ATSOCAS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSOCAS
I would be very grateful for ATC thoughts on this scenario:
IFR BizJet flight from Europe to busy Destination in the UK located in uncontrolled airspace with close proximity to busy RAF airfield.
We were instructed by London that our destination would accept us in the descent to 5000 feet and to fly direct xxxx (airfield) and contact xxxx approach. Upon making contact and continuing our descent as cleared the approach controller advised us that we had a traffic service and that we were to be vectored for final. We were instructed to turn on to a heading and our 5000 foot clearance was confirmed. We were in IMC and MSA was 2300 feet. On the assigned heading we were notified about target traffic in our 12 O'clock at 5000. Our TCAS display confirmed this and it looked from the display to be just inside of 5 miles directly ahead. This target traffic was currently at our cleared level and appeared to be directly on our track. I asked ATC if I could turn left or right to avoid this traffic. The reply from ATC was that we had a Traffic service and that the cleared altitude was 5000 feet. The controller had also explained that the traffic was military traffic manoeuvring up and down rapidly. The heading that we had been given was to avoid RAF base which was also busy.
I am aware that a Traffic Service leaves me in charge of my own collision/terrain avoidance but in this case I have a dilemma. My usual daily flying (all commercial IFR jet) requires that I obey ATC instructions and clearances. We were after all receiving vectors for a final approach and the controller reminded us about our cleared altitude. We were also on an IFR flight in thick IMC (cloud from approx 2000 up to 10000 feet). I am also aware not to use my TCAS display as a means of creating my own vectors to fly due to inaccuracies etc unless of course in the event of a RA. ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 details this and ACAS II bulletin No 6 'incorrect use of TCAS display' provides a good example.
In this situation I am not looking at a Topo chart since on my IFR flight I am not required to, nor am I visually familiar with the proximity of the RAF base to my destination. I could have requested a Procedural service but the vectors given were to aid my avoidance of the RAF base and it's associated traffic. A Deconfliction service was not offered. With simple Jepp plates in front of me and ATC instructions that sounded like instructions but were in fact guidance, both my colleague and I felt uneasy.
How are flight crew able to maintain their own traffic separation whilst operating in IMC? Do ATC expect flight crew to simply use assigned vectors and cleared altitudes as guidance in uncontrolled airspace? If flight crew start their own navigation over and above assigned headings and altitudes for traffic avoidance how do they avoid other airspace without a Topo chart? (Even with a Topo chart this is tricky due to work load and situational awareness coming from an IFR flight in IMC). From my perspective this situation feels like hit or miss and is quite unnerving. Any ATC perspective advice based on regulations rather than 'airmanship' is gratefully received for future visits to this and similar airfields.
Thanks in advance, sorry if it sounds a bit wooly.
IFR BizJet flight from Europe to busy Destination in the UK located in uncontrolled airspace with close proximity to busy RAF airfield.
We were instructed by London that our destination would accept us in the descent to 5000 feet and to fly direct xxxx (airfield) and contact xxxx approach. Upon making contact and continuing our descent as cleared the approach controller advised us that we had a traffic service and that we were to be vectored for final. We were instructed to turn on to a heading and our 5000 foot clearance was confirmed. We were in IMC and MSA was 2300 feet. On the assigned heading we were notified about target traffic in our 12 O'clock at 5000. Our TCAS display confirmed this and it looked from the display to be just inside of 5 miles directly ahead. This target traffic was currently at our cleared level and appeared to be directly on our track. I asked ATC if I could turn left or right to avoid this traffic. The reply from ATC was that we had a Traffic service and that the cleared altitude was 5000 feet. The controller had also explained that the traffic was military traffic manoeuvring up and down rapidly. The heading that we had been given was to avoid RAF base which was also busy.
I am aware that a Traffic Service leaves me in charge of my own collision/terrain avoidance but in this case I have a dilemma. My usual daily flying (all commercial IFR jet) requires that I obey ATC instructions and clearances. We were after all receiving vectors for a final approach and the controller reminded us about our cleared altitude. We were also on an IFR flight in thick IMC (cloud from approx 2000 up to 10000 feet). I am also aware not to use my TCAS display as a means of creating my own vectors to fly due to inaccuracies etc unless of course in the event of a RA. ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 details this and ACAS II bulletin No 6 'incorrect use of TCAS display' provides a good example.
In this situation I am not looking at a Topo chart since on my IFR flight I am not required to, nor am I visually familiar with the proximity of the RAF base to my destination. I could have requested a Procedural service but the vectors given were to aid my avoidance of the RAF base and it's associated traffic. A Deconfliction service was not offered. With simple Jepp plates in front of me and ATC instructions that sounded like instructions but were in fact guidance, both my colleague and I felt uneasy.
How are flight crew able to maintain their own traffic separation whilst operating in IMC? Do ATC expect flight crew to simply use assigned vectors and cleared altitudes as guidance in uncontrolled airspace? If flight crew start their own navigation over and above assigned headings and altitudes for traffic avoidance how do they avoid other airspace without a Topo chart? (Even with a Topo chart this is tricky due to work load and situational awareness coming from an IFR flight in IMC). From my perspective this situation feels like hit or miss and is quite unnerving. Any ATC perspective advice based on regulations rather than 'airmanship' is gratefully received for future visits to this and similar airfields.
Thanks in advance, sorry if it sounds a bit wooly.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Controller should ask what service you are requesting.If you asked for a Deconfliction Service and this was refused,then I'm surprised.If you didn't then perhaps you should have.
