability of ATS to users (and I don't mean LARS coverage) because too many pilots are saying on forums such as these that all they can get is a BS. That was never the idea. I also think that if we're forced to stick with what we have, then somehow, availability of the ATS, training and awareness needs to improve, in order to improve safety.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you have lost me and many other pilots to your services until you have a fundamental change to the system.
And quite how a service is meant to function with the intended users boycotting it I don't know.
To pretend you can fix the current farce is a bit naïve. I am sure there will be some sweating managers sitting in a room kidding themselves and everyone else that the can make it work in its current state so they don't have to spend any money on it.
But the those of us that actually have to use it won't be spoken to.
Anyway I am perfectly happy flying along keeping a listening watch to the approach frequency to generate my own SA its all I would get on a basic anyway. And I won't be dicked around.
This is your house to sort out, I won't be entering it in class G until you remove all the ****e from the door step.
And quite how a service is meant to function with the intended users boycotting it I don't know.
To pretend you can fix the current farce is a bit naïve. I am sure there will be some sweating managers sitting in a room kidding themselves and everyone else that the can make it work in its current state so they don't have to spend any money on it.
But the those of us that actually have to use it won't be spoken to.
Anyway I am perfectly happy flying along keeping a listening watch to the approach frequency to generate my own SA its all I would get on a basic anyway. And I won't be dicked around.
This is your house to sort out, I won't be entering it in class G until you remove all the ****e from the door step.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to note you need to sort it relatively quickly if you want peoples habits to remain to speak to a service.
Yes we train them to use what ever ATS they can get. And mostly they will stay with that. Unless pushed away from it.
If the pilots come away from that it takes quite a lot to reform the habit back to always using a service.
Once they get used to not talking and have a pleasant stress free flight and nothing ever happens to them there is no real motivation to going back to speaking to an ATS.
And I think this will affect regional airport ATS more than it will the pilots. Well it definitely will because as I have learned by experience talking to nobody in class G has absolutely no effect on my flight only a reduction in workload and annoyance factor.
So someone better wake up to this problem and do something about it because it will take years to sort out the habits of pilots to come back to using a service. The longer you leave it and the more you piss pilots off the harder it gets to get people back.
Or maybe this is the cunning plan to stop pilots using the service and force all the regionals into getting controlled airspace.
If that is the plan its working a bloody treat.
BTW I don't know any Pro pilots that do still take a service when flying by themselves privately in class G.
Yes we train them to use what ever ATS they can get. And mostly they will stay with that. Unless pushed away from it.
If the pilots come away from that it takes quite a lot to reform the habit back to always using a service.
Once they get used to not talking and have a pleasant stress free flight and nothing ever happens to them there is no real motivation to going back to speaking to an ATS.
And I think this will affect regional airport ATS more than it will the pilots. Well it definitely will because as I have learned by experience talking to nobody in class G has absolutely no effect on my flight only a reduction in workload and annoyance factor.
So someone better wake up to this problem and do something about it because it will take years to sort out the habits of pilots to come back to using a service. The longer you leave it and the more you piss pilots off the harder it gets to get people back.
Or maybe this is the cunning plan to stop pilots using the service and force all the regionals into getting controlled airspace.
If that is the plan its working a bloody treat.
BTW I don't know any Pro pilots that do still take a service when flying by themselves privately in class G.
Fascinating subject and a long way from the 'safety comes first mantra'!
Can't help but agree with M. Some eminently sensible ideas. However one of the problems which it raises is that the majority of the GA fraternity [glider, parachutists, hang gliders, microlights etc etc etc] have traditionally been opposed to controlled airspace of any kind. The military have also opposed any hint of increased controlled airspace even when intended to protect the interests of commercial air transport and airports. The above groups want freedom to do as they please, a minimum of licensing requirements, a minimum of nav equipment in their aircraft and a minimum requirement to converse with ATC!
Anyone who has attended the CAA's Air Traffic Services Regulatory Advisory Committee [ATSRAC] will have heard the protestations voiced by the above communities at the slightest hint of more controlled airspace.....and as they have, or at least used to have, far more seats around the table than the airlines and airports they make life pretty difficult!
