End of ATSOCAS
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respectfully I disagree, it is upto the flight crew to decide the appropriate level of FIS. By giving deconfliction vectors to an aircraft under a traffic service or providing routine traffic information while under a basic all you are doing is blurring the lines of what the pilot can expect from the type of service being provided. By all means if the crew request deconfliction advice or are under vectors for an approach then the ATCO is obliged to assist. The 'duty of care' is fulfilled by passing accurate and timely traffic information to the crew and updating it as necessary. CAP 774 is very clear about the responsibilities of all involved.
Respectfully I disagree, it is upto the flight crew to decide the appropriate level of FIS. By giving deconfliction vectors to an aircraft under a traffic service or providing routine traffic information while under a basic all you are doing is blurring the lines of what the pilot can expect from the type of service being provided. By all means if the crew request deconfliction advice or are under vectors for an approach then the ATCO is obliged to assist. The 'duty of care' is fulfilled by passing accurate and timely traffic information to the crew and updating it as necessary. CAP 774 is very clear about the responsibilities of all involved.
At the inquest when the coroner asks 'why didn't you pass avoiding action?' I suppose you'll just say 'CAP 774 says I needn't'.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: somerset
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When RAS/RIS changed to TS/DS it was to 'reset' the rules so that everyone knew exactly what level of service and what their responsibilities were (amongst other reasons). All well and good, all defined within tight boundaries then all muddled by saying 'oh by the way you have a duty of care'. Duty of care being a grey area. So as a controller i might decide that two miles head on similar level will make me upgrade to DS from TS but my colleague may decide that 3 miles 500' apart will trigger the change. Difficult to see how you can criticize one controller in one airprox if you define rules then muddle them up
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we’re making the subject way harder than it should be.
We are all aware of our responsibilities, both when we’re flying or sitting on “the other end”. There’s no discussion that the PIC has the final word in controlling his aircraft, and there’s noone challenging that he is responsible for looking out and avoiding other traffic.
Noone is saying you can jail an ATCO for doing his best, even in uncontrolled airspace, when he is following the rules.
So as I said earlier, they won’t pad you and say “good job”, if someone collided when you only provided traffic info, they’d probably say you could have done more..... but it was within the rules and you’re not to blame.
But that’s how every report will be.... what could every participant, pilots, controllers, birds, bees and whatnot.. have done to prevent it.
We are all aware of our responsibilities, both when we’re flying or sitting on “the other end”. There’s no discussion that the PIC has the final word in controlling his aircraft, and there’s noone challenging that he is responsible for looking out and avoiding other traffic.
Noone is saying you can jail an ATCO for doing his best, even in uncontrolled airspace, when he is following the rules.
So as I said earlier, they won’t pad you and say “good job”, if someone collided when you only provided traffic info, they’d probably say you could have done more..... but it was within the rules and you’re not to blame.
But that’s how every report will be.... what could every participant, pilots, controllers, birds, bees and whatnot.. have done to prevent it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote that follows is from SRG after they investigated an airprox I am aware of. (It might not be word for word but that changes nothing in its' essentials.) Traffic was passed on a/c VFR, the other under radar vectors IFR, class D. TCAS saved the day when nobody flying the planes got visual with anyone else. "The controller did exactly what the book says he should do. But we don't want them doing it like that...…" There, Gentlemen, is the problem.
Jmmoric, the problem is that so many flight crew don't understand their responsibilities in class G airspace, let alone if you add the UK FIS into the mix. Too many pilots fly their aircraft as "good weather" or "bad weather" rather than VFR or IFR and I've heard ATCOs use IMC and IFR as interchangeable terms.
Under ICAO FIS, in uncontrolled airspace, if you have surveillance and the flight is identified, regardless of whether the flight is VFR or IFR, you provide traffic information and avoiding action if the pilot requests it or if you as an ATCO believe it necessary. If you want to provide ATC service, then you do so in controlled airspace but bear in mind that you provide FIS and alerting service alongside ATC service to controlled flights.
Change is coming. Give it a few months and we should here more.