I think the controller was being most unhelpful. He should have offered to vector you clear of the conflicting traffic, or at least asked you if you would like de-confliction instead of traffic service having already given you a heading to avoid the military airfield. To say what he said and leave you 'in the dark' was most unprofessional.
Personally I used to offer all IFR inbounds routing through class G airspace a de-confliction service (or RAS as it was in those days - I retired just before the 'new' services started) as the initial intention was always to vector them onto the ILS.
Personally I used to offer all IFR inbounds routing through class G airspace a de-confliction service (or RAS as it was in those days - I retired just before the 'new' services started) as the initial intention was always to vector them onto the ILS.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For starters, you had an inappropriate service imposed on you. Either you tell them what service you require, or ATC should ask you. ATC say whether they can provide it or not. From what you've written that hasn't happened.
Next - the Controller involved was being extremely unhelpful as has been said, and not particularly bright. If you have an AIRPROX, they will get suspended and subject to an investigation. If you have a TCAS RA - same again. Pointing you at a military aircraft manoeuvring randomly, although perfectly within the rules of the service they've placed you under, isn't going to cut the mustard at the subsequent enquiry.
I'd submit your account for inclusion in CHIRP based on what you've said. In the future - ask for a Deconfliction service.
Next - the Controller involved was being extremely unhelpful as has been said, and not particularly bright. If you have an AIRPROX, they will get suspended and subject to an investigation. If you have a TCAS RA - same again. Pointing you at a military aircraft manoeuvring randomly, although perfectly within the rules of the service they've placed you under, isn't going to cut the mustard at the subsequent enquiry.
I'd submit your account for inclusion in CHIRP based on what you've said. In the future - ask for a Deconfliction service.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies. In hind sight yes we should have declined the traffic service and requested a Deconfliction service instead, it certainly would have been our preferred option. It is correct to say that in most cases ATC ask what service is requested upon first contact to which the answer is always a Deconfliction service please. I suspect that this is a case of proverbial environmental capture in that I am used to being offered a service rather than simply being given one and for this reason didn't ask. I think that a Deconfliction service probably wasn't available regardless though due to the high traffic density in the proximity of my destination. Multiple military targets and at least one training aircraft in the hold above the field from what I could hear. In the defence of ATC he did explain these issues to me (albeit not an excuse for putting us on a collision course under our own separation in IMC) and in a round about way vectored towards a visual approach clear of cloud.
I guess I just wanted to know how ATC are directed to deal with IFR traffic in IMC under a Traffic service, technically the pilot is responsible for collision/terrain avoidance yet can't possibly do so in IMC (albeit above MSA) and ATC are seemingly powerless to override this authority if the pilot chooses to vector him/herself.
I guess I just wanted to know how ATC are directed to deal with IFR traffic in IMC under a Traffic service, technically the pilot is responsible for collision/terrain avoidance yet can't possibly do so in IMC (albeit above MSA) and ATC are seemingly powerless to override this authority if the pilot chooses to vector him/herself.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew that there would be a thread that brought me out of semi PPRuNe retirement at some point........
For me, the questions raised by Encorebaby can be answered without casting any doubt on the professionalism, or otherwise, of anyone. Once again those that do, and hide behind the anonimity of an internet forum, do little to answer the questions posed.
As a pilot with corporate experience of flying in and around Europe, I have this to offer by way of balance against those in the Air Traffic fraternity that are, again, so keen to shoot down one of their own!
1 - Have you discussed this directly with the Air Traffic Control Unit concerned? What did they have to say? If not, you will find their contact details in the relevant AIP entry.
2 - Did the pre flight brief and TOD brief include the relevant items from the AIP entry for the aerodrome in question? Was there anything in the AIP entry with regard to radar service provision outside controlled airspace for the aerodrome in question or was there an assumption made on the flight deck? Aerodromes in class G bring with them many unique aspects by virtue of their operation and due diligence should be paid to these AIP entries before flying to the aerodrome concerned. The devil is often in the detail....
3 - CAP 774 Chapter 3 details in full the provisions, responsibilities and caveats of a Traffic Service. Paras 3.3 and 3.6 seem relevant in this case, and indeed the vectoring of aircraft against manouevring traffic under a traffic service may be dealt with within the latter. Do you know what else the controller was trying to avoid when vectoring you? When you requested to turn left or right did you state which heading you were turning to? If you were that concerned, why did you not turn anyway? See para 3.10
4 - CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 1.9 - Appropriate type of ATS. When the controller stated Traffic Service, why did you not say "negative, request Deconfliction Service"? Remember that you are entering into a contract and so your acceptance was binding. You would not sign a contract to buy a house that you did not want....
5 - So why did the controller not provide more deconfliction advice to you? See CAP 774 para 1.10 - Standard Application of ATS. Not withstanding Duty of Care, several AIRPROX reports of late have been highly critical of ATCOs providing more than is required for the type of service agreed and provided e.g. aiming for deconfliction minima on TS when vectoring, turning aircraft out of conflict on TS rather than just passing traffic information et al.