Discuss!!
H49
Can't help but agree with M. Some eminently sensible ideas. However one of the problems which it raises is that the majority of the GA fraternity [glider, parachutists, hang gliders, microlights etc etc etc] have traditionally been opposed to controlled airspace of any kind. The military have also opposed any hint of increased controlled airspace even when intended to protect the interests of commercial air transport and airports. The above groups want freedom to do as they please, a minimum of licensing requirements, a minimum of nav equipment in their aircraft and a minimum requirement to converse with ATC!
Anyone who has attended the CAA's Air Traffic Services Regulatory Advisory Committee [ATSRAC] will have heard the protestations voiced by the above communities at the slightest hint of more controlled airspace.....and as they have, or at least used to have, far more seats around the table than the airlines and airports they make life pretty difficult!
Discuss!!
H49
However one of the problems which it raises is that the majority of the GA fraternity [glider, parachutists, hang gliders, microlights etc etc etc] have traditionally been opposed to controlled airspace of any kind. The military have also opposed any hint of increased controlled airspace even when intended to protect the interests of commercial air transport and airports. The above groups want freedom to do as they please, a minimum of licensing requirements, a minimum of nav equipment in their aircraft and a minimum requirement to converse with ATC!
When controlled airspace is being proposed it is usually stated that there will be minimal disruption to GA traffic and that all that is wanted is a known traffic environment to enhance safety for commercial traffic. All very reasonable. However, once controlled airspace in in place then priority is given to traffic using the airfield which it is there to protect. Other traffic wishing to transit is then allowed access 'subject to controller workload' which in practice means 'remain outside controlled airspace' more often than not. It is not possible to plan a flight crossing controlled airspace because there is no guarantee of being able to fly the plan, and often a very low probablility of a transit. Another issue that can arise is only being offered a transit at an altitude that requires instrument qualifications - not held by most recreational pilots.
When one considers the low traffic volumes at some airfields with Class D airspace and their reluctance to provide glider & GA transits it is not a surprise that GA is against further expansion.
Jim59
An interesting comment; & one with which I have no reason to disagree - as far as UK CAS is concerned. Because I have no great experience of it.
However, I was an ATCO at Jersey for 31 years. The Jersey CTR was, until recently, totally Rule 22, then Rule 21, then Class A airspace. That is, IFR only with a concession of Special VFR (where PPL VFR pilots fly the a/c visually & ATC separate them from each other & from IFR a/c).
It worked brilliantly. In those 31 years (& in the previous 15 years I spent as an a/c spotter), I do not recollect ANY VFR a/c being refused entry into CAS except for weather.
Now, I realise that the weather criteria for SVFR are higher than they are for VFR in UCAS ; & will bar VFR a/c from Class A on occasion but, I would suggest that this example indicates that ATC does not restrict VFR a/c for the fun of it, or unnecessarily.
Indeed, it was my experience that we bent over backwards to accept all types of traffic ! The proof of this could be seen in the CI CTR & at Jersey, Guernsey & Alderney airports on any sunny summer weekend - when we would (in co-operation with our 'JB & 'JA colleagues) handle in the region of 1200 IFR & SVFR flts. on any one day (of 14 operational hours ie. 85 a/c per hr., sustained throughout the day).
I KNOW that most, if not all of the ATCOS, were very much pro private flying & never restricted any of them unless absolutely unavoidable.
I also KNOW that locally based PPLS were very appreciative of our efforts & had no complaints about access to Class A.
My experience of ATCOS in the UK (gained from 1971 to '78 & in 2007 to '08) pretty much parallels my CI experience.
If VFR pilots, glider pilots & military pilots etc. were to realise what a great bunch of ATCOS they are dealing with & avoid thinking that because certain airspace in certain areas is CAS it is out of bounds to them, & that they are always not welcome within it ; &, if they were to actively participate in planning & organising new CAS; they might find that it is not quite so restrictive as they thought.
But, maybe my UK experience was different to everyone else's!
