Atsocas

[Doversole]

I believe there is a draft CAP about ATSOCAS in circulation. Has anyone seen it or know if there will be any consultation about any changes?

[Spitoon]

It's not a CAP but maybe this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_ORA_ATSOCAS_Consultation.pdf) is what you've heard about.

[Roffa]

Spitoon's link doesn't seem to want to work at the moment but there's some stuff here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=7&pagetype=68&gid=844)

[almost professional]

There is indeed a draft CAP, which I have been reading through the last couple of days-to say I and the other members of my watch were less than impressed would be the understatement of the year!

[ATCO Fred]

I and the other members of my watch were less than impressed would be the understatement of the year!

Why...pray tell!

Fred

[Goldfish Watcher]

The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.

Almost Professional: Which unit are you at? Every single NATS unit has had the opportunity to input and comment on every stage of the procedures development and they will get the same opportunity when the consultation starts.

Cheers

GW

[almost professional]

Not a NATS unit!
we did see some of the previous paperwork, have lots of comments on the draft, just hope someone out there will listen

[Chilli Monster]

Why...pray tell!

The widespread condoning of vectoring below MSA is a pretty good start.

The whole document is contradictory, full of holes, dangerous in parts and a pointless exercise best left until the future classification of airspace, and service provision within that, is agreed with the same implementation date.

Stating that there's no reason why an ATCO has no good reason why they can't provide a surveillance service to aircraft outside CAS (it's not my primary task - I will prioritise accordingly and if I can't provide it due to workload then tough) shows it was written by a buffoon who has no grip on the reality of providing such services.

[Spitoon]

The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.
Every single NATS unit has had the opportunity to input and comment on every stage of the procedures development and they will get the same opportunity when the consultation starts.
What's so special about NATS that they get to input and comment before other service providers?

[Goldfish Watcher]

What's so special about NATS that they get to input and comment before other service providers?

Nothing and they didn't

[Chilli Monster]

Goldfish Watcher
Received your email - just tried to respond, but your email address (tiscali.co.uk as registered with PPRuNE) is bouncing.

Can you PM me a valid address please?

[orgASMic]

It will be your primary task if the regulations say it is. Your beef seems to be 'I can't do it all myself', which is reasonable in the current environment of a single radar controller, which is what most smaller civil airfields have. A military approach room generally has 3 controllers to share the task (RA, Director and Zone/LARS). If you are going to be mandated to provide ATSOCAS then your employer will have to put his hand in his pocket and get more staff because your RA won't be able to do it all himself.

With respect to the linked documents above, I am disappointed that the authors did not dispell some of the comments from the survey, especially the issue of responsibility for terrain clearance - clearly defined in JSP552 for mil users. What is needed is better education of the masses as to the current regulations, not a new set of regulations mimicking the present that users will not read/learn either. I have lost count of the number of (mil) pilots who are surprised to learn that the answers to some of their questions are in the docs they carry with them to the cockpit but never browse through in the crewroom.

[Chilli Monster]

Orgasmic:

It will be your primary task if the regulations say it is. Your beef seems to be 'I can't do it all myself', which is reasonable in the current environment of a single radar controller, which is what most smaller civil airfields have. A military approach room generally has 3 controllers to share the task (RA, Director and Zone/LARS). If you are going to be mandated to provide ATSOCAS then your employer will have to put his hand in his pocket and get more staff because your RA won't be able to do it all himself.

Ok - reality check (you're obviously military). We don't get funded by the LARS system. Why should our business fund something which it gets no benefit from. In the real world getting that past the accountants isn't going to happen. Notwithstanding we do it because it has a benefit from a flight safety point of view, but it will never be our primary task. With that in mind it won't be offered rather than "putting hands into pockets". Tough, but true.

My licence, my livelihood. If the regulations for ATSOCAS are perceived to be detrimental to licence preservation then forget it - as a licence holder I have the right to say no, no matter what the regulations.

And this is the likelihood. Those who can will turn round and just say "forget it, not giving ATSOCAS, it's too much hassle". Those who need the service will be the losers as this review is in danger of making it less available - not more.

However - to get back to the main thread

With respect to the linked documents above, I am disappointed that the authors did not dispell some of the comments from the survey, especially the issue of responsibility for terrain clearance - clearly defined in JSP552 for mil users. What is needed is better education of the masses as to the current regulations, not a new set of regulations mimicking the present that users will not read/learn either.

I couldn't agree more.

[orgASMic]

I quite agree. If your company cannot earn revenue from a system, why employ the system? We, the military, close our operations when we have nothing to gain ie our flying has finished for the day, so the same principal is being applied. Hence the holes in LARS coverage that the document talks about.
My point was that, if you are mandated to provide a service, you will need to have the resources. You are quite right to ask that until someone works out a way of charging for LARS, etc, why should civil controllers have to provide it, unless it is in the flight safety interests of the unit? We only do it because it is in our interests to do so and the Crown picks up the bill.
I think this study is in danger of disappearing up its own fundament as it attempts to reinvent a wheel that works if you want it to but does not provide benefit (financial or otherwise) to all.

[CAP493]

It will be your primary task if the regulations say it is.
I'm afraid that in the real world i.e. in 'civvy street' where virtually all UK ATC provision these days is by commercial ATC companies, the so-called "regulators" cannot simply impose a requirement of this nature on those companies.

There are two reasons.

1. If the perceived risk is too great (as determined by the Company's own safety assessment [and remember that the erstwhile CAA doesn't undertake risk assessments - this is down to the 'provider'] and the potential impact on the Company of a major incident is considered to be unacceptable) because of the 'Duty of Care' issue that hangs over ATSOCAS like the Sword of Damocles, particularly because of the litigious world in which we now have to operate.
2. If the required resources are simply not available (i.e. equipment/staffing). Simply saying that such companies "...will need to have the resources" is so unrealistic as to be off the wall. In civvy street, such resources cost money that has to be either earned or borrowed; money won't be spent unless the return on the investment meets the profit margin and payback term that the Company's business model requires.

