Mil/Civ operations.
 

The point I was trying to make, as I think was GMST's in starting this thread, is that we need standardisation.

I was not aiming to be critical of the military ATCO involved, but of the system which required her to undergo such a palaver.

In answer to rej's question, if an aircraft is unable to squawk mode c, for whatever reason, then I, or any other civil ATCO may *not* authorise it to climb to FL100+. In the unlikely event, at least with civil aircraft capable of operating at these levels, that the failure occurred above FL100, then it WOULD be descened asap.

Is it so difficult for the military authorities to permit their controllers to deem a track observed on a valid civil squawk, with NMC, to be below FL100?

This is just one of the many points which need addressing (VFR at night, not permitted under civil rules)!

The point I was trying to make regarding ex-military ATCOs is that as we work alongside them ever day, we probably have a better understanding of military controlling than you think. In fact the watch that I am on is made up entirely of controllers who are ex-military (yes, myself included)!

From the AIP

1.3.3.2 In specific cases where short notice exemption from the carriage and operation of SSR Transponder equipment is required
by an operator, entry may be permitted on an individual flight basis provided that the approval of the ATC Unit responsible for the airspace has been obtained and that the pilot complies with the appropriate Rules of the Air and ATC which apply to the airspace concerned. Operators should note that this does not apply in respect of the London TMA where for safety and practical purposes short notice exemptions cannot be accommodated and the procedure detailed in paragraph 1.3.3.1 must be followed. The controlling ATC Unit is to be contacted prior to departure or, in exceptional circumstances, on the appropriate ATC frequency prior to entry to the specified airspace. Entry under an exemption is not guaranteed in normal circumstances and will only be permitted at the discretion of ATC where it does not impinge on the safe operation within the airspace involved. Short notice exemptions will only be granted on a case by case basis and will not be given to operators who require regular access to airspace to which mandatory carriage and operation of SSR regulations apply. Such applications should be submitted to AUS in accordance with paragraph 1.3.3.1. Cases in respect of transponder failure are to be dealt with in accordance with the SSR Operating Procedures as promulgated in ENR 1.6.2,
paragraph 3. An aircraft in an emergency situation will be afforded the appropriate level of priority which shall include implicit exemptions from the appropriate legislation for the purpose of saving life.


and

3.2 Failure after departure
3.2.1 If the transponder fails after departure or en-route, ATS Units will endeavour to provide for continuation of the flight in
accordance with the original flight plan. In certain traffic situations this may not be possible particularly when the failure is detected shortly after take-off. The aircraft may then be required to return to the departure aerodrome or to land at another aerodrome acceptable to the operator and to ATC. After landing, pilots shall make every effort to have the transponder restored to normal operation. If the transponder cannot be repaired then the provisions in paragraph 3.1.1 apply.
3.3 At present the temporary failure of SSR Code C alone would not restrict the normal operation of the flight.

Toadpool, it would appear to me that ATSUs are permitted to allow NMC flight above FL100.

... and before anyone starts, in this respect mil aircraft are subject to exactly the same regulations.

London Mil

Toadpool, it would appear to me that ATSUs are permitted to allow NMC flight above FL100.

That is one of the points that I was trying to make. However, I would like to know why Toadpool has not responded to my point

'However, IMHO if you have time to explain to that civil ATCOs can not permit traffic to operate FL100+ without mode C, I would suggest that you would have had time to bite your tongue and carry out the coordination as requested.'

when I instructed ab-initios and examined controllers I taught them to deal with controlling first and then resolve any disagreements off console via landline. Is this not one of the first principles of control before admin?

I'd be prepared to wager a large proportion of Toadpool's salary that, when examined carefully, there are few differences in the regulations for civ/mil. Some of the aircraft operating procedures may differ (VFR at night), but the ATC rules are drawn from the same pot and then put into the appropriate documents. If I'm talking bolleaux, please give concrete examples (with references) and I'll retract.

Canary Boy,

You are correct. It is the interpretation of those rules that are different, sometimes corrupted by people in the training environment putting on their own little spin on things.

Mil/Civ operations.
 

This is danger of becoming a debate on one incident, rather than answering the original question posed.

Rej, if this were an isolated incident, then perhaps I may have bit my tongue. However it is not, it seems to happen several times a day every day.

