How can this happen - controller partly blamed (merged)
Shy,
The RAF BOI disagees with you...they clearly stated the Planning was more than adequate. The knee board data recovered at the crash scene showed 5700 feet for a MSA and met all USAF standards.
The key is the difference between US and UK procedures for ATC requirements when giving clearances.
In the US ATC controllers are required to consider MSA's when issuing vectors/clearances. In the UK...controllers until this accident had no requirement to do so so. Recall also, the pilot asked for the minimum vectoring altitude from the controller...and was assigned 4000 feet. He queried that and it was confirmed. As the BOI reported...that seems to confirm the pilot accepted the altitude assuming it was the minimum altitude for vectors at that distance and location. The procedural differences between the US and the UK are the key in that situation. As is the pilots appearing to have not been adequately trained to know the lower standard of service provided by the UK ATC system in RIS/RAS control as compared to the US method.
Unless the rules have changed to make that a requirement then I find that a bit off putting. Think about it the next time you receive a clearance while flying under RIS/RAS coverage and you get a descent/altitude clearance of any kind.
Which system has the higher standard for safety in this regard....the US or the UK system?
The RAF BOI disagees with you...they clearly stated the Planning was more than adequate. The knee board data recovered at the crash scene showed 5700 feet for a MSA and met all USAF standards.
The key is the difference between US and UK procedures for ATC requirements when giving clearances.
In the US ATC controllers are required to consider MSA's when issuing vectors/clearances. In the UK...controllers until this accident had no requirement to do so so. Recall also, the pilot asked for the minimum vectoring altitude from the controller...and was assigned 4000 feet. He queried that and it was confirmed. As the BOI reported...that seems to confirm the pilot accepted the altitude assuming it was the minimum altitude for vectors at that distance and location. The procedural differences between the US and the UK are the key in that situation. As is the pilots appearing to have not been adequately trained to know the lower standard of service provided by the UK ATC system in RIS/RAS control as compared to the US method.
Unless the rules have changed to make that a requirement then I find that a bit off putting. Think about it the next time you receive a clearance while flying under RIS/RAS coverage and you get a descent/altitude clearance of any kind.
Which system has the higher standard for safety in this regard....the US or the UK system?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
"The key is the difference between US and UK procedures for ATC requirements when giving clearances."
I agree, that's what I meant when I said it's a planning issue. If I was flying in a different country, I would be expected to know the differences, especially if based there. Perhaps in this case training issues, as you say, were also a factor.
Being UK trained, I consider MSA every time ATC give me a descent and have had cause to query it on more than one occasion.
Why did the pilots accept the clearance and descend if they knew it would put them IMC below MSA in mountainous terrain?
I agree, that's what I meant when I said it's a planning issue. If I was flying in a different country, I would be expected to know the differences, especially if based there. Perhaps in this case training issues, as you say, were also a factor.
Being UK trained, I consider MSA every time ATC give me a descent and have had cause to query it on more than one occasion.
Why did the pilots accept the clearance and descend if they knew it would put them IMC below MSA in mountainous terrain?
Surely, even under a RIS, if ATC tell me to turn/climb/decend then that is a clearance to do as told is it not? I accept you may have reason for not doing as asked and would duly inform ATC, but are saying that an instruction to turn/climb/decend is not a clearance to do as asked/told?
I have most definitely been cleared to land/roll/overshoot when under a RIS (internal aids or GCA), honest!
H Peacock
I have most definitely been cleared to land/roll/overshoot when under a RIS (internal aids or GCA), honest!
H Peacock
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weren't you cleared to land/roll/go around by the tower?
If so, you weren't under a RIS as Tower controllers don't have radar, or at least not radar that is calibrated to give a radar service. They are however, allowed to give a clearance to use the runway and can pass that clearance to a 2nd controller to pass on to you if they don't need to talk to you for any other reason.
So if you were given the above instruction by APC or anyone else it would have been at the behest of the Tower controller and the clearance would have only pertained to the runway and it's useage and doesn't form part of the RIS you are/were receiving.
It's quite a different scenario to en-route flying.
