RIS and RAS again!!!!!!!

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

The following has been allegedly issued to a Class G radar unit , any thoughts.
Provision of RADAR SERVICES.
It has become apparent that clarification is required with regard to the required 'separation ' of aircraft in class G particularly between RAS / participating RAS/RIS and FIS traffic.
After consultation with SRG, who in turn have consulted with the Editor of MATS part 1 the following is this unit's policy.
1/ A RAS if requested is of course the best service to be offered however if a RIS is requested it shall be offered.
2/ MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, Para 1.2.2 re establishing what service is required shall be adhered to.
3/ Standard separation shall be applied to RAS traffic and a/ other RAS traffic and b/ any known IFR traffic on any service.
4/ Traffic on a RIS or FIS is NOT participating in the RAS.
5/ Not withstanding the MATS Pt 1 rules, Standard separation is NOT required between a RAS and a RIS VFR or Known Identified FIS VFR. However the following shall be borne in mind.
A/ ATC Common sense shall prevail.
B/ Such traffic will be deconflicted to the best of our ability.
C/ It is acceptable to reach an Agreement of Solution with a potential conflicting VFR aircraft, but non-agreed vectoring or level restrictions shall not be imposed.
D/ If the VFR traffic does not agree to be deconflicted and the RAS traffic is not happy to continue (after traffic information has been passed) the RAS Traffic shall be vectored to achieve deconfliction.
D/ An attempt to achieve Standard separation shall be applied between RAS traffic and Known Unidentified VFR traffic.
6/ VFR traffic shall not, unless they agree be turned for identification.
7/ In order to avoid confusion over service provision VFR FIS traffic Identified by the Geographical Method shall not be informed of the Identification.
8/ VFR traffic identified by other methods shall be left in no doubt of the type of service provided.
9/ Any VFR Traffic that has agreed to a course of action to deconflict shall be asked to 'advise at anytime if they are unable to maintain VFR' and if they at any time indicate a problem maintaining VFR an alternative course of action shall be offered.
I am acutely aware that this is a complex and grey area but the above is the way in which the issues will be resolved and LCE's will be monitoring compliance.
In Summary,
RAS vs. RAS = Standard separation
RAS vs. IFR RIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. IFR FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. Unidentified FIS = Standard separation.
RAS vs. VFR RIS = Deconfliction
RAS vs. VFR Identified FIS = Deconfliction
IFR RIS vs. IFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any VFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
VFR vs. VFR = Assist in preventing collisions.
:)

[Lifes2good]

Isn't this rather overcomplicating things?
Surely if MATS1 is adhered too that should be sufficient?
What happened to make the extra requirements necessary?

[rodan]

IFR RIS vs. IFR FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.

Really? Cripes. Good luck with that, then.

I don't see IFR RIS vs IFR RIS on that list, btw.

[52 North]

OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS

12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?

[bookworm]

Does the unit in question also provide Approach Control? If so, there's a potential for misunderstanding, as an IFR aircraft putting itself under the control of an Approach Control unit in class G would expect separation from other such traffic, regardless of the level of radar service provided (MATS Pt 1 Section 1 Ch 3 1(g)).

[anotherthing]

with regard to your first sentence, is this unit wholly class G?

If so why not simplify things.... regardless of IFR or VFR, if under a FIS - pilot responsible for separation.

RAS A/C separated from everything. If the controller needs to, he/she/it can identify FIS traffic and ask it to fly not above/not below etc etc for separation against RAS traffic,

A/C inbound to the field requesting vectors or a radar approach get a RAS... end of story.

This would stop things from being complicated and would let the controller control and not worry about silly semantics. It has worked very succesfully for years at very busy mil airports with only class G protection.

It can be part of the arrival brief that all inbounds would be under a RAS

[chevvron]

Another thing - that would mean imposing a service on a pilot rather than reaching a contract.
In Oceans spiel para 9 he says 'unable to maintain VFR'; surely this should be 'unable to maintain VMC'?

[Scott Voigt]

Geez, sure glad that it isn't nearly that difficult here <G>...

regards

Scott

[2 sheds]

If this is correct, that this has been agreed by one unit with SRG and the Editor MATS Part 1, WIH do they all think they are playing at?