Let me explain from my viewpoint. Ignoring the issue of mode c and FL100 for now, I had given the other ATCO all the information she needed in that she was told that the track was a FIS (i.e. not under control), and not above 3000'. As far as I was concerned this made it known traffic to her, and if that information subsequently changed the onus would be on me to inform her, so no RNGrommit it was not dead information. As she was going to achieve a minimum vertical separation of 18000'+, no co-ordination was required and I did not wish to get into a lengthy discussion regarding traffic that was not really relevant.

Now for the FL100 discussion.

London Mil's quote has missed off the start of the relevant part of the AIP, which states that aircraft operating IFR in CAS, and outside CAS FL100+ are required to have a serviceable transponder with both mode A and C. Also just before London Mil's quote it states that exemptions from the requirement are not normally granted.

It then goes on to state that in exeptional circumstances exemptions may be granted, etc.

I would suggest that a civil unit considering granting such an exemption would weigh the benefits very carefully against the extra workload created, as they would be expected to notify any other unit on the aircraft's track of the non-compliance. At the very least they would be expected to initiate any co-ordination required against conflicting tracks.

With reference to the failure of mode C only, why does the sentence refer to "temporary failure", not just "failure". I may be wrong (again), but I would interpret that to mean "intermittent".

Canary Boy, I would agree that the basic regulations are broadly similar, but there are differences in the operating practices. Coming up with concrete examples (with references) will, as I'm sure you're aware, be difficult and time consuming.

One example would be the understanding of a "handover". I can take, and hand over traffic to other units without any direct interaction with the other controller, in other words, silent handovers. Military handovers normally involve direct controller/controller communication.

I could go on but I think thats enough. I'll sit back now and await the flack.

Toadpool

I don't want to keep on about this but you are never thorough enough in your application of the rules.

First of all she (the mil controller) needed coordination as the traffic information that you issued became dead information and of no use to her once it was passed. She quited rightly needed this act of negiation between 2 or more controllers to agree a course of action as the ac had no mode C. Even though the FIS ac was 'not under control' you could have effected coordination by identifying the ac and obtaining compliance from the pilot that he/she would not fly above a certain altitude that meets the coordination criteria.

Lets not make this into a p1$$ing match but, had the ac been under RAS with unknown traffic with no mode C as a conflictor, she was spot on with her actions.

And if it is not an isolated incident have you tried to get your supervisors or watch manager to speak to the relevant unit and work towards understanding why the mil controllers insist on what you consider to be superfluous control actions. Without intruding on what seems to be inter-unit disagreement, the only way to resiolve it is to discuss it.

JSP318A as was and now 55.....

MATS Pt1

Take the best from both and put them together.... what a fantastic system we'd have!!

There are some really good things in the JSP and MATS...it's high time that everyone got together to produce an even better system.... crumbs this is the 21st century after all!

yellowplane, couldn't agree more.

In Canada they have MANOPS which suits both roles; it has a mil specific pages that deal with the mil-specific issues such as formation splits etc

Mil/Civ operations.
 

Rej, the rules you refer to may be yours, but they are not mine.

Surely this was the whole point in this thread being started. To a civil ATCO co-ordination is the act of negotiation,etc,etc. The phraseology "your traffic not above xxx, my traffic not below xxx" and "co-ordination agreed" is not required.

As I have said before, I fully understand that the mil ATCO was only following her instructions.

If the other ATCO concerned was civilian the exchange wolud probably have been something like " XXXX here, what's the xxxx 10 miles east of you doing?" , "Not above 3000' " , "Roger, Thanks". This is if the call was made at all.

Flower says in his post at the start of this thread that it takes 3 times as long to hand an aircraft to a military ATCO than to a civil one. This is often time we do not have.

Why does it take so long? Is it because military procedures cause an unnecessary increase in workload? Are civil ATCOs really being gash and unprofessional?

It is not for me to say, but I do feel it needs addressing.

Toadpool, I'm sorry but if that was the coordination phraseology that you use and it was transcripted and presented to the UKAB in the event that an ac under your or the other unit's control broke that coordination, then you wouldn't have a leg to stand on as you have not agreed to anything. As Rej said, the mil controller needed coordination and was right to pusue the matter with you. I cannot believe that JSP552 and MATS Pt 1 differ to the extent that coordination was not required under the terms of MATS Pt 1. While what you are saying is very common-sensical, it's not right at the moment. It would be interesting to hear from some of the guys at Norwich who deal with this situation on a daily basis. As I've said before, the problem is one of interpretation. You only have to look at the differences in application of RAS between mil and civ to see that.

