Could not see the answer in the report, but puzzled. Normally as you approach oceanic entry points you try to get up/down to cleared oceanic level. I gather both a/c had similar times at the same OEP. Why the climb request?

I thought the same - but the Montrose sector is quite a way from the oceanic boundary. There is a full transition sector between there and the SHANWICK boundary. The aircraft could have been converging to RUGID then diverging one due West to ERAKA and the other North West to BALIX - I am sure Fat Controller could tell us.

Entry points were ATSIX and ERAKA.

The cross would have been at NEVIS if both aircraft were following their flight plan routes.

In this case the ATSIX traffic was going direct.

Montrose North map is here.

http://www.londoncontrol.com/scottis...ion_Manual.pdf

We endeavour to give aircraft their oceanic crossing levels as soon as they ask for it, subject to traffic.

I am not going to make any further comment regarding the incident.

Edit. The link to the maps was just found by "Googling", some of them are considerably out of date, however Montrose North has not changed.

Thanks, TFC - that clarifies nicely.

Thanks Ian W ... That sort of thinking is what we old f*rts used to do, at least in the short/medium timeframe. Step-climbs cost fuel, I know, but at least they keep the aluminium separated.

T F C ... Thanks for the info. I think I understand your apparent need to step back from this discussion.

Thanks TFC - no problem - I know NATS can get upset about postings on public "social media" sites like this. :ok:

AIP map here:

NATS | AIS - Home

Scroll down to ENR 6.3.0: Upper ATS Routes (North)

T F C
thanks for the brief additional information and the link. That answers some questions not covered in the APB report.
May be a wise decision to keep the pressure in the boiler at lowest possible level in such an incident.

DRUK
Thanks for the link to the AIP maps. Great help for someone not familiar with the airspace and routing situation.

Not really a steady scale. The method uses a matrix which has effectiveness of remaining barriers along one side and most credible accident outcome (if it progressed to an accident) along the other. The outcome maxes out with Catastrophic at 3 or more deaths so the only difference between the two scores would be the effectiveness of remaining barriers. It may have been developed since I last looked at it but my notes say 13 possible scores ranging from 1 to 2500.