End of ATSOCAS
London Info and Scotthish Info still operate but they're manned by ATC assistants with an Area FISO Licence hence they are unable to provide a radar service although I understand the Scottish FISOs only do day duties and hand over to one of the main Scottish sector controllers at night..
(Now someone will come along and say 'FISOs in my country can provide a radar service')
(Now someone will come along and say 'FISOs in my country can provide a radar service')
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Info and Scotthish Info still operate but they're manned by ATC assistants with an Area FISO Licence hence they are unable to provide a radar service although I understand the Scottish FISOs only do day duties and hand over to one of the main Scottish sector controllers at night..
(Now someone will come along and say 'FISOs in my country can provide a radar service')
(Now someone will come along and say 'FISOs in my country can provide a radar service')
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get your point; controllers in France (so I'm told) routinely identify aircraft who call them requesting Flight Information Service; once identified the height readout MUST be verified and thereafter, traffic information and (when necessary) advisory avoiding action is passed.
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.
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.
Simple. If your unknown confliction is showing a '7000' squawk (indicating a/c not receiving radar service) and no altitude readout you vector your own traffic at least 5nm away from it to allow for an unpredictable turn by the unknown.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, as will soon be the case with the new class E for the LF ACP, you are only obliged to pass traffic to the IFR you are providing a radar control service to, you do not vector to avoid.... Interesting theoretical cases to be discussed by lawyers et al....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple. If your unknown confliction is showing a '7000' squawk (indicating a/c not receiving radar service) and no altitude readout you vector your own traffic at least 5nm away from it to allow for an unpredictable turn by the unknown.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
Precisely! So there is not a gnats privates difference between class E - as proposed by EASA - and what actually and currently happens under a Deconfliction Service at the moment in UK class G!! On reflection therefore, one could argue that a potential widespread adoption of E by airports currently operating under G will change little for the end user.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey! So you were vectoring to Deconflict under DS in class G and now all you do is pass traffic! Is this progress...?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, was providing basic service in class G, now will be providing traffic info, if workload permits, and separation, ion appropriate, in controlled airspace. A great leap forward apparently.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: In a land far away
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lissart, You requested a definition of ‘Final Approach’. Annex 11
Final approach That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified:
(1) at the end of the last procedure turn, base turn, or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified, or
(2) at the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which:
(a) a landing can be made; or
(b) a missed approach procedure is initiated. (ICAO Annex 11)
Final approach That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified:
(1) at the end of the last procedure turn, base turn, or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified, or
(2) at the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which:
(a) a landing can be made; or
(b) a missed approach procedure is initiated. (ICAO Annex 11)
Last edited by crossonagreen; 27th Aug 2019 at 21:28. Reason: original poster’s name added
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's still the:
"Issue such ATC clearances as are necessary to prevent collisions and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic."
So if you can see traffic, or have known traffic, you still have to make sure they do not collide. Like Chevvron says, 5 nm should be good enough.
You could argue that the required vertical/lateral separation minima does not apply, and you can go a bit closer, depending on the situation. But you'll still be held responsible if you let two known aircraft collide without acting.... Class E airspace will allow you to turn an IFR flight in this case.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lissart, You requested a definition of ‘Final Approach’. Annex 11
Final approach That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified:
(1) at the end of the last procedure turn, base turn, or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified, or
(2) at the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which:
(a) a landing can be made; or
(b) a missed approach procedure is initiated. (ICAO Annex 11)
Final approach That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified:
(1) at the end of the last procedure turn, base turn, or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified, or
(2) at the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which:
(a) a landing can be made; or
(b) a missed approach procedure is initiated. (ICAO Annex 11)
No, that is still not the case.
There's still the:
"Issue such ATC clearances as are necessary to prevent collisions and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic."
So if you can see traffic, or have known traffic, you still have to make sure they do not collide. Like Chevvron says, 5 nm should be good enough.
You could argue that the required vertical/lateral separation minima does not apply, and you can go a bit closer, depending on the situation. But you'll still be held responsible if you let two known aircraft collide without acting.... Class E airspace will allow you to turn an IFR flight in this case.
There's still the:
"Issue such ATC clearances as are necessary to prevent collisions and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic."
So if you can see traffic, or have known traffic, you still have to make sure they do not collide. Like Chevvron says, 5 nm should be good enough.
You could argue that the required vertical/lateral separation minima does not apply, and you can go a bit closer, depending on the situation. But you'll still be held responsible if you let two known aircraft collide without acting.... Class E airspace will allow you to turn an IFR flight in this case.
In class A airspace the vertical separation minima against unknowns in the UK is 5,000ft, but that's not important right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - perhaps it is time to re-focus the thread. Really useful contributions all round - thanks to one and all. It is always useful to revise a definition, or remind oneself of stuff one may not use every day. Not to mention benefitting from other people wisdom and experiences.
However, the thread is about ATSOCAS and their impending demise. There are 2 broad categories of airport who will be impacted by these changes as they currently provide ATC services in class G: those with radar and those without (procedural.) If we further confine our discussions to airports that have some or significant CAT flights, we are all agreed that the number 1 priority must be protection of these flights. In the first category we have for example, Exeter, Durham, Norwich, Newquay etc. In the second, Scilly, HIAL etc and others that may have radar but downgrade to APP during shoulder hours when a dedicated radar ATCO is unavailable. If you were responsible for the future airspace classification of these two types of airport, or were asked to comment as to how these businesses could respond to the possible threats that EASA changes pose to their operations, what would you be advising? Given that the CAA does not readily grant class D and this seems to be based on parameters such as passenger numbers (?) some if not all of these airports are not going to get D. (I believe - and I haven't checked due time - that the recent ACP for Exeter's class D was rejected...?) (Perhaps I have therefore answered my own question; the only solution left to them is class E!!!)