As Rej and Yellow plane have said, what we need is a single document MATS Pt 552(?) which does not leave items open to interpretation.

The silent handovers that you mentioned are, in military terms, written agreements in which a series of terms have to be met for the silent handover to take place. One of these is a pre-note. I'm guessing that when you do these silent handovers between your local units that you do a pre-note first? Otherwise it's just a free-call. If you've got the time to do a pre-note, then you have time to do a radar handover: there is very little difference in the time taken! Besides, they don't take that long if you follow the format...

Not so, generally our ATSA staff do the pre notes for us as we do not have the time to do them.


PS Flower is a she not a he :)

You tell 'em girl!

Mil/Civ operations.
 

Whowhenwhy you are correct in that the phraseology example I used is not co-ordination. This is because a civilian ATCO would not require it as the traffic would be "known" once its intentions (not above 3000') had been passed.

If the situation were to be changed, and the other traffic was descending towards mine, then I would expect the other controller to say something like " Roger I'll descend on top with my xxxx, let me know if yours climbs". Response "Wilco". S/he (sorry Flower) could then descend to a level below FL110, making sufficient allowance for any pressure difference, say FL50, and then further once lateral separation was achieved.

What I'm saying may not be right under military procedures, but it is acceptable under civilian ones.

As an aside, I do find it worrying that a military ATCO will, and has to my knowledge, disregard co-ordination because the phrase "co-ordination agreed" has not been used. I believe that this is one matter that is under investigation following at least one airprox.

Changing the subject slightly, an ex-colleague, a former Squadron Leader at a fast jet base before getting his civilian licences, so with a fair bit of military experience, once said to me that he had never worked so hard until he came to our unit.

Okay, that sounds better. I did want to have a proper look in MATS Part 1 but only having dial-up somewhat limits me at the moment. Like I said, what you're suggesting is certainly a common-sense approach. If it really is legislated in this way for you guys and different for us, I wonder if that's because mil ac are expected to follow unpredictable flt paths in all 3 dimensions conducting high energy maneouvers which could quickly see a confliction arise which was not there before??

The 'coordination agreed' statement is an old chestnut that constantly does the rounds. We (the mil) binned it sometime ago and any mil controller who still uses it is not following the standard. Anyone who dis-regards and breaks coordination because that phrase wasn't used will get themselves in trouble. If that was the only reason for breaking the coordination.

As far as your change of subject goes be careful of ex-squadron leaders who say they work hard. It depends on how hard he actually worked as a mil ATCO!:ok: :ok: (tongue was in cheek, but now hunkered down preparing for incoming!)

Flower, do you have written silent handover arragements with other local units that you use following your ATSAs pre-note. Or is it a local ladies/gentlemens agreement?

Whowhenwhy,
pre-notes are in the standard format that are used throughout civil ATC, however this style of pre-note is also used by Military units who also it would seem have absolutely no issue with them, I can think for example that we use the same style with St Athan, Yeovilton, St Mawgen , Lyneham and Brize.
DX, DY, DG and DL seem very familiar with this style of handover and generally speaking all that happens is a squawk and frequency are issued and traffic is always handed clean or the appropriate traffic information passed dependant of type of service.

Of course at our unit we are so familiar with the Military way of doing things that perhaps we have just got very quick at it, but I do feel that since London Military has become Swanwick Military that a greater deal of flexibility has appeared. bearing in mind it should be exactly the same ATCOs I am not entirely sure of this.

There are still some issues that I find as i have already said frustrating, but some of the " we know best" attitude that pervades both sides of this argument I do find rather tiresome.
For all our sakes , either we try to get a standard approach to everything , don't think that will necessarily work, or we just try to get to visit our Civil or military colleagues and gain an understanding of how each other works. I suspect the Military ATCOs are equally bothered by a lack of funds that we Civil ATCOs are regarding liaison visits.

Novel bit of phraseology! The Mil may be pedantic - perhaps this illustrates why! 'Let me know if yours climbs' I DON'T BELIEEEVE IT!!! 'Has to my knowledge' / 'I believe'; no - not good enough. As said earlier, the Mil haven't used that phrase for donkeys' years. Be very careful about quoting hearsay or dimmed memory as fact.

There is no difference between the MATS part 1 definition of co-ordination and that in JSP552. MATS part 1 refers controllers to MATS part 2 and this is where it all falls to pieces. There is only one section that helps the whole issue and that is the MACC section.

