Fis/basic - ATSOCAS Changes - 12th March

[honda cbx]

I must have missed something , am i right in hearing on the grapevine that instead of requesting a flight information service, i now request a basic service ?

[Cessna-172-Pilot]

All changing, follow this link for more details.
http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/ATSOCAS.asp (http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/ATSOCAS.asp)
Happy flying

[L'aviateur]

This isn't just a renaming, there are a lot of changes to the fundamentals of the Flight Information Service. Whilst some may or may not agree with the changes (see thread on ATC forums), it will be occuring and should be fully understood before flying and using these services.
Changes in phrasology will be occuring too, which need to be learn't.

I received a CD-Rom and information pack from the CAA recently, and I believe this has been sent out to all UK pilots and some European pilots known to frequent UK airspace (not sure how they know the details, but more information on the ATC thread).

I would recommend visiting the ATSOCAS (Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace) website to understand what service you will be receiving before you fly.

Strangely though, I haven't seen any posted information about this in the flying schools and clubs i've visited in recent weeks. Most people i've spoken to are very disgruntled with it, yet haven't read or understood the information sent out. Personally I have no opinion either way, I just accept it since I have no choice.

[honda cbx]

Cheers mate i'm glad i asked and glad you replied !! thanks again.

[Cessna-172-Pilot]

Total coincidence - my training disc arrived this morning, yours shouldn't be far behind.
Regards
C172

[OwnNav]

L'aviateur

Thanks for that info.

I really must get modern and stop saying "QSY en route".

Cheers

[Mikehotel152]

I received that disc by post this morning. It is a complete waste of money. All it does is re-hash the relevant CAP with a few people voicing the radio calls. How much did it cost to produce? £10 on each licence application fee? The CAA are a joke. :ugh:

The changes are simple and all the information is available on the internet for free. No doubt it will be pasted up on every Flying Club notice board and featured in every flying magazine this/next month too.




Edited to apologise. I'm in a bad mood today...:*

[honda cbx]

I'll make up the trio, got my disc today !!

[L'aviateur]

Mikehotel152,

Whilst I don't support that this change has been entirely necessary, and agree its a pretty expensive fiasco, I must disagree with your comments:

"All it does is re-hash the relevant CAP", "The changes are simple"

There is a lot more too understand what exactly you are getting, and you won't receive the same information as you have come to expect from simply asking for a FIS, and you must understand the options availably fully to properly choose what level of support and information you require or desire.

With regards the RT, whilst I don't claim to be faultless in mine, I am quite astonished at how bad even some simple circuit calls can be with lots of 'errrs, erms' and non standard phrasology chit chat.

[nick14]

Got mine today, forgot to bring it to the office though so guess I will have to work today:}

[tmmorris]

Who's tried the new ATSOCAS CD from the CAA? (Mine came yesterday.)

Or the online version here: Air Space Safety: News (http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/articles.asp#)

They state that the new services are not just new names for the old ones but mostly it seems to me they are... A summary of the differences would have been very useful.

Tim

[nick14]

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/363715-fis-basic.html

Haven't tried it yet but I agree a simplified summary may have been a good addition to compliment the cd.

[flightlevel1985]

I went to a joint CAA / NATS presentation at Barton last night. It was interesting. I think the general idea behind it all is to make sure people are fully aware of the benefits of each service and what exactly each service can offer. The speaker basically said that the old services had become mishaped and unsafe due to a lack of consistency, ie when received a FIS, people were getting a FIS from some units and a RIS from others. So although the new services may seem similar to the old ones, the fact is that the old ones had become dilluted and were offering more than they should have in some cases. In turn, this had led to airproxes etc as people were used to be being told about traffic more than they should have.

The feel I got was that the new services are therefore redesigned in order to ensure people get what they ask for, although if a unit decide that they must provide an extra service to avoid a potential collision, they can do. One thing that was said, was that the traffic service is very similar, if not the same as the old RIS.

[Mikehotel152]

L'aviateur - I apologise. I was a bit harsh. However, I stand by my argument that all the information is already in the public domain and producing a CD was an unnecessary cost.

I completely agree about the standard of R/T but there's already plenty in CAP413.

[fisbangwollop]

I make my living providing an area FIS....come the 12th apart from the name change to Basic Service nothing else should really change....if I am working other traffic that I think may be in conflict with you I will advise you as I would have in the past ( Duty of care!!) Only a BS "Basic Service" will be provided by both London and Scottish information as A TS "traffic Service" is a radar based service.:ok:

[atceng]

fisbangwollop
Thank goodness you didn't take the golden handshake (if it was offered) on the 'abolition' of SFIS.
Your tactful help with tremulous attempts at correct procedure and traffic info are appreciated and are required for some little (or large) time yet.
Reading beteween your lines 'plus le change plus le meme chose' as far as you are concerned,hopefully.

atceng

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

I got my nice new disk from the CAA.

But when I put it in my computer (Windows XP) it did not start up automatically.

So I looked at the cardboard sleeve to see if there was a run command that I could key in, and guess what?

Nothing.

So I had to download the damn thing anyway.

I wonder why they bothered.

Anybody want a disk?

Broomstick.