If so, you weren't under a RIS as Tower controllers don't have radar, or at least not radar that is calibrated to give a radar service. They are however, allowed to give a clearance to use the runway and can pass that clearance to a 2nd controller to pass on to you if they don't need to talk to you for any other reason.
So if you were given the above instruction by APC or anyone else it would have been at the behest of the Tower controller and the clearance would have only pertained to the runway and it's useage and doesn't form part of the RIS you are/were receiving.
It's quite a different scenario to en-route flying.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H Peacock
Sorry I didn't answer the other question.
If you are in Class G airspace under a RIS, ATC shouldn't be telling you to climb/descend/turn. They should be giving you information on known traffic, it is then up you, the pilot to climb/descend/turn as you think fit.
It's a popular misconception.............recently under a RIS, in Class G, I was with a pilot , who was told to 'hold' over a specific town. Had he so wished, he could have told Controller 'No I won't, I intend to carry on'. However, as we were close to a commercial airfield and commercial flights were on frequency also in Class G, it seemed pertinent to do as requested.
When under a RIS you are being given information on 'known a/c', it is up to you to see the rest of the picture and act accordingly. Hence, you're responsible for separation and terrain clearance. That's because the controller cannot do these for you as he/she hasn't got the full picture to do so.
Might I politely suggest a good, long, hard read of ATSORA? It was written to help clarify to ATC and pilots exactly what service was being given and what contract of service is offered and accepted between each. It was also supposed to standardise procedures so that both Civil and military ATCOs/pilots knew what was going on. I will be sad to learn it, if this is no longer the case.
Sorry I didn't answer the other question.
If you are in Class G airspace under a RIS, ATC shouldn't be telling you to climb/descend/turn. They should be giving you information on known traffic, it is then up you, the pilot to climb/descend/turn as you think fit.
It's a popular misconception.............recently under a RIS, in Class G, I was with a pilot , who was told to 'hold' over a specific town. Had he so wished, he could have told Controller 'No I won't, I intend to carry on'. However, as we were close to a commercial airfield and commercial flights were on frequency also in Class G, it seemed pertinent to do as requested.
When under a RIS you are being given information on 'known a/c', it is up to you to see the rest of the picture and act accordingly. Hence, you're responsible for separation and terrain clearance. That's because the controller cannot do these for you as he/she hasn't got the full picture to do so.
Might I politely suggest a good, long, hard read of ATSORA? It was written to help clarify to ATC and pilots exactly what service was being given and what contract of service is offered and accepted between each. It was also supposed to standardise procedures so that both Civil and military ATCOs/pilots knew what was going on. I will be sad to learn it, if this is no longer the case.
A fair discussion of the points raised by this very accident.....
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ction=download
Deliverance....you stated your opinon....now explain how you arrived at that? Compare and contrast the three organizations and show us where they part company and how the UK system is the best of the the three. Also....are you talking military or civilian or both when you say that?
Is is they always start the conversation with "Pass your message... or rely upon QFE altimeter settings....variable transistion altitudes....treat airways as controlled airspace"....why the advantage over other systems?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ction=download
Deliverance....you stated your opinon....now explain how you arrived at that? Compare and contrast the three organizations and show us where they part company and how the UK system is the best of the the three. Also....are you talking military or civilian or both when you say that?
Is is they always start the conversation with "Pass your message... or rely upon QFE altimeter settings....variable transistion altitudes....treat airways as controlled airspace"....why the advantage over other systems?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Including:
Bottom line, under the heading of Duty of Care a controller should not give an instruction or advice that they know might endanger the aircraft, irrespective of service and class of airspace, unless given with a clear caveat.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Familiarity with UK procedures by US crews stationed here is a constant challenge. There is no OAT equivalent in the states & no direct correlations for RAS/RIS - this is hard to get one's head around when first landing on island here & is a continual education process.
As a gross generalisation, the under-educated typically believe any radar service is the same as in the states where the controller, while vectoring you, has responsibility for terrain clearance. Whilst ultimately, the pilot is always responsible for everything even in the States, a great deal of trust is placed with US ATC controllers.