Coordination (Tactical)
Coordination is defined as - the act of negotiation between two or more controllers each vested with the
authority to make executive decisions appropriate to the task.
Put simply, coordination is effected when the controllers agree a course of action to resolve a
confliction or potential confliction.
However, when undertaking tactical coordination with the Military, MACC controllers need to bear the
following in mind, since this is a different mode of operation to the civilian operation:
• Coordination should take place with the unit/console working the conflicting traffic.
• Use the correct phraseology, which is use of the word “Coordination” not “Traffic Information”
• It is important to be clear (when coordinating) on exactly which traffic is being coordinated
against which traffic. Note: the fact that the MACC traffic may be “known traffic” to the
Military is not sufficient to ensure separation from further traffic that is working the
military.
• If there is more than one confliction, then separate coordination should take place for each
individual track. This may include coordinating with a different console at London (Mil).
• In order to avoid misunderstandings between MACC and London Military over the question of
crossing clearances of CAS, controllers need to bear the following in mind:
– What MACC understand as a ‘crossing clearance’ is understood by the Military as being
a Cleared Flight Path (CFP).
This difference in terminology should not alter MACC procedures since MACC can still issue a
Crossing Clearance/CFP with restrictions, for example, “cross after a certain identified flight”.
Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that when undertaking coordination with the Military,
that any conflicting traffic to the CFP is clearly pointed out to them, understood by them, and
acknowledged.
12.3.3 Phraseology
Where coordination is effected between MACC and military controllers, MACC controllers are to ensure
that the correct phraseology is used and that the action agreed is unambiguous.
Phraseology example for Tactical Coordination:
MACC: “Manchester East– request coordination my traffic EZE226 15nm southeast of Newcastle
heading 170 squawking 6310”
Mil: Wait for the Mil controller to say, “Contact”
MACC: “Maintaining FL150 until south of Leeming then descending FL100, under (Type of Service
RAS/RIS). Your traffic Ottringham 330/25nm tracking northwest squawk/callsign xxxx”
Mil: “Maintaining FL130 on that track (Type of Service RAS/RIS)”
MACC: ”Roger. My traffic maintaining FL150 until clear of your traffic" (Could specify vertical or
horizontal separation)
Both controllers terminate the conversation by exchanging console numbers and Unit callsign.
Mil: “Roger. London Controller 15”
MACC “Manchester East”

So the issue was obviously resolve by MACC and the military sitting down, working the whole problem out and writing an instruction.

Why can't other units do the same.

Maybe we should start a new thread: 'Coordination'

The first post would be the correct /approved phraseology used by civilian controllers and that used by military controllers.
The next 20,000 would be bitching over who is right and who is wrong. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BUT THE COAL-FACE CONTROLLERS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR TASK.

I think that it is appauling that such a fundimental,vital aspect of our job has differences and the day that it is rationalized is long overdue. I also think that, whilst there are 2 different types of phrases out there, we should aim to go for the one which makes it legally binding for both controllers (ie the lowest common denominator). At the end of the day we have to keep the aircraft safely apart and in doing so often requires 'legally' binding agreements; the only way to make the agreement such is by doing it properly and understanding the other controllers requirements to help them. Yes call it covering your a$$ but if you do thinks corrctly then your aircraft are safe and you are not exposed.

I've just read through Widger's lengthy post, detailing the MATS rules for corrdination... and, surprise, surprise, they are virtually identical to the JSP552 rules... as has been said before, the difference comes in interpretation and implimentation?

The military controllers who are saying their method is the "right way" are taught to do it "the right way" at Shawbury, which is then re-enforced by every ATCEEB visit... But conversely, the Civil Controllrs have the similar reassurances that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable?

Have we ALL got too pedantic in our standardisation?

How can we be "standard" when the interpretation of mil/civ rules is so different... This is a real challenge for SRG/ATCEEB?

It has been my experience that Mil controllers will deal in absolutes where as civil controllers deal more in common sense. This does not mean that mil controllers have no common sense or civil controllers don't know the rules. Mil controllers have been taught, sometimes by bitter experience, that absolutes will not bite you on the arse. This may appear on the surface that they are unable to think outside the box and in certain people, this is quite true. However, the annual ritual of public humiliation, known more commonly as the ATCEB visit, does not encourage freethinking, but absolutely insists in compliance with the letter of the regulations that are published. Looser interpretations of, what is and has always been, are not encouraged.

