RT Question(s)

[digital.poet]

Hello folks,

I have my practical RT exam scheduled for this coming tuesday and I am quite nervous about it. I am getting better, but RT procedures still fill me with a childlike dread and there are some areas I still find quite confusing.

I am currently working my way through CAP413 (not for the first time!) and I am likely to have a few questions, many of which may be quite trivial. I have created this thread for the purpose of asking these questions and also to solicit any general advice on the RT exam or even just general RT tips that anybody would like to pass on.

My first explicit question is, which types of ground station can I obtain an FIS from? I assume that APPROACH and INFOMATION units can provide this service, what about RADIO stations? What about RADAR? Will they simply upgrade me to a RIS 'for free' (assuming I am equiped with a transponder)?

I suspect there will be more questions for me to pose, which is why I have titled the thread in the way that I have.

Thank for any time and experience you can spare.

[digital.poet]

Here is another one...

CAP413 talks about the requesting of both 'departure information' and 'taxi instructions'. The departure information request seems to be in lieu of a recorded ATIS message.

If departing from a aerodrome with a GROUND station and no ATIS, are these two requests always made as seperate calls? It seems that they would probably be made in quick succession if they were. Would you instead make a call like...


Someville ground, G-ABCD request departure information and taxi instructions for VFR flight to elsewheretown.



Incase it is not obvious, I am training at an airfield with a a/g station, so my knowledge of departure procedures from full ATC aerodromes is a bit lacking :)

[Spitoon]

If you are talking to ATC you will get a FIS - it's one of the basic services that you always get from ATC whatever the circumstances (the other is the Alerting Service). If you are talking to ATC you may also get other services, for example a Radar Information Service.

You will also get a FIS from a station using the callsign xxx Information - you'll also get an Alerting Service but that's all you will get.

In theory you often have to ask for a particular service from a RADAR unit although you may find you get offered something if it helps the controller. If you ask for a FIS that's all you'll probably get but what's available will depend on many factors such as how busy the controller is (and remember it's not always apparent from the R/T how busy he or she is!).

A RADIO station may sound very similar to a what is provided by an INFORMATION station but it isn't, and it isn't a FIS - don't worry too much about why, but in practice you may be wise to treat the info you get from a RADIO station with a bit of caution.

Some of the subtleties of what you get from different ground stations are rather complex bit I hope this helps - for the test you're not going to need to worry about this sort of stuff.

The basics are determined by the callsign of the ground station, if it's GROUND, TOWER, APPROACH, RADAR (there are a few others listed in CAP 413 as I'm sure you'll know) you're going to get ATC which includes FIS and Alerting. INFORMATION will give you a FIS and RADIO is really just a communications channel to let you talk to someone at the airfield - what you get is largely down to the person on the ground.

Just for the record, this is a 'UK answer'.

[Spitoon]

To answer your second question, departure information will be the runway in use, QFE and or QNH and maybe the wind.

Taxi instructions are how to get to the runway from where you are.

You may want to get the departure information, have a think about what you want to do, maybe do some checks before you taxi - so just ask for the information. When you're ready to move ask for taxi instructions. Perhaps you have already copied the departure info when it was passed to someone else and you're ready to go - then ask for both at the same time. Your example is fine.

You mention that you are training from an airfield with an A/G radio station - technically the person on the radio cannot give you taxi instructions and you should simply transmit your intentions. In practice at this stage of your training I suggest you go with whatever your instructor teaches you and what is common practice at the field. But it might be useful to ask your instructor to give you a briefing on the differences between the different air traffic services.

Good luck on Tuesday.

[digital.poet]

Very interesting, thanks spitoon!

As part of my flying training I have 'requested an FIS' a few times. What is quite interesting from what you post is that there seems to be no real need to request it explicitally because if you establish two-way then you get it anyway. It seems that requesting and FIS is as much about what you dont need, in that, "Requst FIS" = "Not planning to enter the ATZ, let alone land, just want the basics please".

So based also on the information you have provided...


Someville ground, G-ABCD, request flight information service.
and


Someville information, G-ABCD, request flight information service.
....would be complient calls but...


Someville radio, G-ABCD, request flight information service.
...would just make me look like a bit of an idiot :ok:

This makes me wonder what I would do if I was flying in close proximity to a a/g manned airfield and wanted to know if anyone else was opperating in the area. Perhaps something like....


Someville radio, G-ABCD, request traffic information
... would that be acceptable?

edit: Thanks for your answer to the second question also.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Someville ground, G-ABCD request departure information and taxi instructions for VFR flight to elsewheretown.
Bit long-winded. Where I fly (full ATC) booking out is required in advance, so they already know where you're going. The radio call needed is no more than:
Someville tower, G-ABCD taxi.
They will then tell you runway and QFE/QNH and give taxi clearance and instructions.
As part of my flying training I have 'requested an FIS' a few times. What is quite interesting from what you post is that there seems to be no real need to request it explicitally because if you establish two-way then you get it anyway.
No. You can establish two-way communication for other purposes. In particular you can call London Information for all sorts of things, such as requesting the status of a danger area, without either asking for or receiving flight information service. You can call London Centre for a practice PAN without establishing FIS. You can call any station for a radio check without establishing FIS. You can call the tower for permission to taxi from the parking area to the fuel pumps ... and so on and so on.

[Spitoon]

I said the subtleties were messy!