An interesting comment; & one with which I have no reason to disagree - as far as UK CAS is concerned. Because I have no great experience of it.
However, I was an ATCO at Jersey for 31 years. The Jersey CTR was, until recently, totally Rule 22, then Rule 21, then Class A airspace. That is, IFR only with a concession of Special VFR (where PPL VFR pilots fly the a/c visually & ATC separate them from each other & from IFR a/c).
It worked brilliantly. In those 31 years (& in the previous 15 years I spent as an a/c spotter), I do not recollect ANY VFR a/c being refused entry into CAS except for weather.
Now, I realise that the weather criteria for SVFR are higher than they are for VFR in UCAS ; & will bar VFR a/c from Class A on occasion but, I would suggest that this example indicates that ATC does not restrict VFR a/c for the fun of it, or unnecessarily.
Indeed, it was my experience that we bent over backwards to accept all types of traffic ! The proof of this could be seen in the CI CTR & at Jersey, Guernsey & Alderney airports on any sunny summer weekend - when we would (in co-operation with our 'JB & 'JA colleagues) handle in the region of 1200 IFR & SVFR flts. on any one day (of 14 operational hours ie. 85 a/c per hr., sustained throughout the day).
I KNOW that most, if not all of the ATCOS, were very much pro private flying & never restricted any of them unless absolutely unavoidable.
I also KNOW that locally based PPLS were very appreciative of our efforts & had no complaints about access to Class A.
My experience of ATCOS in the UK (gained from 1971 to '78 & in 2007 to '08) pretty much parallels my CI experience.
If VFR pilots, glider pilots & military pilots etc. were to realise what a great bunch of ATCOS they are dealing with & avoid thinking that because certain airspace in certain areas is CAS it is out of bounds to them, & that they are always not welcome within it ; &, if they were to actively participate in planning & organising new CAS; they might find that it is not quite so restrictive as they thought.
But, maybe my UK experience was different to everyone else's!
Further to the above; I do realise that the military HAS given up a lot of their airspace over the past 40 years.
I would like to thank them for that. It must be appreciated by the civilian ATCOS.
I would like to thank them for that. It must be appreciated by the civilian ATCOS.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new breed of ATCO's are nothing like what you describe.
Don't get me wrong there are some that still have the passion for anything aviation like from your day.
Unfortunately is now its just a job not an excuse to get paid to do a hobby.
I have even offered to take some up on maintenance flights, 2 hours of free lesson. Nope not interested.
Some the nly time they have ever seen the inside of a GA SEP is when they have seen a pic on the internet. And they don't have a clue what the instruments are for. But they will give you a stern lecture when you give them an altitude instead of a flight when flying at MSA above some lumpy stuff and don't realise that some planes only have one altimeter.
And the mil haven't given it up. They have just stopped having anything to do with it because they have no interest in it. And as nobody else is interested in it there is nobody looking after the traffic in it apart from an Area FISO. The only airspace civilian controllers care about is the airspace which they need to take there arrivals and departures through.
Don't get me wrong there are some that still have the passion for anything aviation like from your day.
Unfortunately is now its just a job not an excuse to get paid to do a hobby.
I have even offered to take some up on maintenance flights, 2 hours of free lesson. Nope not interested.
Some the nly time they have ever seen the inside of a GA SEP is when they have seen a pic on the internet. And they don't have a clue what the instruments are for. But they will give you a stern lecture when you give them an altitude instead of a flight when flying at MSA above some lumpy stuff and don't realise that some planes only have one altimeter.
And the mil haven't given it up. They have just stopped having anything to do with it because they have no interest in it. And as nobody else is interested in it there is nobody looking after the traffic in it apart from an Area FISO. The only airspace civilian controllers care about is the airspace which they need to take there arrivals and departures through.
Yup, met ATCOs who criticise pilots for being more than 1 kt above the procedure speed because they consider it as a job, or, at worst, a computer game.
MJ, I'm slightly confused about your comment about only an area FISO showing any interest in a particular bit of airspace; can I ask you to expand on that please? PM if you like.