6 - It is unusual that you say that you were not fully aware of the airspace and area through which you would have to transit from the boundary of controlled airspace to the destination aerodrome, just because you were "IFR". It would seem reasonable to expect that you, as a crew, would have discussed how you were going to get from CAS to the destination aerodrome when planning the flight. As this would require flight in uncontrolled airspace, it is reasonable to expect that this would require a current chart that depicts the appropriate airspace, hazards and obstacles relevant to the flight. Parachute drop zones, Danger areas, ATZ's, control zones, gliding sites, hang gliding sites affect all aircraft, whether IFR or VFR. There is a legal responsibility on the commander of an aircraft to ensure that he is adequately briefed to ensure that his flight can be conducted safely; had you flown through a parachute DZ that was not marked on your "IFR" chart or Jepp plate and collided with a parachutist, the fact that you were IFR would make no difference. As long as the site has been promulgated correctly (through the national AIP and on aeronautical charts relevant to flight in class G airspace), the commander of the aircraft in this instance may be found negligent for not adequately preparing for the flight. Of course the use of a "topo" chart does not require you to be VMC. I am sure that you were actually spatially aware of your position either from the FMS nav display or by traditional radio nav techniques. This position is easily transposed to a "topo" chart if adequately prepared for in advance.
Whether one likes it or not, flying in Class G airspace, whether IFR/IMC, IFR/VMC or VFR, is statistically more hazardous than being inside CAS. It is the unknown elements that are most cause for concern. It is impossible for us, as aircrew, to have the same situational awareness on our small flight deck and in our own situational awareness (SA) "bubble", as an ATCO with a radar picture of tens of miles radius with many other "SA bubbles" to contend with. Add to the mix non-squawking aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, aircraft squawking but not talking and flying through the published instrument approach to an aerodrome (all doing so perfectly legally) and you get a flavour for the task at hand. Sometimes one has to accept that the safest option is actually unpalatable however the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the safety of his own aircraft and, in class G airspace, all aircraft have an equal responsibility to avoid collisions with other aircraft.
I have found that whenever there has been a question to ask of an ATCO, asking it at the aerodrome concerned normally elicits an invitation to visit, a cup of coffee and a very worthwhile discussion. These discussions may or may not leave you in mutual agreement, but they certainly shed more purposeful light on things than an internet forum full of guesses and assumptions.
Give them a call. You may be pleasantly surprised!
For me, the questions raised by Encorebaby can be answered without casting any doubt on the professionalism, or otherwise, of anyone. Once again those that do, and hide behind the anonimity of an internet forum, do little to answer the questions posed.
As a pilot with corporate experience of flying in and around Europe, I have this to offer by way of balance against those in the Air Traffic fraternity that are, again, so keen to shoot down one of their own!
1 - Have you discussed this directly with the Air Traffic Control Unit concerned? What did they have to say? If not, you will find their contact details in the relevant AIP entry.
2 - Did the pre flight brief and TOD brief include the relevant items from the AIP entry for the aerodrome in question? Was there anything in the AIP entry with regard to radar service provision outside controlled airspace for the aerodrome in question or was there an assumption made on the flight deck? Aerodromes in class G bring with them many unique aspects by virtue of their operation and due diligence should be paid to these AIP entries before flying to the aerodrome concerned. The devil is often in the detail....
3 - CAP 774 Chapter 3 details in full the provisions, responsibilities and caveats of a Traffic Service. Paras 3.3 and 3.6 seem relevant in this case, and indeed the vectoring of aircraft against manouevring traffic under a traffic service may be dealt with within the latter. Do you know what else the controller was trying to avoid when vectoring you? When you requested to turn left or right did you state which heading you were turning to? If you were that concerned, why did you not turn anyway? See para 3.10
4 - CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 1.9 - Appropriate type of ATS. When the controller stated Traffic Service, why did you not say "negative, request Deconfliction Service"? Remember that you are entering into a contract and so your acceptance was binding. You would not sign a contract to buy a house that you did not want....
5 - So why did the controller not provide more deconfliction advice to you? See CAP 774 para 1.10 - Standard Application of ATS. Not withstanding Duty of Care, several AIRPROX reports of late have been highly critical of ATCOs providing more than is required for the type of service agreed and provided e.g. aiming for deconfliction minima on TS when vectoring, turning aircraft out of conflict on TS rather than just passing traffic information et al.
6 - It is unusual that you say that you were not fully aware of the airspace and area through which you would have to transit from the boundary of controlled airspace to the destination aerodrome, just because you were "IFR". It would seem reasonable to expect that you, as a crew, would have discussed how you were going to get from CAS to the destination aerodrome when planning the flight. As this would require flight in uncontrolled airspace, it is reasonable to expect that this would require a current chart that depicts the appropriate airspace, hazards and obstacles relevant to the flight. Parachute drop zones, Danger areas, ATZ's, control zones, gliding sites, hang gliding sites affect all aircraft, whether IFR or VFR. There is a legal responsibility on the commander of an aircraft to ensure that he is adequately briefed to ensure that his flight can be conducted safely; had you flown through a parachute DZ that was not marked on your "IFR" chart or Jepp plate and collided with a parachutist, the fact that you were IFR would make no difference. As long as the site has been promulgated correctly (through the national AIP and on aeronautical charts relevant to flight in class G airspace), the commander of the aircraft in this instance may be found negligent for not adequately preparing for the flight. Of course the use of a "topo" chart does not require you to be VMC. I am sure that you were actually spatially aware of your position either from the FMS nav display or by traditional radio nav techniques. This position is easily transposed to a "topo" chart if adequately prepared for in advance.
Whether one likes it or not, flying in Class G airspace, whether IFR/IMC, IFR/VMC or VFR, is statistically more hazardous than being inside CAS. It is the unknown elements that are most cause for concern. It is impossible for us, as aircrew, to have the same situational awareness on our small flight deck and in our own situational awareness (SA) "bubble", as an ATCO with a radar picture of tens of miles radius with many other "SA bubbles" to contend with. Add to the mix non-squawking aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, aircraft squawking but not talking and flying through the published instrument approach to an aerodrome (all doing so perfectly legally) and you get a flavour for the task at hand. Sometimes one has to accept that the safest option is actually unpalatable however the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the safety of his own aircraft and, in class G airspace, all aircraft have an equal responsibility to avoid collisions with other aircraft.
