Fis/basic - ATSOCAS Changes - 12th March
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I would respectfully suggest that the Duty of Care that existed with FIS remains unchanged - it's just the awareness of it, by those who have both read and understood CAP774, that may have changed.
JD
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, it is no longer precisely the same; previously it was unwritten, now it is written. The application of it remains the same, however.
I just find it ironic that one one hand the new rules were wheeled out to prevent blurring of the definitions of the available services, yet on the other hand if we don't blur the edges we could be in contravention of the same document.
I just find it ironic that one one hand the new rules were wheeled out to prevent blurring of the definitions of the available services, yet on the other hand if we don't blur the edges we could be in contravention of the same document.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone has the time to look up the meaning of Duty of Care in law, they will discover that, as is published in the back of the guidence notes for the new services, that law requires all employers to establish a duty of care with anything their employees do whilst in their employ.
I'm afraid that covers us ATC boys and girls and has done for many years, so in that respect, nothing has changed.
I'm afraid that covers us ATC boys and girls and has done for many years, so in that respect, nothing has changed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said before, the only substantive changes for the user in the "new" ATSOCAS are the name changes and the fact that DS (RAS) is now available under VFR as well as under IFR.
I really can't see what all the fuss is about ...
JD
I really can't see what all the fuss is about ...
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Class G, that seems highly complicated to me - do you really want your life to be made more "interesting" in that way?
JD
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely not! At the moment under the new regs I can either offer a BS to VFR traffic, and pass no traffic info apart from generic (until there is a collision... then I get hauled up under duty of care); or I can offer a PS to VFR traffic, in which not only do I pass specific traffic info, but I have to separate as well. A service under which I could pass pertinent traffic info and not have to provide separation to VFR aircraft would be nice. Oh, hang on, can't do that anymore apparantly.
Due to airspace limitations and controller workload, there is only so much separation we can procedurally provide. I'm not trying to wimp out of my obligations, but the fact is that in most of the areas of responsibility allocated to non-radar approach units in Class G, the lateral and vertical boundaries only allow you to provide separation to a certain amount of traffic; much less than we could safely provide pertinent traffic information to.
As you know, separation is now provided according to the service required, not by the flight rules of the aircraft concerned. Mix in a few IFR aircraft shooting approaches on a PS with a few PS VFR transits and hopefully you can see how the ATC workrate climbs dramatically as we use up available levels and deemers.
Not making excuses... I am on your side, trying to provide the best service possible. I just don't believe these rules allow me to do that.
Due to airspace limitations and controller workload, there is only so much separation we can procedurally provide. I'm not trying to wimp out of my obligations, but the fact is that in most of the areas of responsibility allocated to non-radar approach units in Class G, the lateral and vertical boundaries only allow you to provide separation to a certain amount of traffic; much less than we could safely provide pertinent traffic information to.
As you know, separation is now provided according to the service required, not by the flight rules of the aircraft concerned. Mix in a few IFR aircraft shooting approaches on a PS with a few PS VFR transits and hopefully you can see how the ATC workrate climbs dramatically as we use up available levels and deemers.
Not making excuses... I am on your side, trying to provide the best service possible. I just don't believe these rules allow me to do that.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
bottomrung:
Can you?
[CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 4]
So if the pilot doesn't request it you don't offer it. Why would you offer something the pilot hasn't asked for and you don't want to provide? Sounds to me like you're trying to make life difficult for yourself. Most VFRs wouldn't know a PS if it splashed their shoes so I don't think you're in any danger here.
Also, you seem to be getting worried about no longer being able to provide specific traffic info to VFRs, but as I understand it you're in a non-radar unit. Surely then the info you give is by nature non-specific? I would regard "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" as non-specific since it doesn't tell the other guy where the traffic is, just what its route is. Why wouldn't you continue to give that information? The alleged trouble with FIS was radar-equipped units effectively giving a RIS but since you can't do that, why not just carry on as you were?
NS
or I can offer a PS to VFR traffic
Controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to provide the service that a pilot requests
So if the pilot doesn't request it you don't offer it. Why would you offer something the pilot hasn't asked for and you don't want to provide? Sounds to me like you're trying to make life difficult for yourself. Most VFRs wouldn't know a PS if it splashed their shoes so I don't think you're in any danger here.
Also, you seem to be getting worried about no longer being able to provide specific traffic info to VFRs, but as I understand it you're in a non-radar unit. Surely then the info you give is by nature non-specific? I would regard "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" as non-specific since it doesn't tell the other guy where the traffic is, just what its route is. Why wouldn't you continue to give that information? The alleged trouble with FIS was radar-equipped units effectively giving a RIS but since you can't do that, why not just carry on as you were?
NS
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was being polite. For "offer", read "able to provide".
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely understand the quandary you are describing, bottom_rung.
CAP774 it seems, in purporting to "clarify" responsibilities (or as the cynic might argue, simply protect backsides), has instead needlessly complicated the issue and inadvertently delivered such contradictions as you describe.
I think I would probably not go for a PS in Class G ... unless, of course, I caught you unawares and combined it with a request for a QDL QDM - or even a QGH - approach ... (just to keep you on your toes!
)
JD
CAP774 it seems, in purporting to "clarify" responsibilities (or as the cynic might argue, simply protect backsides), has instead needlessly complicated the issue and inadvertently delivered such contradictions as you describe.
I think I would probably not go for a PS in Class G ... unless, of course, I caught you unawares and combined it with a request for a QDL QDM - or even a QGH - approach ... (just to keep you on your toes!
)JD
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
BR:
OK I understand
I still don't see what the problem is. You clearly think that the traffic info you have passed before 12th March - such as my example "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" - can't now be done under a BS. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the authors of CAP774. But you're rightly worried about duty of care. I think you should just go with your gut feeling - it's right to pass the traffic info, and if you're challenged, I would say you have good grounds for saying that sort of traffic info is neither radar-derived nor specific therefore it's entirely compatible with the CAP 774 definition of BS. Gut feelings have been one of the core elements of ATC best practice for many years and if we chuck them out now we're sunk.
Flying today I was happy to find three units (two radar, one non-radar) all providing traffic info to me on a BS. Keep doing it guys, it's the sensible and pragmatic approach. We don't EXPECT it but it's always useful as cue to lookout.
NS
I was being polite. For "offer", read "able to provide"
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.
Flying today I was happy to find three units (two radar, one non-radar) all providing traffic info to me on a BS. Keep doing it guys, it's the sensible and pragmatic approach. We don't EXPECT it but it's always useful as cue to lookout.
NS