The provision of services certainly need to be clarified - and at first sight this seems fairly sensible (but my brain hurts too much at this time of day to study it too closely) - but where is the sense in clarifying it in respect of one unit - or individual units? Therein lies further confusion and lack of continuity.

More to the point if SRG gets a grip on the overall problem.

[Jerricho]

A/ ATC Common sense shall prevail.

Until some asshat lawyer gets hold of something.

[London Mil]

Balderdash. Just another level of stuff to add to the confusion.

Not getting into the weeds, but how can standard separation be provided between partcipating traffic? In Class G, all ATC instructions are advisory (the hint is in the service RAS). Turn one aicraft to miss the another also under a RAS by 5 and he may well say "VMC/happy to continue/visual". He has not downgraded from IFR to VFR, he has merely stated his intent to continue. There is no way that standard separation can be provided unless complete compliance is obtained. In reality, this is the norm, but it is nowhere near guranteed.

It is this sort of crap that really annoys me. ATSOCAS is not a control service, it is advisory.

PS. SRG are the 'owners' of this bit of MATS Pt 1. Who on earth is the 'Editor'?

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

:ugh:
jerricho wrote
'Until some asshat lawyer gets hold of something'

Is this not the whole point. These days the lawyers are the ultimate regulators not SRG.
Scenario.....
2 X RIS on GOA's freq. both at the same level and blips are going to merge.
GOA applies MATS Pt 1 and issues sh1t loads of Tfc info but is too busy vectoring mega jet to an uninterupted 7 mile final and the blips merge and a large whole in the ground appears where the wreckage falls.
At the subsequent court case GOA and his boss are in the dock for manslaughter and beak asks
'Did you know that the 2 aircraft were at 'risk of collision''.... 'well yes ,sort of ,may be' says a cockey confident GOA'.
'Then why did you not apply the first page of MATS pt 1 and PREVENT THE COLLISION'
' Cos MATS pt 1 further on says NO AVOIDING ACTION SHALL BE GIVEN'
' Sorry not good enough says the non technically minded jury both of you off to jail....:eek:


who out there wants to be the test case for this........


London Mil

It may and should be advisory but do we all really think that the Part 1 adequately allows us to train the poor sods that come out of the various colleges in the true consequencies of not at least paying some kind of lip service to duty of care.
GOA

[Hold West]

A/ ATC Common sense shall prevail.

This statement invalidates the entire "procedure".

[ShyTorque]

OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?

Speaking from the viewpoint of someone who sometimes finds himself in this situation (pilot); surely the pilots should decide what action to take? ATC have already kept their side of the agreement by informing the participants.

A pilot in this situation should:

a) Take his own avoiding action.
b) Request suitable avoiding action instructions.

I was once given information as in the example (by Benson Zone, IIRC) and in the same transmission the ATCO asked "Would you like an upgrade to RAS for avoiding action?"

(Never being one to turn down a free upgrade) I immediately accepted the kind offer and was given a suitable heading to fly. Once the danger was passed, ATC downgraded to a RIS - absolutely no problem because we all knew exactly where we stood. :ok:

[Halfbaked_Boy]

OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS
12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?

RIS... pilot responsible for separation... as far as I'm concerned, very very basic Air Law scenario - at least the notified pilot turns right to avoid conflict surely. Perhaps two turns, one right 30 degrees, one left 30 degrees. Further information on aircraft from ATSU then regain track when clear...

Jack.

[London Mil]

GOA, of course Duty of Care counts. I am only offering that this particular SI (?) just makes things a little more complicated.

As in the Court of Law argument, personally I'm quite convinced that any lawer worth his salt could drive a coach and horses through the regulations. Not the same, but just look at the Ben McDui ferago.

HB. RIS... pilot responsible for separation... The same for RAS. The only difference being that you offer advice to maintain separation. The only time I think you may be on a sticky wicket would be if:

a. You could have been reasonably expected to notice a confliction and offer advice but failed.
b. Your advice compounded the situation.

Under the 'reasonably expected' bit, this is where, in the opinion of your peers (in court an expert witness) you should have been able to complete the task.

