Maintain listening watch???

[magpienja]

Hi all just finished my RT course passed it ok but a question I forgot to ask the instructor was instead of asking for a FIS from a local airfield that I may be flying near to with say a CTA or maybe they just have an ATZ, would it be in order to ask them if I can maintain a listening watch on there freq so as they know who I am were I am going and can contact me if they req, I always feel that I am adding to there workload by asking for a FIS when I am happy to keep my own lookout which of course I have to anyway, by the way I cannot squawk, I have not read anything regarding maintaining listening watch in cap 413 but I am sure I have heard pilots asking for it in the past.

Regards Nick

[LXGB]

Hi Nick,
It depends on the circumstances really. If you're remaining outside controlled airspace, the guys working traffic inside of it will deem you to be outside unless there's info to make them think otherwise.

In class G, especially around Military airfields, I'd recommend you get a FIS from the Airfield if possible. Just my opinion, but I'd rather know who the "Wildy" is on the Edge of my MATZ / ATZ. A FIS really is the lowest level of service we can give you as there is no such thing in the book as a "Listening Watch".

Another practice to avoid is just tuning in and listening out on the LARS / VHF frequency for traffic info near military aerodromes. There could be plenty of traffic you don't know about working UHF frequencies. There's more info on this here:


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_GASIL2OF2003.PDF (Page 8)


Regards,
LXGB

[Chilli Monster]

Nick - I suggest you go back and look up the definition of FIS.

"Ask them if I can maintain a listening watch" - there's no such thing. Either you listen on the frequency and say nothing, or you announce your presence in which case you're going to be put under a FIS. It's the lowest form of service available - there is nothing lower. By calling the unit concerned you've already introduced yourself as "workload" so your concerns are unfounded.

What makes you think (as your post infers) that getting a FIS relieves you of the responsibility of maintaining a good look out?

[LXGB]

Chilli - I suggest you go back and look at Nick's post.
I thought he made it quite clear that he knows he is responsible for his own lookout when he said "I am happy to keep my own lookout which of course I have to anyway".


Stay Frosty Son :ok:
LXGB ;)

[Turn It Off]

What makes you think (as your post infers) that getting a FIS relieves you of the responsibility of maintaining a good look out?

Answer

when I am happy to keep my own lookout which of course I have to anyway

There is no need to attempt to put people down by suggesting they do not have an understanding of what they are trying to do. I would suggest that "Staying frosty" as mentioned above is a good idea. Sometimes your comments could be construed as being abrasive.

Edited at the request of Chilli Monster

[Pierre Argh]

The pilots you may have heard asking for a "Listening Watch" are just showing how out-of-date they are... there once was a service called Listening Watch, but it was replaced by FIS in the 1970's IMMSMC...

FIS is a factor on a Controllers workload... but nothing compared to having to dodge unknown traffic in the open FIR, trust me!

[BDiONU]

US Military Pilots quite often asked for a listening watch last time I was an aerodrome controller in 1992 at Gutersloh.
BD

[magpienja]

Many thanks guys I thought I had heard the term but obviously must have but some years back, what a marvellous medium this is to be able to ask questions of the experts and get such quick answers, keep up the good work guys.

Regards Nick.

[jb5000]

Hi all,

Flying back to Biggin from the south coast on a dual nav we called up Headcorn Radio just to tell them we were going to be passing nearby and we were given a "Listening watch only".

I would imagine that a 'listening watch' is still possible in all non ATC/FISO aerodromes and you're more likely to pick up something to be aware of then a generic FIS on London Info. It also gives the radio operator some more situational awareness than if you had just dialled up and listened in without talking.

James

[Benix]

if you call Elstree the FISO will only give a FIS if the aircraft is within the ATZ, otherwise its a listening watch if you passing outside it. Is this legal thing for FISOs or just Elstree being anal as usual?

[Pierre Argh]

Please stop all this reference to "Listening Watch"... I'm getting all nostalgic for days when PAR was called GCA, when LARS was a still a trial and around the UK there was a single Low Flying Route...

I really think the FISOs who state "listening watch only" are hopelessly out of date. I'd really be interested in one of them (if they're up-to-date enough to have the Internet) justifying the LW rather than FIS?

There is IMHO no limitation on them only providing a FIS within the ATZ and no differrence between the, so called, listening watch and the properly defined Flight Information Service... except of course that it is properly defined.

Don't accept anything less than FIS... Truth is there is nothing less than FIS

[niknak]

I wouldnt accuse Elstree of being anal, but as many have pointed out, there's no such thing as a listening watch.

Most FISO units, excluding London/Scottish FIS, are unlikely to know much about traffic outside the immediate proximity of their own ATZ, so I would suggest that in that situation, once you are outside the ATZ plus a couple of miles, you contact either the nearest full ATC unit, or the FIR.

[Pierre Argh]

Niknak says are unlikely to know much about traffic outside the immediate proximity of their own ATZ, so I would suggest that in that situation, once you are outside the ATZ plus a couple of miles, you contact either the nearest full ATC unit, or the FIR Despite what I said earlier about "dodging unknowns"... One of the biggest factors on controller workload in a Safety Survey recently conducted at the unit where I work was FIS traffic (due to RT loading). Pilots sometimes call on leaving an adjacent ATZ but remaining in the local area well clear of our traffic patterns; or in the short hop to other airfields.

I will qualify my remarks by adding but if the pilot doesn't intending to approach within, say, 12-15nms* of an ATC equipped airfield and doesn't want LARS, consider carefully the merits of calling the ATC unit for FIS. If FIS is offered correctly there should be little to differentiate the service given by a FISO and an ATCO.

(* I appreciate the figures I have given may vary from unit to unit, so if you fly regularly in the same area why not discuss the requirement with your airfield and adjacent units?)