ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

End of ATSOCAS

Old 19th Aug 2019, 20:09
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 696
Just bear in mind that this is not EASA's idea. All that EASA has done is to transpose what is left of ICAO Annexes 10 vol 2 and 5, Annex 11 and PANS-ATM into EU Regulations. For many decades, the UK has just been using a lot of complicated sentences to try to explain how we comply with ICAO SARPs and PANS. The fact is that we're not compliant and now it looks like we're going to be.
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2019, 14:56
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Since I've been working class D control zones with class E terminal areas, I can only say that it works really well.

You'd still get traffic information in the control zone, and the terminal area (if we're aware of any aircraft there communication/coordinated/transponder). And we'd keep the VFR away from the arrival paths of IFR flights (final/departure).

The problem with G airspace, is that VFR can fly just under the clouds, no transponder, no radio, giving the IFR guys comming in on a localiser a real hard time to spot him before it's too late. The D airspace relieves the IFR flight of that in a critical phase of his flight.

I do not think class E is good enough for a control zone though?

What otherwise can be done, is establishing a traffic information zone, where the class is G, but radiocommunication is required, and man them with aerodrome flight information service. That'll give better protection close to the field than no zone.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2019, 15:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,186
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
Since I've been working class D control zones with class E terminal areas, I can only say that it works really well.

You'd still get traffic information in the control zone, and the terminal area (if we're aware of any aircraft there communication/coordinated/transponder). And we'd keep the VFR away from the arrival paths of IFR flights (final/departure).

The problem with G airspace, is that VFR can fly just under the clouds, no transponder, no radio, giving the IFR guys comming in on a localiser a real hard time to spot him before it's too late. The D airspace relieves the IFR flight of that in a critical phase of his flight.

I do not think class E is good enough for a control zone though?

What otherwise can be done, is establishing a traffic information zone, where the class is G, but radiocommunication is required, and man them with aerodrome flight information service. That'll give better protection close to the field than no zone.
How can you 'keep the VFR away from the arrival path of IFR flights' when it's not talking to you and it doesn't need to talk to you? In that scenario there's no difference between Class E and Class G.
chevvron is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2019, 19:18
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
How can you 'keep the VFR away from the arrival path of IFR flights' when it's not talking to you and it doesn't need to talk to you? In that scenario there's no difference between Class E and Class G.
Bournemouth ATC has recently chewed off some poor bloke VFR in a Mooney for having the temerity to remain outside CAS. One simply cannot win, Bournemouth seem to want it both ways
Talkdownman is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 08:33
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
How can you 'keep the VFR away from the arrival path of IFR flights' when it's not talking to you and it doesn't need to talk to you? In that scenario there's no difference between Class E and Class G.
You're right about that, and sorry for the slight mistake I made in the text.

The control zone AND the terminal area are class D, that is the lowest classification we use for control zones and terminal areas. We do have a control area above, and THAT is class E (which is above 6500') So you're right, when up there, everything between VFR and IFR befalls the pilots. But lower when the turning and separations inbound/outbound begin, we WILL be in contact and to the required extend control VFR flights as well.

Once you get above 3000' AGL VFR you'd have to have a larger margin between you and the clouds, and also speed depending, and above FL100 even higher margins.. All in all to avoid IFR/VFR bumping into each other at the egde of clouds. And we make sure it doesn't happen in the TMA/CTR of course.

Having an airspace like that is not that big of an restriction as people might think, for the most part pilots get what they want, and for VFR instruction to "remain below/above xxxxFT", "remain east/west of xxxx" usually solves it, and still give the pilot a lot of room to manouvre. And airspaces should in general be constructed so the airspace is as close to the minimum required. But you know that
jmmoric is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 09:04
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by Talkdownman View Post
Bournemouth ATC has recently chewed off some poor bloke VFR in a Mooney for having the temerity to remain outside CAS. One simply cannot win, Bournemouth seem to want it both ways
There's no mentioning that ATC tried to put the blame on the Mooney pilot, there's no mentioning ATC put a blame on the Falcon crew, just that ATC did what they were supposed to do in class G.