[bern444]

For Windows -
In My Computer, open the DVD drive by clicking on it, then double click ATSOCAS.exe.

It's incredibly fragmented and difficult to find simple info about what should be simple things. I gave up and hunted around the net but only found the same thing online. It would help enormously if they stopped trying to be clever in an area in whcih they obviously have no expertise (multimedia), and wrote a straightforward simple guide for the GA pilot. I expect all the magazines have it sensibly decoded, but I haven't checked.

Bernie

[Jumbo Driver]

... it's just like politics these days - too much emphasis on the spin ... and not enough on the substance ...

JD
:bored:

[dublinpilot]

Only a BS "Basic Service" will be provided by both London and Scottish information as A TS "traffic Service" is a radar based service

Scottish Info have been able to provide RIS in the past, so presumably will be able to provide a TS in the future.

[SwanFIS]

"Only a BS "Basic Service" will be provided by both London and Scottish information as A TS "traffic Service" is a radar based service"

Scottish Information is often provided by their airways controllers. London Info is always provided by Area FISOs......hence the difference.

[Ivor_Novello]

Where I would have asked for a RAS, I will ask for a Deconfliction Service. The level of service provided will be subject to controller workload.

You can now ask for a DS even if VFR, while the RAS is restricted to IFR only.

Other than that, I don't see many substantial differences.

I think there will be more emphasis on the "take your own terrain clearance" bit even for Traffic Service (althought the pilot is entirely responsible for terrain clearance with a RIS, unless on vectors).

Once again, we're spelling out rules that already exist. It's a bit like now, issuing a VFR clearance, the controller needed to remind you "Remain clear of cloud and with the surface in sight".

We probably wouldn't have had these changes if it wasn't for the Ben Macdui crash, no surprise all over the new ATSOCAS it's branded a "joint civil and military initiative".

[fisbangwollop]

Scottish Info have been able to provide RIS in the past, so presumably will be able to provide a TS in the future.


Not on 119.875mhz they have not...this frequency is a non radar based FIS only service...as SWANFIS says other Scottish sectors at times will provide a RIS/TS also using the callsign Scottish information.....see "UK Air Pilot" for designated areas.

[DavidHoul52]

With the "agreement" thing does it mean if I say I am maintaining 3000 feet I have to ask permission to fly at another level?

[Rightbase]

That is what other aircraft will be told, and (hopefully) they will all then be part of a coordinated plan to miss you.

If you decide to fly at a different level without telling anybody you could mess up that plan.

[octavian]

Airbus 38: Deconfliction service will only be provided by a surveillance (radar) unit above their ATC terrain safe altitude. If you are below that level you won't get DS.

[Islander2]

Airbus 38: Deconfliction service will only be provided by a surveillance (radar) unit above their ATC terrain safe altitude. If you are below that level you won't get DS.Airbus38 was talking about changes and differences. Your observation is equally true of RAS, i.e no change!

[Shunter]

I think the changes are positive overall. That said, the traditional services are not hard to grasp yet it's scary how many people don't, won't or can't understand what they're entitled to and that what they might be additionally receiving is a bonus because the controller has the grace and capacity to provide it.

Providing services with more obvious titles is progress, but the stupid and ignorant will still be stupid and ignorant.

[octavian]

Quote

If anybody can see any startling changes that will make my attitude towards the change fundamentally dangerous, can they let me know?

Time may tell what effect the changes will have. It probably won't be to the detriment of those in high office places. It probably won't be to the advantage of those on the front line, so let us all be careful out there.

[DavidHoul52]

If you decide to fly at a different level without telling anybody you could mess up that plan.


Sorry .. it was a dumb question :oh: Now I have watched the CD it doesn't seem like much has changed beyond now having to ask for a "Basic Service" rather than FIS. Presumably not using the word "maintain" does not imply an agreement.

Overheard on Saturday

ATC: What is your estimate for X?
Aircraft: er...um.. er....
(Break in transmission. Long pause)
Aircraft: I don't know. I'll need some time to work it out.

[fabs]

If anyone is in or near the Yorkshire area, I do know a military airfield near Sherburn is offering (with the help of GATCO) an ATSOCAS brief on Sat 7 Mar at 11am It is aimed at all pilots from the ppl to the professional who may have to operate in class G. Landing fees waived (still have the insurance indemnity charge though).
I also know take up has been fairly disappointing with many pilots thinking it is 'just a name change'.
It is strictly ppr though if you're interested.

[fabs]

126.5 Fenton

[Jumbo Driver]

... I also know take up has been fairly disappointing with many pilots thinking it is 'just a name change' ...

Which is hardly surprising - because 'just a name change' is pretty well what it will probably turn out to be, I'm sure.

I attended a similar "brief" a couple of weeks ago and failed to sense any significant changes for the user, except that DS will now be available under VFR as well as IFR ...

JD
:)

[L'aviateur]

Excellent seminar at Church Fenton, was very good to hear the views of ATC. A few issues significant changes, which could surprise those who haven't read and researched the CD-Rom and information. We were told that the CAA are taking people who fail to acknowledge the changes very seriously, and that they must be reported and may have licenses revoked until they have completed training to understand fully what they are receiving, obviously I think this is at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Also particularly enjoyed flying into a RAF airfield :-)

[Jumbo Driver]

We were told that the CAA are taking people who fail to acknowledge the changes very seriously, and that they must be reported and may have licenses revoked until they have completed training to understand fully what they are receiving, obviously I think this is at the extreme end of the spectrum.

