Fis/basic - ATSOCAS Changes - 12th March
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L'aviateur, you (and others that have attended presentations) have repeated what you have been told, which is that the revised ATSOCAS will bring in next week lots of 'fundamental changes' beyond just new terminology and a more comprehensively-documented basis for the services, driven by a CYA mentality from service provider organisations. Many of us who have a very good understanding of the existing services and who have closely studied CAP 774 are extremely puzzled by that statement.
What would be really helpful is if we had a list of, say, the ten most significant changes from the old services provided outside controlled airspace, from a pilot's perspective, beyond name changes and legal small print. Bizarrely, the CAA have chosen not to provide us with any such a comparison, either in CAP 774 or in the CD.
Based on the presentation you attended, would you like to have a go at such a list? You'd be providing the pilot community with a great service if you were able to do so factually.
What would be really helpful is if we had a list of, say, the ten most significant changes from the old services provided outside controlled airspace, from a pilot's perspective, beyond name changes and legal small print. Bizarrely, the CAA have chosen not to provide us with any such a comparison, either in CAP 774 or in the CD.
Based on the presentation you attended, would you like to have a go at such a list? You'd be providing the pilot community with a great service if you were able to do so factually.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Never fear, "Senior Military ATCO" won't be on duty at weekends...
In any event, ATCOs have no jurisdiction to advise pilots to do anything of the sort and to do so could cause a flight safety issue. There is of course no mandate to speak to ATC at all if outside controlled airspace! Comments such as that one will hardly encourage inexperienced pilots to voluntarily make radio contact for fear of falling foul of "Senior Military ATCOs".
In any event, ATCOs have no jurisdiction to advise pilots to do anything of the sort and to do so could cause a flight safety issue. There is of course no mandate to speak to ATC at all if outside controlled airspace! Comments such as that one will hardly encourage inexperienced pilots to voluntarily make radio contact for fear of falling foul of "Senior Military ATCOs".
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I may have misinterpreted what was said at the seminar, but these are some of the points which I felt were specifically different and worth mentioning.
Basic Service: Officially you won't receive any specific traffic information unless the ATCO deems that you on a direct collision course and a DEFINATE risk of collision exists, he 'MAY' then advise you of that.
The ATCO may ask you to maintain a heading, altitude etc, if you agree then you are LEGALLY BOUND to that and must not change without informing the ATCO.
Traffic Service: This more closely resembles what I have come to expect from a FIS. It will only provide information that will pass within 3nm and 3000ft, but you will make an agreement on your heading/altitude etc and you must maintain that as you will be LEGALLY bound.
Deconfliction Service: Now available to VFR pilots, however this could mean that you can be vectored anywhere the ATC decides to maintain seperation. The other thing is that the ATCO does not have to inform you about traffic which he has 'coordinated' which may pass as close as 500ft underneath/over you (i.e a hercules). Also you should not take a deconfliction service when you don't need it is as you may have taken too much of that ATCO's attention needlessly affecting the service for other aircraft, which if proven could be illegal.
This is only my interpretation of what was said, which stood out amongst the other changes.
There is a topic on the ATC section, which is probably much more detailed and correct.
Basic Service: Officially you won't receive any specific traffic information unless the ATCO deems that you on a direct collision course and a DEFINATE risk of collision exists, he 'MAY' then advise you of that.
The ATCO may ask you to maintain a heading, altitude etc, if you agree then you are LEGALLY BOUND to that and must not change without informing the ATCO.
Traffic Service: This more closely resembles what I have come to expect from a FIS. It will only provide information that will pass within 3nm and 3000ft, but you will make an agreement on your heading/altitude etc and you must maintain that as you will be LEGALLY bound.
Deconfliction Service: Now available to VFR pilots, however this could mean that you can be vectored anywhere the ATC decides to maintain seperation. The other thing is that the ATCO does not have to inform you about traffic which he has 'coordinated' which may pass as close as 500ft underneath/over you (i.e a hercules). Also you should not take a deconfliction service when you don't need it is as you may have taken too much of that ATCO's attention needlessly affecting the service for other aircraft, which if proven could be illegal.
This is only my interpretation of what was said, which stood out amongst the other changes.
There is a topic on the ATC section, which is probably much more detailed and correct.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L'aviateur, I'm sorry if you found my post too abrupt but I was frankly astonished that anyone in ATC would even suggest such a thing. I certainly didn't mean to offend or annoy you.
ShyTorque's comments (above) say it all. It's just not CAA policy to act in that way and no ATCO (military or civil) has the authority to "instruct" you to land anywhere. If the "Senior Military ATCO" really said that, he should be professionally ashamed of himself. If I had been there, I would have made my views known in precisely that vein.