Equally, it has been my experience that civil controllers try and transfer certain aspects of controlling inside CAS to controlling outside, this is only to be expected but it does cause differences concerning the interpretation of RAS which leads on to requirements for co-ordination etc.

The differences all revolve around conflicting VFR traffic, as far as mil is concerned RAS states that "separation is to be provided between participating traffic and the bearing distance and if know level of conflicting traffic will be passed along with advisory avoiding action to resolve the confliction" this is the same definition as civil work to; however, to the mil this means separation is to be provided on all ac; irrespective of the flight rules or type of service that the conflicting ac may be under, by its act of requesting a service from anyone it is PARTICIPATING. If co-ordination cannot be agreed, then avoiding action is to be given.
Civil on the other hand try and incorporate the rules that govern Class D airspace and take the PARTICIPATING to mean those ac that have elected to fly IFR as they are participating in the Radar Advisory Service, if an ac is unknown then they will provide advice to avoid but if an ac is known and operating VFR they will not, because in their eyes it is neither PARTICIPATING or UNKNOWN but should comply with the rules of the air and avoid other ac.

Whilst I will probably be slated by many, it has been my experience that this difference of interpretation lies at the heart of our problems and will hopefully be fixed with the ongoing review of ATSOCAS.

Sorry - going to have to disagree with the above.

As a civil controller I would not, under any circumstances, do what you suggest above with RAS traffic. The rules for RAS are unambiguous - attempt to achieve 5nm or 3000ft against unknown traffic, or 3nm/1000ft against identified and known being worked by myself. If the conflict is IFR v VFR it makes no difference - the IFR on a RAS will not have its protective "bubble" broken no matter what, and that goes for all civil ATCO's I know.

It's been often said that civil apply ATSOCAS, and especially RAS differently to the military, yet what I've written above looks like the same application to me. Unless people can state actual ocurrences then I think this is an "urban myth" perpetuated by constant rumour and hearsay.

Jack-oh, sorry but I second CM's views and think you are wrong.

How anyone could interpret the above statement as allowing a controller to ignore VFR traffic when providing a RAS confounds me.

PA has hit the nail on the head. There are significant standardisation issues here, not only between mil/civil, but also within the two communities.

It is a stated fact that there are different interpretations between civil and mil applications of RAS, this was bourne out by phase 1 of the CAA ATSOCAS review. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but there are differences and in my experiance this is the main one. If it were not so, why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when recieving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. The answer is, in order to provide separation iaw with the mil interpretation of RAS standard separation has to be achieved between all ac and not just the ones flying IFR.

With Chilli Monster on this regarding RAS, we apply the same separation standards against all traffic.

Jack-oh could you explain to me about what you mean by restrictions in the following statement

We are not able to restrict VFR flights in Class G airspace all we can do is make requests of them, do your rules say something different ?

Mil/Civ Operations
 

Mil/Civ Operations

In my experience The Military Controllers offering a service to IFR traffic continue to request they fly not above a certain level. This can of course only be a request to VFR traffic in class G.
I must agree with "flower" and ask Jack-oh to elaborate on his previous post.

"why do you get so many more grumbles from GA ac about being restricted when flying VFR when receiving a service from the mil as opposed to civil. "

Perhaps this is why some G/A pilots are reluctant to call the military at times knowing they will be given restrictive flying!!!!

As throughout this thread standardisation and interpretation of the rules appears to be the common problem.

What a load of nonsense! If G/A pilots don't want a service in Class G that's up to them. If they don't call and then pose a problem to customers who are under a service then, IMHO, that comes under the heading of poor airmanship. The restrictive flying you mention must surely comprise the avoiding action heading or level changes that ANY controller would pass to RAS? If you mean a request to maintain a level or heading for coordination purposes or to avoid screwing a traffic pattern - surely that's perfectly acceptable?

Or am I just missing the point as usual.....:confused:

There is no requirement for any aircraft to speak to ATC when operating in Class G. To call it poor airmanship is a bit sweeping, however there are times when operating in the vicinity of certain airports without speaking to ATC I would have to agree.