What nonsense, I really can't see that happening - I wonder who was trying to put the frighteners on whom by suggesting that ... ?

Who gave the talk - military or civil ATC ?

JD
:)

[ShyTorque]

We were told that the CAA are taking people who fail to acknowledge the changes very seriously, and that they must be reported and may have licenses revoked until they have completed training to understand fully what they are receiving,

Eh? How will the CAA know that an individual has "failed" to acknowledge the changes? Who must report them?

[L'aviateur]

Senior Military ATCO, he advised that the CAA have asked them to report anyone who fails to have any knowledge of the changes to the CAA and advise them to land at the nearest airfield for rebriefing.

[Jumbo Driver]

What absolutely laughable rubbish! :D

He must have been pulling your plonker - nobody with any nouse would take that seriously ...

JD
:)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... it's just like politics these days - too much emphasis on the spin ... and not enough on the substance ...
Er ... have you ever actually tried being a politician?

Here's an experiment for you:

(1) Get yourself elected to something.
(2) Do something.
(3) Try and get the media interested in the substance.

Million to one on you'll fail, especially if whatever-it-is is good news. The only thing you have the remotest chance of getting the media to take an interest in is spin, or bad news, or silly party political squabbling. To be in with a really good chance you have to put all three into your press release.

[L'aviateur]

What absolutely laughable rubbish! :D

He must have been pulling your plonker - nobody with any nouse would take that seriously ...

Well, unfortunately not everyone is as experienced and as knowledgable as you. But it seemed a fairly plausable action; despite the fact that the CAA doesn't actually seem to take a lot of action against poor airmanship and comms.
I have no reason or authority to argue with a senior military ATCO, but I do find it annoying that you would throw such a childishly worded comment without explaining or backing up your argument.

On another forum, comments from another seminar by the senior CAA implimentor for the new ATSOCAS has said that that no action would be taken against offenders.

I'm simply repeating what was said for the benefit of those who weren't able to attend a seminar.

[Islander2]

L'aviateur, you (and others that have attended presentations) have repeated what you have been told, which is that the revised ATSOCAS will bring in next week lots of 'fundamental changes' beyond just new terminology and a more comprehensively-documented basis for the services, driven by a CYA mentality from service provider organisations. Many of us who have a very good understanding of the existing services and who have closely studied CAP 774 are extremely puzzled by that statement.

What would be really helpful is if we had a list of, say, the ten most significant changes from the old services provided outside controlled airspace, from a pilot's perspective, beyond name changes and legal small print. Bizarrely, the CAA have chosen not to provide us with any such a comparison, either in CAP 774 or in the CD.

Based on the presentation you attended, would you like to have a go at such a list? You'd be providing the pilot community with a great service if you were able to do so factually.

[ShyTorque]

Never fear, "Senior Military ATCO" won't be on duty at weekends...

In any event, ATCOs have no jurisdiction to advise pilots to do anything of the sort and to do so could cause a flight safety issue. There is of course no mandate to speak to ATC at all if outside controlled airspace! Comments such as that one will hardly encourage inexperienced pilots to voluntarily make radio contact for fear of falling foul of "Senior Military ATCOs".

[L'aviateur]

I may have misinterpreted what was said at the seminar, but these are some of the points which I felt were specifically different and worth mentioning.

Basic Service: Officially you won't receive any specific traffic information unless the ATCO deems that you on a direct collision course and a DEFINATE risk of collision exists, he 'MAY' then advise you of that.
The ATCO may ask you to maintain a heading, altitude etc, if you agree then you are LEGALLY BOUND to that and must not change without informing the ATCO.

Traffic Service: This more closely resembles what I have come to expect from a FIS. It will only provide information that will pass within 3nm and 3000ft, but you will make an agreement on your heading/altitude etc and you must maintain that as you will be LEGALLY bound.

Deconfliction Service: Now available to VFR pilots, however this could mean that you can be vectored anywhere the ATC decides to maintain seperation. The other thing is that the ATCO does not have to inform you about traffic which he has 'coordinated' which may pass as close as 500ft underneath/over you (i.e a hercules). Also you should not take a deconfliction service when you don't need it is as you may have taken too much of that ATCO's attention needlessly affecting the service for other aircraft, which if proven could be illegal.

This is only my interpretation of what was said, which stood out amongst the other changes.

There is a topic on the ATC section, which is probably much more detailed and correct.

[Jumbo Driver]

L'aviateur, I'm sorry if you found my post too abrupt but I was frankly astonished that anyone in ATC would even suggest such a thing. I certainly didn't mean to offend or annoy you.

ShyTorque's comments (above) say it all. It's just not CAA policy to act in that way and no ATCO (military or civil) has the authority to "instruct" you to land anywhere. If the "Senior Military ATCO" really said that, he should be professionally ashamed of himself. If I had been there, I would have made my views known in precisely that vein.

Maybe he reads PPRuNe and may choose to comment ... ?