Maybe he reads PPRuNe and may choose to comment ... ?
JD
ShyTorque's comments (above) say it all. It's just not CAA policy to act in that way and no ATCO (military or civil) has the authority to "instruct" you to land anywhere. If the "Senior Military ATCO" really said that, he should be professionally ashamed of himself. If I had been there, I would have made my views known in precisely that vein.
Maybe he reads PPRuNe and may choose to comment ... ?
JD
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L'aviateur, thanks for that. Unfortunately, either the presenter was wrong on a number of the points in your list or you have made several errors of interpretation.
Outside ATZs, that is no change from what was previously laid down as a Flight Information Service (AIC 48/2004 refers). Inside ATZs, the Basic Service does not apply at all; in Class G ATZs, the service from FISOs will continue to be a 'Flight Information Service' because they are obliged to give specific traffic information!
True, that is a change, but only regarding a Basic Service provided by an ATCO; furthermore, it is the exception rather than the rule, and in practice I bet you don't hear it very often. Such an agreement cannot be entered into by a FISO, however, so it generally isn't going to affect the services you receive on London and Scottish Information, or from aerodrome FISOs when you're outside their Class G ATZs, and therefore hardly any change here.
Not really. The controller will now pass information on relevant traffic (CAP 774 refers), whereas before the controller was obliged to pass information on conflicting traffic (AIC 119/2006 refers). The 3nm/3000ft is merely a guideline as to what constitutes 'relevant'. There is no material change here.
No, a Traffic Service does not oblige you to make an agreement with the controller regarding headings/altitudes, etc, although as with a Basic Service, the controller may seek such an agreement on a short term tactical basis. You are obliged to advise the controller and obtain a response before changing level, level band or route, but that is also true of a RIS (CAP 774 and AIC 119/2006 refer); so no change here.
True, this is a change, but those of us who have been using these services for rather longer will recall that this was the status quo until about ten years ago, at which time it was changed to IFR-only. And that change was accomplished without establishing working groups, publishing lengthy CAPs, compiling and circulating CDs and renaming the service!
The principal separation goal of a Deconfliction Service for uncoordinated traffic is 5nm or 3000ft, which is exactly the same as it is under a RAS (CAP 774 and AIC 119/2006 refer). Minimum separation for co-ordinated traffic under RAS was a matter of ATSU regulatory approval, and hence was not promulgated in the generality; under a Deconfliction Service it is, as 5nm or 1000ft, although it can be 500 ft subject to regulatory approval. From a pilot's perspective, these separation goals do not represent a material change.
Sorry but, to paraphrase Jumbo Driver, the latter part of that sentence is more laughable rubbish.
Overall, considering that neither UK Class G aerodrome services nor the foreign FIRs immediately surrounding the UK are embraced by the new ATSOCAS, what it seems to me we are going to have is more complexity and correspondingly less understanding; which is particularly bizarre given that the initiative was allegedly driven by the confusion surrounding the existing services!
What it doesn't seem we are going have, at least from the average GA pilot's perspective, is much in the way of material change other than the names of the services!
Basic Service: Officially you won't receive any specific traffic information unless the ATCO deems that you on a direct collision course and a DE, FINATE risk of collision exists, he 'MAY' then advise you of that.
The ATCO may ask you to maintain a heading, altitude etc, if you agree then you are LEGALLY BOUND to that and must not change without informing the ATCO
Traffic Service: This more closely resembles what I have come to expect from a FIS. It will only provide information that will pass within 3nm and 3000ft
but you will make an agreement on your heading/altitude etc and you must maintain that as you will be LEGALLY bound.
Deconfliction Service: Now available to VFR pilots
The other thing is that the ATCO does not have to inform you about traffic which he has 'coordinated' which may pass as close as 500ft underneath/over you (i.e a hercules).
Also you should not take a deconfliction service when you don't need it is as you may have taken too much of that ATCO's attention needlessly affecting the service for other aircraft, which if proven could be illegal
Overall, considering that neither UK Class G aerodrome services nor the foreign FIRs immediately surrounding the UK are embraced by the new ATSOCAS, what it seems to me we are going to have is more complexity and correspondingly less understanding; which is particularly bizarre given that the initiative was allegedly driven by the confusion surrounding the existing services!
What it doesn't seem we are going have, at least from the average GA pilot's perspective, is much in the way of material change other than the names of the services!
Last edited by Islander2; 8th Mar 2009 at 00:44.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L'aviateur, it would seem you may have been the victim of a highly subjective and possibly very slanted presentation of the "new" ATSOCAS provisions and Islander2 has offered you an excellent critique of the points you have reported. I would add that, the seemingly threatening interpretations which may have been implied to you should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. ATSOCAS is designed as a Service not as a diktat.