And there's no "chewed off" here?

We are here for you guys, not the other way around. It's all about working together to get a safe and effective flow of traffic, and make room for all, even the odd VFR pilot jumping around the countryside for fun (me too)
jmmoric is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 20:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,186
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
There's no mentioning that ATC tried to put the blame on the Mooney pilot, there's no mentioning ATC put a blame on the Falcon crew, just that ATC did what they were supposed to do in class G.

And there's no "chewed off" here?

We are here for you guys, not the other way around. It's all about working together to get a safe and effective flow of traffic, and make room for all, even the odd VFR pilot jumping around the countryside for fun (me too)
The Falcon was receiving TS. Was a 'contract' agreed to provide TS? If it was a foreign pilot, did he even know what TS is?
At Farnborough in such a situation, we would offer a temporary upgrade to DS and I hope most other controllers would do so under 'duty of care'.
chevvron is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 22:06
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
There's no mentioning that ATC tried to put the blame on the Mooney pilot
I must have imagined reading this then:

Bournemouth Full Investigation report

The investigation concluded the following:

Causal Factor

The pilot of [the Mooney] did not monitor the Bournemouth radar frequency despite flying in close proximity to the Solent CTA (class D airspace designated to the Bournemouth). The controller was unable therefore to provide the pilot with the traffic information which would have prevented the AIRPROX occurring.

Talkdownman is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 23:19
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
The Falcon was receiving TS. Was a 'contract' agreed to provide TS? If it was a foreign pilot, did he even know what TS is?
At Farnborough in such a situation, we would offer a temporary upgrade to DS and I hope most other controllers would do so under 'duty of care'.
I have to admit, I have no clue how flying in the UK works, if I was to go there, I would read the AIP and relevant documents first? Do you establish a "contract" before providing traffic information based on RADAR?
jmmoric is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 23:49
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by Talkdownman View Post
I must have imagined reading this then:
Okay, I'd give you that.

Bournemouth thought 10 NM final could be considered final approach. The board didn't think so. Case closed
jmmoric is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 06:59
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 340
Be interesting to see how this affects the offshore heli operation.
Glamdring is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 14:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,186
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
Do you establish a "contract" before providing traffic information based on RADAR?
When operating in Class G, yes.
Traffic service (TS) provides the pilot with information on possible conflictions.
De-confliction service (DS; available only to IFR traffic) provides the above plus advisory avoiding action.
CAP 1434 is the document to look at.
chevvron is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 21:22
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,071
Whilst I generally believe that the UK way, when it differs from ICAO and/or the rest of the world, does things well, the fudges on controlled airspace (and particularly doing control, whatever it might be called in uncontrolled airspace) and calling ATC functions FIS are an abomination which cause confusion and have been causal factors in a good number of incidents.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 09:27
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob View Post
Whilst I generally believe that the UK way, when it differs from ICAO and/or the rest of the world, does things well, the fudges on controlled airspace (and particularly doing control, whatever it might be called in uncontrolled airspace) and calling ATC functions FIS are an abomination which cause confusion and have been causal factors in a good number of incidents.
Referring to FIS and / or AGCS as "ATC" has similarly caused confusion, and has 'been causal factors in a good number of incidents'. The sooner we stop referring to air traffic control within uncontrolled airspace, the better, in my view...
Talkdownman is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 10:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,071
Originally Posted by Talkdownman View Post
Referring to FIS and / or AGCS as "ATC" has similarly caused confusion, and has 'been causal factors in a good number of incidents'. The sooner we stop referring to air traffic control within uncontrolled airspace, the better, in my view...
Agree 100%. The basic concept embedded within ICAO SARPs of controlled airspace is operated by controllers and is where you will get an appropriate level of instructions, and uncontrolled airspace is where you get information (if you want it) and it's entirely up to the pilot to decide how to operate the aircraft has been blurred in the UK. All this does is create confusion amongst pilots from other States (and a goodly few from the UK too).