In some cases the service you get will be obvious. GROUND is going to give you an ATC service which will include departure info (which technically is probably Flight Information - I'd have to get the books out to check) so you don't need to ask for FIS specifically.

The question really only arises once you are in the air. When you call up a ground station you have to tell them what you want (otherwise you just end up with an embarassing silence). If you're inbound you're going to tell them that and ask for joining instructions or zone entry elearance.

But if you're just passing by and don't want anything more than to have someone to call if you have a problem then asking for a FIS is probably the best thing to do.

On the final point about asking for traffic info, you example is again fine - and will work with ATC too - but it might help to mention where you are and where you are going so that the person on the other end can tell you about only that traffic that is in your area.

[windriver]

Er.. am I missing something. Wasn`t all this covered in your R/T groundschool training... normally a two day course.

[Keygrip]

d.p. - I know you are going to flame me, but if you are asking the questions that you are asking (in the phraseology that you are asking them (ground service so no ATC?? wtf?)) then my suggestion for your RT exam is to postpone it and do some studying.

I don't mean to sound nasty - which I'm sure you will tell me I am - but you clearly do not understand what you are trying to do/achieve.

You're not ready for it.

[digital.poet]

Er.. am I missing something. Wasn`t all this covered in your R/T groundschool training... normally a two day course.

Not quite that formal where I am training ;). I could certainly book a few hours with an instructor to go over this stuff. Infact, I have an actually lesson booked on Monday, perhaps I should stay on the ground and spend the time doing some RT ground school.

d.p. - I know you are going to flame me...

Brace yourself then!!! :ok:

Nope, seriously, no flaming warrented. I am prepared to accept that I am not ready for it. I have an extended session with the RT examiner on Tuesday and part of that involves going through a practice route to test how prepared I am. I will let the examiner make the final determination. I can get through the practice route with relative ease though, its the finer points I am a bit fuzzy on.

ground service so no ATC?? wtf?

Sure! Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but I am talking about the distinction between licensed ATC and air/ground radio operators, with respect to the services that each can provide. With FISOs thrown into the mix also.

I appreicate the question was a little basic, but not entirely dumb I think. I have found that the relevant documents make a clear distinction between the different level of service that FISO and A/G operators provide on the ground, and make it clear that neither can offer 'instructions' when airbourne. So my question simply centres around the 'information' that each can provide.

To be honest, the whole concept of a FIS is a little fuzzy in my understanding. It establishes a 'connection' through which I can get traffic information and met information, but since I can ask for either of these things from an air/ground radio operator but cannot ask them for an FIS, it just like a formality.

What I am assuming is that with a FIS, you know that somebody cares about where you are and what you are doing in case you suddenly go quiet (alerting service). Is there more to it than this?

[BackPacker]

What I am assuming is that with a FIS, you know that somebody cares about where you are and what you are doing in case you suddenly go quiet (alerting service). Is there more to it than this?

A FIS implies an alerting service. So if you go quiet for a long time they might start looking for you. If you have a FIS from London Info and are crossing the channel, for instance, they will ask you for your ETAs at various points and if you don't meet those ETAs they will definitely get worried and follow their procedures for that.

So as soon as you've established a Flight Information Service (or any service higher up the chain, like RIS or RAS) it is automatically your responsibility to sign off with that station as well.

Furthermore, once you have established a FIS you will almost always get the relevant QNH without asking. If you have given your route and altitude and the FIS has the capacity for it, the FIS officer will check it and warn you of any infringements you are maybe going to make. If the FIS officer knows your destination and then learns about something happening at your destination (runway closure due to accident perhaps) he will contact you and inform you about it. A while ago I was departing Duxford to cross the channel and the weather looked iffy. So I asked for the very latest METARS from London Info, which were duly presented. But without asking, half an hour later London offered to read me the METARs that were just issued then. And on that same flight London contacted me twice because other ATC units had me on radar and wanted to ask me a question. (And no, I did nothing wrong.) They can also open, close and modify flight plans for you and in some cases London has called airfields on behalf of planes in the air for PPR. Typically in diversion scenarios. They really can be quite useful.

All this doesn't happen if you don't establish a FIS.

But even without establishing a FIS you can ask this sort of information. You are then not establishing an Alerting Service with them so you don't have to sign off when changing frequencies. The station just gives you whatever you require (the local QNH, a QDM, the status of a danger area) and then forgets about you altogether.

[SwanFIS]

Well said Backpacker, couldnt put it better myself :ok:

[Spitoon]

Gertrude, an interesting commentNo. You can establish two-way communication for other purposes. In particular you can call London Information for all sorts of things, such as requesting the status of a danger area, without either asking for or receiving flight information service.I would ask what is 'the status of a danger area' if it isn't flight information?

Maybe the issue here is that in the UK because we offer ATC outside CAS and there are so many different services available we went for this concept of the pilot negotiating a service with the controller - i.e., pilot asks for X, controller agrees to provide it. We don't do this inside CAS - typically an aircraft gets airborne, pilot checks in with DEPARTURE/APPROACH and gets told 'identified, radar control'.

And then there's the business of what services you get when in communication with ATC. In the example above it's fairly clear, radar control = air traffic control. The pilot is also getting FIS and ALR despite the fact there's been no mention of them - hence my assertion that the moment you are in communication with an ATC unit you get FIS/ALR because they are the basic levels of ATS that are just always provided by any ATS. When a pilot on airways asks ATC for the wx somewhere downroute what he/she is asking for and getting is FIS (not ATC). If an aircraft force lands ATC will tell the emergency services where it landed - the pilot is then getting an ALR.

