Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Radar Control Service in Class D VFR

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Radar Control Service in Class D VFR

Old 19th Jul 2011, 08:11
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I have been interested following this as I think that the confusion you felt is probably quite widespread. However, In my experience of flying through class D the phraseology upon entering the zone has usually been something to the effect of:

Approaching the zone - G-xxxx, cleared to enter controlled airspace, VFR, not above altitude XXXX' Route present position towards xxxx, if passing overhead Report the airfield in sight (for tower freq changeover).

Then on reaching the zone boundary - G-xxxx radar control service.

This is not precise but close as I recall, the main point being that its a VFR clearance, with a not above altitude xxxx, and without any instructions to 'steer heading xxx'. I have always assumed minor deviations in heading, whether to avoid another aircraft or even overflying a ground feature, are not prohibited, and ultimately as you are under radar control and therefore observation you will probably be prompted if any change in your heading is seen as unacceptable.... also being a 'not above' clearance would imply to me that there is probably a CTA overhead busy with hold traffic etc and that the grant of permission would probably be awkward to the controllers, but nothing wrong with descending to maintain a suitable separation is there if necessary?

As we know there is no separation provided in Class D between VFR and VFR flights so gotta do what we gotta do within the bound of our clearance to maintain our own, equally there is no separation between VFR and IFR for that matter, just 'essential traffic' info if my air law knowledge serves memory correctly

I would be interested to hear if any of this is incorrect to avoid making any embarrasing slip-up's down the line, but this has not got me in any bother yet
Aucky is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 12:11
  #22 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks HeliComparator, I think an Airprox is probably the right thing in your case. It should address the issues you raise and perhaps provide some education for pilots and ATC alike, which can only be a good thing.

Aucky, that's about right. If an IFR flight requests avoidance from a VFR flight after receiving traffic information, then that's about the only other thing we would give which you haven't mentioned
10W is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 22:19
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
As an aside, I was impressed when it was explained to me in conversation with a senior ATCO in Aberdeen, that their training policy is always to get controllers if possible to avoid vectoring 2 IFR aircraft straight at each other even though there is vertical separation, just in case one of the aircraft fails to maintain prescribed altitude. Building in that sort of human-error-tolerance into the "system" is what I would call "good controlling"!

HC
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 22:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: On an island
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
10W - agreed. I'm not in favour of over-controlling. But HC in this instance had expressed concerns and requested a climb. He also never got radar derived TI which is something you would really expect in CAS with 2 conflicting VFR transits under RCS.
SUMBURGH DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 21:49
  #25 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sumburgh Director.

Building in that sort of human-error-tolerance into the "system" is what I would call "good controlling"!
Controllers in NATS are being encouraged to use such techniques as a 'best practice'. The term used is 'defensive controlling'.
10W is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 17:13
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Thought I'd resurrect this thread because it seems to me it still raises unresolved issues.

I regularly fly VFR in a Class D zone where in 20 years of flying I have *never* been told, on entering controlled airspace, "you're entering controlled airspace, Radar Control Service". I suspect part of the reason for this is that in most circumstances, if there's no other traffic to affect, the approach (or radar...oooh, there's another debate) controller expects to transfer me more or less straight away to Tower. But even in circumstances where Approach (Rad...oh ok I won't go there now ) does expect to hang on to me because of other traffic, I've still never been told I'm under a Radar Control (nor indeed any other sort of) Service.

I've also never been told - as far as I can recall - that I've been identified on radar, even when given a specific squawk.

I've always assumed from this long experience that the service I'm getting inside CAS is an Air Traffic Control Service without surveillance, i.e. I haven't formally been identified and I'm not necessarily being continuously monitored on radar; I'm separating myself from all other traffic and all terrain and obstacles visually therefore I don't need radar assistance.

I know there are other zones where it's routine to tell everyone when they enter CAS "entering CAS, Radar Control Service".

I'm not bothered by any of this in terms of what service I should expect - I'm VFR, therefore all separations are up to me - but it seems to me there is still a large area of uncertainty for both pilots and controllers in terms of what an RCS means when it's given to VFR traffic, and what pilots should assume in terms of whether controllers sitting at a radar screen, whether they call themselves Approach or Radar (damn! I promised not to go there!), are monitoring their progress.

Any views, 18 months on from the last exchanges? I'd be interested in some Class D zone ATCO views.

NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 19:27
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I'll give it a go.

I'm a UK controller who works in class D surrounded by G.
Unfortunately, I think this whole debacle is a victim of a poor choice of wording on behalf of the regulator.