However the most we can do is ask them to fly not above a level but even then how can you really base separation on that when they have to maintain VMC and that level may not allow them to do so. It is a procedure we use but even so it is only on a request basis. Perhaps the phraseology used is different. I for example will say to the aircraft " can you fly not above altitude** B737 descending on top" they pilots are invariably completely and utterly helpful and I have not heard any specific grumbles in that procedure. Do the military have to phrase it differently ?

jack-oh:In my experience of regularly flying VFR in Class G under a FIS from two nearby units, one civil, one military, it tends to come down to differences in phraseology.

The civil unit will invariably say: "advise if you wish to climb above XXXXft". Since I know that the reason for this is so he can descend IFR inbounds to 1000ft above, it is only in rare circumstances (e.g. under time pressure on a detail which requires climb to height e.g. stalling) that I will insist on the climb, knowing that to do so will force the controller to either keep the IFRs higher or vector them to maintain 3nm.

I should add that this civil unit has a very good record of providing radar-based traffic info to us when operating just outside their zone on a FIS.

At the military unit the FIS tends to mean no traffic info at all but when they have an IFR descending above they will say "c/s for co-ordination purposes request you operate not above XXXXft". Again, I almost always say yes to the request but there have been occasions when I have wished I didn't e.g. in the middle of some manoeuvring in a non-transponder aircraft and the controller asks me to maintain my heading and report that heading, then turn 30 degrees for ident, then he gets involved with some other traffic and doesn't speak to me for ages, then eventually by the time he's ID'd me the confliction's passed anyway. All a bit of a waste of time which the poor student is paying for - 5 mins of b***ering around instead of learning is an extra £10 on their bill at the end of the flight.

We have also had some controllers at this unit trying to issue avoidance vectors to our traffic operating VFR outside their MATZ. I suspect this stems from the difficulties of MATZs being effectively CAS for military traffic but open Class G to civil.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the military unit, just adding my experiences to the debate. I recognise that mil units operate in a very different environment with very different sorts of traffic.

NS

If we all play by the same rules as suggested, how come i was given traffic info from a mil controller on traffic she was working at FL290 and was NON SQUAWKING.

How come the mil can do this and yet it is clearly against the rules of the air?

Larsman, probably because the UK AIP (ENR 1.6.2) says:

PS. I see nothing in the "Rules of the Air", as defined in section 2 of the ANO that precludes such flight.

I seem to have lost score...

Civil .... vs Military ....

Can anyone help?

Whilst I always try and pose restrictions to GA ac as a request, I have been to forums in which continuious requests to do things for the purposes of separation have not gone down well. Especially as the pilot complying with the request never wanted separation in the first place. These requests have been taken as an imbugerance by some and this is where the feeling of "grumbles" comes from.

It would however appear from the replys that there is no difference in the fundemental application of RAS, it therefore begs the question where are the differences, why do we appear to be a profession divided by a common language.

If everyone is so uniform why have we spent 4 pages disagreeing with each other.

If they didn't want separation are they prepared to erode against traffic that obviously does? If yes, then I refer the Rt Hon Gent to the answer I gave earlier - slack airmanship. These guys need educating and reminding that one day THEY will be the ones being cocked about by others 'not wanting separation'.

The rules are plain - under RAS achieve standard separation between participating traffic and information (and avoiding action) against non participating traffic in order to resolve the confliction. How does IFR or VFR modify these requirements?

I assume you're not a pilot then Canary Boy ?? Class G requires no separation standards to be provided between any aircraft (go look at the Airspace Classification Chart in the UK AIP). The ultimate responsibility lies with the pilots involved. That's us who sit up in the pointy end up there, not anyone down here. ATC might try to provide some to one (or both) parties with their agreement through ATSOCA, but it can't enforce any requirement on a third party who does not require it. No one 'controls' or has jurisdiction over Class G airspace, just an equal responsibility to prevent collisions. And it does open the whole can of worms up about the majority possibly being 'cocked up' by the few you provide a service to. Look at how many aircraft operate in UK airspace. Look at how many are commercial and how many are private or military. Majority should perhaps rule ?? Oh, and airmanship actually still applies to traffic receiving a RAS. Just because the pilot is receiving a radar service, it doesn't absolve him from any of the facets of airmanship which you project, nor from their responsibilities for collision avoidance as per the ANO. I'd suggest taking a fam flight with a commercial operator outside Controlled Airspace. The lack of lookout might be an eye opener !!! It has even been highlighted in one of the RAF Safety mags I believe if you don't believe me.

