RAS and Terain Clearance
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So... Military ATCOs do not give vectors or provide RAS below RVC... and it is alegedly an automatic ticket pull from the ATCEEB if they see a controller doing so!!!
Sounds right by the definition doesn't it?
Questions. How does one provide a PAR or SRA then?
Are we supposed to terminate RAS at the FAF on any instrument approach?
When will we acknowledge that an instrument approach or an SID for that mater provides terrain clearance... and that it only becomes an issue when the approach is broken off. If anyhting other than standard MAP is followed (e.g avoiding action) this becomes akin to an emergency procedure...
Sounds right by the definition doesn't it?
Questions. How does one provide a PAR or SRA then?
Are we supposed to terminate RAS at the FAF on any instrument approach?
When will we acknowledge that an instrument approach or an SID for that mater provides terrain clearance... and that it only becomes an issue when the approach is broken off. If anyhting other than standard MAP is followed (e.g avoiding action) this becomes akin to an emergency procedure...
I am not sure the service continues under a RAS on PAR. I was told some time ago that you could NOT give avoiding action to someone on the final stages of RAS. Also what if the PAR controller does not have a Radar ticket. Local orders should allow you to vector the ac once on a PAR/SRA.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The grounds the limit.
I hate to muddy the waters but the Royal Navy also provide a service called Terminal Control, in which mandatory instructions are given outside of controlled airspace to ac recovering or departing from a RNAS. Under TC the controller is responsible for terrain separation unless a clear and Unambiguous transfer of responsibility is made to the pilot. If Mil ATC can't even have uniform types of service how can we expect Civ and Mil procedures to tally. No wonder aircrew get confused, hopefully when the F15 CM is over they will have a re-think about the whole thing.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to previous replies:
MATS Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 12, No 13 Terrain Clearance states:
Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:
a) IFR flights in receipt of a RCS
b) flights in receipt of a RAS and
c) flights in receipt of a RIS and receiving radar vectors;
provide adequate terrain clearance for the phase of flight as shown below.
then there is a large table below which for reasons of time I won't duplicate.
Then it states;
Radar controllers have no responsibity for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a RIS when not subject to radar vectors or
b) operating SVFR or VFR within CAS which accept radar vectors.
It seems pretty clear, as a controller I believe we have more responsibility for terrain clearance than previously indicated in this thread.
MATS Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 12, No 13 Terrain Clearance states:
Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:
a) IFR flights in receipt of a RCS
b) flights in receipt of a RAS and
c) flights in receipt of a RIS and receiving radar vectors;
provide adequate terrain clearance for the phase of flight as shown below.
then there is a large table below which for reasons of time I won't duplicate.
Then it states;
Radar controllers have no responsibity for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a RIS when not subject to radar vectors or
b) operating SVFR or VFR within CAS which accept radar vectors.
It seems pretty clear, as a controller I believe we have more responsibility for terrain clearance than previously indicated in this thread.