Rest assured, if the CAA does attempt to legislate and thereby mandate, there will be some commercial ATC companies (and remember, many UK airports are now 'in-house commercial ATC companies') that will undoubtedly challenge the CAA.

Unfortunately, there seems to be something of a lack of realism in some quarters within CAA House... :hmm:

[machinehead]

Right on CAP493!

Unfortunately the people doing the proposed changes seem to have missed another important point.

The controller can only provide the service to the best of his ability. The controller will decide to what extent the service can be provided.

Today for example I had 9 FIS on frequency, 2 RIS and 1 RAS which was inbound to the airport.
Due to activity 5 GA airfields, 3 Gliding sites and one parachute site the radar services were limited.
One FIS was informed that they were entering an area of high traffic density. He then requested RIS. This was provided as a limited service due to 'high traffic density, late warning of traffic from all around'. This increased the workload considerably as the pilot mingled with GA, Gliders and seemed confused why he was getting all of this information, sounding frustrated at the constant need to reply. It seemed that he didn't understand the service he was being provided with. Most the unknown aircraft continued to provide a 'definite hazard' to the RIS aircraft so more calls were needed to keep him updated.

Many controllers face similar situations each day. The proposed changes to the services will not change the way pilots fly or where they fly and will not change the need to limit services or even refuse Traffic Deconfliction service when the controller simply cannot provide the required sepatation.

The variation of service across the country is due to many different reasons which are local to a particular unit. Airports with class D airspace without LARS may refuse to provide radar services if the primary function of separating and sequencing arriving and departing IFR aircraft inside Controlled airspace is compromised. The authority cannot mandate the service 'shall' be provided without considering the effect to particular units and the effect on other areas of MATS 1.

Message ends:*

[2 sheds]

Well said, Chilli, Orgasmic, CAP and Machine

The whole impression of the material produced so far seems to reflect a cloud cuckoo land wherein the equivalent of a controlled airspace service is to be provided without the legislation, equipment or staff to achieve it.

All that is being done is a reinvention of the wheel. Apart from education of some controllers and pilots, what is needed IMHO is to (a) adhere to current terminology ("RIS", "RAS" etc), (b) write the current requirements more accurately (e.g. when RIS traffic may be vectored, "non-participating traffic" - non-participating in what?), (c) include the relevant flight rules in the equation and (d) specify in practical terms how adjacent aircraft under different services may be handled.

I look at the names involved in the deliberations and wonder just how much appreciation there is. Every T, D & H seems to be in on the act, including unions and the Guild, except a representative from each pertinent unit.

[ebenezer]

The whole impression of the material produced so far seems to reflect a cloud cuckoo land
As a lifelong civilian, whilst I have no wish to criticise my military and ex-military ATC colleagues who as far as ATSOCAS is concerned are to my mind, the 'experts' since with the exception of Brize Norton and Lyneham, this is the UK middle and lower airspace environment in which they are trained to operate, one of the difficulties that many people have identified is the imbalance of military and ex-military personnel to civil personnel in CAA departments such as its Airspace Policy directorate. This inevitably results in a lack of appreciation of the constraints and demands of running a civil commercially-driven ATC unit where simply indenting for equipment or staff just doesn't happen. Equally, civil pilots operating outside controlled airspace are not subject to the level of prescriptive rules that military pilots have to observe under military flying regulations.


In summary, the civil world is not the cosy cut-and-dried prescriptive and orderly world that military aviation inhabits; and unfortunately, a significant number of the military or ex-military policy-makers in some of the CAA's departments, appear unable or unwilling to grasp this fact.
Taking just one example of this apparent lack of appreciation, the provision of a RAS to a military fast-jet, trainer or helicopter is a completely different situation to providing the same RAS to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 with civilian passengers on board, particularly if the phase of flight means that they're not all seated and wearing seat belts.


The truth is 'one size' just doesn't fit all. :(

[JustaFew]

The impression I have from various sources is that LARS funding may/is to be terminated. IF that is the case, then the authority may (reading between the lines but open to corection) delegate LARS to radar units. IF that is the case, nice bit of responsibility-avoidance...

If pilots would like to have a radar service outside CAS, a way forward (the only way forward?) is to pay for it. Is there legislation in the UK which provides for such service WITHOUT paying? As a road user, I would welcome the abolition of road fund licence and bridge/tunnel/M6 toll fees...

[M609]

For a controller working in a country where controlled airspace comes before any ATC can be provided, this thread is like a parallel universe..... :uhoh:

I don't envy you one bit! :E

[2 sheds]

JustaFew

Not sure that I understand your "impression" that the "authority may delegate LARS to radar units". Presumably you mean the Authority (not just being a grammar Nazi, just clarifying!), not sure that it's theirs to "delegate", and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision.

2 s

[CAP493]

...and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provisionAs far as LARS/ATSOCAS and any UK commercial ATC company is concerned, no payment and/or inadequate profit margin = no service provision. It's as simple as E=MC2
But maybe the CAA neddies can't quite grasp the concept of commercial ATC provision (or Einstein's Theory of Relativity)... :confused:

[mr grumpy]

Ominously, it is now being postulated that LARS/ATSOCAS is not there for the benefit of GA but for the benefit of commercial aviation, as it becomes a CAS protection service, thus making CAS safer, or outside CAS, for protecting commercial operations.

All it needs is the CAA to decide that CAS isn't quite safe enough and lo, you will provide LARS/ATSOCAS at your cost, otherwise you will not be safe! Job done, everyone suitably stitched up!