Radar Control Service with reference to VFR only for this explanation,
To a casual reader it obviously implies that you are being controlled using radar right? Wrong. What is actually means, is that a surveillance system is being used to provide a service (read assistance) inside CAS. This service includes everything you would expect from a basic service, with some additions (Wx, integration of traffic within the CTR/CTA, routing and or level 'requests', and basically anything else we can do to help. I've ordered fuel and a breakfast before now!!) as SD explained earlier, we segregate rather than separate VFR vs IFR or VFR vs VFR. A basic duty of care still rests with the controller, however, you guys can see out of the window and ultimately make the decision whether you can comply with our instructions. If not, we'll come up with another plan to fit you in the prevailing traffic situation with any risk negated to help you with your arrival/transit.

If you have never been told upon entering CAS that you are on a RCS either the controller is non conforming, OR they do not see or have not identified you on radar. Generally not best practice, and we particularly like to know what and where everything is inside the zone.

In basic terms, if you are VFR you are responsible for separation. We will provide appropriate traffic info on any other a/c that maybe in the vicinity. We may suggest a course of action to "segregate" but don't always expect it. If you can't comply with a level restriction (usually a not above) or a routing, then tell us. The original example shows a very poor attitude towards VFR in class D

Oh and the approach vs radar thing.

"ZZZZ Approach" means an approach controller is using procedural methods for the approach i.e. no radar. So you'll be flying full arrival procedures or will be VFR.

"ZZZZ Radar" guess what, means the controller is using a surveillance system to monitor your flight, so full radar vectors etc can be expected to save all those extra procedure miles (unless I'm vectoring of course ) with reference to VFR you'll just get less or no requests for your position.

Last edited by Inverted81; 7th Feb 2013 at 19:43.
Inverted81 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 00:02
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
I haven't looked again recently, but for me the biggest issue remains that RCS is not defined anywhere. Controllers seem to somehow know what it means, but how are pilots supposed to know? It's not in the ANO, not in the AIP, not even in MATS. Where is it?

Last edited by HeliComparator; 8th Feb 2013 at 00:04.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 06:42
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAP493 MATS Pt1 Section 1 Chapter 5


Chapter 5 ATS Surveillance Systems 1 Services
1.1 Provision of Surveillance Services
1.1.1 Surveillance services comprise:
a) separation of arriving, departing and en route traffic;
b) vectoring;
c) position information to assist in the navigation of aircraft;
d) monitoring traffic to provide information to the procedural controller; e) assistance to aircraft crossing controlled airspace.
1.1.2 Before a controller provides any of the above services he shall either:
a) identify the aircraft, using a method appropriate to the surveillance system in use; or
b) have had the identity of the aircraft transferred from another controller.
The act of identifying an aircraft does not imply that a service is being given.
1.1.3 Surveillance systems may also be used to provide the following, whether or not the aircraft has been identified:
a) Information on the position of aircraft likely to constitute a hazard;
b) Avoiding action;
c) Information about observed weather for pilots and other controllers; and d) Assistance to aircraft in emergency.
1.1.4 Surveillance services shall be provided to the maximum extent practicable to cover the operational requirement subject only to workload, communications or equipment capability.
1.1.5 Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.
1.2 Type of Surveillance Service
1.2.1 The airspace within which the aircraft is flying determines the type of surveillance
service available, as shown in the table below.
1.2.2 Pilots must be advised if a service commences, terminates or changes when:
a) outside controlled airspace;
b) entering controlled airspace;
c) leaving controlled airspace, unless pilots are provided with advance notice in accordance with paragraph 1.2.3 below.
Type of Airspace
Surveillance Service
Controlled Airspace:
Radar Control Service
Outside Controlled Airspace:
Deconfliction Service or Traffic Service

1.2.3
1.3 1.3.1
1.3.2 1.3.3
1.4 1.4.1
2
2.1
2.2
3
3.1
3.1.1 3.1.1.1
For flights leaving controlled airspace controllers should provide pilots with advance notice of:
a) the lateral or vertical point at which the aircraft will leave controlled airspace. Such notice should be provided between 5-10 nm or 3000-6000 ft prior to the boundary of controlled airspace;
b) the type of ATS that will subsequently be provided, unless the aircraft is coordinated and transferred to another ATS unit before crossing the boundary of controlled airspace.
Radar Control Service
A Radar Control Service may be provided to aircraft operating IFR, Special VFR or VFR. When providing the service controllers issue instructions to which:
a) pilots of aircraft operating IFR are required to comply; and
b) pilots of aircraft operating Special VFR or VFR will comply unless they advise the controller otherwise.
NOTE: The manner in which VFR flights under Radar Control Service may be safely integrated with the IFR traffic flow in the vicinity of aerodromes is described in Section 3.
Before an aircraft enters controlled airspace the controller must establish which flight rules the pilot will be operating under.
Before a Radar Control Service to IFR flights is terminated procedural separation must be applied, except at ACCs when an aircraft will be entering an adjacent sector and:
a) a radar handover has been given; or
b) the conditions of any standing agreement have been met.