I have found that whenever there has been a question to ask of an ATCO, asking it at the aerodrome concerned normally elicits an invitation to visit, a cup of coffee and a very worthwhile discussion. These discussions may or may not leave you in mutual agreement, but they certainly shed more purposeful light on things than an internet forum full of guesses and assumptions.
Give them a call. You may be pleasantly surprised!
Last edited by Ops and Mops; 9th Nov 2014 at 21:05.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult to say for sure from the information you've given, but I think I am familiar with the airfields in question.
It is quite likely that the approach controller to which you were handed over was unable to provide a higher level of service than the one offered, either because s/he had significant workload at the time, or because s/he did not have access to the level of equipment required to dispense a higher level of service with any confidence. The destination to which I think you are referring only has primary radar - were you aware of this?
The list of conditions and caveats for the provision of a Traffic Service is quite long and tedious, but the long and short of it is that "pilots remain responsible for collision avoidance, even when flying at a level allocated by ATC". The inference being, as I read it, that if you don't like the level you're at because of traffic or other reasons, it's up to you to change it. Remember that safety is paramount, so if you feel you need to be at 4000ft instead of 5000ft for collision avoidance, advise ATC that this is what you want to do. In extremis, manoeuvre your aircraft as required to avoid a collision, then tell ATC what you've done. After all, you're outside CAS, and you're not receiving a radar control service. The controller is very limited in terms of what vectors s/he can provide under a traffic service - specifically - "a controller may provide headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing, or as navigational assistance". Note that conflict resolution does not appear in this list, and the heavy inference in our manual is that if a controller does decide to provide vectors for conflict resolution, this should also be accompanied by an upgrade to a deconfliction service (because this, after all, is what the controller is attempting to do). As stated above, it's likely that the controller was reluctant to issue these vectors (and therefore upgrade the service) for any number of reasons.
On leaving CAS, as a London Area controller I will always endeavour to secure you the best possible service from an ATSU outside the limits of my airspace. Now once again, if I guessed your destination right, I would invariably have been offering you to the large military radar unit located just on your right as you leave CAS. They may decline to provide a service, in which case I would seek acceptance directly from the destination ATSU. However, if the former unit declines to provide a service whilst knowing that they have conflicting military traffic in the area (and knowing also that they have better radar kit than the civilian unit down the road), it's my view that they have been fairly negligent in not offering you safer passage through what can be a fairly busy strip of airspace.
Obviously, my view (without knowing more) is based on supposition and conjecture - but my experience says that the unit which deserves the most criticism in this instance is quite likely to be the one you haven't actually spoken to.
LTP
It is quite likely that the approach controller to which you were handed over was unable to provide a higher level of service than the one offered, either because s/he had significant workload at the time, or because s/he did not have access to the level of equipment required to dispense a higher level of service with any confidence. The destination to which I think you are referring only has primary radar - were you aware of this?
The list of conditions and caveats for the provision of a Traffic Service is quite long and tedious, but the long and short of it is that "pilots remain responsible for collision avoidance, even when flying at a level allocated by ATC". The inference being, as I read it, that if you don't like the level you're at because of traffic or other reasons, it's up to you to change it. Remember that safety is paramount, so if you feel you need to be at 4000ft instead of 5000ft for collision avoidance, advise ATC that this is what you want to do. In extremis, manoeuvre your aircraft as required to avoid a collision, then tell ATC what you've done. After all, you're outside CAS, and you're not receiving a radar control service. The controller is very limited in terms of what vectors s/he can provide under a traffic service - specifically - "a controller may provide headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing, or as navigational assistance". Note that conflict resolution does not appear in this list, and the heavy inference in our manual is that if a controller does decide to provide vectors for conflict resolution, this should also be accompanied by an upgrade to a deconfliction service (because this, after all, is what the controller is attempting to do). As stated above, it's likely that the controller was reluctant to issue these vectors (and therefore upgrade the service) for any number of reasons.
On leaving CAS, as a London Area controller I will always endeavour to secure you the best possible service from an ATSU outside the limits of my airspace. Now once again, if I guessed your destination right, I would invariably have been offering you to the large military radar unit located just on your right as you leave CAS. They may decline to provide a service, in which case I would seek acceptance directly from the destination ATSU. However, if the former unit declines to provide a service whilst knowing that they have conflicting military traffic in the area (and knowing also that they have better radar kit than the civilian unit down the road), it's my view that they have been fairly negligent in not offering you safer passage through what can be a fairly busy strip of airspace.
Obviously, my view (without knowing more) is based on supposition and conjecture - but my experience says that the unit which deserves the most criticism in this instance is quite likely to be the one you haven't actually spoken to.
LTP
Encorebaby
By now you will have gathered that every time you "set foot outside of CAS" (particularly in a "performance aeroplane") you "take your life in your hands" - or compound that by putting your life in the hands of an ATCO who very often has no hope of providing the service which you require; due to traffic density, lack of appropriate equipment, lack of a proper medium to work within, lack of traffic awareness, lack of communication with said traffic, lack of compliance by said traffic with what the ATCO wishes to do (to provide the service) etc.
After spending my career entirely within Class A airspace I have nothing but complete & utter admiration for those ATCOS who try to deliver a service in uncontrolled airspace. It is they who deserve to be paid the sort of salaries which LACC , EGLL controllers get !