JD
:)

[Islander2]

L'aviateur, thanks for that. Unfortunately, either the presenter was wrong on a number of the points in your list or you have made several errors of interpretation.

Basic Service: Officially you won't receive any specific traffic information unless the ATCO deems that you on a direct collision course and a DE, FINATE risk of collision exists, he 'MAY' then advise you of that.Outside ATZs, that is no change from what was previously laid down as a Flight Information Service (AIC 48/2004 refers). Inside ATZs, the Basic Service does not apply at all; in Class G ATZs, the service from FISOs will continue to be a 'Flight Information Service' because they are obliged to give specific traffic information!

The ATCO may ask you to maintain a heading, altitude etc, if you agree then you are LEGALLY BOUND to that and must not change without informing the ATCOTrue, that is a change, but only regarding a Basic Service provided by an ATCO; furthermore, it is the exception rather than the rule, and in practice I bet you don't hear it very often. Such an agreement cannot be entered into by a FISO, however, so it generally isn't going to affect the services you receive on London and Scottish Information, or from aerodrome FISOs when you're outside their Class G ATZs, and therefore hardly any change here.

Traffic Service: This more closely resembles what I have come to expect from a FIS. It will only provide information that will pass within 3nm and 3000ftNot really. The controller will now pass information on relevant traffic (CAP 774 refers), whereas before the controller was obliged to pass information on conflicting traffic (AIC 119/2006 refers). The 3nm/3000ft is merely a guideline as to what constitutes 'relevant'. There is no material change here.

but you will make an agreement on your heading/altitude etc and you must maintain that as you will be LEGALLY bound.No, a Traffic Service does not oblige you to make an agreement with the controller regarding headings/altitudes, etc, although as with a Basic Service, the controller may seek such an agreement on a short term tactical basis. You are obliged to advise the controller and obtain a response before changing level, level band or route, but that is also true of a RIS (CAP 774 and AIC 119/2006 refer); so no change here.

Deconfliction Service: Now available to VFR pilots True, this is a change, but those of us who have been using these services for rather longer will recall that this was the status quo until about ten years ago, at which time it was changed to IFR-only. And that change was accomplished without establishing working groups, publishing lengthy CAPs, compiling and circulating CDs and renaming the service!

The other thing is that the ATCO does not have to inform you about traffic which he has 'coordinated' which may pass as close as 500ft underneath/over you (i.e a hercules).The principal separation goal of a Deconfliction Service for uncoordinated traffic is 5nm or 3000ft, which is exactly the same as it is under a RAS (CAP 774 and AIC 119/2006 refer). Minimum separation for co-ordinated traffic under RAS was a matter of ATSU regulatory approval, and hence was not promulgated in the generality; under a Deconfliction Service it is, as 5nm or 1000ft, although it can be 500 ft subject to regulatory approval. From a pilot's perspective, these separation goals do not represent a material change.

Also you should not take a deconfliction service when you don't need it is as you may have taken too much of that ATCO's attention needlessly affecting the service for other aircraft, which if proven could be illegalSorry but, to paraphrase Jumbo Driver, the latter part of that sentence is more laughable rubbish.

Overall, considering that neither UK Class G aerodrome services nor the foreign FIRs immediately surrounding the UK are embraced by the new ATSOCAS, what it seems to me we are going to have is more complexity and correspondingly less understanding; which is particularly bizarre given that the initiative was allegedly driven by the confusion surrounding the existing services!

What it doesn't seem we are going have, at least from the average GA pilot's perspective, is much in the way of material change other than the names of the services!

[Jumbo Driver]

L'aviateur, it would seem you may have been the victim of a highly subjective and possibly very slanted presentation of the "new" ATSOCAS provisions and Islander2 has offered you an excellent critique of the points you have reported. I would add that, the seemingly threatening interpretations which may have been implied to you should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. ATSOCAS is designed as a Service not as a diktat.

I would strongly recommend you read (re-read?) CAP774 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP774.pdf)and derive your own expectations about the Services that will be provided. As I have said before, I am firmly of the opinion that this exercise will, in practice, deliver few substantive changes to the user, with the principal exception being that DS is now available under VFR as well as IFR.


JD
:)

[Lurking123]

I wholeheartedly agree with Islander2. A couple of 'clarifications' and some other fluffy stuff but basically the same as before. If there was nothing fundamentally wrong with ATSOCAS, why go through the re-naming process? If one is to believe the party line about education, I presume that the names will change again in 10 years or so.

There was definitely a need for education and common standards of application but all this rubbish?

PS. What's the difference between VFR and IFR in uncontrolled airspace? Terrain safe and quadrantals. I believe you will find that both will continue to apply for DS.:ugh:

[Jumbo Driver]

... here's a reply I drafted earlier, but decided not to send ...


It sounds as if a certain "senior military ATCO" may have some hidden agenda to "bring GA into line". As I recall, the ATSOCAS provisions and LARS originated as a quid pro quo for the introduction of MATZs, which are obligatory for military pilots but entirely voluntary for civil pilots. If military controllers seek to encourage participation from GA pilots in and around their MATZs, then they should portray a significantly more friendly and helpful approach than you seem to have received at this seminar.

