Atsocas
 

I believe there is a draft CAP about ATSOCAS in circulation. Has anyone seen it or know if there will be any consultation about any changes?

It's not a CAP but maybe this is what you've heard about.

Spitoon's link doesn't seem to want to work at the moment but there's some stuff here.

There is indeed a draft CAP, which I have been reading through the last couple of days-to say I and the other members of my watch were less than impressed would be the understatement of the year!

Why...pray tell!

Fred

The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.

Almost Professional: Which unit are you at? Every single NATS unit has had the opportunity to input and comment on every stage of the procedures development and they will get the same opportunity when the consultation starts.

Cheers

GW

Not a NATS unit!
we did see some of the previous paperwork, have lots of comments on the draft, just hope someone out there will listen

The widespread condoning of vectoring below MSA is a pretty good start.

The whole document is contradictory, full of holes, dangerous in parts and a pointless exercise best left until the future classification of airspace, and service provision within that, is agreed with the same implementation date.

Stating that there's no reason why an ATCO has no good reason why they can't provide a surveillance service to aircraft outside CAS (it's not my primary task - I will prioritise accordingly and if I can't provide it due to workload then tough) shows it was written by a buffoon who has no grip on the reality of providing such services.

What's so special about NATS that they get to input and comment before other service providers?

Nothing and they didn't

Goldfish Watcher
Received your email - just tried to respond, but your email address (tiscali.co.uk as registered with PPRuNE) is bouncing.

Can you PM me a valid address please?

Chilli Monster
 

It will be your primary task if the regulations say it is. Your beef seems to be 'I can't do it all myself', which is reasonable in the current environment of a single radar controller, which is what most smaller civil airfields have. A military approach room generally has 3 controllers to share the task (RA, Director and Zone/LARS). If you are going to be mandated to provide ATSOCAS then your employer will have to put his hand in his pocket and get more staff because your RA won't be able to do it all himself.

With respect to the linked documents above, I am disappointed that the authors did not dispell some of the comments from the survey, especially the issue of responsibility for terrain clearance - clearly defined in JSP552 for mil users. What is needed is better education of the masses as to the current regulations, not a new set of regulations mimicking the present that users will not read/learn either. I have lost count of the number of (mil) pilots who are surprised to learn that the answers to some of their questions are in the docs they carry with them to the cockpit but never browse through in the crewroom.

Orgasmic:

Ok - reality check (you're obviously military). We don't get funded by the LARS system. Why should our business fund something which it gets no benefit from. In the real world getting that past the accountants isn't going to happen. Notwithstanding we do it because it has a benefit from a flight safety point of view, but it will never be our primary task. With that in mind it won't be offered rather than "putting hands into pockets". Tough, but true.

My licence, my livelihood. If the regulations for ATSOCAS are perceived to be detrimental to licence preservation then forget it - as a licence holder I have the right to say no, no matter what the regulations.

And this is the likelihood. Those who can will turn round and just say "forget it, not giving ATSOCAS, it's too much hassle". Those who need the service will be the losers as this review is in danger of making it less available - not more.

However - to get back to the main thread

I couldn't agree more.

I quite agree. If your company cannot earn revenue from a system, why employ the system? We, the military, close our operations when we have nothing to gain ie our flying has finished for the day, so the same principal is being applied. Hence the holes in LARS coverage that the document talks about.
My point was that, if you are mandated to provide a service, you will need to have the resources. You are quite right to ask that until someone works out a way of charging for LARS, etc, why should civil controllers have to provide it, unless it is in the flight safety interests of the unit? We only do it because it is in our interests to do so and the Crown picks up the bill.
I think this study is in danger of disappearing up its own fundament as it attempts to reinvent a wheel that works if you want it to but does not provide benefit (financial or otherwise) to all.

I'm afraid that in the real world i.e. in 'civvy street' where virtually all UK ATC provision these days is by commercial ATC companies, the so-called "regulators" cannot simply impose a requirement of this nature on those companies.

There are two reasons.

1. If the perceived risk is too great (as determined by the Company's own safety assessment [and remember that the erstwhile CAA doesn't undertake risk assessments - this is down to the 'provider'] and the potential impact on the Company of a major incident is considered to be unacceptable) because of the 'Duty of Care' issue that hangs over ATSOCAS like the Sword of Damocles, particularly because of the litigious world in which we now have to operate.
2. If the required resources are simply not available (i.e. equipment/staffing). Simply saying that such companies "...will need to have the resources" is so unrealistic as to be off the wall. In civvy street, such resources cost money that has to be either earned or borrowed; money won't be spent unless the return on the investment meets the profit margin and payback term that the Company's business model requires.