I would strongly recommend you read (re-read?) CAP774 and derive your own expectations about the Services that will be provided. As I have said before, I am firmly of the opinion that this exercise will, in practice, deliver few substantive changes to the user, with the principal exception being that DS is now available under VFR as well as IFR.
JD
I would strongly recommend you read (re-read?) CAP774 and derive your own expectations about the Services that will be provided. As I have said before, I am firmly of the opinion that this exercise will, in practice, deliver few substantive changes to the user, with the principal exception being that DS is now available under VFR as well as IFR.
JD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree with Islander2. A couple of 'clarifications' and some other fluffy stuff but basically the same as before. If there was nothing fundamentally wrong with ATSOCAS, why go through the re-naming process? If one is to believe the party line about education, I presume that the names will change again in 10 years or so.
There was definitely a need for education and common standards of application but all this rubbish?
PS. What's the difference between VFR and IFR in uncontrolled airspace? Terrain safe and quadrantals. I believe you will find that both will continue to apply for DS.
There was definitely a need for education and common standards of application but all this rubbish?
PS. What's the difference between VFR and IFR in uncontrolled airspace? Terrain safe and quadrantals. I believe you will find that both will continue to apply for DS.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... here's a reply I drafted earlier, but decided not to send ...
[rant]
It sounds as if a certain "senior military ATCO" may have some hidden agenda to "bring GA into line". As I recall, the ATSOCAS provisions and LARS originated as a quid pro quo for the introduction of MATZs, which are obligatory for military pilots but entirely voluntary for civil pilots. If military controllers seek to encourage participation from GA pilots in and around their MATZs, then they should portray a significantly more friendly and helpful approach than you seem to have received at this seminar.
It was probably just as well I was not at that seminar. I might have been tempted to tell him to get down off his superior military high horse and stop spouting such self-important misleading and intimidating rubbish and start concentrating on correctly explaining - and delivering - the ATSOCAS which will actually be provided by his unit for the benefit of GA in Class G airspace.
What a plonker! After what I have heard, I certainly wouldn't bother calling his MATZ for a Service under ATSOCAS ...
[/rant]
... but, as I said, I decided not to post it after all ...
JD
[rant]
It sounds as if a certain "senior military ATCO" may have some hidden agenda to "bring GA into line". As I recall, the ATSOCAS provisions and LARS originated as a quid pro quo for the introduction of MATZs, which are obligatory for military pilots but entirely voluntary for civil pilots. If military controllers seek to encourage participation from GA pilots in and around their MATZs, then they should portray a significantly more friendly and helpful approach than you seem to have received at this seminar.
It was probably just as well I was not at that seminar. I might have been tempted to tell him to get down off his superior military high horse and stop spouting such self-important misleading and intimidating rubbish and start concentrating on correctly explaining - and delivering - the ATSOCAS which will actually be provided by his unit for the benefit of GA in Class G airspace.
What a plonker! After what I have heard, I certainly wouldn't bother calling his MATZ for a Service under ATSOCAS ...
[/rant]
... but, as I said, I decided not to post it after all ...
JD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't class SATCO Linton/Fenton as a Senior military atco. Indeed, if it is the chap I think it is, the chap is most definitely a pompous, out of touch ****.
I would suggest you don't tar all military atcos with the same brush.
I would suggest you don't tar all military atcos with the same brush.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deconfliction service
I am right in understanding that (unlike RAS) you can receive this service VFR but you must be prepared to go IMC if a heading/alt request will put you there.
Presumably,you would be none too popular if you requested DS and declined a request from ATC that put you IMC,thereby really DS is only practicable when flying VFR when there is not a cloud to be had?
MM
Presumably,you would be none too popular if you requested DS and declined a request from ATC that put you IMC,thereby really DS is only practicable when flying VFR when there is not a cloud to be had?
MM
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
modelman, the answer is to be found, quite clearly set out in CAP774 and you should read it. 
For those who may be too lazy or disinclined to look it up for themselves, the relevant paragraph reads as follows:
JD
For those who may be too lazy or disinclined to look it up for themselves, the relevant paragraph reads as follows:
3 Flight Rules and Meteorological Conditions
A Deconfliction Service is available under IFR or VFR and in any meteorological conditions. The controller will expect the pilot to accept headings and/or levels that may require flight in IMC. A pilot who is not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a Deconfliction Service unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.
Pilots that do not require ATC deconfliction advice or deconfliction minima to be applied should not request a Deconfliction Service.
JD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC/DS
unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.
I have (up to now) only requested RIS when the vis has been less than perfect,perhaps I should have been using it more often-learning all the time!