You pilots ought to be fully aware of the impossible task Class G ATCOS have , give them due credit for their efforts , & , keep out of Class G !
By now you will have gathered that every time you "set foot outside of CAS" (particularly in a "performance aeroplane") you "take your life in your hands" - or compound that by putting your life in the hands of an ATCO who very often has no hope of providing the service which you require; due to traffic density, lack of appropriate equipment, lack of a proper medium to work within, lack of traffic awareness, lack of communication with said traffic, lack of compliance by said traffic with what the ATCO wishes to do (to provide the service) etc.
After spending my career entirely within Class A airspace I have nothing but complete & utter admiration for those ATCOS who try to deliver a service in uncontrolled airspace. It is they who deserve to be paid the sort of salaries which LACC , EGLL controllers get !
You pilots ought to be fully aware of the impossible task Class G ATCOS have , give them due credit for their efforts , & , keep out of Class G !
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ops and Mops an excellent post.
Lost the picture. I am perplexed, how on earth could you possibly level criticism of this incident as reported by the OP, at the Unit the he did not speak to?
Lost the picture. I am perplexed, how on earth could you possibly level criticism of this incident as reported by the OP, at the Unit the he did not speak to?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moli
I can only suggest you re-read what I've written in an attempt to understand it.
From what the OP has written, it's difficult to criticise the approach controller at the destination aerodrome. The OP has, however, volunteered that the conflicting traffic was a military aircraft in the vicinity of a major military aerodrome.
Common sense dictates that two conflicting aircraft should, where possible, be on the same frequency for ease of conflict resolution - I have stated that at my unit we attempt to achieve this by offering all traffic leaving in the vicinity of the military aerodrome, to the approach controller at that military aerodrome. We do this because we know that the military unit is better equipped to handle traffic transitting the area.
So, military ATSU declines to work my traffic leaving CAS for the civilian aerodrome. Leaving traffic (now working a primary radar only unit) comes into confliction with military traffic which is highly likely to be receiving a service from the military ATSU. Can you see where the rationale for criticism is yet?
Sure, there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes. Maybe me and the OP are not describing the same area of airspace. But the sort of situation I've just described is quite commonplace, and it's undeniably bad practice.
LTP
I can only suggest you re-read what I've written in an attempt to understand it.
From what the OP has written, it's difficult to criticise the approach controller at the destination aerodrome. The OP has, however, volunteered that the conflicting traffic was a military aircraft in the vicinity of a major military aerodrome.
Common sense dictates that two conflicting aircraft should, where possible, be on the same frequency for ease of conflict resolution - I have stated that at my unit we attempt to achieve this by offering all traffic leaving in the vicinity of the military aerodrome, to the approach controller at that military aerodrome. We do this because we know that the military unit is better equipped to handle traffic transitting the area.
So, military ATSU declines to work my traffic leaving CAS for the civilian aerodrome. Leaving traffic (now working a primary radar only unit) comes into confliction with military traffic which is highly likely to be receiving a service from the military ATSU. Can you see where the rationale for criticism is yet?
Sure, there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes. Maybe me and the OP are not describing the same area of airspace. But the sort of situation I've just described is quite commonplace, and it's undeniably bad practice.
LTP
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTP
Your assumptions regarding this scenario are wide ranging and not based in fact at all.
1. You assume the airfield in question is a non SSR airfield. Okay, I ask for clarification, what airfield do you assume that to be? You are not naming and shaming as you are praising the airfield concerned, but there are 2 candidates in the assumed area, so which ATSU do you think is being discussed? Please identify which civil airfield you believe this to be as it is fairly crucial.
2. You assume the traffic was initially offered to the Mil Unit and that they refused to work it. Do you know this to be a fact?
3. You assume that just because the Mil Unit has conflicting traffic they are now obligated to work that traffic. Is that SOP across the ATM world... Hello I have conflicting traffic so please accept my handover????
4. You assume this incident occurred during the notified LARS hours of the Mil unit concerned, do you know this to be the case?
5. You assume that if this did occur within the notified hours of the Mil Units notified LARS hours as notified in the AIP, that the Mil Unit had the capacity at the time to work another adjacent ATSU's inbound traffic. Do you know this to be so?
What is bad form, is for an ATCO is to make assumptions based on supposition and conjecture and unidentified airfields and then criticise another ATSU with no knowledge of the facts .
Finally if you are that concerned about it, and i do not mean this with any attitude or slight at you, why doesn't your unit work the traffic inbound to the ATSU with allegedly no SSR if the Mil Unit doesnt have the capacity to work the ac inbound to EGXX? Is that because its not your units task to work the traffic? Perhaps its not within the remit of the Mil unit to work another airfields inbounds either.
Your assumptions regarding this scenario are wide ranging and not based in fact at all.
1. You assume the airfield in question is a non SSR airfield. Okay, I ask for clarification, what airfield do you assume that to be? You are not naming and shaming as you are praising the airfield concerned, but there are 2 candidates in the assumed area, so which ATSU do you think is being discussed? Please identify which civil airfield you believe this to be as it is fairly crucial.
2. You assume the traffic was initially offered to the Mil Unit and that they refused to work it. Do you know this to be a fact?
3. You assume that just because the Mil Unit has conflicting traffic they are now obligated to work that traffic. Is that SOP across the ATM world... Hello I have conflicting traffic so please accept my handover????
4. You assume this incident occurred during the notified LARS hours of the Mil unit concerned, do you know this to be the case?