Your example of a practice PAN is especially interesting. Although you may be calling London Centre (and I'm not sure where D AND D is done from these days - not that it matters for this discussion), I think 121.500 is a special case and dedicated to ALR and so the issue of requesting or getting a FIS is not relevant.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Gertrude, an interesting comment
No. You can establish two-way communication for other purposes. In particular you can call London Information for all sorts of things, such as requesting the status of a danger area, without either asking for or receiving flight information service.
I would ask what is 'the status of a danger area' if it isn't flight information?

The status of a danger area is what a Danger Area Activity Information Service will give you, which is not the same thing as a Flight Information Service.

Say you're flying around East Anglia, talking to nobody (it's the weekend so there's no LARS, and anyway it's a nice day so you don't need it). You want to know whether D207 is active because your passengers decide they'd like you to fly out over the Wash. Having checked the legend of your chart in advance you happen to know that the DAAIS for D207 is provided by London Information (some are, some aren't, see other thread). You call:

"London Information, G-ABCD, request danger area activity information for delta 207"

"G-ABCD, delta 207 is cold"

"G-ABCD thank you and good day"

Then you go back to talking to nobody (possibly with London Information tuned in and the volume turned down, if you like). No flight information service established.

[homeguard]

May I correct some misconceptions on this thread.

An aerodrome 'Ground' station will not provide a FIS for that is not their purpose.

An Aerodrome Flight Information Service may not provide a service to aircraft other than those operating or who intend to operate within an ATZ. The service is confined to operations within the ATZ and is never a control.

An Air Ground station must not provide a service and the station is not always required to be manned. It is simply a communication device. They are not empowered to provide traffic whereabouts.

A Flight Information Service (such as the London flight Information Service) will provide a FIS when requested, it should never be presumed.

The LARS will provide; FIS, RIS or RAS as appropiate when specifically requested but only subject to controller workload and in the case of RAS only when the flight is being undertaken in accordance with IFR. It is the pilots responsibilty to request the appropiate service they require and the controller will confirm the specific service being provided. Never presume!

In ALL cases it is required for the pilot to state clearly what service they require. The controller may of course offer a particular service but that must be formally agreed with the pilot.

Only those units promulgated to provide a service are obliged to do so and they are paid to do so. It is of course common for other ATC units to provide a service when requested but they must not be relied upon and they remain unpaid for doing so. Being given 'information' does not imply an 'Information Service'!

70% of the RT test is RT planning. You will be given a list of available radio stations from which YOU select the appropiate unit for each part of the flight. You may only contact a unit that promulgates or has within its structure the obligation to provide a particular service.

[digital.poet]

Thanks everybody!

As is usually the case, you ask a question and in reading the responses you learn a few other things that you didn't even realise that you didn't know.

I think I will probably take that time with my instructor on monday and then go ahead with the test on tuesday. I will be back to let you know how I get on.

Thanks again.

[bookworm]

Honestly digital.poet, a student almost ready for their RT exam who doesn't know exactly what a "Flight Information Service" means??

Actually, the CAA realised some time ago that they didn't really know exactly what a "Flight Information Service" means, hence many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a review of air traffic services outside controlled airspace. ;-)

Your questions show a considerable depth of understanding of the subject matter. You should have no trouble with an exam.

[Droopystop]

DP,

I think you have done well to post your questions here and shows the right sort of attitude to become a pilot.

Hopefully other's comments here have been a help. Getting practice on the radio is hard, especially when you are not flying in and out of controlled airspace or using radar services. It is debateable whether it is better done in the air or on the ground. I personnaly believe it is best done for real.

Chat with your instructor about it, do the mock test and see how you get on. The important thing to remember is to think before you push the button and use things like TRPACER (ask your instructor). Relax and try to enjoy. There isn't that much you need to say.

And in case it all sounds daunting, and everyone else seems to know far more about it than you do, it will be all changed in March next year, so we will all be having to learn it all over again. :ouch:

[Airbus Girl]

Alot of it is confidence and working out what you are going to say before pressing the transmit button. Remember - ATC are there to help YOU, so ask for what you want!

Well done for doing such good prep before your test.

And yes, alot of it IS confusing! I've been flying for years, I fly commercially and yet even I couldn't tell you exactly what services FIS RAS or RIS can provide - I am sure there are lots that I don't know about.

Good luck for Tuesday!

[igarratt]

There is a lot of good information on here so I'm not going to try and reconfirm it !

Things I learnt was on a 2 day training course is worth it's weight in gold.
I did mine with a guy called Malcolm Dobson, he's ex ATC like 40 years! and does training at Barton and Leeds. I went from a oo arrr umm to feeling like RT is just something I've been doing all my life.
The RT Practical is not really that close to real life, it does the basic calls but misses all the real stuff like ATC squeezing you in between two airbuses, busy cat D zone exit clearances, odd holding instructions etc

Bits I'd add are:
Always write everything down ATC say (I use a form of short hand)
If poss ask for a RIS rather than a FIS
If your flying near an airfield an it has a frequency give them a call anyway just to let them know you are there.
If it's a long call your giving, write a crib of the items your going to say.
If your making a call to get some info, listen out on channel for someone else to ask and nick the bits that are general, like QNH.
At some airports mainly big busy ones, you can get taxi instructions, a zone exit clearance, ie direction out of the CTR i.e. via congelton low level not above 1500ft, and also take off ie, after take off early right hand turn to the south tracking to woodford.
Best plan on these is print off the ee routes and vrp's from the a/p AIP.
and lastly talk to them as human, ye there are specific phrases but if you don't understand just say so, rather loose face than wilco to something you didn't get.