It was probably just as well I was not at that seminar. I might have been tempted to tell him to get down off his superior military high horse and stop spouting such self-important misleading and intimidating rubbish and start concentrating on correctly explaining - and delivering - the ATSOCAS which will actually be provided by his unit for the benefit of GA in Class G airspace.

What a plonker! After what I have heard, I certainly wouldn't bother calling his MATZ for a Service under ATSOCAS ...



... but, as I said, I decided not to post it after all ... ;)


JD
:)

[Lurking123]

I wouldn't class SATCO Linton/Fenton as a Senior military atco. Indeed, if it is the chap I think it is, the chap is most definitely a pompous, out of touch ****.
I would suggest you don't tar all military atcos with the same brush.:{

[modelman]

I am right in understanding that (unlike RAS) you can receive this service VFR but you must be prepared to go IMC if a heading/alt request will put you there.
Presumably,you would be none too popular if you requested DS and declined a request from ATC that put you IMC,thereby really DS is only practicable when flying VFR when there is not a cloud to be had?

MM

[Jumbo Driver]

modelman, the answer is to be found, quite clearly set out in CAP774 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP774.pdf) and you should read it. :bored:

For those who may be too lazy or disinclined to look it up for themselves, the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

3 Flight Rules and Meteorological Conditions
A Deconfliction Service is available under IFR or VFR and in any meteorological conditions. The controller will expect the pilot to accept headings and/or levels that may require flight in IMC. A pilot who is not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a Deconfliction Service unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.Pilots that do not require ATC deconfliction advice or deconfliction minima to be applied should not request a Deconfliction Service.

JD
:)

[modelman]

unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.


Have read CAP 774 and the above only confirms that for a non-IMC pilot you could only request DS on a cloudless day as an ATC intruction could put you IMC.
I have (up to now) only requested RIS when the vis has been less than perfect,perhaps I should have been using it more often-learning all the time!

MM

[NorthSouth]

L'aviateur:Senior Military ATCO, he advised that the CAA have asked them to report anyone who fails to have any knowledge of the changes to the CAA and advise them to land at the nearest airfield for rebriefing
Lurking123:I wouldn't class SATCO Linton/Fenton as a Senior military atcoWhether it was SATCO Linton or SATCO Fenton makes a huge difference. Although your talk, l'aviateur, was apparently at Fenton, since Fenton has no surveillance radar, provides no radar services (apart from Talkdown) and is not a LARS provider, their SATCO's authority to talk about anything other than BS is somewhat limited. Linton, on the other hand, is the LARS provider for that area and also provides all Fenton's approach and departure radar services.
It seems unfortunate that people are spouting off in public fora about what this or that aspect of the new ATSOCAS means when they may not actually have the answers. We had a similar situation recently where the presenter was an en route radar ATCO with little or no experience of providing ATSOCAS and had to be corrected on several points by the civil and military ATCOs in the audience who are the ATSOCAS providers for the area.
It'll all come out in the wash this week and I live in hope that the common sense that largely drives the system now will prevail.
NS

[fabs]

Just a quick point of order, the ATC Sqn at RAF Linton on Ouse provides controllers for LOO and Fenton who are both endorsed at Church Fenton and in the radar positions at Linton (inc both SATCOs).

[honda cbx]

I think there might be some interesting reading here on the 13th !!

[ACR_430]

Jumbo Driver:

As you decided to post the thread you weren't going to send......

It would have been great if you had been at the seminar, then you would realise that the standard Cap 774 brief was given and that L'aviateur may have misinterpreted/misunderstood some parts, as he does say in one of his replies.

Islander 2 has given a good response to someone who clearly wants to get to grips with the change.:D

Your swipe at the ATCO though is pretty cheap:=considering you weren't there. Clearly you are beyond reproach in all that you do........:ugh:Bet they can't wait for you to avoid their MATZ!

[Jumbo Driver]

ACR 430, clearly the fact that my "non-posted post" was to some degree tongue-in-cheek went straight past you - I am sorry about that.

I agree it would indeed have been great had I been at the seminar and I could have heard it all first hand. Perhaps L'aviateur has got it all completely wrong ... However, as it sounds as if you were there, perhaps you would like to comment further and tell us what actually was said... ?

Also, I would like to know what you mean when you say that "the standard Cap 774 brief was given". What standard brief? Where did that come from? Does it reflect details like "We were told that the CAA are taking people who fail to acknowledge the changes very seriously, and that they must be reported and may have licenses revoked until they have completed training to understand fully what they are receiving, ..." or are you saying that was entirely a figment of L'aviateur's imagination ?


JD
:)

[fisbangwollop]

I presently provide a FIS at Scottish info......come the glorious 12th I will provide a BS......hopefully that will be the only change my customers will be aware of......if I am working traffic "A" that I think from his reported track may come into conflict with traffic "B" I will advise both of each others intentions....just as I always have....."Duty of Care" and all that!!.......I reckon the majority operating VFR and below 5000ft in class "G" airspace have so far been happy with a FIS and therefore will still be happy with a BS.........good luck one and all :ok:

[flybymike]

"Good luck one and all."