5. You assume that if this did occur within the notified hours of the Mil Units notified LARS hours as notified in the AIP, that the Mil Unit had the capacity at the time to work another adjacent ATSU's inbound traffic. Do you know this to be so?
What is bad form, is for an ATCO is to make assumptions based on supposition and conjecture and unidentified airfields and then criticise another ATSU with no knowledge of the facts .
Finally if you are that concerned about it, and i do not mean this with any attitude or slight at you, why doesn't your unit work the traffic inbound to the ATSU with allegedly no SSR if the Mil Unit doesnt have the capacity to work the ac inbound to EGXX? Is that because its not your units task to work the traffic? Perhaps its not within the remit of the Mil unit to work another airfields inbounds either.
Last edited by Moli; 12th Nov 2014 at 07:30.
ATSOCAS disappears on 13 Nov to be replaced by UK FIS.
Alongside disappearance of (all??) Class F to be replaced, in places, by Class E.
Working Class G airspace is like swimming with sharks on occasions. Irrespective of the service the Duty of Care exists and it is up to Controllers to provide the best possible service they can. Likewise, it is up to pilots to ask for the appropriate service.
My understanding is that the next iteration of CAP 774 will state that controllers should respond to any given situation as they see fit, notwithstanding the service being provided i.e giving vectors under a Traffic Service.
Alongside disappearance of (all??) Class F to be replaced, in places, by Class E.
Working Class G airspace is like swimming with sharks on occasions. Irrespective of the service the Duty of Care exists and it is up to Controllers to provide the best possible service they can. Likewise, it is up to pilots to ask for the appropriate service.
My understanding is that the next iteration of CAP 774 will state that controllers should respond to any given situation as they see fit, notwithstanding the service being provided i.e giving vectors under a Traffic Service.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moli,
No attitude? For someone who describes him/herself as a "PPL", you certainly seem to have an attitude...
No, I haven't stated any facts. I'm fairly confident that I was not present at the time of the OP's scenario, but s/he has asked for an ATC opinion, and I have given it.
I am comfortable with the assumptions I have made in providing my opinion, because as I stated they are based on experience of events which are commonplace.
I fail to see how I can be accused of criticising an ATSU when it hasn't been identified. It does not take a genius to work out that, given the circumstances described, the military unit would not be shortlisted for this year's "Great contributions to air traffic safety". The exact names of the airfields are, to a greater or lesser extent, an irrelevance.
I have a pretty good excuse for not working the traffic outside CAS, and it's not because "I can't be arsed". It is partially because it isn't really my task, especially when I might have 15-20 other customers on frequency of a higher priority. But it's mostly because, once traffic is below FL70, the level of service I can legally provide means that the pilot will probably be better off listening to Radio 5 Live than to me.
LTP
No attitude? For someone who describes him/herself as a "PPL", you certainly seem to have an attitude...
No, I haven't stated any facts. I'm fairly confident that I was not present at the time of the OP's scenario, but s/he has asked for an ATC opinion, and I have given it.
I am comfortable with the assumptions I have made in providing my opinion, because as I stated they are based on experience of events which are commonplace.
I fail to see how I can be accused of criticising an ATSU when it hasn't been identified. It does not take a genius to work out that, given the circumstances described, the military unit would not be shortlisted for this year's "Great contributions to air traffic safety". The exact names of the airfields are, to a greater or lesser extent, an irrelevance.
I have a pretty good excuse for not working the traffic outside CAS, and it's not because "I can't be arsed". It is partially because it isn't really my task, especially when I might have 15-20 other customers on frequency of a higher priority. But it's mostly because, once traffic is below FL70, the level of service I can legally provide means that the pilot will probably be better off listening to Radio 5 Live than to me.
LTP
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTP
So I have an attitude for a PPL holder...weird thing to say but hey, your prerogative.
If we are talking about the same units that I think we are, the edge of CAS to the destination airfield is just 13nm, well within the radar coverage of that unit. That ac in question is an inbound to that Unit not a LARS track for another adjacent unit to work.
If it is the airfield I think you believe it to be and they are non SSR they can still provide a DS and should have asked the pilot what TOS he required and not simply imposed TS on him. There is however doubt in my mind that it is the non SSR airfield you assume it to be as they pass TI ref an ac at 5000, how did they know it was at 5000 feet if they had no SSR?
The inbound unit then introduced a risk of collision by vectoring the ac at the 5000 foot traffic that they called to their inbound. Once the conflict had been introduced, duty of care dictates they should have done something to mitigate it but they simply said you are on a TS cleared level 5000 and lets not forget, the ac is of course on a radar vector pointing at the conflicting traffic issued by the ATCO he is talking to. ....
When you say you haven't criticised the Mil Unit as you haven't named them, if I can work it out so can others and then you go on to have a further swipe in your last post, very professional.
Anyway I'm not going to back and forth with you, you have your thoughts and I have mine.
Moli
So I have an attitude for a PPL holder...weird thing to say but hey, your prerogative.
If we are talking about the same units that I think we are, the edge of CAS to the destination airfield is just 13nm, well within the radar coverage of that unit. That ac in question is an inbound to that Unit not a LARS track for another adjacent unit to work.
If it is the airfield I think you believe it to be and they are non SSR they can still provide a DS and should have asked the pilot what TOS he required and not simply imposed TS on him. There is however doubt in my mind that it is the non SSR airfield you assume it to be as they pass TI ref an ac at 5000, how did they know it was at 5000 feet if they had no SSR?