The Eagles in question, bet their life on an assumption. That they were wrong is tragic, not stupid. We owe it to them to not repeat their mistake.
I don't much care for witch hunts - it serves little purpose. Whether he is culpable or not, that controller will live with doubts that he himself must deal with - even if found in the clear & had done everything by the book. Punishing him is nothing more than leadership through liability control...
As a gross generalisation, the under-educated typically believe any radar service is the same as in the states where the controller, while vectoring you, has responsibility for terrain clearance. Whilst ultimately, the pilot is always responsible for everything even in the States, a great deal of trust is placed with US ATC controllers.
The Eagles in question, bet their life on an assumption. That they were wrong is tragic, not stupid. We owe it to them to not repeat their mistake.
I don't much care for witch hunts - it serves little purpose. Whether he is culpable or not, that controller will live with doubts that he himself must deal with - even if found in the clear & had done everything by the book. Punishing him is nothing more than leadership through liability control...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey
Of course the pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility. But that's not the issue I was querying. The issue is: what is a controller's duty of care when giving an instruction or clearance; and, if there is a duty, does a breach of it give rise to an action in negligence against the individual concerned and his employer?
I'm curious as to why the first BOI was aborted, and a GCM convened. Oz practice is to hold the BOI first. When what are called "potentially affected persons" (PAPs) are identified, they are afforded legal representation at public expense (unlike the UK process) at the BOI by military (usually reserve) lawyers. The disciplinary/administrative processes usually flow from the BOI recommendations, which are then considered by the convening authority, who decides what further action to take.
The current BOI in Sydney into the loss of a RAN S61 plus nine lives on Nias Island, Indonesia, in April 2005 is an example on point. The proceedings so far have identified what appears to be the immediate mechanical cause of the accident. But there's also been evidence that suggests systemic failures, in this case deficiencies in the Navy's maintenance training, communication and supply processes, including what senior officers knew or didn't know (the SGT Schultz defence, beloved of politicians, of "I know nothing because I wasn't told"). Difference is that the RAN BOI has yet to make any findings on which disciplinary action might be taken, whereas the RAF decided to interrupt the BOI and go ahead with the Court Martial.
The F15 case is fascinating. Was there a political imperative to find a scapegoat? Is this what caused the original BOI to be halted and replaced by a GCM? Or did some one form a view (wrongly as it turned out) that there was sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, and decide to terminate the BOI?
In all of this, the RAF controller was the fall guy. Both pilots were dead. He certainly had a case to answer, but the GCM acquitted him of all charges.
Nevertheless, according to the BOI Report, it seems he issued an unsafe descent 'clearance' that took both aircraft below the height of a mountain peak close to the aircraft's planned track. Should he have known where Ben Macdui was relative to the aircraft's track? Was the high ground shown on the radar display? Should he have known that that what he was doing was inherrently unsafe? Or was he reckless as to his actions? Or did he think he had no liability because RIS placed the terrain clearance onus on the pilot? Or was his personal situation such that either he, or his supervisor, should have concluded that he was unfit for duty that day? Would a 'reasonable' RAF air traffic controller behaved in the same way?
Does this mean that the RAF can have another go at him by way of administrative action to the lower civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities'?
Also, he's a senior FLTLT with significant ATC experience. Is there a greater duty on him than, say, some one fresh out of the ATC School, to apply his knowledge and expertise?
And what liability/duty of care does the RAF have in employing an individual air trafficker in a responsible position when it knew or ought to have known it was possible he would be distracted because of his personal situation?
And what about the NOK of the two pilots? Are they entitled to compensation from the UK Government (as the employer of the controller) and the individual or his insurer for what happened?
What disturbs me is that we went through all of this in 1966. It seems we've learnt nothing from what happened then, and repeated the same ATC mistakes with the same fatal consequences. When the RN left Lossie in 1972, it seems to have taken with it the corporate ATC memory of the previous decade.
Of course the pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility. But that's not the issue I was querying. The issue is: what is a controller's duty of care when giving an instruction or clearance; and, if there is a duty, does a breach of it give rise to an action in negligence against the individual concerned and his employer?