A bit wordy. Remember however, we are applying other procedures at the same time that may come across as part of a RCS but in fact are either just a local procedure or the latest must do from the CAA.

If you have any queries have you thought about plugging in at a radar unit? It's a great eye opener for both parties
Inverted81 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 07:59
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Inverted81:
If you have never been told upon entering CAS that you are on a RCS either the controller is non conforming, OR they do not see or have not identified you on radar
Quite. But if they haven't identified me they can't provide an RCS, which suggests that the reason I've never been told I'm on an RCS is because I never have been on an RCS (on the other hand, we're frequently given a discrete squawk which must mean identification). Which leads me on to your second point:

"ZZZZ Approach" means an approach controller is using procedural methods for the approach i.e. no radar. So you'll be flying full arrival procedures or will be VFR.

"ZZZZ Radar" guess what, means the controller is using a surveillance system to monitor your flight, so full radar vectors etc can be expected to save all those extra procedure miles (unless I'm vectoring of course ) with reference to VFR you'll just get less or no requests for your position.
Indeed. In the zone I'm talking about, in 99% of cases when we transfer from Tower we're told "contact XXXX Approach", and vice versa. In the 1% of cases when the Tower controller says "contact XXXX Radar" and you call them up as Radar, they inevitably respond as XXX Approach!

This may be explained by the fact that in the good old days there were often two approach controllers at this unit - Approach dealt with all the VFRs, while Radar did the IFRs, on the same frequency. By definition this meant that the VFR controller wasn't using radar.

However, to add to the confusion, we regularly get surveillance-based info from "Approach" as we leave the zone - and while on a Basic Service outside it too! I'm not complaining, it's all good stuff and I never assume that someone else is looking out for me, it's just the differences in practice between zones that get me.

NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 08:58
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds very much like Southend, took me years to realise it had more to do with what time the Radar 'controller' went home.
Art of flight is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 09:59
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Inverted, yes I read that before. It names the RCS and says when it can and cannot be given etc, but it doesn't really say what it actually is! Plus I would say that MATS is not a document covered in flight training for a pilot.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 17:46
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't agree with you more HC. Perhaps a note to CHIRP might yield some better answers. Highlighting a potential issue may help others as well.
Inverted81 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 18:01
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Well it was the main thrust of my Airpox report, but completely ignored by the panel. I lost faith in that system at that point.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2013, 23:49
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perplexed

I'm a little late in my response to this thread but would like to add a few observations....

Whilst the different types of service (particularly those outside CAS) have been rebranded/renamed/altered in recent years, I find it concerning that a VFR pilot within Class D controlled airspace is unaware of what service he/she is actually receiving and that his/her perception of a "control service" could be so different to that of the air traffic controller.

Even a rudimentary search on google (other search engines available ) directs me to several reliable sources (i.e. not un-cited Wikipedia entries ) of information...CAA, AIP, ICAO, etc...referring to "control service" (both Radar Control and Aerodrome Control btw - let's not forget the guys & gals in the tower!).

However I have no idea what is involved in training for (and maintaining) a pilot licence...I'd be pretty shocked however if ATC services/responsibilities within controlled airspace are not covered along with pilot responsibilities.


Without knowing more about the specifics of the incident in question I think it is rather subjective to question the actions of anyone/everyone involved.

For example, points have previously been made regarding refusal of request for higher altitude (possible TMA above = change of airspace classification, or, even if it was same classification, another controller's airspace?).

I would concur with various posts that VFR is normally restricted to "not above" a specific altitude - however, in certain circumstances, particularly for airfield overhead/threshold transits it may be more beneficial for all parties (VFR aircraft, IFR aircraft on approach, ATC) for a VFR flight to maintain a specific altitude during transit to effectively deconflict (or "segregate" as someone else described it!) flightpaths, and missed approach procedures, without causing delay. That is, of course, subject to Met conditions and ability to maintain VMC...

(Were both VFR aircraft actually instructed to maintain the same altitude? Or were they "not above" a specific altitude?)

Without knowing the bigger picture, the airspace, the overall traffic situation - not just the 2 VFR flights (there are, after all, more aircraft about than just "you") - then it is difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion - or apportion blame (as some are keen to do) - except that responsibilities (both pilot and ATC) and ATC "duty of care" should be better understood by all.

I think that was the crux of the original post and IMHO it should be addressed by training - pilot training (both VFR & IFR pilots) and ATC training.