[CAP493]

you will provide LARS/ATSOCAS at your cost, otherwise you will not be safe! Not quite. The new 'London LARS' that is to be introduced by NATS will be paid for by NATS En-route (NERL) although provided by NATS' Airports Division. NERL is funded by the airlines and aircraft operators through the Eurocontrol Route Charging mechanism. Therefore, provision of this expanded service is not ultimately being funded by NATS.

[Spitoon]

What's so special about NATS that they get to input and comment before other service providers?
Nothing and they didn'tI have trouble reconciling the fact that some/many units appear to have a draft copy of a document already with your statement that 'The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.' Industry wide consultation surely means that everyone can see the draft - and I thought that the CAA published their consultations on the website.

Not sure that I understand your "impression" that the "authority may delegate LARS to radar units". Presumably you mean the Authority (not just being a grammar Nazi, just clarifying!), not sure that it's theirs to "delegate", and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision.I refer you to Articles 104and 105 of the ANO.

Not quite. The new 'London LARS' that is to be introduced by NATS will be paid for by NATS En-route (NERL) although provided by NATS' Airports Division. NERL is funded by the airlines and aircraft operators through the Eurocontrol Route Charging mechanism. Therefore, provision of this expanded service is not ultimately being funded by NATS. I thought this sort of thing wasn't allowed under the SES rules on charging - unless there was some justification. Has NATS stated the justification? It might support mr_grumpy's idea after all!

[ATCO Fred]

Ebenezer - as X-Mil (Now Civil) I am inclined to go all watery eyed over my light blue controlling days....but:

is the imbalance of military and ex-military personnel to civil personnel in CAA departments such as its Airspace Policy directorate. This inevitably results in a lack of appreciation of the constraints and demands of running a civil commercially-driven ATC unit where simply indenting for equipment or staff just doesn't happen.

In summary, the civil world is not the cosy cut-and-dried prescriptive and orderly world that military aviation inhabits; and unfortunately, a significant number of the military or ex-military policy-makers in some of the CAA's departments, appear unable or unwilling to grasp this fact.
Taking just one example of this apparent lack of appreciation, the provision of a RAS to a military fast-jet, trainer or helicopter is a completely different situation to providing the same RAS to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 with civilian passengers on board, particularly if the phase of flight means that they're not all seated and wearing seat belts.


Nail on the head you have hit. What looks the same is often not the same..at all! How about a few bodies who have held both licenses and who's last operational controlling was not during the cold war advising on policy!

Fred.

[Not Long Now]

I believe the main justification is that the greatest risk of airproxes is believed to involve aircraft infringing CAS around high density operations, ie. the TMA. The proposed solution is to provide a LARS covering said area. Will that prevent infringers? May be, we'll just have to see I suppose. Anyway, I suppose NATS' argument would be that if it might prevent incidents, it's worth a go. Nice to see someone putting money towards a safety initiative with perhaps no immediate commercial gain visible, wherever the money comes from.
Never thought I'd say that about NATS!

[Goldfish Watcher]

I have trouble reconciling the fact that some/many units appear to have a draft copy of a document already with your statement that 'The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.' Industry wide consultation surely means that everyone can see the draft - and I thought that the CAA published their consultations on the website.

The consultation is on their website, but not this document because it is in editorial draft. All the 'strawman' versions that came before this were widely circulated and every ANSP got a chance to input - the people commenting here on the draft document are non NATS, so case in point. I thought they were NATS which is why I was surprised when doversole asked if there was going to be any consultation.

I believe (but can't be entirely sure)that the document being discussed was out for proof reading, but obviously someone decided to put it out to their whole unit.

And by the way, NERL isn't 'funded' by the airlines - The airlines buy a service from NERL.

Just the same way you don't 'fund' WH Smith when you go buy a magazine from them. They make a profit on what they sell you and use that profit in any way they wish. The only difference is that NERL has a cap on how much profit it can make.

[JustaFew]

Buying a service, such as aeronautical service(s); landing, parking at an airfield, being provided with a radar service outside CAS. One user has to pay, does the other? Not that I'm aware of. I've never asked the pilot how he/she wishes to pay when I'm providing a RAS or a RIS. So, if NATS financial provision for certain airfields is withdrawn, or certain airfields delcine NATSs generous offer to provide a LARS (because it simply won't cover the costs invovled), will LARS be withdrawn, or will the users be charged? After all, they are using a service...

Time for a 'third way'.

[Goldfish Watcher]

Just A Few, I don't understand your point or your mysterious 'third way'.
Can you explain please?
Before you do, remember that the new Farnborough based service is not actually LARS per se, as its not part of the Government LARS scheme. It appears to be just a convenient way of describing the service provision, which has caused a bit of confusion.

[Doversole]

I'm just as confused as I was at the start! I assume that there might or might not be another consultation but nobody really knows, certainly the CAA website hasn't revealed anything to me.

[Goldfish Watcher]

Hey Dover
The review isn't over yet, it's still ongoing - consultation just goes in phases. Have a look at the phase two report (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20070607ATSOCASReviewPhase2report.pdf) on the CAA site. It explains what the phases are.

[NorthSouth]

ATSOCAS Phase 3 review consultations docs are now on the CAA website here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1496)
NS

[chevvron]

Two potential Gatwick CTR/CTA infringements prevented yesterday by Farnborough LARS East Sector

[CAP493]

Two potential Gatwick CTR/CTA infringements prevented yesterday by Farnborough LARS East Sector
Yes indeed - RIP Dunsfold Radar... :{

[Vick11]

Following the official launch of the proposals last Friday, all documents relating to the public consultation of the proposal to replace the current ATSOCAS procedures are available at:

www.caa.co.uk/consultations

For those interested in the processes that lead to this proposal and the system of consultation being used ie the Airspace & Safety Initiative (ASI) then you might find the following site interesting:

www.airspacesafety.com

I think it is worth pointing out the proposals are draft procedures for the application of air traffic services in class F&G airspace in the UK. There is recognition that training & education will be extremely important and there is a workstream under ASI looking at that, there is another workstream examining the issue of resource implications and there is work being done on the duty of care issues surrounding the provision of service in this airspace with the aim of providing clearer guidance to controllers and aircrew alike.