Under ICAO FIS, in uncontrolled airspace, if you have surveillance and the flight is identified, regardless of whether the flight is VFR or IFR, you provide traffic information and avoiding action if the pilot requests it or if you as an ATCO believe it necessary. If you want to provide ATC service, then you do so in controlled airspace but bear in mind that you provide FIS and alerting service alongside ATC service to controlled flights.
Change is coming. Give it a few months and we should here more.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whowhenwhy,
And the understanding that a visual approach is the same as flying VFR... I've heard that one a thousand times.
But you're right.
For the using of wrong phraseology for ATCO's, that could be a good subject for the yearly refresher training in the unit. The pilots? They're a lost cause....
And the understanding that a visual approach is the same as flying VFR... I've heard that one a thousand times.
But you're right.
For the using of wrong phraseology for ATCO's, that could be a good subject for the yearly refresher training in the unit. The pilots? They're a lost cause....
Under ICAO FIS, in uncontrolled airspace, if you have surveillance and the flight is identified, regardless of whether the flight is VFR or IFR, you provide traffic information and avoiding action if the pilot requests it or if you as an ATCO believe it necessary. If you want to provide ATC service, then you do so in controlled airspace but bear in mind that you provide FIS and alerting service alongside ATC service to controlled flights.
Actually when I first started (1973 as a cadet, 1974 as a controller) we had almost the same system:-
IMC Radar Advisory Service; the controller provides traffic information followed by avoiding action to maintain at least 5 nm from unknown traffic.
VMC Radar Advisory Service; the controller initially provides traffic information then avoiding action either at the request of the pilot or if the controller deems it necessary.
Flight Information Service using radar derived information; the controller provides traffic information to identified aircraft.
Flight Information Service; the controller passes proximity hazard warnings on known traffic; used for unidentified traffic or at units without radar.
All nice and easy until the late '70s when some d1ckhead decided to change it and that's when the rot started.
If anyone wants to know the next stage, I'm prepared to present it here but I don't want to go rambling on unnecessarily and boring you to death.
Last edited by chevvron; 30th Aug 2019 at 20:36.
The quote that follows is from SRG after they investigated an airprox I am aware of. (It might not be word for word but that changes nothing in its' essentials.) Traffic was passed on a/c VFR, the other under radar vectors IFR, class D. TCAS saved the day when nobody flying the planes got visual with anyone else. "The controller did exactly what the book says he should do. But we don't want them doing it like that...…" There, Gentlemen, is the problem.
'
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who was on the receiving end of ATSOCAS many times during my early regional flying days, I can now unequivocally state, that the current array of services is the most complex state variance with ATC procedures that I have seen anywhere else in the world. The standard of controlling throughout the UK has always been meritorious in nature but service provision outside of CAS, is a confusing affair for many with no, or limited exposure to ATSOCAS in the UK.
Whilst responsibility for the pilot being aware of the different levels of service provision with ATSOCAS, is irrefutable, the practicalities of always achieving that may be challenging. Take the Air Ambulance pilot who is called out at short notice standby to fly from abroad and into a UK airfield in Class G. There needs to be an advance awareness that part of this flight will take place outside of CAS in the first place. Secondly, that pilot would need to be aware of the different levels of service that exist in ATSOCAS. Thirdly, they would need to have the time and the information to hand to ensure that there was familiarity with ATSOCAS in the UK, prior to being asked 'What service do you require'?
I now rarely need to use ATSOCAS but on a couple of occasions in the last few years that I have had to, my co-pilots on both occasions (who were not from the UK but still very experienced) were at a loss as to the different levels of service available in ATSOCAS. One of the exciting things about aviation is that the pace of change in technology advancement, has transformed how we do our job but it would seem that there is perhaps room for some transformation with how ATC is implemented in current Class G airspace in the UK.
Whilst responsibility for the pilot being aware of the different levels of service provision with ATSOCAS, is irrefutable, the practicalities of always achieving that may be challenging. Take the Air Ambulance pilot who is called out at short notice standby to fly from abroad and into a UK airfield in Class G. There needs to be an advance awareness that part of this flight will take place outside of CAS in the first place. Secondly, that pilot would need to be aware of the different levels of service that exist in ATSOCAS. Thirdly, they would need to have the time and the information to hand to ensure that there was familiarity with ATSOCAS in the UK, prior to being asked 'What service do you require'?