And on the test, you can go at your own pace, don't feel rushed in to making the next call, prep yourself on paper before you push the button.
especial the mayday and phacer calls.

The number one best thing you can do in prep for the test is find someone to ask as the ATC and role play it. also having an atc radio to listen to is good use.

lol and remember all you learn now will be useless in 2009 !, no more FIR RIS RAS !

Best of luck Ian

[PompeyPaul]

If your making a call to get some info, listen out on channel for someone else to ask and nick the bits that are general, like QNH.
I'm not so sure I'd go along with that. Simply because if you are nicking from somebody else you don't get what you thought confirmed by a readback, i.e.

Station: "G-ABCD QFE998mb runway 26, report down wind, wind 24 10kts"
G-ABCD: "runway 26, QFE998mb, wilco report downwind"
You: 'hmm, QNH is 998 better set that'

If you see what I mean....

[digital.poet]

Hello folks,

Once again, thanks for the helpful advice.

I was at the airfield this morning (first time out of the circuit solo, so still buzzing!! :ok:). I spoke to the RT examiner and we have agreed that for reasons of my preparation and also his diary commitments that we would have a session tomorrow afternoon to clear up any further questions and to discover the areas where I am lacking and have rescheduled the actual test for next Monday.

Funny thing happened today, as I was heading away from the circuit I heard someone call up the airfield a/g for a FIS. Comforting to know I am not the only one that gets confused (and that includes the CAA from what I am reading here!)

[Spitoon]

digital, sorry to hijack your thread a bit but I'm puzzled by some of the comments. Like I said upfront, the subtleties are complex - they need not worry you for the RT test, as others have said you're asking pertinent questions and with the guidance of instructors I'm sure you'll have no trouble but....

homeguard, what is the basis for your statement? An Aerodrome Flight Information Service may not provide a service to aircraft other than those operating or who intend to operate within an ATZ.I believe the area of responsibility is a bit greater.

Again, I would ask the basis of your statement An Air Ground station must not provide a service and the station is not always required to be manned. It is simply a communication device. They are not empowered to provide traffic whereabouts.
I'm puzzled by your assertion that the station must not provide a service - what is it doing then? Why do you say that it is not always required to be manned? What do they communicate? And I'm afraid that there's plenty of evidence that AGCS stations are passing information about other traffic - just listen.

The reality for AGCS is that it is an all but undefined service in legislation and rules. Although I would take issue with the statement, the CAA clearly indicates that AGCS is an air traffic service although there are very limited rules about what the service can do and don't waste your time looking for references to it in the legislation - I think it's mentioned once, and then only in passing.


bookworm, you sayActually, the CAA realised some time ago that they didn't really know exactly what a "Flight Information Service" means, hence many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a review of air traffic services outside controlled airspace. ;-)Now I'm not going to argue with your fundamental premise but I think the biggest problem that the CAA has made in this latest review - and that you seem to have fallen for - is that FIS equates to outside CAS. I'll explain why in a moment.

Gertrude, following our earlier you offer "London Information, G-ABCD, request danger area activity information for delta 207"

"G-ABCD, delta 207 is cold"

"G-ABCD thank you and good day"

Then you go back to talking to nobody (possibly with London Information tuned in and the volume turned down, if you like). No flight information service established.

When we talk about all these services I think we need to start with the international definitive documents which essentially are ICAO Annex 11, Circular 211 and PANS-ATM (admittedly with bits of one or two others thrown in). In ICAO the concept of having to request a level of service doesn't really exist because there is no choice - the level of service is determined by the circumstances and, primarily, that comes down to the airspace class. In controlled airspace an ATC service (which includes FIS and ALR) is provided, outside controlled airspace FIS and ALR are provided in the relevant FIR. The concept of an aerodrome FIS has not been incorporated into the Standards and Reccomended Practices (yet?) and is covered by the Circular I mentioned - but it is very much an information service...no instructions at all. Just information and ALR.

So the starting point is that a FIS (and ALR) is provided everywhere in an FIR - not just outside controlled airspace like the CAA seems to suggest these days. Inside controlled airspace you also get ATC. At some aerodromes you can get an aerodrome FIS.

And then in the UK we start to deviate from these international standards - we do ATC outside controlled airspace, we allow aerodrome FIS to issue instructions in some circumstances, we create strange beasts like AGCS. And then because the international rules don't work so well any more we need to invent other services like RIS and RAS (or at least to modify the ICAO services that they are based on...which can create further problems down the line), and because there are so many options we have to get pilots to ask for the service that they want, which the controller then has to agree to provide.

But the CAA also talks about the 'duty of care' that controllers, particularly, have so that even if the pilot didn't ask for a service the controller may still be expected to do something in he or she thinks it's going to prevent an accident or somesuch.

And still pilots will call up a controller and ask for some information that the international rules clearly call flight information which forms part of the FIS - be given that info - and claim that they have not received a FIS.

