CAP 413 Edition 23 - is this what we are now to expect of UK CAA?
 

CAP 413 Edition 23 was published on 9 April to be effective on 8 June 2020. Unfortunately there are many errors and inconsistencies in it.

The Revision History shows a summary of changes incorporated in Edition 23. The date of the summary is shown as "9 April 2019"!

Among the changes in Ed 23 is the requirement for ATCOs & AFISOs to include surface wind data before issue of a take-off/landing clearance. In this respect for AFISOs it appears that "clearance" is to be interpretted as that transmitted as "at your discretion".

Phraseology requirements for AFISOs shown at page 35 places the wind velocity data after "at your discretion", then the phraseology examples at page 41 shows it (correctly) as prior to "at your discretion"..

Ed 23 also includes updates to military callsigns, which appears to have been drafted by someone other than the Editor, and then promptly cut/pasted into CAP 413. After years of correcting trainees to use "RTF" as the correct abbreviation for the obsolete "RT" it still appears in the amended entries, which also refer to "ICAO registered callsign root, comprising a Three-Letter Designator (TLD)" which apparently refers to ICAO Aircraft Operating Agency Designators. May be a military term, but please do not confuse us civvies with it.

Trying to keep trainees on the straight and narrow can be trying at times, please CAA don't make it any harder for us. You are the ones meant to be setting the standard, so plese keep it technically correct. Surely we should not be expected to proof read future CAP changes and have to make corrections for our trainee's benefit?

Talking to a colleague a few days ago he had over a month ago raised the issue of anomalies with the CAP 413 Editor, as yet he has not received a response. What happened to the CAA service level standard?

Have noticed a steady decline in CAA/ SARG standards over the past few years, hope that this is not indicative of worse to come!

The state of CAP 413 is appalling. It is full of inconsistencies and errors including those that you have highlighted. I wonder whether the new edict about wind information with take-off and landing is the result of a misunderstanding (to put it politely) by the CAA staff involved. Until such time as they are able to quote the precise chapter and verse of the justification, I am inclined to ignore it; it certainly makes no sense. All this has been communicated to CAA; it remains to be seen whether it is actioned.

2 s

It was only 5 years ago when they released an updated MATS Part 1 and the diagrams for separation were severely pixilated and illegible. It took them a good 2 years to sort that out blaming the publishers used at the time but it was quite clearly the author as the illegible diagrams were on the online version for 2 years.

The editor of CAP 413 is aware of your concerns.

..... and will shortly be aware of the formal complaint made to CAA about the current state of the document and a total lack of response to notification of concerns about it.

This document used to be a 'go to' now it can only be used a guide, at best. The anomolies the OP mention are, sadly, only few of those that have been spotted and communicated to the CAA. What is really frustrating is the lack of engagement from the CAA with those who raise the queries. If there was some feedback then I'm sure people wouldn't feel the need to make formal complaints; in the absence of any response it feels like the only action left.

Perhaps if CAP413 is unable to be authoritative a cut-down version could be produced for quick reference and you could usefully put it towards the back of the MATS Part 1 in an appendix?

And CAP 797; and CAP 452.

well, when it was annouced that UK is leaving EASA, reasoning that Brits constitute the most proficient members of the staff and that UK CAA will like lighthouse for the rest of the world in terms of compentency and contribution to world's aviation was put forward...so...keep calm and enjoy the ride :)

Sadly, i wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of this thread.
The recent prohibition of the use of IDENT for police helis air ambulances other conspicuity squawks is another example. And for no good reason. And this pretty significant change was hidden in the most obscure place. All getting a bit disney at the CAA

The IDENT of conspicuity squawks has been prohibited for years, for blindingly obvious reasons.

But with some older SSR display systems. it's necessary to 'Ident' to get the code/callsign conversion

Surely you shouldn't be using code callsign conversion with with a conspicuity code?

I was talking about conspicuity codes, they are NOT discrete so cannot be converted to a callsign, just a generic label such as "FIS" and they will all do that without any ident being required.

at least it says you are now allowed to say "qnh one thousand" instead of 1 zero zero zero like before :)

You are confusing ident on 7000, which was always prohibited. Now we can no longer ident on any police helis, TQF1R etc.

jinglejangles I am not confusing it with 7000 at all.

Many units have "listening" codes which can show who is monitoring the freq so there could be many, and NOT 7000.

Scottish FIS, for example have their own code.

Apart from 7000 other conspicuity squawks have long been with us such as TQF, pipeline helicopters etc, all therefore (according to MATS 1) neither validated or verified?

When it was fun to go to work remember two forays with the wearers of conspicuity squawks. First TQF Wessex (yes, long time ago!) freecalls requesting and then virtually demanding a radar service (RIS/RAS) in Class G airspace. Went through the repertoire of ident attempts, "squawk xxxx- cannot change squawk", "report heading, turn left/right - cannot change heading", "report radial/DME from......- don't have VOR". "Sorry sir unable to provide you a radar service".

Next, during a busy morning in Class D airspace "Pipeline xxxx request Zone entry squawking 0036"" (looking to route straight through my final approach track), "Pipeline xxxx squawk xxxx", "Sorry I am not allowed to change my squawk" (beggars belief!), "Pipeline xxxx I cannot identify you on your current squawk and cannot offer an entry clearance until I can, remain outside controlled airspace". Immediate change of attitude, identified and cleared through.

We all digress, any more contributors to the thread title?

As stated above the powers that be are aware and a corrigendum is being drafted as we speak.

Why a corrigendum? The errors and anomalies are of such extent that Edition 24 should be issued, but on reflection there's possibly nothing left in the budget to fund it?