UK - Forthcoming ATSOCAS changes
 

Having given my CD and CAP 774 a good once-over, I can't escape the feeling that, in a nutshell:
Basic service = FIS
Traffic service = RIS
Deconfliction service = RAS
Procedural service = giving a name to something we have anyway but no particular name for,
plus extra R/T to remind pilots that terrain separation is their own responsibilty (and a load of legalese **** that really should not be of any concern to pilots and controllers).

Is that about right?

Heretic. How could you possibly suggest that this is just a name change := This a wholesale change of everything, I believe that they even considered conducting a review of what people wanted in a god and what he should be called. It's only the all-encompassing and pan-religious connotation that the word god has that saved it! :E

More seriously, in many ways (at least for the military) this is a bit of a re-statement of what we used to do before Ben McDhui with a few extra words added in. For our civil colleagues I think that this will have a bigger impact, particularly the ability to request DS when flying VFR.

Generally, I think mil will be okay with CAP 774 and have a complete b0ll ache with CAP 413 and it'll be the other way around on the civil side of the fence.

ex mil, now civil.

The only real difference I can see if the ability for civvies to give a RAS (DS) to VFR traffic.

Money would have been better spent re-iterating what was common sense (FIS, RIS, RAS)

The section of CAP774 regarding Duty of Care (how I hate this phrase) is a sobering read.Probably always the case previously but only picked up on it during my conscientious self briefing!

But thats the whole point. By just re-iterating the current definitions, the pilots would not take any notice. By changing the definitions and spelling out clearly the responsibilities of the pilots outside controlled airspace to keep a very good look out due to the unknown nature of the beast, it is supposed to encourage awareness.
On how many forums and how many magazines has this new change be debated over the past few months?
Ask a group of random pilots what they believe they are getting under the current procedures (FIS, RIS RAS etc). I bet there are many misunderstandings.
When you go into the new phraseology and the new definitions, it is very much used to enforce the pilots responsibilities as well as the controllers/FISO etc.
Will it work?
IF flying schools/clubs, individuals, airlines etc. etc. make sure they promote awareness in the new service and encourage training, and controllers (who are required to complete an approved UTP) ensure they do not blur the boundaries ie FRIS then it should be an improvement........It will be an interesting few months following March. :ok:

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/avion.gif[

How many incidents have been caused since FIS, RIS and RAS exist, due to some sort of misunderstanding of the service being given ?

(not asking in a challenging way, just for information)

Apart from the name changes and the ability to ask for/receive a deconfliction service when flying vfr, no great change......
However, have already asked a few pilots what they think, answers range from 'we're aware something is changing' to 'didn't know about it'. Just a random sample asked, not representative hopefully, but not too encouraging either.

The c.d.rom issued by the CAA is also contradictory.It does clearly say controllers must stick to the strict definitions of the service agreed but also says that they have a 'duty of care'. So if a controller sticks strictly to a basic service but suspects the aircraft being provided with the service is heading directly for another aircraft,which is not on frequency, is he/she going to tell the pilot or not? Better to blur the service and use 'radar derived information' to pass traffic information than have an airprox (or worse) on frequency and then be hauled over the coals for neglecting 'duty of care'.

No straight answer on this i suspect. The CAA c.d.rom clearly states that the correct interpretation , following an incident, will be 'decided in a court of law'.

Probably will mean more refusal to provide a service or more reduced services due to controller workload, poor radar, traffic density etc etc

Barnaby, so does that mean the system will go through another re-branding exercise in 5 years or so?

On second thoughts, don't feel obliged to answer the question. :hmm:

Talking to the man from SRG he mentioned that some european regs mean that the word Radar cannot be used in identifing the type of service.....hence the name changes......what gets me though is why therefore have we changed Flight Information Service to Basic Service?? A FIS was clear cut...it meant what it said on the tin.....!!!

What will the services be called once one crosses the channel? FIS, RAS, RIS?