[Take up the Hold]

A definition of "Duty of Care" would be nice. Can you supply one London Mil?

At my unit the priority for providing a service to aircraft is the following 1) CAS (RCS)
2) ADRs (RAS) and then to traffic in Class G (RIS). If we have to downgrade a service in class G to a FIS, where does that stand with 'Duty of Care'. Do Companies/pilots have a 'Duty of Care' not to endanger passengers lives by flying in class G airspace, especially through areas where there is known, but unpublished, military activity.

TUTH

[foghorn]

A definition of "Duty of Care" would be nice.
Probably the first piece of case law that any law student learns...
At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, per Lord Atkin (my emphasis)

In any particular case, once a duty of care has been established, legal arguments tend to be around what is and isn't reasonably foreseeable, and whether the damage "flowed naturally" from the breach of the duty of care.

[Toadpool]

Do Companies/pilots have a 'Duty of Care' not to endanger passengers lives by flying in class G airspace, especially through areas where there is known, but unpublished, military activity.

Some don't have a choice - those operating into/out of Exeter,Humberside,Southend, Doncaster, etc.

[Flybywyre]

If we have to downgrade a service in class G to a FIS, where does that stand with 'Duty of Care'.
How do you downgrade a RIS to a FIS using radar derived information without is still being a RIS ?
Regards
FBW

[Take up the Hold]

FLYBYWYRE We prioritise the traffic. Those in CAS then those on ADRs and ignore the rest. 'Radar service terminated Flight Information Service' and give traffic information. Would that be OK for 'Duty of Care'?

TUTH

[Flybywyre]

The issue I am interested in is "downgrading" from RIS to FIS. Given that the information for the FIS in this case is still derrived from radar, then surely by default this is stil a RIS ? Or is there some jargon somewhere that clearly defines the difference between a FIS without radar and a FIS with radar ?
Regards
FBW

[Take up the Hold]

FLYBYWYRE

I have heard the phrase 'Lots of military activity keep a good look out' The controller then goes on to deal with his primary tasks of dealing with aircraft in controlled and advisory airspace. He does not give a RIS once the radar service is cancelled. He gives a FIS and passes information on known traffic and a joining clearance of CAS if required.

The point you make is valid of course if a controller subsequently uses the radar data to provide traffic information even if he has terminated the radar service. Perhaps that is where 'Duty of Care' comes in.

regards
TUTH

[Jerricho]

Is this not the whole point. These days the lawyers are the ultimate regulators not SRG.

It is. Expecially considering when the poor operational sector/tower controller's "common sense" doesn't equate to some slimy law-type on a cash grab or judicial enquiry looking for a scapegoat..........Mr Hold West sums it up perfectly

This statement invalidates the entire "procedure".

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

It is alleged that the instruction has been changed to a Supplementary Instruction for inclusion in the MATS part 2 thus.........
ATCSI XX/06
Provision of Radar Services
1. General
1.1 It has become apparent that clarification is required with regard to the required 'separation ' of aircraft in class G airspace particularly between RAS, RIS and FIS traffic.
1.2 After consultation with SRG, who in turn have consulted with the editor of MATS Part 1, the following is to be adopted as unit policy.
2. Procedures
2.1 A RAS if requested is, of course, the best service to be offered. ATCO’s shall endeavour to provide a RAS whenever requested, subject to traffic and controller workload. If a RIS is requested it shall, whenever possible, be offered.
2.2 MATS part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, Para 1.2.2 re establishing what service is required outside controlled airspace, shall be adhered to.
2.3 Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles) shall be applied between RAS traffic and:
a) other RAS traffic and
b) any identified IFR traffic on any service.
2.4 Traffic on a RIS or FIS is NOT deemed to be “participating traffic” as detailed in the RAS section of the MATS Part 1.
2.5 Not withstanding the MATS Part 1 rules, where it states that separation is NOT required between IFR traffic and VFR traffic, this unit will seek to achieve at least 1000ft or 3 miles between the RAS aircraft and identified VFR traffic. The following shall also be borne in mind:
a) ATC Common sense shall prevail.
b) Such traffic will be deconflicted to the best of our ability.
c) It is acceptable to reach an Agreement of Solution with a potential conflicting VFR aircraft, but non-agreed vectoring or level restrictions shall not be imposed.
d) If the VFR traffic does not agree to be deconflicted and the RAS traffic is not happy to continue (after traffic information has been passed) the RAS traffic shall be vectored to achieve deconfliction.
2.6 VFR traffic shall not, unless they agree, be turned for identification.
2.7 In order to avoid confusion over service provision VFR FIS traffic, identified by the geographical method, shall not be informed of the identification.
2.8 VFR traffic identified by other methods, shall be left in no doubt of the type of service provided.
2.9 Any VFR Traffic that has agreed to a course of action to deconflict shall be asked to 'advise at anytime if they are unable to maintain VFR' and if they at any time indicate a problem maintaining VFR an alternative course of action shall be offered.
2.10 In Summary:
RAS vs. RAS = Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles)
RAS vs. IFR RIS or IFR identified FIS = Standard separation (1000ft / 3 miles)
RAS vs. VFR RIS or VFR identified FIS = Seek to achieve separation of 1000ft or 3 miles
RAS vs. any unidentified traffic = Seek to achieve separation of 5 miles
(3000ft not to be used due to no SSR).
Any RIS vs. any RIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any FIS = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any RIS vs. any unidentified traffic = Assist in preventing collisions.
Any FIS vs. Any FIS = Whenever possible, assist in preventing collisions.