And come next March lots of stuff changes and we are going to have to call an ATC service a FIS if it is provided outside controlled airspace!

Messy is not the word.

OK, rant over.

[digital.poet]

digital, sorry to hijack your thread

*Squawking 7500* ;)

No problem! It's actually why I like to ask these questions on forums like this (and I have been using them or equiviliants since the old dial-up BBS days). Often it promotes some discussion, which is interesting, informative, and not something you get from just looking up the answer in the docs.

I don't pretend to understand every word of your most recent post, but I get the general idea. It seems that the whole system of RT services outside of CAS is a little bit messy. It also seems the CAA has recognised this and is reviewing.

I suspect the real problem is going to be that there are a lot of legacy systems in place so a complete overhaul might not be realistic, evolution not revolution as they say.

Has anything been published yet regarding the coming changes? Its probably best that I don't read it now because I don't want to let it muddy the waters with respect to my up coming exam, but it would be nice to get ahead of the game with the time is appropriate.

[whitehorse]

digital.poet

4 new sevices to replace FIS, RIS and RAS, to be called basic,traffic, deconfliction and procedural, I think. Went to www.airspacesafety.com (http://www.airspacesafety.com) to check it out out, but the info is not there yet. However all UK licence holders should be getting an interactive CD this winter before the new service comes into force on 12/3 2009. Looking forward to this.:E

WH

[bookworm]

CAP 774 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3174). Don't read it until after your exam, or you'll get confused!

[Droopystop]

I had a quick look at the CD-ROM the other day and it is not bad for the CAA. Certainly explains it reasonably well. At first glance it seems pretty much a change of names with a more explicit definition of each service. The new one on the block is the procedural service but that only applies to IFR traffic.

I'm not looking forward to having to say "Modified Deconfliction Service, SSR only" at regular intervals though. Modified RAS is so much easier to say. (Don't worry D-P this isn't thread creep, this is thread leap!)

[digital.poet]

G-EMMA,

Thanks, it is also good to hear from someone who have recently been in this position. I knew that we were at similar stages in our training, with you slightly ahead of me (you must have your GST coming up soon, if so, best of luck with it!).

I had heard about the fixed requirement of getting the MAYDAY/PAN calls spot on so I have spent a good chunk of time really drilling those.

I spent some time with the RT examiner today and we went through some of the example route he gave me. I did get flustered a few times, especially when he deviated from what I was expecting (which he later told me that he did on purpose as he could tell that I was up to speed on most of it and wanted to test my limits) but he seemed suitably impressed with my prep and said that I shouldn't have a great deal of problems getting through the test, which was a nice confidence boost.

I still have a bit more studying to do, but I am now confident that I can get through it :ok:

[IO540]

There is an alternative practical point of view on all this which is: don't call up any ATC unit unless they can offer you something you need.

In Class G (uncontrolled airspace) you can fly non-radio. If you are qualified to fly in IMC then you can do that non-radio too. And you have nice peace and quiet in the cockpit!

Personally, I don't call up anybody unless they can offer a radar service.

And London Information can't (even if the man had a radar screen in front of him he would not be allowed, due to ATC job demarcation, to use it to help you).

I find that most experienced pilots do exactly this - fly with a listening watch only, tuned in so they can always make a mayday call should they need to. The people who call up London Info tend to be PPL students (who have been trained to call up every Tom Dick and Harry and pass on their inside leg measurement), or people after some specific services (e.g. opening flight plans, checking danger area status, weather for some remote airport...)

Of course one cannot tell this to the RT examiner :)

Radar Information is a UK only concept. Outside the UK you get just FIS (which is a basic ICAO requirement) but some countries are more pragmatic and if the controller has a radar screen (which most of them seem to have, especially France) then he lets it be known (with perhaps the informal words "radar contact") that he can see where you are, may pass you details of conflicting traffic, and because he can see where you are he doesn't have to waste his and your time asking you for position reports with estimates to XYZ; something which London Info will do and which can keep you quite busy enough! Unless you have the route programmed in a GPS and can see the ETA to each waypoint, of course :)

As regards which unit can offer you an FIS, this isn't so complicated in practice. The FIS frequencies (together with the name of the unit) are marked on all ICAO compliant VFR charts. Very often, probably nearly always, this station name is not related to any airport. It is just somebody sitting in some room hundreds of miles away.

One can get an FIS from airports but the more usual thing is to call up the regional FIS shown on the map.

In the UK, a lot of people call up an airport (rather than London Info) for FIS, in the hope that they get better information on traffic flying in the vicinity of that airport, but that is IMHO a waste of time unless the said airport can offer a radar service. Otherwise you get "five aircraft known in the area" which is as much use as a chocolate teapot :)

Unfortunately, I don't think one can make use of the European slant when doing a UK RT exam. Which is no doubt why one gets so many Brits venturing into France and asking for a Radar Information Service...

[PompeyPaul]

Personally, I don't call up anybody unless they can offer a radar service.

......

I find that most experienced pilots do exactly this - fly with a listening watch only
You are certainly a braver man than me. I guess when I get that experience I may do that, but the numbers of times that Farnborough have warned me of conflicting traffic that's helped me spot it :eek:

I'm also incredibly paranoid of infringing and in Farnborough's area (with heathrow and gatwick so close) it's nice to know there's somebody else watching what I'm doing.