I'm curious as to why the first BOI was aborted, and a GCM convened. Oz practice is to hold the BOI first. When what are called "potentially affected persons" (PAPs) are identified, they are afforded legal representation at public expense (unlike the UK process) at the BOI by military (usually reserve) lawyers. The disciplinary/administrative processes usually flow from the BOI recommendations, which are then considered by the convening authority, who decides what further action to take.
The current BOI in Sydney into the loss of a RAN S61 plus nine lives on Nias Island, Indonesia, in April 2005 is an example on point. The proceedings so far have identified what appears to be the immediate mechanical cause of the accident. But there's also been evidence that suggests systemic failures, in this case deficiencies in the Navy's maintenance training, communication and supply processes, including what senior officers knew or didn't know (the SGT Schultz defence, beloved of politicians, of "I know nothing because I wasn't told"). Difference is that the RAN BOI has yet to make any findings on which disciplinary action might be taken, whereas the RAF decided to interrupt the BOI and go ahead with the Court Martial.
The F15 case is fascinating. Was there a political imperative to find a scapegoat? Is this what caused the original BOI to be halted and replaced by a GCM? Or did some one form a view (wrongly as it turned out) that there was sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, and decide to terminate the BOI?
In all of this, the RAF controller was the fall guy. Both pilots were dead. He certainly had a case to answer, but the GCM acquitted him of all charges.
Nevertheless, according to the BOI Report, it seems he issued an unsafe descent 'clearance' that took both aircraft below the height of a mountain peak close to the aircraft's planned track. Should he have known where Ben Macdui was relative to the aircraft's track? Was the high ground shown on the radar display? Should he have known that that what he was doing was inherrently unsafe? Or was he reckless as to his actions? Or did he think he had no liability because RIS placed the terrain clearance onus on the pilot? Or was his personal situation such that either he, or his supervisor, should have concluded that he was unfit for duty that day? Would a 'reasonable' RAF air traffic controller behaved in the same way?
Does this mean that the RAF can have another go at him by way of administrative action to the lower civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities'?
Also, he's a senior FLTLT with significant ATC experience. Is there a greater duty on him than, say, some one fresh out of the ATC School, to apply his knowledge and expertise?
And what liability/duty of care does the RAF have in employing an individual air trafficker in a responsible position when it knew or ought to have known it was possible he would be distracted because of his personal situation?
And what about the NOK of the two pilots? Are they entitled to compensation from the UK Government (as the employer of the controller) and the individual or his insurer for what happened?
What disturbs me is that we went through all of this in 1966. It seems we've learnt nothing from what happened then, and repeated the same ATC mistakes with the same fatal consequences. When the RN left Lossie in 1972, it seems to have taken with it the corporate ATC memory of the previous decade.
Last edited by Argus; 10th Feb 2006 at 04:16.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descent below the RVC heights on a RIS and blah about terain clearance
Further to some of the previous points / clarifications made; you CAN be descended below the RVC or ASA on a RIS so long as vectors are not applied below these levels. In addition pilots are to be reminded of their responsibilities for terrain clearance when proceeding below these levels.
RAS is only available above the RVC and never below it. I could quote the JSP of WK but I shall refrain from doing so. Sorry Angrel but H Peacock has it!
Also it has been mentioned ad-nausea about the fact that as controllers we do have to remind pilots of responsibility for terrain clearance being theirs and I have seen similar comments on numerous ATCEB reports in the "aircrew comment" section.
As a JATCC Student at Shawbury some years ago various changes in policy (some quite literally on a weekly basis) were hurried onto the course to address the issue resulting from Ben Macdui of which this was one. The instructors were often as frustrated as we were at times but I think now we have a steady state in this respect.
One thing that sticks with me now is the advice I have received from instructors and controllers alike "get it on the tape" "limit everything you possibly can", "protect your back". As a result we have a more defensive Mil ATC Service. Controllers will continue to state responsibilities to pilots as it is in their best interests to do so.
I alluded to this on a thread last year entitled "Fear Factor in ATC training". A fellow course mate had a Tristar crash into high ground (in the simulator!) as a result of his actions. He walked away from the Sim having been told he just could have killed 250 people - withdrawal from the course followed not long after. The F15 CM looming was also a significant factor in a number of withdrawals at this time (unofficially).