Sorry Tribekey I don't see what you're getting at. To me, duty of care means that if I'm giving a basic service without radar and a guys says that he wants to route to Henley and I know that 50 other people have said that they're going to Henley, I'll tell him to keep a good lookout. If I'm giving the same service, but I've got radar, then if I see someone on a collision course with something else, then I'll tell him. And no, that's not someone who's going to get within 5nms and 3000ft, that's 500ft or less and on a collision course. Fairly obvious really.

With particular reference to the "Duty of Care" issue and the non-LARS APS Units, where else in the world would you (apparently) be under pressure by the regulator to provide a free service and have all the liabilities that go with it dropped on you?

It is inferred that a service has to be provided, or the ATCO has to defend himself/herself with a reason why he/she is not going to provide it. Is it not time for the host airports who contract ANSPs to provide ATS and manage their controlled airspace to tell the CAA "Bog off, we are paying our ANSP for a service at our airport and within out airspace to manage our traffic, we have told our ANSP that he is not to provide a service to traffic remaining outside controlled airspace unless the CAA pays us for accepting the liability that goes with it."?

America ....................

What difference does it make if the service is paid for or complimentary (free) :confused:

Flybywyre

Liability - where else in the real world is a servcie provider going to provide a free servive and accept the consequences of the liability for something going wrong?

Most ANSPs are businesses, not charities.

America...................

What difference does it make to the consequences of liability if the service is paid for or complimentary (free) :confused:

For Jim:

Across the channel in Europe RIS and RAS have never existed. They are UK specific.

FIS does exist... and here we go renaming it something else! :ugh::{

I have to say I think whoever dreamt up this nonsense needs taking out and shooting, along with whichever bright sparks pushed it out to those of us at the sharp end.

Why does the UK insist on being different in standards to Europe and ICAO?!

:mad:

You jest! The level of traffic information to be passed under a Basic Service, for example, has been completely blurred with references to generic and specific TI. Military phraseology has been allowed to creep in, thus suggesting that one phrase should be used in CAS but another outside, and the examples given in the training package indicate that those responsible have limited appreciation of correct RTF or relevant good practice.

2 s

whowhenwhy
Between us we've proved my point. The rules on what each service provides are clear ostensibly, making the correct provision fairly obvious, as you say. However, they then become clouded by duty of care, making them open to interpretation by different controllers. My point is, if someone on a basic service bangs into another aircraft which is not on any service, and at the subsequent investigation it transpires you saw that aircraft on radar bud did not inform your basic service pilot about it, where will duty of care be? I know the rules are clear but , as i said, on the CAA cd rom it clearly states that duty of care will be decided in court.
' yes, m'lud, i saw it on my radar screen but my pilot was on a basic service'

Duty of care

May I ask all practitioners of LARS - Regardless of the new rules, if you have identified an aircraft which is in receipt of a FIS, and you see that it is going to get extremely close to another aircraft, would you tell it or not?

I know I would, the only reason I wouldn't is if I had a higher service aircraft that needed my attention due to a safety related issue.

Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.

Duty of Care should take everything into consideration

The comments complaining about ATS providers giving 'free' services to people who are not paying (directly or otherwise) tends to reinforce the negative feelings that many GA pilots have towards 'owners' of controlled airspace who are reluctant to provide appropriate services or let them have access.

The fact is that unlike many resources (and Ofcom are trying to change that for radio spectrum used by aviation for communications and radar) there is no charge for airspace. Part of the covenant when an ATS provider is given, for no-charge, control of a volume of airspace should be that they provide access to it on a fair and equitable basis to all airspace users and not restrict services to aviators who they regard as an inconvenience.

The NATS proposal to implement a large TMZ in Class G airspace around Stansted will mean that not only is the ATS provider ‘difficult’ when aviators need e.g. a crossing they will also be preventing access to that Class G airspace by about 20% of the current users (NATS estimate in consultation papers).

Standing by for incoming fire…