This will mean that subject to an internal safety analysis it will be LAW????
:)

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

If this gets into the where ever part 2 and therefore is SRG sanctioned should there not be an ATSIN with guidance for others????
:confused:

[Inverted81]

Are the beloved RIS vs RAS debate. I am relatively new to the business so excuse me if i say anything inaccurate. Having very recentlly studied this area so in depth as an approach controller heres my understanding. Why do the "big bods" insist on making it more complicated than it really is.

In the simple form, my understanding is thus:

RAS will only be provided to IFR when requested. (because of turns/climbs into IMC)
This is Traffic info PLUS any associated Avoiding action if it all goes tits up. Until conflict (if any) is resolved. Seperation: 5nm or 3000ft vertically on Mode C (unknown tfc) 1000ft/5nm (Known traffic)

RIS To IFR or VFR when requested. Traffic Info ONLY wll be provided. Continually updated (if practicable) No sep reponsibility for ATCOs.

RAS Vs RAS = not an issue unless the controller has lost the plot or an unuasual situation arises. :rolleyes:

RAS Vs RIS = TI & AA to RAS a/c. TI to RIS a/c. but as both are "known" again shouldn't be an issue.

RIS Vs RIS Vs FIS TI ONLY

Duty of care is the ONLY caviat. As a controller, if i see a situation that i COULD do something to prevent of course human instinct should prevail, and you wouldn't just sit and watch. Downgrading of services will only occur when the controllers primary function (controlled airspace) is compromised due to traffic levels.

Being a wee PPL holder also i have great concerns over how little (at least i was) taught about radar services etc. I think there is a huge knowledge gap in the training of weekend pilots etc. And no i'm not biased as i can see the side of the story from both aspects. Hopefully things have changed since i got my licence.

81

[vintage ATCO]

Just highlights the folly of trying to write everything down, a trend which, regretfully, is all too prevalent in today's ATC. Roll on retirement :rolleyes:

[safety case]

If the guidance has indeed come from SRG then you are bolxed ,you now have a responsibility/ duty of care to seperate everything from everything whether or not they are VFR or IFR, FIS or RIS
Surely this cannot be the case?? We do not seperate VFR in the UK (see and be seen) infact in the FIR we do not seperate IFR, according, to the Airac.
From what OWZ has written A/C are going to get a better service OUTSIDE CAS than they do inside. I would agree with the previous, Grumpy old ATCO get the ATSIN out ASAP, or better still wait until the review of ATSOCAS is completed before making impossible demands on the poor sods concerned who will have the sword of damacles hanging over them.
:confused:

[London Mil]

I stand by my last post. Looking at the conundrum over "duty of care", it would appear that:

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

sums things up rather nicely. Let us not forget that we are all 'trained professionals' who are capable of making reasonable decisions as to the levels of service that we will 'contract' to provide. Whilst not necessarily guaranteeing a level of service, it give controllers the opportunity to apply the service they deem to be most appropriate. After all, we do get paid for making decisions.