A separate strand altogether is considering the future of LARS and its associated charging issues in light of SES regulation from Europe.

[Cuddles]

Whatever happens we can rest assured that the majority of pilots still won't have a clue what each service provides them with.

[chevvron]

All far too complicated. Lets return to 'VMC' and 'IMC' radar advisory services.

[NorthSouth]

chevv:Lets return to 'VMC' and 'IMC' radar advisory servicesAs I read it, that's what they're proposing - they're now saying you can have any service in any met conditions and any flight rules although presumably because they're now saying what were FIS and RIS are "inappropriate for flight in IMC" you'll now get a huge increase in demand for "deconfliction service", no doubt resulting in an inability to offer anything better than the erstwhile FIS/RIS, due to controller workload!
NS

[rodan]

they're now saying what were FIS and RIS are "inappropriate for flight in IMC"

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but if that's really the case then presumably it follows logically that no service at all is even less appropriate for flight in IMC...

[2 sheds]

Agree entirely with the previous four posts. It seems that the proposals are entirely driven by the users' demands without consideration of the practicalities.

When pilots under a Basic Service realise its inadequacy, they will be requesting an upgrade, and when VFR pilots realise that they can request Deconfliction Service, standby for rapid increase in workload - or the latter being refused and the pilots stuck with an inadequate level of service in which the passing of traffic information is actively discouraged.

There seems to be little consideration of how all this sits in the context of a Class G approach radar unit.

[Dont tell um pike]

"in which the passing of traffic information is actively discouraged."

unless there’s a risk of collision , so all tracks will need to be monitored
to ensure no risk exists

Super, Giant leap forward :ugh:

[Goldfish Watcher]

presumably it follows logically that no service at all is even less appropriate for flight in IMC...
Crikey, I wouldn't have thought you'd need the first two statements to work that out!
Since FIS and RIS (or Basic and Traffic Services) rely on the pilot using visual separation, I would think it was blindingly obvious that these services are not appropriate for flight in IMC. It worries me that people seem to think this statement is a surprise.
What this statement does now make clear is; if a pilot gets airborne into Class G airspce knowing (or having a very good idea) that he will be flying in IMC, he really needs to consider the implications of the controller being unable to offer a RAS (or Deconfliction service).
I think this is a great step forward for controllers as it makes clear that the risk assessment of flying in class G and IMC lies firmly with the pilot (or airline operator). I think it will lead to more formal agreements between operators and ANSPs so that either airlines stop trying to take advantage of higher risk OCAS routings or that 'agreed routes' will be used, where higher levels of service are likely. It follows that the military are likely to be key players in these discussions.

[Vick11]

""in which the passing of traffic information is actively discouraged."
unless there’s a risk of collision , so all tracks will need to be monitored
to ensure no risk exists
Super, Giant leap forward "

A pertinent warning is only going to be passed if the controller/FISO identifies there is a definite risk of collision; however, the pilot remains wholly responsible whether a warning has been passed or not. There is nothing in the document that implies tracks will have to be monitored under Basic Service, so please try to avoid adding clauses that dont exist. What this does do is attempt to clarify the difference that should exist between the lowest level of service and the next one up that includes specific traffic information and hopefully moves away from the FRISing that we get today that was identified as one of the main issues in the phase one report. This is also adequately explained in the RIA document available as part of the consultation pack.

[airac]

[A pertinent warning is only going to be passed if the controller/FISO identifies there is a definite risk of collision
That's ok then if I get really busy ,I'll just ask the cleaner
" Be a love and keep an eye on that one for me ":(

[Dont tell um pike]

@Vick11

How would you know if a collision risk exists if the tracks are not monitored :confused:

im not saying this is a bad thing , just its what we do already

DTUP

[NorthSouth]

DTUP:its what we do alreadyThat's what strikes me most about the proposals. The main difference between FIS and Basic, as I see it, is that while FIS only provides traffic info when there's a self-evident collision risk, Basic also provides "generic traffic information". But this is exactly what controllers at many radar-equipped units already do - e.g. "multiple contacts observed in the xxxx area, believed to be gliders, keep a good lokout". Backing this shift is the move from FIS being officially non-radar ("pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service"), to Basic using whatever info the controller has access to, including radar. Some units deliberately don't provide even generic traffic info under a FIS - they take a literal view of MATS Part 1. But the shift to provision of generic traffic info under a Basic Service will surely lead to an increased workload for controllers because pilots will now expect radar-based generic traffic info.
The other area I can see causing difficulties is the notion that a Deconfliction Service can be provided to departing aircraft climbing to MSA and approaching aircraft descending below MSA. To be fair, this was already a grey area - an aircraft on an instrument approach in Class G which has been transferred to tower is still formally being monitored by approach - but the proposals don't, it seems to me, clarify things. If an aircraft is on a Deconfliction Service and has established on the ILS and been transferred to Tower, then pop-up conflicting traffic appears, the terms of the Deconfliction Service suggest that pilots will expect to be separated from that conflict. The draft CAP 774 proposes that there will then be an RT exchange including asking if they're happy to continue, then if not, warnings about terrain. Sounds messy. And if they've already transferred to Tower will they be sent back to approach, or is the reality that all they can do is tell Tower to tell them to go around?
NS

[mr grumpy]

“What this statement does now make clear is; if a pilot gets airborne into Class G airspace knowing (or having a very good idea) that he will be flying in IMC, he really needs to consider the implications of the controller being unable to offer a RAS (or Deconfliction service).
I think this is a great step forward for controllers as it makes clear that the risk assessment of flying in class G and IMC lies firmly with the pilot (or airline operator).”
With due respect GW you sound like a policy man, not an active controller. Have you provided ATSOCAS recently? In the civil world it is mostly provided to GA, not airlines though your comments appear to confirm that this process is designed as if airlines are the focus. The reality is that the majority of pilots out there jump into their aircraft and hope for the best. Does anyone really believe most of the pilots who avail themselves of these services understand exactly what’s going on, let alone will do any kind of risk assessment? The odd airline might but mostly we provide this to GA, who will be as confused as ever. Great step forward, I think not.