So if I am flying VFR, am known traffic to you outside Controlled Airspace because I have called you (though not obliged to do so), have the other aircraft in sight and assess that I am in no danger of collision, have called said traffic as being in sight .. and you will try and vector me 5 miles away from it or else question my airmanship ?? The fact is, I don't need 5 miles, or 1000'. I just need to avoid a collision using the Rules of the Air. In fact, if your commercial RAS aircraft is approaching me from my left on a crossing track, who are you going to move out of the way ... and why ?? ;)

I can't help wonder if such instances and attitudes displayed by some ATC 'over controllers' put off more GA pilots from talking to ATC when they are not obliged to, rather than encouraging them that it might be in their interests to communicate with us.

Class G is not Controlled Airspace. The 'separation standards' in RAS are aims, not requirements. The standards are actually set by the pilots themselves. They are up there and operating in the environment. They can judge what is safe and what is not surely ?? And the vast majority of us winged sky gods are also personally paying for the privilege as well :ugh:

It doesn't. But after reading 10W's write up it's probably a good time to clarify what may have been missed in the rest of what's been written.

If someone's asked for a RAS - they're the one that gets vectored around the sky. If someone's asked for a FIS then they're the one that gets left alone. To go back to Flowers point - you can ask the VFR/FIS traffic if it doesn't mind not going above a level to achieve standard separation aginst your IFR/RAS, but that's as far as it goes. It's their choice, their decision on flight rules and service.

Sweeping statements against their airmanship for choosing that service and the freedom of operation it gives them are out of order - I say that both as an ATCO and a pilot.

And - for all those people who try and vector VFR traffic for their own aims a little reminder. The reason RAS is only available to IFR traffic is because under vectoring it's possible the traffic may be out in a position where it may go IMC. Do you really want it on your conscience that you vector a student or inexperienced pilot into inadvertant IMC - someone who's always been told not to question ATC and follows your instructions blindly. When they lose control and go spinning out of the bottom of that cloud who's fault is it going to be really?

NorthSouths comments should hit home here. You have no idea of qualifications on the end of the R/T - he could quite easily have been a low houred, newly qualified PPL rather than an instructor. This should be in the back of every ATCO's mind, both civil and military, of every aircraft they work.

hey hummmm


I refer you to my previous posting......

Regarding the diferences between mil/civil, there is a whole wedge of stuff here from the CAA as part of their ATSOCAS consultation:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...68&groupid=844

PS. You will note that the CAA paper was compiled by an RAF Officer. If this isn't an example of joined up regulatory responsibility, then I will eat my hat.

PPS. Some really good posts on this page, not least from those who actually understand what is being provided and individuals' responsibilities when operating in uncontrolled airspace.

PPPS! Obviously there is a bit of a clue in the title - Radar Advisory Service.

Regarding coordination: Services in Class G is a hotbed... VFR traffic is entitled to be there, looking after themselves, not speaking to a soul (IMHO daft... but that's only my opinion?). So if I need to request complaince from a VFR pilot for coordination purposes, I will always use the minimum possible restriction. e.g. VFR pilot reports flying at 1000ft RPS and I am descending RAS traffic to 3000ft RPS... I would request the VFR pilot remains below 2000ft (2500ft if the IFR traffic is Military). That gives me the minimum vertical separation I need, and flexibility for the VFR pilot to manoeuvre if required. I aim to lift the restriction asap and always thank the pilot for his/her cooperation.

If I can't get the cooperation, or in some situations it's easier not to ask, then the RAS traffic gets the "Cooks Tour" (and probably a service limitation). Simple, No arguement!
Accepted, but please remember a similar statement can apply to the ATCO?

mil v civil
 

This is my first post. I take it many of you are mil atc. Its interesting to read what you say but as a civil pilot with a 172 I try to avoid talking to mil wherever possible. Just in my experience they make life harder not easier. eg a few months back between daventry and cpt vor's i was talking to the local mil. Claggy weather meant I elected to climb into IMC rather than be down with the vfr traffic in poor conditions. Thought it best to get a ras. Big mistake. In imc the atc got me to turn right 90 deg and ended up norwest of Oxford. Then he let me go, too busy, continue own nav, fis service !! i had to turn 180 deg to get back on track. Later he instructed me to remain clear of Benson MATZ..I thought the matz was not mandatory these days? I complied but was getting annoyed at this stage. On several other trips they ask if I want "clearance" through the MATZ. The point is I dont need clearance. I am happy to tell them I am coming through but i feel they constantly overstep the mark.
What do you pro's think?