[tubthumper]

[QUOTE][/OK then, IFR RIS vs IFR RIS

12 O'clock, 6 miles, same level, opposite direction, what would you do?QUOTE]

Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit.

But they're both flying quadrantal levels anyway, so they'll miss by at least 1000 feet, right?

[Dont tell um pike]

"Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit."

but they've requested a RIS which is what they are getting , so traffic info only till avioding action is requested then upgrade to a RAS.

Grey area anyone ?:ugh: :ugh:

DTUP

[rodan]

"Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit."
but they've requested a RIS which is what they are getting , so traffic info only till avioding action is requested then upgrade to a RAS.
Grey area anyone ?:ugh: :ugh:
DTUP

This is the nub. Where does MATS 1 say that the requirement for an approach control unit to separate IFR flights is over-ruled if either or both tracks are receiving a RIS or a FIS? There are two (three if you count FIS) structures - approach control vs radar service - mandating the separation or not of IFR flights outside CAS. They don't agree with each other, and there is nothing to say which has precedence over the other in a given circumstance. A prosecution lawyer would have a field day if the worst happened.

[2 sheds]

How can you seriously suggest that either "structure" should take precedent over the other? As has been correctly stated, there is no such precedence specified, therefore they must be considered complimentary.

If a very basic principle is separation of IFR flights, it is not logical - just because you are a radar unit - to provide no separation at all until you are getting close to losing it, then pass traffic information and expect one or both pilots to request avoiding action and, by implication, an upgrade of service.

In the situation of IFR flights requesting "only" a RIS, the latter service should be viewed as a bonus (i.e. radar-based traffic information) in addition to separation from other, known, IFRs.

[Dont tell um pike]

What a bit like a RAS you mean ? :}

[2 sheds]

No......................

[Dont tell um pike]

That must be a whole new service then , what shall we call it ??
Approach
Radar
Separation
Enhancement
i say i think we're onto something !!
P.S i totally agree that two IFR's on a RIS should be separated , but the rules should not be open to interpretation.
DTUP

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

IFR RIS vs IFR RIS

How do we take this forward?
ATC Common sense seems to say they need to be separated but by the numbers Pt1 says not!!
What do we teach/ examine tomorrow????!!!!!
Looks to me SRG are saying ' as long as it is no worse than part 1 and there is a paper trail that does not implicate them do as you please'.
ANARCHY???.........

[NorthSouth]

The issue I am interested in is "downgrading" from RIS to FIS. Given that the information for the FIS in this case is still derrived from radar, then surely by default this is stil a RIS ? Or is there some jargon somewhere that clearly defines the difference between a FIS without radar and a FIS with radar ?I have received on many occasions what is in effect a very good RIS from controllers from whom I only requested and got a FIS. It tends to be down to individual controllers. I know I am only getting a FIS so have no illusions but I accept the MATS 1 point that pilots should be in no doubt that they are not getting a radar service (errr, even though they are:confused: )
Regarding the IFR RIS/IFR RIS 12 o'clock reciprocal situation:But they're both flying quadrantal levels anyway, so they'll miss by at least 1000 feet, right?Surely this deals with it? We're talking here about two aircraft getting a service from the same controller. He'll have confirmed their levels and altimeter setting and if for any reason (climb/descent/manouevring) one or both are not quadrantal, then next thing is surely to confirm in-flight conditions of both and if one/both not VMC, only then do you get into the problem of deciding on whether to advise avoidance turns even when only on a RIS.
Here's another perspective. Last May the CAA Flight Ops department put out a circular which said:
Many Commercial Air Transport (CAT) aircraft need to operate in Class G airspace. Air Traffic Services often provide a Radar Information Service (RIS) to these aircraft and have raised concerns that avoiding headings are not being taken in response to information about conflicting traffic.
So clearly some controllers give avoidance vectors to a/c on a RIS, without it being a RAS
NS

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

I have received on many occasions what is in effect a very good RIS from controllers from whom I only requested and got a FIS.