The thread so far has certainly stimulated professional debate today.
MJ, I'm slightly confused about your comment about only an area FISO showing any interest in a particular bit of airspace; can I ask you to expand on that please? PM if you like.
The thread so far has certainly stimulated professional debate today.
mad jock
So very sorry to read your post. I was, obviously, aware of some slippage in the "aviation mindedness" of some ATCOS but, if it is as bad as you say, then I very much regret it.
I am thankful that I met so many aviation enthusiasts (like myself) during my career. Great characters with great enthusiasm & great knowledge & abilities. & that's without taking into account all the ex servicemen from during & after the war.
A high point of my life to have met them all & heard all their stories.
If present day ATCOS are no longer a "chip off this old block", I hate to think of what the future holds.
So very sorry to read your post. I was, obviously, aware of some slippage in the "aviation mindedness" of some ATCOS but, if it is as bad as you say, then I very much regret it.
I am thankful that I met so many aviation enthusiasts (like myself) during my career. Great characters with great enthusiasm & great knowledge & abilities. & that's without taking into account all the ex servicemen from during & after the war.
A high point of my life to have met them all & heard all their stories.
If present day ATCOS are no longer a "chip off this old block", I hate to think of what the future holds.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: sunny south
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting thread to follow from both sides. One comment would be that when the ATSOCAS came into being they came with the caveat " Duty of Care". No clear indication was given as to the definitive definition of this phrase with many left with the opinion that this would have several connotations should they ever be tested in a court of law. Obviously no individual wanted to be the "test" case.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't need a private one.
Just the only people that really want to talk to you are the Area FISO's in Scottish or London.
Weekend when there isn't mil traffic around have a look at the amount of airspace where realistically the only person you can talk to is one of the information units.
Take a fictional transit from just south of Dalkieth remaining clear of NEW and routing down to the east of the A1 IFR (I follow roads) to say Turwesten
The only time anyone will start getting someone interested with you is when you get near Eastmids which has always been a quite a pro GA set of controllers. And actually I more than likely would speak to them.
The only thing you have is Scottish Info and then London Info.
I might have forgotten one of the RAF bases might be open for something but if it is it will be a basic service with nothing passed so you might as well not bother.
Thought I would add that in for educational purposes.
BTW that's a fancy one it has nav aids and a carbon monoxide detector.
Another example who is going to look after the airspace over fife when Leuchars radar gets cut. I really don't think Edi has enough capacity to give any meaningful service unless a plastic pig is going into Dundee.
Just the only people that really want to talk to you are the Area FISO's in Scottish or London.
Weekend when there isn't mil traffic around have a look at the amount of airspace where realistically the only person you can talk to is one of the information units.
Take a fictional transit from just south of Dalkieth remaining clear of NEW and routing down to the east of the A1 IFR (I follow roads) to say Turwesten
The only time anyone will start getting someone interested with you is when you get near Eastmids which has always been a quite a pro GA set of controllers. And actually I more than likely would speak to them.
The only thing you have is Scottish Info and then London Info.
I might have forgotten one of the RAF bases might be open for something but if it is it will be a basic service with nothing passed so you might as well not bother.
Thought I would add that in for educational purposes.
BTW that's a fancy one it has nav aids and a carbon monoxide detector.
Another example who is going to look after the airspace over fife when Leuchars radar gets cut. I really don't think Edi has enough capacity to give any meaningful service unless a plastic pig is going into Dundee.
Last edited by mad_jock; 17th Nov 2014 at 14:46.
MJ, thanks for the explanation and understand completely now when you mentioned weekends.
Ref the picture, the 4 metal pedals at the bottom, they're for the 2 pilots to use to wind the spinny things on the wings right?
Like I said, stimulated interesting debate today that might one day result in something being done to resolve what is obviously (at least for part of the user community) a very significant issue.
Ref the picture, the 4 metal pedals at the bottom, they're for the 2 pilots to use to wind the spinny things on the wings right?
Like I said, stimulated interesting debate today that might one day result in something being done to resolve what is obviously (at least for part of the user community) a very significant issue.