A worrying remark from a BS provider......;)

[Droopystop]

No mention here of the procedural service..... That to me seems the major change. Moreover the latter part of CAP 774 makes mention of the possibility of a procedural service being supplimented by a limited traffic service, which seems to fly in the face of the whole ethos behind the change.

Oh well I suppose it won't affect many people.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to memorise the service I will have to read back:

"Offshore deconfliction service limited traffic information transponding traffic only."

[NorthSouth]

fbw:if I am working traffic "A" that I think from his reported track may come into conflict with traffic "B" I will advise both of each others intentions....just as I always haveJust the kind of common sense I'd expect from Scottish Info - thank you!:ok:
NS

[PompeyPaul]

When flying on frequency to Farnborough radar, where you previously had a FIS what would you ask for now ? My understanding is that you would ask for a "Traffic Service" and not expect to enter into a contract with respect to headings & altitudes.

However when approaching non-radar units (i.e. aerodromes) you would then ask for a Basic service.

I'm guessing how you know which services are on offer ? For example Goodwood would offer a FIS but because they don't have radar presumably they can now only offer a basic service rather than a traffic service ? Therefore interchanging FIS & Traffic as well as "traffic information" and basic seems impossible ? Despite getting all of the questions in the test at the end I'm still a little confused as to how it works in progress.

I think I'd like to be ordered to land at the nearest aerodrome for rebriefing.

[dublinpilot]

Simply ask for whatever service you want. If you want a traffic service, then ask for that. If they don't have radar, or can't provide the service for some other reason, then they will tell you that and offer an alternative service. If you absolutely know that they don't have radar, then there is no point in asking for anything other than a basic service.

A FIS in the old system is pretty much equilivant to a basic service. The trouble seems to be was that a lot of people expected (but had no right to expect) details of traffic on a FIS.

FIS=Basic Service
RIS=Traffic Service
RAS=Deconfliction service

But that translation assumes that you fully understood what a FIS/RIS/RAS was in the first place, and the trouble seems to be that a lot of people didn't.

dp

[PH-UKU]

Previously ..... "G-ABCD, identified, Radar Advisory/Radar Information Service" (instinctively, due to 25 years experience, and solid knowledge of airspace etc..)

After March 12th .... and numerous airspace changes ... which change Class depending on day of week, time of day and level, introduction of TRAs, new ATSOCA names etc..

"G-ABCD, identified (looks at radar screen) ..... Traffic Service limited due to controller workload (looks at blood pressure monitor), while I try to :mad:ing work out ....

A) whether it's a weekday/weekend (looks at calendar and thinks)
B) what time of day it is (looks at watch and thinks)
C) if relevant military TRA is activated/deactivated (scrolls through and looks at .... 3 info pages ... and thinks)
D) depending on your position and level (and conditions A, B and C) whether you are actually in Class F, Class G or Class C airspace. (looks at radar, watch, calendar and the heavens ... and thinks)

<next aircraft calls before getting a chance to reply to G-ABCD ... "G-EFGH requesting a Radar Service">

Yeah, I'm REALLY looking forward to this, especially at the dinner time rush with 12 aircraft on a Radar ... errr...... no .... I ... mean ..... a Deconfliction Service

:mad:ing bureaucracy. :ugh:

[Airbus38]

What about foreign pilots flying around in uncontrolled UK airspace (including the commercial traffic)?

Are they now going to be even more unsure how to answer the question "What service are you requesting outside controlled airspace?". How can they possibly be aware that they are entering into a 'contract' with the controller?

[fisbangwollop]

Just to throw a spanner in the works I hear it mentioned a week or so back that come 2011 this may all change again as we have to fall in line with the rest of Europe....!!!!!!.....why the f..k did we not do that this time around then?????????????????????

back on duty Friday the 13th..!!! if you hear me on Scottish Info 119.875 I will appologise now if I say FIS instead of BS.......it took me an age to stop saying Shanwick the last time I moved...!!!!!!:ok:

[PompeyPaul]

But that translation assumes that you fully understood what a FIS/RIS/RAS was in the first place, and the trouble seems to be that a lot of people didn't.
And were also used to receiving extra information on a FIS that they weren't obliged to receive. So moving forward now, to retain the same level of service, do I ask for a "basic" and hope I get traffic information, or do I just ask for a traffic service ? I'm sure it will all become clear...

[Islander2]

So moving forward now, to retain the same level of service, do I ask for a "basic" and hope I get traffic information, or do I just ask for a traffic service ?
Maybe it will depend upon whom you ask!

If you request a 'basic' from a LARS provider who you used to provide you with an 'enhanced-FIS', you may well be disappointed. For sure, however, if you request a 'traffic service' from London or Scottish Information, you'll definitely be disappointed!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you request a 'basic' from a LARS provider who you used to provide you with an 'enhanced-FIS', you may well be disappointed.
Eh??

What if you also want something else from them, such as DAAIS which they are promulgated to provide or the QNH of their airfield (which is under some controlled airspace), and you quite like having an alerting service, but you've no need at all for someone to be watching you on radar, particularly as you're flying at 7,000', above all the other traffic you could conflict with, and they sound somewhat busy anyway? They'll give you the DAAIS and QNH and push you off onto London Information will they??