So clearly some controllers give avoidance vectors to a/c on a RIS, without it being a RAS
NS

IMHO if these ATCO's had been under examination the should have failed, and outside the formal examination their LCE's should at least be having words.


GOA
:ugh:

[DFC]

"Standard separation shall be provided between any IFR flights in receipt of a service by an approach control unit."
but they've requested a RIS which is what they are getting , so traffic info only till avioding action is requested then upgrade to a RAS.
Grey area anyone ?:ugh: :ugh:
DTUP

Last time I checked, Approach Control Units were called that because they did not have radar. Those that had the new fangle radar thingie were called Approach Radar.

Very difficult for a procedural unit to give a RIS in the first place! ;)

As for duty of care, if the CAA require IFR flights to operate in class G when the ICAO requirements are for class E airspace to be provided then the CAA would hold the can.

Give me class G anyday! Far better service available there compared to class D.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

Last time I checked, Approach Control Units were called that because they did not have radar. Those that had the new fangle radar thingie were called Approach Radar.

MATS Pt 1 S3 Ch1

1.1 An approach control unit shall provide:
a) approach control service with or without the aid of radar;
b) flight information service;
c) alerting service.

[tubthumper]

This subject keeps coming up, time and time again, and every time the same level of ambiguity and scope for confusion is demonstrated. Isn't it about time that the whole thing was re-thought from the ground up (no pun intended)? After all, this isn't some little known subtlety of ATC that only applies to one or two units, this is fundamental, with the emphasis most definitely on the mental.

[safety case]

Tubthumper, I think what the original poster O W Z meant was exactly that. The whole thing wants a thourough looking at ,from the air pilot to the MATS pt 1.
Generally speaking the two documents give differing advice/instructions depending on where you are sitting. In the ukclass G airspace VFR are not provided with separation from other a/c be they VFR or IFR. TFC info is passed and thats it mate,you're on your own.
If you happen to be on a RIS , again IFR or VFR ,TFC is passed and once again it's up to you to take the necessary avoiding action because the controller will not give it( as per the air pilot)
Now this unit will have to seek to achieve 3miles/1000' between RAS and identified RIS/FIS be they IFR or VFR and also 5miles/3000' between unidentified TFC.
Why wont SRG finally admit that the days of sitting on the fence, letting units make or interpret their own policy is counter productive and ultimately will lead to a total loss of respect for the supposed ruling body.
Why the MATS pt 1 wants a severe going over ( apart from the above) example. Can anyone seriously imagine a fully laden B747 inbound to Heathrow adopting the bog off procedure in the event of a radio failure?:eek:

[chevvron]

If only our dear CAA complied with ICAO Doc 4444 Chap 8 para 8.11, we wouldn't need to keep having this stupid debate.
The ref describes the 'Use of radar in the Flight Information Service', and describes service to be provided as virtually the same as RAS.

[Flybywyre]

TFC is passed and once again it's up to you to take the necessary avoiding action because the controller will not give it( as per the air pilot)

And should an incident occur because of this, it is quite likely that a court may rule that the controller had a "duty of care" to give it (avoiding action)

[safety case]

Flybywire
If that is the case then change the AIP and MATS pt 1 and make it the same standard of service in CAS as outside

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

FLY BY WIRE
Sorry butI aint got time to wait for the powers that be to sort this out. I Am not going to jail if one of my troops let the blips merge so local action has been taken..........
:)

[Flybywyre]

Fair comment and I would have thought a sensible course of action ..........
FBW
:)

[DFC]

Thanks Bookworm.

Chevron,

You are totally correct. No other country in Europe has this confusion and most provide excellent services using a range of ICAO airspace classes to clearly define to everyone exactly what the service provided is, the weather minima and the pilot responsibilities.

It is only the UK that causes the confusion.

The dangerous bit is that most foreign crews do not realise that they are not in receipt of a control service and do not understand the whole RIS/RAS service.

If UK controllers and pilots have problems then there is no hope for the foreign pilot making a 1 off trip to the UK.

Regards,

DFC

[chevvron]

The point I've always tried to make; ask (say) an Italian commercial pilot if he want Radar Advisory or Radar Information and think does he actually know what they are?