I know I would, the only reason I wouldn't is if I had a higher service aircraft that needed my attention due to a safety related issue.
Duty of care is badly worded in these things - any ATCO worth his or her salt would warn an aircraft if there was perceived risk, whatever the service. However if you have not identified the FIS traffic, or if you are too busy with higher priority traffic, say RAS, then you can only do so much.
Surely this is one of the reasons for the change.
A pilot should expect the same level of service irrespective of Controller/FISO work load.
If one day you tell the pilot about traffic and the next day you don't, the pilot will not know which day he has to maintain a good look out.
With the Basic Service being available to non radar units there is a chance that pilots could assume they are always going to be passed traffic that is on a "collision course".
The whole duty of care thing will be decided in the courts, perhaps sooner rather than later. I for one will attempt to stick to the agreed contract and follow the written down procedures. By doing this I will hopefully be fullfilling my DOC .
From the CAP774
Although every case depends upon its particular facts, there is one key question that normally arises:
is there any relevant set of standards or procedures? If there is, the issue of whether or not a person has discharged his duty of care is
likely to be heavily influenced by whether or not he has complied with those relevant standards and procedures.
I look forward to the Glorious 12th,
I wonder why that date was chosen