MM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
L'aviateur:
Lurking123:
Whether it was SATCO Linton or SATCO Fenton makes a huge difference. Although your talk, l'aviateur, was apparently at Fenton, since Fenton has no surveillance radar, provides no radar services (apart from Talkdown) and is not a LARS provider, their SATCO's authority to talk about anything other than BS is somewhat limited. Linton, on the other hand, is the LARS provider for that area and also provides all Fenton's approach and departure radar services.
It seems unfortunate that people are spouting off in public fora about what this or that aspect of the new ATSOCAS means when they may not actually have the answers. We had a similar situation recently where the presenter was an en route radar ATCO with little or no experience of providing ATSOCAS and had to be corrected on several points by the civil and military ATCOs in the audience who are the ATSOCAS providers for the area.
It'll all come out in the wash this week and I live in hope that the common sense that largely drives the system now will prevail.
NS
Senior Military ATCO, he advised that the CAA have asked them to report anyone who fails to have any knowledge of the changes to the CAA and advise them to land at the nearest airfield for rebriefing
I wouldn't class SATCO Linton/Fenton as a Senior military atco
It seems unfortunate that people are spouting off in public fora about what this or that aspect of the new ATSOCAS means when they may not actually have the answers. We had a similar situation recently where the presenter was an en route radar ATCO with little or no experience of providing ATSOCAS and had to be corrected on several points by the civil and military ATCOs in the audience who are the ATSOCAS providers for the area.
It'll all come out in the wash this week and I live in hope that the common sense that largely drives the system now will prevail.
NS
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick point of order, the ATC Sqn at RAF Linton on Ouse provides controllers for LOO and Fenton who are both endorsed at Church Fenton and in the radar positions at Linton (inc both SATCOs).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The old A1
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver:
As you decided to post the thread you weren't going to send......
It would have been great if you had been at the seminar, then you would realise that the standard Cap 774 brief was given and that L'aviateur may have misinterpreted/misunderstood some parts, as he does say in one of his replies.
Islander 2 has given a good response to someone who clearly wants to get to grips with the change.
Your swipe at the ATCO though is pretty cheap
considering you weren't there. Clearly you are beyond reproach in all that you do........Bet they can't wait for you to avoid their MATZ!
As you decided to post the thread you weren't going to send......
It would have been great if you had been at the seminar, then you would realise that the standard Cap 774 brief was given and that L'aviateur may have misinterpreted/misunderstood some parts, as he does say in one of his replies.
Islander 2 has given a good response to someone who clearly wants to get to grips with the change.
Your swipe at the ATCO though is pretty cheap
considering you weren't there. Clearly you are beyond reproach in all that you do........Bet they can't wait for you to avoid their MATZ!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACR 430, clearly the fact that my "non-posted post" was to some degree tongue-in-cheek went straight past you - I am sorry about that.
I agree it would indeed have been great had I been at the seminar and I could have heard it all first hand. Perhaps L'aviateur has got it all completely wrong ... However, as it sounds as if you were there, perhaps you would like to comment further and tell us what actually was said... ?
Also, I would like to know what you mean when you say that "the standard Cap 774 brief was given". What standard brief? Where did that come from? Does it reflect details like
or are you saying that was entirely a figment of L'aviateur's imagination ?
JD
I agree it would indeed have been great had I been at the seminar and I could have heard it all first hand. Perhaps L'aviateur has got it all completely wrong ... However, as it sounds as if you were there, perhaps you would like to comment further and tell us what actually was said... ?
Also, I would like to know what you mean when you say that "the standard Cap 774 brief was given". What standard brief? Where did that come from? Does it reflect details like
"We were told that the CAA are taking people who fail to acknowledge the changes very seriously, and that they must be reported and may have licenses revoked until they have completed training to understand fully what they are receiving, ..."
JD
Last edited by Jumbo Driver; 9th Mar 2009 at 22:43. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presently provide a FIS at Scottish info......come the glorious 12th I will provide a BS......hopefully that will be the only change my customers will be aware of......if I am working traffic "A" that I think from his reported track may come into conflict with traffic "B" I will advise both of each others intentions....just as I always have....."Duty of Care" and all that!!.......I reckon the majority operating VFR and below 5000ft in class "G" airspace have so far been happy with a FIS and therefore will still be happy with a BS.........good luck one and all 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mention here of the procedural service..... That to me seems the major change. Moreover the latter part of CAP 774 makes mention of the possibility of a procedural service being supplimented by a limited traffic service, which seems to fly in the face of the whole ethos behind the change.
Oh well I suppose it won't affect many people.
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to memorise the service I will have to read back:
"Offshore deconfliction service limited traffic information transponding traffic only."
Oh well I suppose it won't affect many people.
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to memorise the service I will have to read back:
"Offshore deconfliction service limited traffic information transponding traffic only."