The inbound unit then introduced a risk of collision by vectoring the ac at the 5000 foot traffic that they called to their inbound. Once the conflict had been introduced, duty of care dictates they should have done something to mitigate it but they simply said you are on a TS cleared level 5000 and lets not forget, the ac is of course on a radar vector pointing at the conflicting traffic issued by the ATCO he is talking to. ....
When you say you haven't criticised the Mil Unit as you haven't named them, if I can work it out so can others and then you go on to have a further swipe in your last post, very professional.
Anyway I'm not going to back and forth with you, you have your thoughts and I have mine.
Moli
Last edited by Moli; 12th Nov 2014 at 17:27. Reason: Spelling Oops
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Encorebaby.. . .
You say you were given a steer, was the traffic at 5 miles when steered or was the traffic on your course some time after the steer?
Your cleared altitude, was that something that the unit gave just prior or was it a level co-ordinated many miles ago as a release level from CAS?
You say that ATC did nothing , well if you had traffic on the nose at the same level at 5 miles then why have you not mentioned a TCAS TA or even an RA? The absence of both would indicate that ATC actually did do some thing and perhaps vectored around said traffic!
SO it was manoeuvring traffic - that normally involves rapid changes in heading and level . . . .so maybe it was that traffic that flew into conflict with you and not you turning into conflict with that traffic which if manoeuvring would have been VFR / VMC.
Sounds to me like a routine encounter in class G airspace resolved by the controller actions "not reported by Encorebaby" or else we would all be sat reading transcripts in the UKAB!
One final point . . . . if you had asked for a Deconfliction Service, is your knowledge of the Pilots Obligations in the contract of agreement between controller and pilot actually good enough. For sure in the UK all controllers are well versed in their responsibilities, unfortunately the same could not be said for some of the airborne recipients! Just my views from the side-lines
You say you were given a steer, was the traffic at 5 miles when steered or was the traffic on your course some time after the steer?
Your cleared altitude, was that something that the unit gave just prior or was it a level co-ordinated many miles ago as a release level from CAS?
You say that ATC did nothing , well if you had traffic on the nose at the same level at 5 miles then why have you not mentioned a TCAS TA or even an RA? The absence of both would indicate that ATC actually did do some thing and perhaps vectored around said traffic!
The controller had also explained that the traffic was military traffic manoeuvring up and down rapidly
Sounds to me like a routine encounter in class G airspace resolved by the controller actions "not reported by Encorebaby" or else we would all be sat reading transcripts in the UKAB!
One final point . . . . if you had asked for a Deconfliction Service, is your knowledge of the Pilots Obligations in the contract of agreement between controller and pilot actually good enough. For sure in the UK all controllers are well versed in their responsibilities, unfortunately the same could not be said for some of the airborne recipients! Just my views from the side-lines
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately the same could not be said for some of the airborne recipients! Just my views from the side-lines
More than likely why there has been an increase in airprox's since they introduced it. Apart from on a deconfliction service which is about as common as rocking horse poo and those that refuse to speak to anyone in class G and take no service.
Under a Traffic service or basic service you have a marked increase chance of an airprox as a pilot compared to the old system.
The comment about listening to radio 5 unfortunately is all so true with a basic service. And as for a traffic all it does is lull the unwary into a false sense of security where apon they get thier backsides bitten as the OP did.
Last edited by mad_jock; 13th Nov 2014 at 00:14.
Not much to add to a lot of what has been said before but...
The ATCO was wrong to impose a service and the pilot was wrong to accept that imposition. It is down to the pilot to determine the type of ATS that they require and for the ATCO to provide it. There may be occasions when a specific ATS cannot be provided but this must be explained by the ATCO and alternatives offered. If a pilot is in receipt of a Traffic Service and receives information on a conflicting aircraft that he cannot or does not expect to see (and hasn't been told tht Deconfliction Service is not available), then they should request Deconfliction Service and thus receive collision avoidance advice.
I also tire of hearing ATCOs who say that the volume of traffic in their airspace precludes the provision of deconfliction service, so they only offer a Traffic Service. Bolleaux. You reduce the provision of the Deconfliction Service, perhaps also warning the pilot that deconfliction minima may not be achieved and you then do your best. We must acknowledge that, in Class G airspace, the pilot is simply seeking the ATCOs assistance to miss other aircraft thereby avoiding MAC. ATCOs need to lose the mentality of 5nms or nothing because that is why pilots perceive that a Deconfliction Service is useless (because they don't make track progress) and therefore don't ask for it.
Regarding pilots barely having a grasp of the UK FIS, has anyone ever considered that that might have more to do with the underlying training and examination system than the complexity of the FIS themselves? PPL training organisations, perhaps understandably, focus on aircraft handling and passing the exams - if the exams don't feature any real requirement to understand the ATS, the pilot won't understand them. Practically, student pilot exposure to the UK FIS is by copying their instructor (monkey see, monkey do) which limits the amount of exposure of the UK FIS to 'what works best' for the instructor. Moreover, whilst this will be heresy to many ATCOs, there just isn't that much difference between the 2009 UK FIS and the pre-2009 RIS/RAS/FIS. If all our pilots had a full understanding of RIS/RAS/FIS and flew around and just called them by their new names the fact is that they'd be fine. That leaves you with the inevitable conclusion that it's the training and examination system that's at fault. A conclusion that's being reached elsewhere within the system.