There is a similar confusion, with pretty much the same root, over instrument approach/flight procedures in the UK. The UK has had a rule for years that to follow an IFR procedure you must have an approach control service.....which is probably one of the reasons why we have ATC services outside CAS. Thereafter, there has been a blurring in many people's minds - some at very senior levels in the CAA - over what things are for. That is to say, if you, the pilot, want to get down to an airport in poor weather, you need an instrument flight procedure. If you, the pilot want to be separated from or told about other traffic, you need ATC. If you want to approach in poor weather without having to worry about whether another aircraft will come at you out of the murk, you need both.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 10:44
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob View Post
there has been a blurring in many people's minds - some at very senior levels in the CAA
Totally agree.
if you, the pilot, want to get down to an airport in poor weather, you need an instrument flight procedure. If you, the pilot want to be separated from or told about other traffic, you need ATC. If you want to approach in poor weather without having to worry about whether another aircraft will come at you out of the murk, you need both.
The next MAC during an IAP in IMC in Class G should change all that. The Big Sky Theory cannot go on forever...
Talkdownman is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 15:15
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 70
Posts: 8,186
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob View Post
Whilst I generally believe that the UK way, when it differs from ICAO and/or the rest of the world, does things well, the fudges on controlled airspace (and particularly doing control, whatever it might be called in uncontrolled airspace) and calling ATC functions FIS are an abomination which cause confusion and have been causal factors in a good number of incidents.
See ICAO Doc 4444 para 8.11 'The Use of Radar in the Flight Information Service.'
That's the way, in my opinion, we should be doing it and I'm told is how France and Gerrnany do it.
chevvron is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 07:29
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 696
Chevvron is, as usual, quite correct. Thankfully, from what I've heard, things are starting to move in the right direction in the CAA
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 09:44
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
See ICAO Doc 4444 para 8.11 'The Use of Radar in the Flight Information Service.'
That's the way, in my opinion, we should be doing it and I'm told is how France and Gerrnany do it.
Yes but...... 4444 says: "The information presented on a situation display MAY be used to provide IDENTIFIED a/c with......etc." (My bold.) So before you can do anything really useful the a/c needs to be talking to you or, at best, someone else who has identified, validated and verified it. Right? Otherwise there is limited value in seeing that something is out there on your screen....


Lissart is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 10:30
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 42
The report on the Falcon/Mooney airprox has some interesting elements. I have often stated that the ability to give accurate, succinct and pertinent traffic information is one of the "arts" of this job. As by definition the circumstances are always different, it is not as easy as it may seem sometimes, especially in the heat of the moment when there might be a lot going on. One little slip, one little word slightly out of place and you could be in trouble. With that remark in mind - which is based on operational experience - one has to wonder at the comments from the Board: "the controller could therefore more accurately have described the Mooney as ‘converging’ rather than crossing, thereby further assisting the Falcon pilot to make a decision to give way. Additionally, the controller’s blind call to the Mooney pilot, that traffic in the left 10 o’clock would cross ahead left to right, may have helped to form an incorrect mindset in the Falcon pilot that he was ‘ahead’ and that he did not need to give way to the Mooney, " Seems to me the ATCO did a decent job and are we really to expect more? Easy to sit and pontificate on it in the cold light of day.....
Where I work we had a TCAS RA sometime ago where a big causal factor was less than optimum traffic info. Indeed, the controller pointed the pilots to the wrong place by using "left to right" - which it was slightly - rather than a more apt "head to head". But what about the perceptions? There must be a difference in human perception from a bloke behind a radar (there might be a "lag") to the pilot looking out of his bug-smeared window. A fine art and a delicate skill - easy to get just that bit wrong and create those false impressions.
As to giving way in the "final stages of approach", well please! Would it not be helpful if that was defined? I bet many pilots would have trouble considering that in those circumstances. (I believe Lydd had something similar recently with inst app traffic not giving way on "final" and they are operating procedurally!!)
Lissart is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.