What are people's views on airspace classification changes and what service do you envisage being provided?
However, the thread is about ATSOCAS and their impending demise. There are 2 broad categories of airport who will be impacted by these changes as they currently provide ATC services in class G: those with radar and those without (procedural.) If we further confine our discussions to airports that have some or significant CAT flights, we are all agreed that the number 1 priority must be protection of these flights. In the first category we have for example, Exeter, Durham, Norwich, Newquay etc. In the second, Scilly, HIAL etc and others that may have radar but downgrade to APP during shoulder hours when a dedicated radar ATCO is unavailable. If you were responsible for the future airspace classification of these two types of airport, or were asked to comment as to how these businesses could respond to the possible threats that EASA changes pose to their operations, what would you be advising? Given that the CAA does not readily grant class D and this seems to be based on parameters such as passenger numbers (?) some if not all of these airports are not going to get D. (I believe - and I haven't checked due time - that the recent ACP for Exeter's class D was rejected...?) (Perhaps I have therefore answered my own question; the only solution left to them is class E!!!)
What are people's views on airspace classification changes and what service do you envisage being provided?
OK - perhaps it is time to re-focus the thread. Really useful contributions all round - thanks to one and all. It is always useful to revise a definition, or remind oneself of stuff one may not use every day. Not to mention benefitting from other people wisdom and experiences.
However, the thread is about ATSOCAS and their impending demise. There are 2 broad categories of airport who will be impacted by these changes as they currently provide ATC services in class G: those with radar and those without (procedural.) If we further confine our discussions to airports that have some or significant CAT flights, we are all agreed that the number 1 priority must be protection of these flights. In the first category we have for example, Exeter, Durham, Norwich, Newquay etc. In the second, Scilly, HIAL etc and others that may have radar but downgrade to APP during shoulder hours when a dedicated radar ATCO is unavailable. If you were responsible for the future airspace classification of these two types of airport, or were asked to comment as to how these businesses could respond to the possible threats that EASA changes pose to their operations, what would you be advising? Given that the CAA does not readily grant class D and this seems to be based on parameters such as passenger numbers (?) some if not all of these airports are not going to get D. (I believe - and I haven't checked due time - that the recent ACP for Exeter's class D was rejected...?) (Perhaps I have therefore answered my own question; the only solution left to them is class E!!!)
What are people's views on airspace classification changes and what service do you envisage being provided?
However, the thread is about ATSOCAS and their impending demise. There are 2 broad categories of airport who will be impacted by these changes as they currently provide ATC services in class G: those with radar and those without (procedural.) If we further confine our discussions to airports that have some or significant CAT flights, we are all agreed that the number 1 priority must be protection of these flights. In the first category we have for example, Exeter, Durham, Norwich, Newquay etc. In the second, Scilly, HIAL etc and others that may have radar but downgrade to APP during shoulder hours when a dedicated radar ATCO is unavailable. If you were responsible for the future airspace classification of these two types of airport, or were asked to comment as to how these businesses could respond to the possible threats that EASA changes pose to their operations, what would you be advising? Given that the CAA does not readily grant class D and this seems to be based on parameters such as passenger numbers (?) some if not all of these airports are not going to get D. (I believe - and I haven't checked due time - that the recent ACP for Exeter's class D was rejected...?) (Perhaps I have therefore answered my own question; the only solution left to them is class E!!!)
What are people's views on airspace classification changes and what service do you envisage being provided?
For all airfields in Class G airspace with an approved iap, whether or not they have radar, civil or military, give them an ATZ of 5 nm radius up to 3,000ft agl. Present ATZ transit rules to apply.
This also gets rid of the stupid anomoly whereby a MATZ only applies to military aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that would work, as those airfields will have to downgrade to FIS only, if remaining in Class G.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that would work, as those airfields will have to downgrade to FIS only, if remaining in Class G.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
Not sure that would work, as those airfields will have to downgrade to FIS only, if remaining in Class G.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
They've made a lot of fuss about Farnborough's proposed CAS and are making a lot of fuss about Finningley's CAS too, so not only Farnborugh will require the airspace but Odiham too.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple. If your unknown confliction is showing a '7000' squawk (indicating a/c not receiving radar service) and no altitude readout you vector your own traffic at least 5nm away from it to allow for an unpredictable turn by the unknown.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
If it's showing an altitude readout then irrespective of what is set on the aircraft's altimeter which will always transmit an altitude based on 1013.2 hPa, if the altitude indicated on the radar display (which will have the current QNH dialled in to enable it to convert from 1013.2) is showing 3,000ft above or below your traffic then traffic information is sufficient; if it's less than 3,000ft then the above applies.
I've never worked in Class E airspace, only Class G but I would imagine you would take the above action in airspace of either classification.
This would be the case if the aircraft was under a deconfliction service, in the Bournemouth case the Falcon was receiving a traffic service and self positioning for the approach. The ATCO fulfilled their responsibility by passing traffic information and updating it as required. If the crew want deconfliction advice it is upto them to ask for it.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, noone is gonna come and pad you on the back, saying "good job", if there are 2 aircraft missing....