Atsocas

[R_Squared]

We've been prepping since just before Christmas and have the Trappers with us the week of the changeover.

Personally, I think we'll be on AL1 within 3 months, and I've just ordered an extra saliva gland to cope with the new phraseology. Avoiding action beneath the RVC shouldn't be a paragraph long!

I'm sure it'll be fine, but fcuk me, I'm glad I won't be flying in the first few weeks. DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[R_Squared]

Today's the day.

Your ATC brethren have been anxiously awaiting the day when we all forget how to control while we remember to add height, degrees and terrain separation into every sentence, and remind every pilot that launches that the old services no longer exist anymore.

Have fun everyone.

I'm off to hide on PAR for the day. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Never Alert]

We've already cut a fair bit of the crap out in the ASACS world however, I too see an AL1 coming up very soon!

I don't envy folk who are regularly applying basic service. The terminology is crazy, long winded & quite frankly patronising to the aircrew.

 

[The Stig]

We've already cut a fair bit of the crap out in the ASACS world however, I too see an AL1 coming up very soon!

I don't envy folk who are regularly applying basic service. The terminology is crazy, long winded & quite frankly patronising to the aircrew.

If you're aplying a basic service then the comm should be to a minimum as your'e not actually providing a radar service anyway!!!

Apparently it was pilots who requested this change so they have only themselves to blame!!!

 

[R_Squared]

We've been discussing this as it goes along and frankly it hasn't been the catastophic end of civilisation that was expected.

The only thing that is of vague concern is that no feedback has been asked for, and no timetable appears to be considered for a possible review.

A couple of points have arisen, the most salient being the use of single numerals for distance plus 9 miles (one five instead of fifteen). A clipped or broken transmission could distort the message and give the crews a false impression of their airspace.

It has been mentioned by Aircrew, but we await the oppotunity to push it up the chain.

I personally hope that it doesn't take an incident to highlight these small problems.

We are still getting the odd pilot who appears to be either unaware that a change has taken place or does not fully understand the implications (not ours BTW).
We have noted a small increase in pilots asking for Radar services where before only information services have been asked for, probably due to a realisation of how limited Basic service actually is and a further indication of how we were probably a bit guilty of applying 'Super' FIS.

 

[Never Alert]

If you're aplying a basic service then the comm should be to a minimum as your'e not actually providing a radar service anyway!!!

Apparently it was pilots who requested this change so they have only themselves to blame!!!

ASACS does not apply the service in the minimalist way that you suggest. If you have access to radar & can see a confliction, you call it in regardless of what biggles has asked for. Duty of care and all that.

I think you would end up a world of crap if, at the board of enquiry, it turned out that you had access to surv data but did not act on it...

There are a few things that need ironing out. Known traffic is now AT a FL in Class F/G but is INDICATING a FL in Class C. We need to get the 552 squared away in that respect. Just like we can't actually limit Radar Control between FL195 & 245 due to the MRSA not falling in line with the DFL. Bonkers.

 

[R_Squared]

ASACS does not apply the service in the minimalist way that you suggest. If you have access to radar & can see a confliction, you call it in regardless of what biggles has asked for. Duty of care and all that.

I think you would end up a world of crap if, at the board of enquiry, it turned out that you had access to surv data but did not act on it....

And that is how we ended up with 'super' FIS.

Basic service was designed to clarify, once and for all, that collision avoidance under this service remains solely the responsibilty of the pilot.

The fact remains, that BS is a non-radar service. If a pilot wants specific traffic information he must ask for a Traffic or Deconfliction service.

You can give generic traffic information, ie gliding at such and such geographic location at such and such levels. Or even, light Aircraft operating in such and such an area etc etc, but that is to be the extent of the info supplied according to the rules.

It does go against the grain, but board of inquiry or not, if we have operated within the rules and provided the service asked for we have done our jobs. They are big boys after all, and if they want it all they have to do is ask.

The problem will always exist, you see a 7000 indicating +-200' 2NM ahead opposite direction, duty of care demands a call. I know what I would do.

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

Off Topic and you wonder why no one but a Scopie or Air Traffiker won't talk to you in the mess!

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Off Topic and you wonder why no one but a Scopie or Air Traffiker won't talk to you in the mess!