Although, of course, you can't rely on FIS to keep you safe and in the right place. It's still down to you as PIC to maintain a good look out, and navigate accurately enough to avoid tea and biccies with the CAA people sans tea and biccies. It's just good to know it's an extra fail safe in place :ok:

[homeguard]

Spitoon

You are arguing over semantics and not the services provided.

For instance a Flight Information Service (noun) is a service facility from whom you may receive a service (the verb). You may, of course, simply ask for an answer to a question even when a service is not intended to be ongoing.

To answer your question of me. An Air/Ground Service (noun) is a facility which may often or never be manned, so could not therefore offer a service (verb) to the pilot. Those permitted to operate the ground station if and when it is manned are only required to meet a minimum level of competence. They are permitted to provide specific information which is known such as the runway currently in use together with the circuit pattern and the altimeter settings currently in use at the airfield. Nothing else! They should be able to answer questions such as the fueling and parking arrangements and other elements of the aerodrome manual, on which they are assessed.

An Aerodrome Flight Information Officer (AFISO) is trained and tested to a higher level and is permitted to control aircraft on the ground but in the air even within the ATZ they may only give information. They have demonstrated their competence to keep a log of movements and therefore they may pass that info to the pilot. i.e. " G-ABCD you are number three, report final". They may NOT clear aircraft to land. AFISO are also tested on the use of all tower equipment available such as approved wind and altimeter setting machines etc.

You asked me for the source. The source is CAP 413. Other sources are those publications for the training and testing of Air/Ground Operators, AFISO and ATC Officers.

I agree the current version of CAP 413 is appaling and is not helpful. Earlier versions were much clearer in explaining the different services within one publication.

The new document CAP 774 is very helpful in explaining the services in detail. There is in my opinion very little that changes from today (within the UK) other than in names such as; BASIC (FIS), TRAFFIC (RIS) and DECONFLICTION (RAS), the letters in brackets are mine . The UK has provided all this for years although much of it will be new to the rest of europe.

Reading about the individual services within CAP 774 will give everyone today a very clear understanding the present system in the UK as well as from next year.

The biggest weakness that candidates for the RT Test demonstrate, to me, when undertaking their RT test is that they do not understand the system. The RT test is about the use of the system as much as it is about RT phraseology.

[IO540]

I guess when I get that experience I may do that, but the numbers of times that Farnborough have warned me of conflicting traffic that's helped me spot it

Farnborough have radar.

[PompeyPaul]

Farnborough have radar. Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. You still use FIS as long as it's backed by radar rather than rejecting anything lower than RIS\RAS ?

Yeah, I agree, your post makes total sense :O

[IO540]

You still use FIS as long as it's backed by radar rather than rejecting anything lower than RIS\RAS ?

Not as such - the options are limited. In the UK, FIS cannot be backed by radar in a manner which is in any way useful. And abroad, one doesn't normally get a choice of service when VFR - it's only FIS.

Let me explain it hopefully more clearly.

In the UK, a controller doing FIS for you is not permitted to pass you anything based on any radar info which he may have access to. So even if he can see you head-on with another aircraft he is not permitted to warn you. (I am sure ATCOs here will correct this if wrong but I am pretty damn sure it is the procedure operated). So you cannot ask for a radar service with an FIS.

In the UK, you can ask for an RIS and (if you get it - it is subject to controller workload) then the controller is permitted to pass you other traffic info (bearing, and level if known). He is not allowed to suggest which way you should turn to avoid it, though they sometimes volunteer this info if you say which way you are turning and it happens to be the obviously wrong way...

Abroad, there is no formal "RIS" or "radar service" (that I know of) and they just call it FIS. They usually do have radar and usually they let you know they can see you on it. They will then pass conflicting traffic info in an informal manner, but Europe generally has so little GA traffic that this is a bit moot. You can fly 200nm in the UK and see 20 planes; 200nm across France or Germany you might see two; 200nm across Italy etc you are unlikely to see even one. (Admittedly this may be because abroad one can easily fly a bit higher, say 8000ft, whereas UK airspace keeps one lower where most GA pilots fly anyway). So, abroad, you just sit there on autopilot in relative peace, eating up the miles while taking pictures and making movies :)

The UK system where FIS does not provide radar based info is to do with the watertight separation between the IFR enroute sector control (London Control etc) which does airways traffic, and all the "VFR dross" below. If you are VFR and call up London Control for a service they will politely tell you where to go. Abroad, they don't have this separation and you can fly e.g. across Belgium at FL80 VFR while getting a radar service, possibly with vectors which is really nice and easy, from say Brussels Approach. Much more pragmatic.

In the UK, to provide some kind of radar service to VFR pilots, the LARS system exists though the main purpose of it is to support the military (who historically did not have decent nav capability and used the map/stopwatch method and were frequently getting lost, and anyway have awful fuel endurance), and also you can get a radar service from airports e.g. Southampton or Thames Radar but they don't really like doing it.

[Pianorak]

. . . However, don't call up any ATC unit unless they can offer you something you need . . .

But by calling up an ATC unit you will be offering them something they might really appreciate and even need. :)

[gasax]

Well Gemma this is supposedly part of the reason why the changes are being brought in.

I think most of us have had this 'higher level' of service. I for one certainly appreciate it. But if you look at the new services you will see a much more legalistic interpretation of the services.

None of this has been helped by past changes and 'advice'. RAS is no longer recommended for VFR flight - but interestingly Deconfliction will be available to VFR. It will be interesting to see if it is actually available.