I met someone else (pilot) whom Cat 5'd a Firefly on his or her first ever solo. The pilot was counselled, given lots of support and went on to become a front line pilot. At this stage of Flying Trg he was not compared to someone crashing a Tristar and potentially killing 250 people.
Given the comparison, and that ATC normally live through their operational errors (pilots are not always so lucky), is it any wonder where the defensive nature comes from? That said we all want to provide the best service we can - we are good like that!
I would be interested to hear from anyone controlling pre Ben Macdui as to what the RVC was used for exactly and how. I've heard that it was a lot different to the current system, given the changes in procedures adopted after 2001.
RAS is only available above the RVC and never below it. I could quote the JSP of WK but I shall refrain from doing so. Sorry Angrel but H Peacock has it!
Also it has been mentioned ad-nausea about the fact that as controllers we do have to remind pilots of responsibility for terrain clearance being theirs and I have seen similar comments on numerous ATCEB reports in the "aircrew comment" section.
As a JATCC Student at Shawbury some years ago various changes in policy (some quite literally on a weekly basis) were hurried onto the course to address the issue resulting from Ben Macdui of which this was one. The instructors were often as frustrated as we were at times but I think now we have a steady state in this respect.
One thing that sticks with me now is the advice I have received from instructors and controllers alike "get it on the tape" "limit everything you possibly can", "protect your back". As a result we have a more defensive Mil ATC Service. Controllers will continue to state responsibilities to pilots as it is in their best interests to do so.
I alluded to this on a thread last year entitled "Fear Factor in ATC training". A fellow course mate had a Tristar crash into high ground (in the simulator!) as a result of his actions. He walked away from the Sim having been told he just could have killed 250 people - withdrawal from the course followed not long after. The F15 CM looming was also a significant factor in a number of withdrawals at this time (unofficially).
I met someone else (pilot) whom Cat 5'd a Firefly on his or her first ever solo. The pilot was counselled, given lots of support and went on to become a front line pilot. At this stage of Flying Trg he was not compared to someone crashing a Tristar and potentially killing 250 people.
Given the comparison, and that ATC normally live through their operational errors (pilots are not always so lucky), is it any wonder where the defensive nature comes from? That said we all want to provide the best service we can - we are good like that!
I would be interested to hear from anyone controlling pre Ben Macdui as to what the RVC was used for exactly and how. I've heard that it was a lot different to the current system, given the changes in procedures adopted after 2001.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that with all this focus on "is the controller to blame" most people are overlooking two important pieces of the puzzle. Firstly and most importantly is the eyewitness account of the jets manouvering at low level from a dependable witness who knew the difference between a Tornado and an F15, and the 1 hour time difference between the two formations. Such a crucuial piece of evidence that seems to be totally discounted by the BOI in their quest for a scapegoat. Secondly the fact that the aircraft altimeters recovered from the crash site showed they had descended through 4000', albeit by a small margin. Surely though if they had been aware of the high ground and had already questioned the descent they would have made sure they stayed at or slightly above that level.
I find it amazing that the station commander writes that pilots are rightly responsible for the safety of their aircraft, but air traffic must take some responsibility for the incident and the aircraft hitting the ground (well thats how i read it) Which is it to be? If air traffic are to take responsibility for these things like terrain avoidance, then they should have ultimate control over aircraft in all situations to avoid this happening again. That of course prohibits the pilots operational freedom.
I am sure every air traffiker takes their duty of care very very importantly. I am also sure that air traffic controllers are there to stop aircraft bumping into each other in the air. Descending to low level must surely be the pilots responsibility, after all the controller only has a map much the same as a pilot. They can't look out of that cockpit to make sure your safe.
Just my humble opinions
I find it amazing that the station commander writes that pilots are rightly responsible for the safety of their aircraft, but air traffic must take some responsibility for the incident and the aircraft hitting the ground (well thats how i read it) Which is it to be? If air traffic are to take responsibility for these things like terrain avoidance, then they should have ultimate control over aircraft in all situations to avoid this happening again. That of course prohibits the pilots operational freedom.
