End of ATSOCAS
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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)
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)
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)
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'.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That's the way, in my opinion, we should be doing it and I'm told is how France and Gerrnany do it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!)
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!!)
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....
In the UK, controllers MUST identify and verify altitude readout for traffic requesting TS or DS unless the identity is transferred from another radar unit who will have already done this. Traffic requesting Basic service ie what used to be called Flight Information Service MAY be identified and if so, any altitude readout associated with their SSR must be verified. Thereafter even this traffic may be passed generic information on possible conflicting traffic especially when 'duty of care' requires it ie if you see a 'dead ringer' for your traffic you should tell the pilot about it rather than sit there and do nothing.
In the case quoted at Bournemouth, even though the Falcon was only on Traffic Service in the Initial Approach phase, NOT the Final Approach stage, he was identified so the controller could have offered advisory avoiding action (traffic is in your ......, if not sighted suggest left/right heading...) or if the confliction looked serious, upgraded the Falcon to De-confliction service and passed avoiding action prior to passing the traffic information.
I only provided radar based services in Class G and its predecessor for a total of 35 years, 34 of those being at Farnborough, traffic handled ranging from microlights up to Tornados amd Lightnings but the CAA didn't seem to want to know when I suggested we use ICAO procedures at a 'workshop' at Kingsway during the review of 2007/8 resulting in the present procedures which commenced in 2009, just after I retired.
In other fields, eg millibars to hectopascals, the CAA seemed only too keen to comply.