I now rarely need to use ATSOCAS but on a couple of occasions in the last few years that I have had to, my co-pilots on both occasions (who were not from the UK but still very experienced) were at a loss as to the different levels of service available in ATSOCAS. One of the exciting things about aviation is that the pace of change in technology advancement, has transformed how we do our job but it would seem that there is perhaps room for some transformation with how ATC is implemented in current Class G airspace in the UK.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 418 Likes
on
221 Posts
Maybe we ought to simply revert to the previous system and terminology. There was little to say against that.
I think the problem with the previous system was that at some units 'FIS' traffic was identified, becoming 'known traffic' and hence passed 'generic traffic info' but at others they weren't, making them total unknowns and the passing of traffic info 'blurred' the border between FIS and RIS; introduction of Basic and TS was supposed to stop this but obviously hasn't as at some places, traffic requesting basic still needs to be identified to produce a 'known traffic' environment.
Years ago we did try doing this at Farnborough ie not identifying traffic requesting FIS but had to abandon the trial within days because it meant there were too many 'unknowns' and we couldn't clear IFR depatures from either Odiham or Farnborough.
The previous system still included many differences to ICAO SARPS & PANS though and really was not that different from the arrangements that we have today.
One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS. Straight away this introduced blurring between BS and TS and thus confusion and by doing so undermined the main reason that we made the change in the first place.
One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS. Straight away this introduced blurring between BS and TS and thus confusion and by doing so undermined the main reason that we made the change in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See #71 above.
I think the problem with the previous system was that at some units 'FIS' traffic was identified, becoming 'known traffic' and hence passed 'generic traffic info' but at others they weren't, making them total unknowns and the passing of traffic info 'blurred' the border between FIS and RIS; introduction of Basic and TS was supposed to stop this but obviously hasn't as at some places, traffic requesting basic still needs to be identified to produce a 'known traffic' environment.
Years ago we did try doing this at Farnborough ie not identifying traffic requesting FIS but had to abandon the trial within days because it meant there were too many 'unknowns' and we couldn't clear IFR depatures from either Odiham or Farnborough.
I think the problem with the previous system was that at some units 'FIS' traffic was identified, becoming 'known traffic' and hence passed 'generic traffic info' but at others they weren't, making them total unknowns and the passing of traffic info 'blurred' the border between FIS and RIS; introduction of Basic and TS was supposed to stop this but obviously hasn't as at some places, traffic requesting basic still needs to be identified to produce a 'known traffic' environment.
Years ago we did try doing this at Farnborough ie not identifying traffic requesting FIS but had to abandon the trial within days because it meant there were too many 'unknowns' and we couldn't clear IFR depatures from either Odiham or Farnborough.
From the CAP774 Basic Service
A controller may identify an aircraft to facilitate co-ordination or to assist in the provision of generic navigational assistance, but is not required to inform the pilot that identification has taken place. Identification of an aircraft in receipt of a Basic Service does not imply that an increased level of ATS is being provided or that any subsequent monitoring will take place.
If a controller/ FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning shall be issued to the pilot (SERA.9005(b)(2) and GM1 SERA.9005(b)(2))
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous system still included many differences to ICAO SARPS & PANS though and really was not that different from the arrangements that we have today.
One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS. Straight away this introduced blurring between BS and TS and thus confusion and by doing so undermined the main reason that we made the change in the first place.
One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS. Straight away this introduced blurring between BS and TS and thus confusion and by doing so undermined the main reason that we made the change in the first place.
I'm really struggling to see the validity or relevance of " One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS" as that is so far from reality. With Mode S and listening squawks it really allows approach radar to deal with the plethora of other aircraft operating within the vicinity of the aerodrome and it's approach paths easier, safer and minimises distractions and reductions in capacity.
ATCO Fred, sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that the ability to provide surveillance derived traffic information to BS aircraft has blurred the line with TS. Fully agree that the use of surveillance to identify BS aircraft and 'integrate' them with IFR inbounds/outbounds has been essential. Of course, if the UK were to fully adopt ICAO then we would only provide ATC service to IFR flights inside controlled airspace and only provide FIS (not the fudge that it UK FIS) outside controlled airspace.