I am sure every air traffiker takes their duty of care very very importantly. I am also sure that air traffic controllers are there to stop aircraft bumping into each other in the air. Descending to low level must surely be the pilots responsibility, after all the controller only has a map much the same as a pilot. They can't look out of that cockpit to make sure your safe.
Just my humble opinions
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SID East
I take that you're not suggesting that this descent is a 'Cleared' descent. i.e. still up to the pilot and not initiated by the controller. I think that this is maybe where the confusion exists with H Peacock. He thinks he's being 'cleared'. Whereas, in a RIS, the contract between controller and pilot is, very basically:
'you can descend at you own discretion and I will continue to give you a RIS, i.e. Whilst in radar cover, I have you identified, I will continue to give you an information on known traffic, and I will pass useful and pertinent information but I am not controlling you. All decisions on maneouvres are yours. Separation from other aircraft and the ground is your responsibility.'
I'm not suggesting that any of his should enter the phraseology, just that this is what the contract between the two actually is and what should be understood by both in a RIS.
I take that you're not suggesting that this descent is a 'Cleared' descent. i.e. still up to the pilot and not initiated by the controller. I think that this is maybe where the confusion exists with H Peacock. He thinks he's being 'cleared'. Whereas, in a RIS, the contract between controller and pilot is, very basically:
'you can descend at you own discretion and I will continue to give you a RIS, i.e. Whilst in radar cover, I have you identified, I will continue to give you an information on known traffic, and I will pass useful and pertinent information but I am not controlling you. All decisions on maneouvres are yours. Separation from other aircraft and the ground is your responsibility.'
I'm not suggesting that any of his should enter the phraseology, just that this is what the contract between the two actually is and what should be understood by both in a RIS.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
I've been told that the BoI was halted and CM initiated because the Procurator Fiscal was going to start civil proceedings and the RAF wanted their guy in a military court. This isn't verified though.
There are two other threads running on this. One in this forum and another in the ATC forum. Can the moderators merge them possibly?
I've been told that the BoI was halted and CM initiated because the Procurator Fiscal was going to start civil proceedings and the RAF wanted their guy in a military court. This isn't verified though.
There are two other threads running on this. One in this forum and another in the ATC forum. Can the moderators merge them possibly?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAMCC
No was not suggesting a "cleared" descent I agree with you totally, if the pilot wants further descent - at their discretion it is.
Sorry if that didn't come across in my post, I see how I could have been misinterpreted. I was trying to highlight that legally they can be allowed to descend below the RVC levels on a RIS.
Obviously as a controller you wouldn't want to be specifying heights to descend to in this situation, I had a maritime training aircraft yesterday under a RIS descending low level over the sea - reminded the pilot of his responsibility for terrain avoidance when he approached the RVC levels and continued to offer the service (no vectors) until he disappeared from radar i.e. like the situation you stated.
Take it easy
Sorry if that didn't come across in my post, I see how I could have been misinterpreted. I was trying to highlight that legally they can be allowed to descend below the RVC levels on a RIS.
Obviously as a controller you wouldn't want to be specifying heights to descend to in this situation, I had a maritime training aircraft yesterday under a RIS descending low level over the sea - reminded the pilot of his responsibility for terrain avoidance when he approached the RVC levels and continued to offer the service (no vectors) until he disappeared from radar i.e. like the situation you stated.
Take it easy
PAMCC - my experience of the knowledge of the limitations of RIS/RAS etc as understood by many military pilots is that they do not have a particularly good understanding of the rules of ATSORA.
Which have been around for years now.....
At a MEASC meeting many years ago, I commented that the average level of knowledge of the regulations pertaining to the sub-division of UK airspace displayed by graduates of the Tucano/Jetstream course was generally worse than that required even for PPL Air Law.
At a Bulldog standards session at Topcliffe, one of the prospective A2 candidates admitted he'd never heard of Class B airspace. Perhaps understandable, given his RW background - he'd probably never ever been anywhere near Class B airspace. But where did such a gap in his professional knolwedge stem from in the first place?