As for a future edition of CAP 774 enabling the provision of collision avoidance advice under a Traffic Service, I can tell you now that that will not happen. The CAP has been clearly written to delineate exactly what you get and don't get under each ATS and what you have to do if you wish to receive collision avoidance advice. Now if you were to give me a clean piece of canvas to redesign UK ATS, I'd start with flight rules and the requirements of the operators, then to the airspace needed to satisfy those requirements and then the type of ATS within. But be careful all those who sit in the 'give me ICAO FIS' camp, because not one country in Europe does FIS the same way!
PS Hi Moli!
The ATCO was wrong to impose a service and the pilot was wrong to accept that imposition. It is down to the pilot to determine the type of ATS that they require and for the ATCO to provide it. There may be occasions when a specific ATS cannot be provided but this must be explained by the ATCO and alternatives offered. If a pilot is in receipt of a Traffic Service and receives information on a conflicting aircraft that he cannot or does not expect to see (and hasn't been told tht Deconfliction Service is not available), then they should request Deconfliction Service and thus receive collision avoidance advice.
I also tire of hearing ATCOs who say that the volume of traffic in their airspace precludes the provision of deconfliction service, so they only offer a Traffic Service. Bolleaux. You reduce the provision of the Deconfliction Service, perhaps also warning the pilot that deconfliction minima may not be achieved and you then do your best. We must acknowledge that, in Class G airspace, the pilot is simply seeking the ATCOs assistance to miss other aircraft thereby avoiding MAC. ATCOs need to lose the mentality of 5nms or nothing because that is why pilots perceive that a Deconfliction Service is useless (because they don't make track progress) and therefore don't ask for it.
Regarding pilots barely having a grasp of the UK FIS, has anyone ever considered that that might have more to do with the underlying training and examination system than the complexity of the FIS themselves? PPL training organisations, perhaps understandably, focus on aircraft handling and passing the exams - if the exams don't feature any real requirement to understand the ATS, the pilot won't understand them. Practically, student pilot exposure to the UK FIS is by copying their instructor (monkey see, monkey do) which limits the amount of exposure of the UK FIS to 'what works best' for the instructor. Moreover, whilst this will be heresy to many ATCOs, there just isn't that much difference between the 2009 UK FIS and the pre-2009 RIS/RAS/FIS. If all our pilots had a full understanding of RIS/RAS/FIS and flew around and just called them by their new names the fact is that they'd be fine. That leaves you with the inevitable conclusion that it's the training and examination system that's at fault. A conclusion that's being reached elsewhere within the system.
As for a future edition of CAP 774 enabling the provision of collision avoidance advice under a Traffic Service, I can tell you now that that will not happen. The CAP has been clearly written to delineate exactly what you get and don't get under each ATS and what you have to do if you wish to receive collision avoidance advice. Now if you were to give me a clean piece of canvas to redesign UK ATS, I'd start with flight rules and the requirements of the operators, then to the airspace needed to satisfy those requirements and then the type of ATS within. But be careful all those who sit in the 'give me ICAO FIS' camp, because not one country in Europe does FIS the same way!
PS Hi Moli!
Last edited by whowhenwhy; 13th Nov 2014 at 18:13.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: At home
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSOCAS
But be careful all those who sit in the 'give me ICAO FIS' camp, because not one country in Europe does FIS the same way!
Regarding pilots barely having a grasp of the UK FIS, has anyone ever considered that that might have more to do with the underlying training and examination system than the complexity of the FIS themselves?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northern that last statement is the crux of the matter.
The whole thing is set up to allow control in uncontrolled airspace.
And takes zero account for what flight rules that someone is operating under.
By the very nature of the way the services are designed it creats instant clash of interests and conflict when those interests don't align.
The fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in airproxs to the users of the service.
As for the hammering of ppl student and exams. We train them for european wide operations and the syllabus is already full with handling and navigation.
Not that most ATCO's qualified in the last 15 years would have a clue what its like to have thier backsides strapped to a old heap being subjected to a fis or basic service.
Which is why an increasing amount of pilots have decided that participating in a service is pointless with no gain in safety to ourselves.
And you having a laugh if you think the whole of europe is going to instruct all its pilots in the perversion which is ATSOCAS in the UK. Never mind the rest of the world.
The whole thing is set up to allow control in uncontrolled airspace.
And takes zero account for what flight rules that someone is operating under.
By the very nature of the way the services are designed it creats instant clash of interests and conflict when those interests don't align.
The fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in airproxs to the users of the service.
As for the hammering of ppl student and exams. We train them for european wide operations and the syllabus is already full with handling and navigation.
Not that most ATCO's qualified in the last 15 years would have a clue what its like to have thier backsides strapped to a old heap being subjected to a fis or basic service.
Which is why an increasing amount of pilots have decided that participating in a service is pointless with no gain in safety to ourselves.
And you having a laugh if you think the whole of europe is going to instruct all its pilots in the perversion which is ATSOCAS in the UK. Never mind the rest of the world.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't ATSOCAS taken from the Military way of doing RAS/RIS/FIS?
MJ.
The Controller working in Class G,next to an RAF base,etc didn't invent the rules,but has to try and use them in an often very changing dynamic environment.I have put a Flying Instructor into a radar simulator,and the result was highly amusing.Perhaps when you are flying your old crate,not talking or squawking,give a thought that you might just be causing problems to the Class G airfield you are looking at.
MJ.
The Controller working in Class G,next to an RAF base,etc didn't invent the rules,but has to try and use them in an often very changing dynamic environment.I have put a Flying Instructor into a radar simulator,and the result was highly amusing.Perhaps when you are flying your old crate,not talking or squawking,give a thought that you might just be causing problems to the Class G airfield you are looking at.