[Goldfish Watcher]

Grumpy, I don't know what I did you gain your respect, but thanks! I am indeed an active controller. I work at an en-route centre, but not on a sector that provides a great deal of ATSOCAS. Although I have provided both RIS and RAS in the past month (not because I accidently vectored someone OCAS before you start!).
In the civil world it is mostly provided to GA, not airlines
The number of commercial flights prepared to operate OCAS is certainly on the increase - BAW operate a Shuttle to St. Mawgan!

The reality is that the majority of pilots out there jump into their aircraft and hope for the best. Does anyone really believe most of the pilots who avail themselves of these services understand exactly what’s going on, let alone will do any kind of risk assessment?
And that is why this review is much needed.
Private pilots regularly make go/no go decisions on their flights, but commercial pilots flying into or out of bases OCAS don't get that choice unless it's a tech issue - they've got to fly the schedule. That's why I said it should make operators think a bit more about what they are sending their pilots into.
I believe that one airline is already thinking about changing some planned routes, following recent discussions about the level of ATSOCAS that can be offered to them on the south coast.

[bookworm]

The reality is that the majority of pilots out there jump into their aircraft and hope for the best. Does anyone really believe most of the pilots who avail themselves of these services understand exactly what’s going on, let alone will do any kind of risk assessment?

The risk assessment aspect is interesting.

As a grossly unfair generalisation, I think ATCOs tend to overestimate the reliability of visual avoidance in good VMC, and overestimate the likelihood of collision between random tracks in IMC (loss of standard separation may mean Game Over on your tube but it doesn't necessarily spill any blood). Hence it might seem "obvious" to ATCOs that a service less than Deconfliction is unsuitable for flight in IMC, but I think the reality is a little different.

I've spent many hours flying on solidly IMC days in class G with a RIS -- it's delightfully peaceful, and in the unlikely event that traffic is called, I can usually make a small adjustment to mitigate any risk of collision.

Unfortunately, I've spent many more hours flying on beautifully VMC days in class G with a RIS and/or RAS. The workload, from time to time, is through the roof. I'm lucky if I sight 50% of the contacts called, even when they get quite close, and there are plenty of aircraft that aren't called at all, perhaps without a transponder? These are the days when I really need your help to work out what to do to manage the risk with turns or level changes, because there's no way that I can guarantee that I'll see the one that's going to hit me in time to do anything about it.

The traffic-density factor outweighs any met-condition factor in determining the real risk.

[Vick11]

@dont tell em pike

I would say the point is you might not notice a risk of collision because there is no requirement for anyone to monitor the flight of an aircraft under Basic Service and the pilot must not expect any traffic information, generic or pertinent warning. What this does do though is answer a Duty of Care issue whereby the controller/FISO has some information that he has the capacity to associate with a definite risk of collision and has the time and priority level to be able to pass a pertinent warning. The only alternative is to say you should not pass a warning and sit and watch a merge at the same height and say nothing. I cannot believe there is a controller alive who would advocate that stance. However, what it also attempts to do is answer some of the conundrum whereby controllers feel they are currently obliged to tell FIS tracks of everything else in the sky - 'just in case'. That has led to the the position where some units pretty much provide a RIS when the pilot asks for a FIS and some units where FIS is provided in accordance with current regulations whereby only definite risks are passed. That is confusing for the customer and I believe is what these proposals are trying to address.

Lets all do the same thing has got to be good?

[Goldfish Watcher]

The traffic-density factor outweighs any met-condition factor in determining the real risk.

Lets all do the same thing has got to be good?

Two ruddy good points.

[mr grumpy]

No offence meant GW. The point you make about commercial flying outside CAS is a fair one but is it relevant? The issue of risk assessing commercial operations is a separate issue from a major change to ATSOCAS. Commercial operators should do it anyway and the CAA should insist on it. It is relatively easy for an operator to do that and then insist that appropriate operating procedures are adopted. That they do not is a disgrace. That failure, however, is not the reason for changing ATSOCAS (unless you know something we don’t). The reason for changing ATSOCAS is to remove confusion and errors of application.
My point is that the vast majority of ATSOCAS provided by civil controllers is down in the boondocks to thousands of light aircraft daily. Those pilots will not do risk assessments and will not change the way they operate. They will be even more confused than now. What is needed is education, the correct application of the present rules and the sort of clarification of responsibilities contained in CAP774. What we will get is a huge shuffling of deckchairs and even more confusion. If people are confused now, after 20 years, do we really believe this will change anything?

[NorthSouth]

Grumps:the CAA should insist on itThey do. You can find it here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2764).
NS

[mr grumpy]

Well, hurrah for that and I stand corrected. That’s the commercial boys sorted then. That said, I stand by my point; is a huge change really what’s required?

[NorthSouth]

I think most pilots understand that different units will interpret things differently, and different controllers at the same unit will also have different approaches. I don't expect the new rules will change that. But for commercial flights outside CAS it's reasonable for them to expect some consistency and predictability. As part of the safety case approach now required by CAA it seems to me that at the very least the airline's Ops Manager or Chief Pilot should head along to the relevant Area Centre and LARS unit(s) with a copy of their Ops Manual under his arm, so both sides know what's going on. Again, this is irrespective of whether a new ATSOCAS system is introduced.
NS

[VectorLine]

Chevrons suggestion of only 2 services sounds quite a good place to be (I'm too young to have experienced it before). I wouldn't call both services RAS though, sounds a recipe for confusion.