Under no circumstances can any mandatory instructions be issued under a RIS; in fact there isn't even any legal requirement for pilots flying under a RAS outside Controlled Airspace even to follow RAS instructions...
Claerly it is time to harmonise all civil/military terminology, with the only specific military difference being those associated with the role (e.g. visual run in and break).
And what, pray, is an 'Air Defence Advisory Service'? Is it RIS, RAS or something else?
Which have been around for years now.....
At a MEASC meeting many years ago, I commented that the average level of knowledge of the regulations pertaining to the sub-division of UK airspace displayed by graduates of the Tucano/Jetstream course was generally worse than that required even for PPL Air Law.
At a Bulldog standards session at Topcliffe, one of the prospective A2 candidates admitted he'd never heard of Class B airspace. Perhaps understandable, given his RW background - he'd probably never ever been anywhere near Class B airspace. But where did such a gap in his professional knolwedge stem from in the first place?
Under no circumstances can any mandatory instructions be issued under a RIS; in fact there isn't even any legal requirement for pilots flying under a RAS outside Controlled Airspace even to follow RAS instructions...
Claerly it is time to harmonise all civil/military terminology, with the only specific military difference being those associated with the role (e.g. visual run in and break).
And what, pray, is an 'Air Defence Advisory Service'? Is it RIS, RAS or something else?
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Feb 2006 at 10:04.
PAMCC. I've just read your latest words but still maintain that, under a RIS, you can be given instructions.
Hope this is not too long-winded, but from descending through FL245 until landing from an ILS last week I was under a RIS throughout. I was asked to descend to various FLs, turn onto various hdgs, set QFE, descend to a height, do some checks, tell him when I was established on the localiser and then that I was on the g-slope with the gear. It was then that talkdown cleared me to land - still under a RIS. During this recovery I had one call albout another ac, but the majority of the R/T calls were instructions from ATC which I acknowledged before executing.
I don't think I'm being too pedantic here, but surley this amounts to being 'cleared' to follow each instruction, albeit I didn't ever have to.
H Peacock
Hope this is not too long-winded, but from descending through FL245 until landing from an ILS last week I was under a RIS throughout. I was asked to descend to various FLs, turn onto various hdgs, set QFE, descend to a height, do some checks, tell him when I was established on the localiser and then that I was on the g-slope with the gear. It was then that talkdown cleared me to land - still under a RIS. During this recovery I had one call albout another ac, but the majority of the R/T calls were instructions from ATC which I acknowledged before executing.
I don't think I'm being too pedantic here, but surley this amounts to being 'cleared' to follow each instruction, albeit I didn't ever have to.
H Peacock
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SID East
Thanks, I was sure that was what you meant, but wanted to make sure that anyone else reading this, had it clarified as well.
I noted your mention of fear during ATC training...............I'm a civil ATCO (but have worked at a couple of joint units, hence the interest in Military controlling). Way, way back when I did my course, on the very first day, our course manager entered the classroom, introduced himself and said:
'Only one third of you will reach the end of the course, the rest will be 'chopped''
Nice way to start.........We didn't want to believe him, but he was absolutely correct. Only one third graduated. I think the odds are better these days
Keep safe!
Thanks, I was sure that was what you meant, but wanted to make sure that anyone else reading this, had it clarified as well.
I noted your mention of fear during ATC training...............I'm a civil ATCO (but have worked at a couple of joint units, hence the interest in Military controlling). Way, way back when I did my course, on the very first day, our course manager entered the classroom, introduced himself and said:
'Only one third of you will reach the end of the course, the rest will be 'chopped''
Nice way to start.........We didn't want to believe him, but he was absolutely correct. Only one third graduated. I think the odds are better these days
Keep safe!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I entirly agree with you about standardisation, but wasn't this exactly what ATSORA was supposed to do?