To be honest I cannot see any ATC person seeing a potential collision deciding to not communicate that fact to the traffic - even though his operating instructions actually prohibit it.

Our local tower has a radar repeater - but their operating instructions prohibit its use for traffic information. They have devised some interesting approaches to work around this!!!

[Crash one]

I have always comunicated with the nearest for a FIS or in the case of an A/G "Flight infomation" without the service. I would feel a bit exposed not in touch with anyone.
FIS with Leuchars last week "G-XXXX be advised, low level traffic approaching your area" I was at 1100ft QNH over 400ft terrain on the way home, very nice view of a Tornado, dead centre 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock 300ft below.

[IO540]

The massive misunderstanding is all this "traffic info" stuff is that the known traffic they tell you about is only the tiny fraction of the actual traffic which happens to be talking to that unit.

There is traffic potentially anywhere, and the UK is fairly busy GA-wise. This is why I find it bizzare issuing notams on military traffic in such and such area - they can be anywhere anyway! And they can and do look after themselves. There is no meaningful avoidance which a GA plane can do against a 500kt jet - especially as a target on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in the sky and will not be seen until too late. The jet has his own radar.

Only a radar ATC unit is able to provide a meaningful service. All that London Info can give you is "13 aircraft known in your area" with no real time aspect to it. And those will be mostly PPL students, mostly flying at ~ 2000ft or below. The other 200 they don't know about.

And if everybody called up London Info, the service would immediately collapse. They can sometimes barely cope as it is, on nice days.

UK mid-airs over the last 10 years average 1 per year, and all but the last one were below 1000ft AGL. The last one was alleged to have happened at 1800ft. These are very low levels which nobody should be flying at (outside the circuit) unless taking photos etc, and suprisingly don't at all correlate to well known airspace bottlenecks such as the 2400ft under the LTMA.

Last UK IMC mid-air was in WW2. No doubt, this is due to the far lower traffic density in IMC.

Technically it would be trivial to deliver a radar feed to any airfield, over the internet. But the job demarcation in ATC (higher salaries for radar qualified operators, etc) means this cannot happen in the UK. It is done abroad. It is already easy to get this info with a sub-£1000 ADS-B receiver box but a) this picks up only targets emitting their position on the 1090ES channel (which are all Enhanced Mode S installations i.e. 250kt+ turboprops and jets and above) and b) the airfield would not be allowed to provide a service based on the info. Let's hope that Eurocontrol don't get the idea of mandating Enhanced Mode S for GA as this will be impossible! But they are gunning for mandatory ADS-B which is bad enough.

[homeguard]

IO540

You appear to have an immensely cynical attitude toward the FIS and appear to see the only value to any service being in RADAR awareness. Most pilots do have a personal radar, it is called the eyeball, which should be used extensively.

A FIS does much more than that only achieved by RADAR. As the CFI of a large club i'm, unfortunately occasionally involved in unraveling why controlled airspace has been infringed by a member or others. In virtually all cases the infringements would have been avoided should the pilot have been receiving a FIS. The incidents over the years have ranged from simple airspace incursions to flying through Red Arrows restricted airspace.

Various FIS units, including London, are brilliant at maintaining a very good situation awareness with those aircraft in touch with them and they are applauded by me if not you. The FIS provides much more than the simple use of RADAR as many have already outlined and should be used by all on every occasion.

[IO540]

As the CFI of a large club i'm, unfortunately occasionally involved in unraveling why controlled airspace has been infringed by a member or others. In virtually all cases the infringements would have been avoided should the pilot have been receiving a FISSurely you are kidding, Homeguard.

The way to avoid a CAS bust is to navigate accurately, not by talking to London Info who have no idea where you are.

There is an attitude in the PPL training circuit that you must talk to everybody enroute. I am not saying this is wrong but I am saying it is largely pointless.

Abroad, VFR, one talks to the regional FIS frequencies (unless instructed otherwise) and that is normal and expected, but they usually do have radar so the interaction is different.

[homeguard]

IO540

If there wasn't a need for services such as FIS then they wouldn't exist. They do exist because they are required and that is why they are valuable.

Navigation skills should be obvious I agree. However many factors lead to infringements. The occasional pilot is particularly vulnerable to overload, however so are many more experienced and professional pilots. It would not be correct to say that professionals do not screw up but only PPL fools do. You shouldn't take my remarks to mean only the PPLs who are members of my club are the ones that have got it wrong.

For the single crew pilot who is; pilot, 1st officer, navigator, radio operator and flight engineer the assistance from a FIS is worth every penny. As I said previously the RADAR facility is only one part of the job.

Infringments happen not because of bad planning necessarily but often as not owing to unforseen circumstances (perhaps bad planning) and /or overload. At these times the FIS will be a second unreplacable member of the crew.

[SwanFIS]

IO540 - "The way to avoid a CAS bust is to navigate accurately, not by talking to London Info who have no idea where you are."

Yes we do, and I can assure you that we stop a large number of CAS / DA infringements and also help reduce the severity of many others who do.

I think a visit to Swanwick to see how ATC works would moderate your somewhat jaundiced view of our service.

[IO540]

If there wasn't a need for services such as FIS then they wouldn't exist. They do exist because they are required and that is why they are valuable.They exist firstly because it is an ICAO obligation to provide an FIS. The majority of services provided to GA exist due to ICAO obligations and not because of some desire to be nice to GA.