[Dont tell um pike]

"what it also attempts to do is answer some of the conundrum whereby controllers feel they are currently obliged to tell FIS tracks of everything else in the sky"

But does it ? if this really was the intention then "listening watch" or "alerting service" would have been more appropriate , the conflicting traffic issue is still mandated and will still need to be applied , in whatever form the controller thinks most appropriate in any given situation

That said i do like the bit about not vectoring a RIS (sorry the artist formerly known as RIS) towards an unknown contact , lovely idea , adopted by just about everybody some time ago :ok:

DTUP

[Vick11]

The problem with "Listening Watch" is it might imply the controller/FISO will "Watch" the aircraft and this takes us further down that monitoring line. Another one is Flight Following, but again it has potential implicated service.

As for Alerting Service that is provided throughout the FIR irrespective of any air traffic service that is provided in accordance with ICAO procedures. The proposals do make that clear.

[Dont tell um pike]

@Vick11
you've missed my point , i don't care what its called. Its the content i'm interested in and from what i've seen so far this review raises as many questions as it answers (see previous 3 pages).

DTUP

[Doversole]

When providing DS or TS, I contract to provide a defined service. If I then have to reduce the level of service, I must inform the pilot of the reduction along with the reason and probable duration ‘but all elements of the service will still be provided’. If I am providing such a service to a handful of aircraft and workload suddenly goes through the roof (quite common) how do I comply with those requirements if I can’t get a word in (quite common)? The pilot thinks he is receiving a defined service when I am unable to provide it or tell him I am not providing it. I am in breach of contract and if something goes wrong, the legal implications are not pleasant. I look forward to seeing my unit’s risk assessment on that one!! How many of us in that position will simply not risk putting ourselves or the pilot at risk and will not provide DS or TS?

[NorthSouth]

Isn't it just the same as limiting the service under the current rules?
NS

[airac]

Under the proposed system there is no requirement for an agreement to be reached between pilot and controller.
The pilot requests a service and the controller provides the type of service requested. There would also appear to be no scope for limiting a particular service due workload,
I also seem to remember reading that individual units will not need to carry out safety assessments as this has been considered to have already been carried out by the review board.
I don't care what you call a service as long as both the pilot and controller know what is expected of them. The problem has always been ,and the proposals will not change anything, the foreign pilots who do not understand the fact that we can provide a service , with radar ,that does not include traffic avoidance.

[NorthSouth]

airac: Under the proposed system there is no requirement for an agreement to be reached between pilot and controller
I think you've missed it:Agreement to provide a service and acknowledgement of that level of service by a controller/FISO and pilot respectively, establishes a ‘contract’ that binds both parties to the definitions of that service as stated herein.[Draft CAP 774 para 1.12 - ATSOCAS RIA Annex E]
alsoThere would also appear to be no scope for limiting a particular service due workload
There is, it's just called something different (and rather more specific in my view):
Reduced Traffic Information
When providing a Deconfliction Service or a Traffic Service, there may be circumstances that prevent the calling of traffic e.g. due to workload or when traffic is not displayed to the controller. When this is anticipated, the pilot shall be informed of a reduction in traffic information along with the reason and the probable duration of the reduction if known.[CAP 774 para 1.13]
I think the term "reduced traffic information" is more likely to be understood by pilots than e.g. "limited radar information service due to poor radar performance".
NS

[airac]

North south , thanks for that I had indeed missed that all I had seen was the draft of the draft . Mind you I still think confusion will reign.

[Doversole]

North south, under the present system I may limit the service how I see fit, in advance, according to circumstances. The new proposals are much more prescriptive and the contract 'binds both parties to the definitions of that service' as stated in the draft CAP.

However, although I am allowed to reduce traffic information (or DS), that ‘does not negate any aspects of the service provision’, ‘all elements of the service will still be provided’ i.e. I still continue to provide the exact same service, just to a ‘lesser degree’ (whatever that means). If It suddenly gets very busy and I am unable to provide the service, how do I renegotiate the contract?? Would someone like to explain that?

[NorthSouth]

DS: I agree the wording on RTI doesn't help because it suggests that you still have to provide TI on every potential conflict (but perhaps only provide the info at a closer range), whereas the current MATS Pt 1 wording on limiting implies that you may well miss some traffic completely.

But there has never been a commonly agreed definition of what limiting means. In the not too distant past there was an SI on ATSOCAS in MATS Part 1 and it said "limiting a service should not be viewed as a failure to provide the desired service but a useful and sensible way for a controller to indicate to a pilot that the full service cannot be provided. However, the controller is still willing to offer assistance to fulfil the primary objectives of the service." A definition? Yes. But it was withdrawn a couple of years later!

Given that (1) the purpose of limitation - and of RTI in the future - is to send a message to the pilot, and (2) pilots don't know what the controller is looking at so have no clear idea of how limitation should change their behaviour, it's a very blunt instrument and is as much a way for controllers to offload responsibility than anything else. If this is to change under the new rules then, as so many people have already said on this thread and elsewhere, there needs to be a major effort put into educating pilots. But when all's said and done there are times when you just have to accept there's nothing you can do, e.g. "G-XX limited radar information service due to high traffic density". Since in most cases pilots have already, by that stage, committed to flying through that piece of airspace, they can't turn round or go a different route - but just at the time they need more info they're told they'll get less. I don't believe any change in the terminology for ATSOCAS can change that.
NS

[Highland Director]

http://gatco.org/

GATCO have a forum dedicated to the ATSOCAS consultation.

The post about Procedural Service makes for interesting reading, particularly if you regularly provide Procedural Approach Control in Class G airspace.