H Peacock
Sorry, but, yes, you are being pedantic. You are not being CLEARED. Read what I have written about the contract between pilot and ATCO re a RIS. I don't think I can write this any clearer. It disturbs me that as a pilot you STILL think you are being cleared
Other than the landing clearance ( a runway is sacrosanct to the runway controller), you are being given help to get you to your required point. All vectors and descent information will be with regard to known traffic. Separation from other aircarft and the ground is still ALL your responsibility. If you are being given a RIS you are outside regulated airspace. That means that, the controller may not be aware of all the traffic in that airspace or, it's intentions. This is why you cannot be 'Cleared' to do anything. You would be asking far too much of ATCOs if you wanted cast iron clearances when they don't know everything that may be out there, or you when you may be flying where radar cover has limitations.
Apart from the stated clearances wrt to runways. You can only be CLEARED to do a maneouvre in controlled airpsace or given a clearance to enter or cross it, at which time you will be receiving a RCS.
One of the reasons that ATSORA was introduced was that increased radar cover around the country, along with the fact that so many a/c were carrying transponders, meant that a better service could be achieved outside regulated airspace than a FIS. Before introduction, there were many incidents because, using the new coverage, controllers were being occasionally misunderstood when they passed information to pilots. Pilots were sometimes under the misaprehension that they were being 'controlled'. ATSORA was supposed to clarify the situation and encourage all pilots to use an Air Tarffic Service whenever possible, to give a safer flying environment all round. It seems that the importance of this, needs further highlighting.
Also sorry to be long winded. However, I am deeply concerned that pilots are once again misunderstaning the limtations of the service they are receiving. I urge you, once again, for your own safety and that of others to have a good, long read of ATSORA.
I entirly agree with you about standardisation, but wasn't this exactly what ATSORA was supposed to do?
H Peacock
Sorry, but, yes, you are being pedantic. You are not being CLEARED. Read what I have written about the contract between pilot and ATCO re a RIS. I don't think I can write this any clearer. It disturbs me that as a pilot you STILL think you are being cleared
Other than the landing clearance ( a runway is sacrosanct to the runway controller), you are being given help to get you to your required point. All vectors and descent information will be with regard to known traffic. Separation from other aircarft and the ground is still ALL your responsibility. If you are being given a RIS you are outside regulated airspace. That means that, the controller may not be aware of all the traffic in that airspace or, it's intentions. This is why you cannot be 'Cleared' to do anything. You would be asking far too much of ATCOs if you wanted cast iron clearances when they don't know everything that may be out there, or you when you may be flying where radar cover has limitations. Apart from the stated clearances wrt to runways. You can only be CLEARED to do a maneouvre in controlled airpsace or given a clearance to enter or cross it, at which time you will be receiving a RCS.
One of the reasons that ATSORA was introduced was that increased radar cover around the country, along with the fact that so many a/c were carrying transponders, meant that a better service could be achieved outside regulated airspace than a FIS. Before introduction, there were many incidents because, using the new coverage, controllers were being occasionally misunderstood when they passed information to pilots. Pilots were sometimes under the misaprehension that they were being 'controlled'. ATSORA was supposed to clarify the situation and encourage all pilots to use an Air Tarffic Service whenever possible, to give a safer flying environment all round. It seems that the importance of this, needs further highlighting.
Also sorry to be long winded. However, I am deeply concerned that pilots are once again misunderstaning the limtations of the service they are receiving. I urge you, once again, for your own safety and that of others to have a good, long read of ATSORA.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be different in military procedures, but ATSORA has been changed to ATSOCA in the civil world for 4 or 5 years or more. Just to add my own little bit of pedantry 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry my error, often typing in a hurry. I don't think you were being pedantic, just pointing out my mistake
However, the rules that I have mentioned still apply and I'm concerned that some don't seem to know the conditions of the contract that they are entering into. I think that some of the questions posed on this thread have safty implications and my typing error should not detract from those or from what I have written whilst trying to clarify the situation.
Time I went to enjoy my time off and get some fresh air.........I've written more than enough on this subject.
However, the rules that I have mentioned still apply and I'm concerned that some don't seem to know the conditions of the contract that they are entering into. I think that some of the questions posed on this thread have safty implications and my typing error should not detract from those or from what I have written whilst trying to clarify the situation.
Time I went to enjoy my time off and get some fresh air.........I've written more than enough on this subject.