They are indeed valuable (for the specific things I mentioned earlier) but not for aiding your own navigation.

I can assure you that we stop a large number of CAS / DA infringements and also help reduce the severity of many others who do.I can see that if somebody reports their position but isn't looking at their chart, then you can tell them they are busting. But how can you stop a bust unless you have access to radar, or refer the pilot to 121.5.

I leave base going south I have to negotiate Southend, so why not talk to them and get a FIS so they know where I am and they can let me know about other traffic?

Also thanks to talking to them I avoided my first CAS infringementYes Emma but again Southend has radar. So, even under an FIS, the ATCO there can see (unofficially of course ;) ) especially given he has VDF, that a certain blip (they have no SSR feed so cannot see the transponder codes) is almost certainly you. And if he can see you are about to bust, he can call you up and ask you to check your position (without, of course, suggesting openly on the radio that he can see you). I call up Southend myself every time I go that way - because they have radar.

But I don't call up London Info because they cannot see me, and they ask for estimates to waypoints which I can give them easily enough (because they are programmed in the GPS) but I don't see the value of this to me or anybody else.

London Info is a great service and I do use it but I cannot see the value for navigation. If they had radar it would be a completely different proposition.

What irritates me is the stupid officialdom and job demarcation which prevent ATCOs everywhere getting a radar feed. Technically it's a piece of cake.

When we get ADS-B this stupid restrictive practice will be moot anyway because every plane spotter will have his own private radar, for a few hundred quid and a laptop, and as accurate as the GPS in each plane.

[IO540]

Yes, it was indeed duff when i went that way on Monday.

[SwanFIS]

IO540 check your pms.:ok:

[jollyrog]

I took an FIS from London Information a couple of weeks ago and got too close to Stansted's air space. London called me and said that "they" (presume Essex Radar) had "been on the phone" and asked me to check my navigation.

If I'd not been receiving the FIS, I wouldn't have received the warning, which appears to have been completely within the rules as it was (apparently) Essex Radar that had interpreted and acted upon the radar trace.

It proved the value of the FIS to me. Even professional pilots with big aeroplanes full of computers land their aircraft at the wrong airports, so with the best will in the world, the amateur like me is going to make mistakes.

Thank you London Information & Essex Radar.

[SwanFIS]

jollyrog

That incident shows just how useful our 1177 is for the owners of CAS.

A quick telephone call to us, a couple of r/t exchanges and potential incident averted. :D

Whereas if they see a 7000 aproaching their CAS all they can do is watch...........................and hope! :sad:

[Droopystop]

So DP - you can see that there seems to be some ambiguity to the FIS. Welcome to aviation!

IO540
There is traffic potentially anywhere, and the UK is fairly busy GA-wise. This is why I find it bizzare issuing notams on military traffic in such and such area - they can be anywhere anyway! And they can and do look after themselves. There is no meaningful avoidance which a GA plane can do against a 500kt jet - especially as a target on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in the sky and will not be seen until too late. The jet has his own radar.

Maybe they do have their own radar, but they don't use it to avoid other non participating traffic. There are plenty of airprox's and mid airs that show they don't. (I'm thinking of Jaguar and gliders on the Welsh Borders, a 152 and Tornado near Retford, Tornado and Super Puma over the North Sea, Tornado and Jet Ranger in the Lakes....). The NOTAMs are there to keep us out so that they can play without(?) fear of meeting GA traffic.

[IO540]

The NOTAMs are there to keep us out so that they can play without(?) fear of meeting GA traffic.

I disagree; if that objective was to be achieved, it would be a TRA or RA(T).

If one was to avoid any area where there is a traffic warning, that would close a lot of Class G. As well as all the AIAAs.

IMHO it makes more sense to ignore these warnings but to get a radar service from somebody.

[Droopystop]

Yes TRAs are another way of doing it and perhaps that is what the military pilots would want to have, but airspace constraints mean they have to make do with a NOTAM instead.

In my experience AAIAs (I'm thinking of the Vale of York and areas around Lincolnshire) have plenty of transiting and general handling military traffic, but not so much high energy manoeverings. IE they can generally comply with the rules of the air. The NOTAM'd airspace seems to always end with "may not be able to comply with rules of the air". Which could mean all sorts. By that token, a radar service is not much use since the controller may not be talking to the military traffic and therefore have no idea what they are about to do. Even if they are talking to them, the things move so fast the controller is not likely to have time to sort out deconfliction. I have been in the scenario of being at 1500' being warned of military traffic indicating FL460 (yes I do mean 46 THOUSAND feet) in my x o'clock range x miles. And that is a real pain when you are receiving a RAS, are carrying minimum fuel and are in IMC.

I really wish the military fast jets had some form of TCAS, but they don't. They are the single most scarey thing about flying in certain parts of this country.

[digital.poet]

Hello folks, making a further post for 2 reasons...

A) I wanted to resurrect my flagship thread!

B) Wanted to let you know that I passed and am now a FRTOL holder (in principal, will apply for the actual license with the PPL).

I can't thank you guys enough for all your help. Of all the exams and tests, and excluding the GST, this was the one that scared me the most. To hear my examiner say... "Not only did you pass, but it was a *good* pass" was music to my ears!!

Thanks again.

[BRL]

Well done DP, great news. :)