This particular service has until now been unusual and perhaps a little awkward but most folk understood it. The proposed CAP774 however asks more questions than it answers. What a dog's dinner! :eek:

[Mahogany Fighter]

I believe Air Command have seen the light and abandoned the idea for at least 12 months - Anyone confirm?

[chevvron]

Just heard confirmation of the above; changes postponed TFN probably December.

[NorthSouth]

any clues as to why?

[leuven]

"The Emperor's New Clothes" Perhaps

[Spitoon]

Just heard confirmation of the above; changes postponed TFN probably December. Where is the confirmation from??? There's nothing on the CAA website. I'd be interested to see the comments they got in response to the consultation.

[chevvron]

NorthSouth: I'm told the military ATS provider had some problems with it.

[Lurking123]

I'm told everyone had a problem with it. I'm guessing the military blinked first!!

[chevvron]

I agree, but apparently their problem was they claimed they would need to re-train all their radar controllers!!!

[2 sheds]

Perhaps I am dim, perhaps there was just too much verbiage to absorb from the ATSOCAS working group, perhaps too many people were involved, but what the WG was producing was mind-bogglingly overcomplicated. I think that a very good principle would be "if it ain't broken, don't try to mend it" - and it's not that bad.

When you look at ATSOCAS as practised by both civil and military, certainly there are some anomalies but nothing that could not be rectified by looking at current requirements and rationalising them, e.g. the separation requirements (or not) for aircraft flying visual contact with surface at night (and therefore IFR).

I never understood the premise that "the UK does not conform with ICAO requirements for FIS and therefore we have to change" - and then what was being proposed was so vastly different from ICAO practice and such a huge change from current UK practice and terminology that every pilot and every controller would have to re-learn everything - not a good principle.

Let's hope that this whole exercise is delayed far more than one year and preferably is consigned to File 13. I thought that I was in a minority of one but am heartened to see Leuven's post above!

2 s

[fisbangwollop]

Lets hope the whole process is knocked on the head for ever!!!! if the waters were muddy before they certainally will be sillted up with what was proposed!!!!

[Acer101]

I agree, but apparently their problem was they claimed they would need to re-train all their radar controllers!!!
Not quite the case. Just how long a lead time do you think there is to introduce new procedures to a 25 week course. Do you want graduates leaving the school trained to use the old procedures, or the new ones?

Also, bear in mind that 99% of ATSOCAS traffic (and I'm not talking about FIS!) is controlled by the military anyway, who do you think will end up doing all the work for the change?

How much training do civilian controllers receive in the provision of ATSOCAS and then how often do they provide it in the field?

[AyrTC]

Acer101 at ScACC we provide the full range of services every day on the Moray,West Coast and Tay:ugh:sectors usually against Mil tfc operating sfc to who knows what.There is some training in the sim on the IVC but you can't really beat real life. Roll on the next exercise:E

Rgds

AyrTC

[Data Dad]

Acer101 here at the Ice Station we are providing ATSOCA's to approx 75% of our traffic (inbound and outbound) so in the order of 300+ aircraft on a weekday - every weekday. As well as interfacing with ScACC Mil/Leuchars/Lossie/Kinloss and all the fast jet activity over the North Sea.

DD

[chevvron]

At my airfield the figure is 100% ATSOCAs with RAS to commercial flights up to 180/day, plus around that number of LARS movements being provided with RIS/RAS; that doesn't include FIS traffic which totals another 150 - 200 per day.

[Spitoon]

Also, bear in mind that 99% of ATSOCAS traffic (and I'm not talking about FIS!) is controlled by the military anywayAcer, you need to get out more, there's plenty of civil ATC done outside CAS.

As for the training and stuff.....there's nothing new to all this - I learned the basics some 30 years ago, and have used it on and off ever since. Just give me the new rules and I'll get on with it.

[LXGB]

The letter I received on the subject stated that there were some 500 "comments" to be addressed before the review could proceed any further! :ok:

[Acer101]

Acer, you need to get out more, there's plenty of civil ATC done outside CAS.

As for the training and stuff.....there's nothing new to all this - I learned the basics some 30 years ago, and have used it on and off ever since. Just give me the new rules and I'll get on with it.

OK guys, it's a fair cop :eek:

It's good to see that we're all out there in the "weeds" providing ATSOCAS :)

There was a perception in the military that civil didn't really care about the changes as they didn't cover ATSOCAS in great detail during training. This would mean that the majority of the work would fall to Shawbury in making changes to their course without the civil colleges doing much at all.

Sure, we're all right in the field - a bit of OJT, change the words and carry on, we're all good at that and we've done it all before. But if you are going to teach this to ab-initio's, then there is a lot of work to be done before the first student graduates.

Just a few things that spring to mind:

Classroom lessons
CBT Excercises
Phraseology
Radar Exercises
Simulator Driver training (civilians)
Instructor standardisation

Bearing in mind that this has to be done whilst still providing the normal output, and that instructors will be teaching both the old and the new procedures as students can't cope with a change half way through (3 overlapping courses running at any one time), you start to see what a big job this is!

Add to this a planned introduction date of 1 Apr 08 and it all starts to look a bit rushed - especially if ALL parties have reservations about the procedures.

I remember the debacle of the QNH replacing QFE change.

Hawk inbound with a rough running engine -

"PAN **** QHN 1018, airfield elevation 249 ft"

"I don't care what the airfield elevation is, just give me the QFE!"