Rest assured, if the CAA does attempt to legislate and thereby mandate, there will be some commercial ATC companies (and remember, many UK airports are now 'in-house commercial ATC companies') that will undoubtedly challenge the CAA.

Unfortunately, there seems to be something of a lack of realism in some quarters within CAA House... :hmm:

Right on CAP493!

Unfortunately the people doing the proposed changes seem to have missed another important point.

The controller can only provide the service to the best of his ability. The controller will decide to what extent the service can be provided.

Today for example I had 9 FIS on frequency, 2 RIS and 1 RAS which was inbound to the airport.
Due to activity 5 GA airfields, 3 Gliding sites and one parachute site the radar services were limited.
One FIS was informed that they were entering an area of high traffic density. He then requested RIS. This was provided as a limited service due to 'high traffic density, late warning of traffic from all around'. This increased the workload considerably as the pilot mingled with GA, Gliders and seemed confused why he was getting all of this information, sounding frustrated at the constant need to reply. It seemed that he didn't understand the service he was being provided with. Most the unknown aircraft continued to provide a 'definite hazard' to the RIS aircraft so more calls were needed to keep him updated.

Many controllers face similar situations each day. The proposed changes to the services will not change the way pilots fly or where they fly and will not change the need to limit services or even refuse Traffic Deconfliction service when the controller simply cannot provide the required sepatation.

The variation of service across the country is due to many different reasons which are local to a particular unit. Airports with class D airspace without LARS may refuse to provide radar services if the primary function of separating and sequencing arriving and departing IFR aircraft inside Controlled airspace is compromised. The authority cannot mandate the service 'shall' be provided without considering the effect to particular units and the effect on other areas of MATS 1.

Message ends:*

Well said, Chilli, Orgasmic, CAP and Machine

The whole impression of the material produced so far seems to reflect a cloud cuckoo land wherein the equivalent of a controlled airspace service is to be provided without the legislation, equipment or staff to achieve it.

All that is being done is a reinvention of the wheel. Apart from education of some controllers and pilots, what is needed IMHO is to (a) adhere to current terminology ("RIS", "RAS" etc), (b) write the current requirements more accurately (e.g. when RIS traffic may be vectored, "non-participating traffic" - non-participating in what?), (c) include the relevant flight rules in the equation and (d) specify in practical terms how adjacent aircraft under different services may be handled.

I look at the names involved in the deliberations and wonder just how much appreciation there is. Every T, D & H seems to be in on the act, including unions and the Guild, except a representative from each pertinent unit.

As a lifelong civilian, whilst I have no wish to criticise my military and ex-military ATC colleagues who as far as ATSOCAS is concerned are to my mind, the 'experts' since with the exception of Brize Norton and Lyneham, this is the UK middle and lower airspace environment in which they are trained to operate, one of the difficulties that many people have identified is the imbalance of military and ex-military personnel to civil personnel in CAA departments such as its Airspace Policy directorate. This inevitably results in a lack of appreciation of the constraints and demands of running a civil commercially-driven ATC unit where simply indenting for equipment or staff just doesn't happen. Equally, civil pilots operating outside controlled airspace are not subject to the level of prescriptive rules that military pilots have to observe under military flying regulations.


In summary, the civil world is not the cosy cut-and-dried prescriptive and orderly world that military aviation inhabits; and unfortunately, a significant number of the military or ex-military policy-makers in some of the CAA's departments, appear unable or unwilling to grasp this fact.
Taking just one example of this apparent lack of appreciation, the provision of a RAS to a military fast-jet, trainer or helicopter is a completely different situation to providing the same RAS to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 with civilian passengers on board, particularly if the phase of flight means that they're not all seated and wearing seat belts.


The truth is 'one size' just doesn't fit all. :(

The impression I have from various sources is that LARS funding may/is to be terminated. IF that is the case, then the authority may (reading between the lines but open to corection) delegate LARS to radar units. IF that is the case, nice bit of responsibility-avoidance...

If pilots would like to have a radar service outside CAS, a way forward (the only way forward?) is to pay for it. Is there legislation in the UK which provides for such service WITHOUT paying? As a road user, I would welcome the abolition of road fund licence and bridge/tunnel/M6 toll fees...

For a controller working in a country where controlled airspace comes before any ATC can be provided, this thread is like a parallel universe..... :uhoh:

I don't envy you one bit! :E