I didn't get any sense of that from reading the documentation.

[NorthSouth]

GtW:A Basic Service is an ATS provided for the purpose of giving advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights. This may include weather information, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes, general airspace activity information, and any other information likely to affect safety.
A Traffic Service is a surveillance based ATS, where in addition to the provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides...
A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides...
Why would a LARS provider stop providing alerting service, weather etc?

Dublinpilot:The trouble seems to be was that a lot of people expected (but had no right to expect) details of traffic on a FISI've heard that a lot, but I think it's wrong. What happened was that (some) conscientious controllers gave traffic info when they thought it appropriate. I don't believe there were many pilots who expected it - they just valued it when it was given.
NS

[flybymike]

NS is right. I never expected traffic info from an FIS service but was grateful to receive it from a conscientious controller aware of his duty of care.

Nothing will change. The conscientious controllers will continue to provide traffic info when they think it appropriate.

Goes to show the whole exercise has been largely unnecessary.

[fisbangwollop]

First day on duty today after the ATSOCA changes...........I must admit I was well impresed with you all today as only one out of many asked for a FIS on 119.875......the rest on inital contact asked for a "Basic service".....well done one and all..........:ok:

[flybymike]

Sad... I was hoping for a mass rebellion and workto rule from all staunch FIS, RAS, and RIS supporters

[PompeyPaul]

Whilst on Farnborough today I heard somebody ask for FIS. Luckily they were not ordered to land at the nearest airfield for full briefing.

Apart from saying "BASIC" instead of "Flight Information" it all seems pretty smooth although I did doubly concentrate on changing to Farnborough to make sure I said "basic" instead of "flight information"

[Jumbo Driver]

Yes, I agree, it seems just like the non-event I rather thought it would be and little more than a name-change exercise. It was a lovely day for GA today and most calls I heard on London Information were correctly requesting "Basic Service" - although I did hear one request for a "Basic Traffic Service" ...

More interesting, however, was the lady controller on London Information (124.750) this afternoon who was acknowledging all requests to her with "Flight Information, Basic Service" ... :D


JD
:)

[OneIn60rule]

Most people here just got offered BASIC as soon as they left the ZONE.


Today though---15 of march seems some received... well FIS...

I think people should just relax a little, it's a good start but both Pilots and ATCO's will get it wrong for a bit.

1/60

[goatface]

The first nice weekend for flying after the changes and boy did we have to work for a living!;)

It seems that, at the moment that the proviso's of a Basic service (i.e no traffic information has to be passed) is causing some pilots to ask for a traffic service instead.
A traffic service can only provided if the radar coverage permits it and often the service was limited because pilots requesting the service were flying below radar cover.

Don't forget that whatever the service, we have a duty of care and even if you only request, or get a Basic service, we will still give information on traffic if a confliction is likely.

[PompeyPaul]

Don't forget that whatever the service, we have a duty of care and even if you only request, or get a Basic service, we will still give information on traffic if a confliction is likely.
Yes, I think that this is the confusing part.

[Jumbo Driver]

Don't forget that whatever the service, we have a duty of care and even if you only request, or get a Basic service, we will still give information on traffic if a confliction is likely.

It is precisely the same duty of care that existed when Basic Service was called Flight Information Service, as I understand it.

FIS didn't formally require any traffic information to be passed either ... so, despite all the hype, nothing has really changed, surely ... ?


JD
:)

[bottom rung]

Its not precisely the same duty of care; its now in print, rather than implicit. It always used to be an unwritten rule... always lurking in the background looking over your shoulder. Now it is in black and white in the CAP774. Sooner or later some poor sap will be up in front of the beak for not fulfilling that duty of care by not passing enough traffic info to prevent a collision. Notwithstanding the requirements detailed in the provision of a basic service, CAP774 has the following nugget buried in the small print:

"....the nature of the ATS task in Class F/G airspace means that it is not possible to be totally prescriptive about all actions to be taken, particularly with regard to unknown traffic and the passing of advice and warnings on high risk conflictions to pilots who have requested lower level services (i.e. Basic Service and Traffic Service). Consequently, there is a need for controllers/FISOs to remain free to use their professional judgement to determine the best course of action for them to take for any specific situation."

Therefore, if I am aware of a real risk of a collision, rather than sit on my hands and not pass specific traffic info, I shall use my professional judgement and do whatever I consider necessary to prevent a collision and keep myself out of court.

[Jumbo Driver]

Its not precisely the same duty of care; its now in print, rather than implicit.

I think you will find that a Duty of Care exists from English Common Law and, rather as you suggest, is implicit whenever you "perform acts or services that could foreseeably adversely affect or harm others". The only difference is that, in this wearying 'elf 'n safety and increasingly litigious culture, the bits relevant to ATSOCAS are now spelt out in CAP774.

So, I would respectfully suggest that the Duty of Care that existed with FIS remains unchanged - it's just the awareness of it, by those who have both read and understood CAP774, that may have changed.


JD
:)

[bottom rung]

As I said, it is no longer precisely the same; previously it was unwritten, now it is written. The application of it remains the same, however.
I just find it ironic that one one hand the new rules were wheeled out to prevent blurring of the definitions of the available services, yet on the other hand if we don't blur the edges we could be in contravention of the same document.