Another brilliant idea :bored:

[RebornCyclogenesis]

This whole review was sparked off by several recommendations from the UKAB. This was after several Airprox occurred, where the aircraft concerned should have quite clearly been under a RAS or some form of positive control. A RAS in many of these Airprox, had been refused, often due to the "policy" of the organisations concerned, rather than individuals limiting a service. The review has become a self licking lollipop and rather than looking at policing of existing services and mandating certain ANSPs to provide them under their licence, it has gone down the road of trying to re-invent the wheel. What are we trying to do? Prevent collisions between aircraft and between aircraft and obstructions. Yes there are a few pilots who do not understand RAS/RIS, but that is an education problem, that is significantly less than having to re-educate everyone. The current services work well, we just need to ensure that they are provided when asked for, across the whole of the UK.

[LXGB]

This whole review was sparked off by several recommendations from the UKAB. This was after several Airprox occurred, where the aircraft concerned should have quite clearly been under a RAS or some form of positive control. A RAS in many of these Airprox, had been refused, often due to the "policy" of the organisations concerned, rather than individuals limiting a service. The review has become a self licking lollipop and rather than looking at policing of existing services and mandating certain ANSPs to provide them under their licence, it has gone down the road of trying to re-invent the wheel. What are we trying to do? Prevent collisions between aircraft and between aircraft and obstructions. Yes there are a few pilots who do not understand RAS/RIS, but that is an education problem, that is significantly less than having to re-educate everyone. The current services work well, we just need to ensure that they are provided when asked for, across the whole of the UK.


Spot On RC! :D

[ADIS5000]

RC,

I agree 100%, well said that man (or woman)!!

[airac]

RebornCyclogenesis
I would like to third the motion
All those in favour:D

[2 sheds]

Damn' right!

[VectorLine]

Reborn

Why would NERL be mandated to provide certain services outside controlled airspace? (that's who you're talking about right? since they are the only ANSP to operate under a 'licence') - no other ANSP is mandated. That's like mandating that all pilots be under a service outside controlled airspace (although it would be a damn sight safer it that was the case). Mr MOD and Mr GA would stand up and scream, "Leave our class G alone" if that was tried.

I understood that UKAB recommended thae review, not because traffic was under a RIS instead of RAS, but because there were different expectations between pilot and controller and among controllers as to who was reposnsible for what under each service.

Reborn....Rethink

[Spitoon]

Why would NERL be mandated to provide certain services outside controlled airspace? Maybe because the UK, like all other ICAO member states has a responsibility to provide certain services outside CAS. Historically these services were provided by CAA/NATS but when NATS was privatised many of these little things were forgotten (or, in fact, mopped up in the licence by saying that whatever NATS did on the day of that the licence was issued they must continue to do).

Reborn is pretty much on target with his/her comments. Sadly the ATSOCAS review seemed to gloss over the fundamental point of whether there should be CAS to protect passenger carrying aircraft on regularly flown routes. If CAS were established (like ICAO encourages) the rest of the problems that prompted the review would probably become insignificant.

[RadarRambler]

I think there going to be a whole lot of issues on this, the review is needed, but again across the uk, the provision of it differs so much, something needs to be in place that covers all those areas so it suits both the providers and those in receipt of it.

[chevvron]

Vectorline: I don't believe that Reborn was specifically referring to NERL; ALL UK civil ATC units (ATSP's) have to have a licence irrespective of whether they provide en-route or terminal services; ATSOCA's at lower levels are traditionally provided by NSL or other ATS providers from airfield ATSU's rather than by NERL who provide the required FIS units.
I've been providing ATSOCA's under both MOD and civil ATSP procedures for over 30 years starting with VMC and IMC Radar Advisory Services, through Traffic Information Service (TIS) and RAS to the present RAS/RIS. I would say the proposed changes were in my personal opinion a retrograde step; whereas the UK/JAA has been moving towards harmonisation with ICAO procedures, the proposed system bears no resemblance to anything in ICAO documents.

[RadarRambler]

There also seems to be a difference in policy between units whatever they call the service RIS/RAS, as to what controllers are expected to provide to a/c outside of controlled airspace, some units will provide RAS to commercial traffic as a matter of course, where others are almost instructed(unofficially) to never do so.

This again is something that needs to be better defined whatever the name of the service becomes

[WhatUMean]

The review however may help in giving a boost to the education of what a service actually entails for the pilot, Some A/c given a sqauwk, but told FIS still feel they are under some form of Radar service and to be given traffic avoidance/information.

[chevvron]

Whatumean: assigning a squawk to FIS traffic can achieve one of two things:
Where a single code is assigned to all FIS traffic working that unit, it means 'I am in communication with XXXX'.
Where an individual code is assigned to FIS traffic, it means the ATSU can positively identify you and thereafter not need to take unnecessary avoiding action with their RAS traffic on an 'unknown', hence reducing pilot and controller workload. Traffic permitting in this latter case, once you are identified, ATC may warn you where there is a probability of confliction with 'other' traffic whether it is identified or not. It's not a 'radar service' as such, but intelligent use of radar derived info by the controller (as I said workload permitting - you may not be warned of all conflictions but in your periodic 'scans' of the sky, the controller tells you where to look)

[2 sheds]

Some A/c given a sqauwk, but told FIS still feel they are under some form of Radar service and to be given traffic avoidance/information

They can "feel" whatever they like, but the service with which they are being provided is the one they have acknowledged and read back! As chevvron has succintly stated, radar-derived information is just one source of information about traffic, known or unknown, that might present a hazard to a particular flight, albeit that the latter is under FIS.

[chevvron]

An added benefit to the pilot being identified under FIS is when there is a sudden silence from the machine driving the fan; ATC can alert any rescue services and send them to the correct field; and if there is a helicopter on frequency, vector him (with his agreement) to your last observed position. Most helicopter pilots especially military are only too glad to assist someone in trouble like this.

[Spitoon]

I see that the first results from the consultation are out - details in ATSIN 125 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATSIN0125.pdf) along with a link to another doc giving a general response to the comments received.

Haven't read the thing in detail but I notice they don't know how Stansted is spelt (or should that be spelled?).