Providing a snapshot of an incident, a singular perspective, is only likely to stir various parties to comment without full understanding. On this front I am disappointed to hear about your dissatisfaction regarding feedback from filing your AIRPROX report...but I would always encourage you to file such a report whenever you believe aircraft safety has been compromised (or would have been had action not been taken).

Regards
good egg is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2013, 11:09
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Good egg, I think the main thrust of my argument remains that "radar control service " is not defined anywhere, unlike the (overly complicated!) ATSOCAS.

So although you talk about training, that is hard to achieve when the definition is not promulgated in any official documentation, and therefore is only hearsay, or custom and practice by ATC. You will baulk at that because you are so familiar with the term, but that familiarity is not shared by pilots - who in general have heard it but don't really understand it. In any case, its a really bad term because of its implied plain-English meaning.

So I agree that trying to apportion blame to individuals is pointless. It is the system that is to blame with use of this "unofficial" terminology being perpetuated by custom and practice with no-one prepared to address the issue. Unfortunately even Airprox board were unwilling to grasp the nettle.

Last edited by HeliComparator; 13th Jun 2013 at 11:34.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2013, 09:10
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Definition

From ICAO (​in accord with the ADREP 2000 standard as defined by an international working group chaired by ICAO and implemented in version 4.2.6 of ECCAIRS)

Radar Control - "Term used to indicate that radar derived information is employed directly in the provision of an air traffic control service".



Similarly, CAP 493 defines Radar Control as "Term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service.

Furthermore that the airspace within which the aircraft is flying determines the type of surveillance service available:

Controlled Airspace = Radar Control Service

(Outside Controlled Airspace = Deconfliction Service or Traffic Service)



So, in my mind, the term is defined. Whether "Radar Control Service" is taken by some to mean something more than the above, IMHO, is down to level of initial/refresher training and/or examinations.

I hear your argument relating to the implied plain-English meaning of "control service" but would argue that if you are in controlled airspace you must comply with instructions (or advise that you cannot) then your flight is being "controlled".

Also, and perhaps a little pedantic (put that down as an ATC trait!), most dictionary definitions of "control" generally go something like:

Noun
The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Verb
Determine the behavior or supervise the running of.


Seems to me like a reasonable phrase, even in plain-English?

Regards
good egg is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2013, 13:56
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Well first of all, CAP493 is MATS - manual of air traffic services - and doesn't form any part of pilot training syllabus nor air law nor licensing exams. It's a document written by the ATC club for the ATC club to use. In the same way, I wouldn't expect Controller training to take in aircraft Flight Manuals nor Operations Manuals (even generic ones, such as JAR-OPS 3).

Secondly, although you could argue that the terms is defined in MATS, its a definition not a description, and a rather convoluted one at that. I could read the definition and still not really understand the implications. For something so often used, I continue to maintain that its very badly described even in MATS and not at all in any material considered relevant to a pilot.

It would be so easy if it were described in the AIP, or if UK used the same terminology as the rest of the world. I have never heard the term in France, Italy, Netherlands nor Malta (recent trips) and having flown a helicopter from UK to Borneo and back can't recall hearing it then either (although it was some time ago). ATSOCAS is similarly non-standard and causes a hoot in the channel area when listening to UK pilots asking French ATC for one of the services, or French pilots being told by London what service they are getting, to a blank and confused response.

I suppose I sound as though I have a bit of a downer on ATC and its true, I do. But not on the individuals, most of whom are great, but on the system. My feeling is that since privatisation of ATC, priority 1 is to not be liable / get sued, with flight safety coming in a distant second.

Last edited by HeliComparator; 14th Jun 2013 at 14:00.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2013, 18:42
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hier und da
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
But not on the individuals, most of whom are great, but on the system. My feeling is that since privatisation of ATC, priority 1 is to not be liable / get sued, with flight safety coming in a distant second.
You are certainly not the only pilot to feel this way!
Art E. Fischler-Reisen is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2013, 19:08
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,246
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Hadn't realised that this thread was still active, how time flies when you are retired.
Here is another issue to ponder, the term "control" is something of an anomaly. If a flight is VFR according to ICAO it is not a controlled flight unless operated in Class C airspace whereby it becomes a "controlled VFR" flight and ATC are responsible for providing separation between IFR and VFR, something that this thread has illustrated to be the case in UK Class D airspace.
As the UK is increasingly anxious to align itself to ICAO Annex 11, PANS ATM Doc 4444 and all things ICAO (Single European Skies approaching?) may be its time that AATSD sorted this out and formally required what they apparently have been pressuring ATCOs to do in Class D, ie separate VFR from IFR. Have seen too many former colleagues hauled over the coals after providing precise traffic information to IFR on VFR, no risk of collision, TCAS RA, ATCO suspended and criticised for not separating.
Time for Class C CTA and CTR in UK?
TCAS FAN is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.