[niknak]

If anyone has the time to look up the meaning of Duty of Care in law, they will discover that, as is published in the back of the guidence notes for the new services, that law requires all employers to establish a duty of care with anything their employees do whilst in their employ.
I'm afraid that covers us ATC boys and girls and has done for many years, so in that respect, nothing has changed.

[Lurking123]

So, another non-new thing about the new ATSOCAS?:zzz:

[Jumbo Driver]

As I have said before, the only substantive changes for the user in the "new" ATSOCAS are the name changes and the fact that DS (RAS) is now available under VFR as well as under IFR.

I really can't see what all the fuss is about ...


JD
:)

[Lurking123]

Neither can I. I just don't understand why the whole thing has had to go through a name change (I don't buy the 're-education' argument).:ugh:

[bottom rung]

Well, you could be procedurally separated from VFR traffic dependant on service required. Can make life slightly more interesting for us atco bods.

[lady in red]

Well, when we called up for taxi clearance at Lydd for a VFR flight to Shoreham yesterday, we were given a Basic service -- to taxi??!!

[Jumbo Driver]

Well, you could be procedurally separated from VFR traffic dependant on service required. Can make life slightly more interesting for us atco bods.

Under PS, I would only be deconflicted (separated) from other participating VFR traffic that is receiving PS, TS or DS from your unit.

In Class G, that seems highly complicated to me - do you really want your life to be made more "interesting" in that way? :confused:

JD
:)

[bottom rung]

Absolutely not! At the moment under the new regs I can either offer a BS to VFR traffic, and pass no traffic info apart from generic (until there is a collision... then I get hauled up under duty of care); or I can offer a PS to VFR traffic, in which not only do I pass specific traffic info, but I have to separate as well. A service under which I could pass pertinent traffic info and not have to provide separation to VFR aircraft would be nice. Oh, hang on, can't do that anymore apparantly.
Due to airspace limitations and controller workload, there is only so much separation we can procedurally provide. I'm not trying to wimp out of my obligations, but the fact is that in most of the areas of responsibility allocated to non-radar approach units in Class G, the lateral and vertical boundaries only allow you to provide separation to a certain amount of traffic; much less than we could safely provide pertinent traffic information to.
As you know, separation is now provided according to the service required, not by the flight rules of the aircraft concerned. Mix in a few IFR aircraft shooting approaches on a PS with a few PS VFR transits and hopefully you can see how the ATC workrate climbs dramatically as we use up available levels and deemers.
Not making excuses... I am on your side, trying to provide the best service possible. I just don't believe these rules allow me to do that.

[NorthSouth]

bottomrung:or I can offer a PS to VFR trafficCan you?
Controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to provide the service that a pilot requests[CAP 774 Chapter 1 para 4]
So if the pilot doesn't request it you don't offer it. Why would you offer something the pilot hasn't asked for and you don't want to provide? Sounds to me like you're trying to make life difficult for yourself. Most VFRs wouldn't know a PS if it splashed their shoes so I don't think you're in any danger here.
Also, you seem to be getting worried about no longer being able to provide specific traffic info to VFRs, but as I understand it you're in a non-radar unit. Surely then the info you give is by nature non-specific? I would regard "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" as non-specific since it doesn't tell the other guy where the traffic is, just what its route is. Why wouldn't you continue to give that information? The alleged trouble with FIS was radar-equipped units effectively giving a RIS but since you can't do that, why not just carry on as you were?
NS

[Jumbo Driver]

NS, if I may be so bold - in your first point, I believe you may have misunderstood b_r's meaning ...

I read his "offer" to mean "provide", rather than "solicit" ...


JD
:)

[bottom rung]

I was being polite. For "offer", read "able to provide".
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.

[bottom rung]

Sorry JD, our posts overlapped. Interesting discussion, have to clock off now.

[Jumbo Driver]

I completely understand the quandary you are describing, bottom_rung.

CAP774 it seems, in purporting to "clarify" responsibilities (or as the cynic might argue, simply protect backsides), has instead needlessly complicated the issue and inadvertently delivered such contradictions as you describe.

I think I would probably not go for a PS in Class G ... unless, of course, I caught you unawares and combined it with a request for a QDL QDM - or even a QGH - approach ... (just to keep you on your toes! ;))

JD
:)

[NorthSouth]

BR:I was being polite. For "offer", read "able to provide"OK I understand
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.I still don't see what the problem is. You clearly think that the traffic info you have passed before 12th March - such as my example "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" - can't now be done under a BS. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the authors of CAP774. But you're rightly worried about duty of care. I think you should just go with your gut feeling - it's right to pass the traffic info, and if you're challenged, I would say you have good grounds for saying that sort of traffic info is neither radar-derived nor specific therefore it's entirely compatible with the CAP 774 definition of BS. Gut feelings have been one of the core elements of ATC best practice for many years and if we chuck them out now we're sunk.

Flying today I was happy to find three units (two radar, one non-radar) all providing traffic info to me on a BS. Keep doing it guys, it's the sensible and pragmatic approach. We don't EXPECT it but it's always useful as cue to lookout.

NS