Less of the Scopie talk, Never Alert is SNCO FC Scum and should be shot for talking in such a way in a public forum!!

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

I apologize whole heartedly

 

[Never Alert]

Less of the Scopie talk, Never Alert is SNCO FC Scum and should be shot for talking in such a way in a public forum!!

I'm confused...How do you manage to type so much with a keyboard that only has A and P on it. The computer even puts the Ps on for you. Bless!

Anyway, this is a thread about flight safety so, I think we should both leave.

 

[The Stig]

ASACS does not apply the service in the minimalist way that you suggest. If you have access to radar & can see a confliction, you call it in regardless of what biggles has asked for. Duty of care and all that.

I think you would end up a world of crap if, at the board of enquiry, it turned out that you had access to surv data but did not act on it...

There are a few things that need ironing out. Known traffic is now AT a FL in Class F/G but is INDICATING a FL in Class C. We need to get the 552 squared away in that respect. Just like we can't actually limit Radar Control between FL195 & 245 due to the MRSA not falling in line with the DFL. Bonkers.

I know how Basic service is to be applied, but there are far too many controllers out there panicking and just calling in traffic for the sake of it, rather than sticking to the 3k,3nm rule which is in the new docs. I think its the FAs who should be making sure their controllers aren't just speaking for the sake of it, thats why most fast jet pilots stop listening to them in the first place! If a pilot requests a basic service then there is generally a decent reason for it!

 

[The Stig]

I'm confused...How do you manage to type so much with a keyboard that only has A and P on it. The computer even puts the Ps on for you. Bless!

Anyway, this is a thread about flight safety so, I think we should both leave.

Here, here!! Do they still trust them with that amount of responsibility, I heard that the SACs on TR were doing it know????

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Here, here!! Do they still trust them with that amount of responsibility, I heard that the SACs on TR were doing it know????

As a jumped up SAC (probably!) you should know!!

 

[The Stig]

As a jumped up SAC (probably!) you should know!!

Cheers Easy.....................didn't take you long

 

[Never Alert]

I know how Basic service is to be applied, but there are far too many controllers out there panicking and just calling in traffic for the sake of it, rather than sticking to the 3k,3nm rule which is in the new docs. I think its the FAs who should be making sure their controllers aren't just speaking for the sake of it, thats why most fast jet pilots stop listening to them in the first place! If a pilot requests a basic service then there is generally a decent reason for it!

I hear you mate however, 3k, 3nm is a rule in the new docs however, I don't think they factored in the pointy things that do 8 miles per min... Personally, I've kept my stranger bubble a little further out than that.

The idea of saying next to nothing is a great one however, the lawyers have had their say in the 'Duty of Care' section & quite a few of us have translated it as 'if you see something, you must act...'

Pain in the arse, should have left it how it was with the aircrew being given more of an understanding of the different services. Some of their knowledge is very, very poor but hey, I don't even know how to open the canopy on a Typhoon so, what the hell do I know?!?!?


NAIDOY...Stop biting & get typing (A, A, A, A, K, A, A, A, K, U, A, A, A, A.....)!!!

 

[El Presidenté]

A few minor problems with it, bearing in mind we have to assume some basic level of competence otherwise nothing would ever get airborne.

Adding 'degrees' onto the end of heading instructions (that end in zero. No, I don't know why either). This is supposedly to halt any confusion between level allocations and heading instructions. The precautionary phrase 'turn left/right heading' or 'set heading' not clear enough? A bit like 'climb' or 'descend'?

Temperature one seven degrees. I'm going to go crazy and assume you're aware that it's not seventy degrees outside and say seventeen. Anyone tried doing a PFL yet?

It's clearly been written with more input from lawyers than operators, who seem to believe that you can easily walk straight off the Jeremy Kyle show and into a pilot or controller's job.

 

[R_Squared]

Bang on there chap, climb to height/ altitude/ FL. I mean why? What's the point? If they're on the QFE it's automatically height, RPS, Altitude and SAS is FL.
It's extra words for fcuk all's sake.
Even adding millibars after a pressure below 1000, just in-case the yanks get confused.

There is also now, after the success of ATSOCAS major changes to VCR phraseology in the offing, including;
"After the aircraft to land, line up" DT_Xtremez_42:
This is to bring us in line with the civvies apparently.