RAF radar services

[airmanship]

Hello

I'm flying charter for a swiss company. Sometimes we fly also to RAF bases, like Akrotiri Cyprus last week.

The common question when handed over to a RAF controller: "...what radar service do you require?"

Does anybody in this forum know where I can find a exact definition of the "radar services" RAF radar facilities provide to aircrafts?

thanks a lot

Airmanship

[ShyTorque]

It's no different to anywhere else as far as I can determine.

Radar information: ATC pass you traffic info based on what they can see on their radar screen. You decide what to do about information thus received, i.e. nothing or take your own avoiding action as you see fit.

Radar Advisory: ATC pass you advice with regard to avoiding action based on what they can see on their screen. You decide if you will act upon it or not.

You request which service you require and can request a change from one to the other if necessary. ATC might suggest you upgrade the service if a conflict appears likely or if traffic density increases, for example.

[The Greaser]

Unfortunately radar services in the rest of the world are not based on the UK system. Hence why the question means nothing to most overseas pilots.

[Chilli Monster]

Just out of interest - why are the RAF using UK ATSOCAS services in another nations FIR? Surely the service provided should be more in line with Cypriot national procedures.

With this in mind maybe the original poster is right to be confused?

[WHBM]

why are the RAF using UK ATSOCAS services in another nations FIR? Well if, in the UK, you fly up to Norwich and call up Lakenheath Radar (manned by USAF) for FIS you are handled in a typically US, not UK, manner, including the staccato approach to speech.

I presume it's just a matter of where the training was done.

[Chilli Monster]

WHBM

Sorry - obviously didn't phrase it in understandable English! I'll explain it better and hopefully get a more sensible answer ;)

The USAF in the UK (attempt to) work to JSP318A (or whatever it's called these days). You might get a FIS in an American fashion, or a RIS, or a RAS. However - you will still get (technically) a UK defined service.

Now, RIS and RAS are both UK defined services, provided by ATC units within UK airspace. Now, the last time I looked both Akrotiri and Dhekelia, although Soverign Base Areas, are still part of another nations FIR - a nation which, if you asked the native Controllers what RIS or RAS was, wouldn't have a clue.

So - the question still stands. Why are the RAF providing non ICAO ATC services within another sovereign ICAO member states airspace?

[spekesoftly]

Mike Jenvey wrote:-

However, if you need the full length version for reference (advised!), go to here, download CAP 413 (UK R/T Manual) & then look at Section 1.15.5, there are some important provisos listed, such as in both cases:"The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance."


However, if you then look at CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1), Section 1 Chapter 5 Page 3 para 1.4.1 (g), it states:-

"ATSU's providing a RAS shall set a level or levels at or above which the aircraft will remain within the limits of radar cover and be provided with the requisite terrain clearance. Below this level or levels a RAS shall be refused or terminated."


CAP 493 Section 1 Chapter 5 Page 12 para 13 also adds the following:-


"13.1 Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:

a) IFR flights in receipt of a radar control service

b) flights in receipt of a radar advisory service and

c) flights in receipt of a radar information service and receiving vectors;

provide adequate terrain clearance .............."

[ShyTorque]

<<Haven't used a RIS for a long while, but if my memory is correct (often wrong!), the controller even transmitted something to the effect that I was responsible for terrain separation........>>

We use the service all the time in UK. Yes, the RAF warning about the pilot's responsibility seems a standard call these days, after that CM.

[tescoapp]

Does it really matter if you accept a RIS or RAS of a RAF controller?

By the fact that their rule book is so different to civ ops the normal definitions are nearly meaningless.

your going to get controlled if you like it or not.

Have even heard a "negative" to someone cancelling a IFR flight plan. But that was lossie so who knows what rules are functioning up there in class G airspace.

Unfortunatly i have heard through the grape that they have a new bunch of trainees in so nobody knows what flight rules they are under VFR IFR or MFR.

tescoapp

[brimstone]

speke - your quotes are of course correct but do not mean that the controller is responsible for terrain clearance under RAS and RIS.

Our procedures are designed so as to assist the pilot's compliance with his responsibility in the matter of terrain clearance.

The authoritative document here is the UK AIP which says with regard to RAS that "The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance although ATSUs providing a RAS will set a level or levels below which a RAS will be refused or terminated."

Similarly with RIS it says that "The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance. ATSUs providing RIS will set a level or levels below which vectors will not be provided, except when specified otherwise by the regulating authority".

[PPRuNeUser0172]

You only get terrain separation from an RAF controller under Radar Control or if you are under a RAS in class D airspace, I believe.

Main difference between RAS/RIS is the deconfliction with other traffic. Under a RAS a controller will give avoiding action, under a RIS they will offer traffic info relative to you but will not automatically give you avoiding action.

[Chilli Monster]

You only get terrain separation from an RAF controller under Radar Control or if you are under a RAS in class D airspace, I believe.
You can't be under a RAS in Controlled Airspace - it's Radar Control

RAS/RIS - ATSOCAS - Air Traffic Services OUTSIDE Controlled Airspace

(And I notice still no sensible answer to the question I posed - if you don't understand the rules in your own country how the hell can you work in a foreign one ;) )

[foghorn]

I can vouch for USAF Lakenheath, certainly from a pilot's perspective they provide ATSOCA to the UK standards.

[Canary Boy]

UK Mil ATC Services were designed to allow Mil aircraft to operate 'safely and effectively, with tactical freedom'. They, largely, succeeded in that aim. As the remit for ATC services widened (LARS etc) so confusion may have crept in. For purely military purposes it wasn't broke (but we still had to try and fix it!) To alleviate any future 'problems' ESARR5 may well be adopted.:uhoh:

[EESDL]

So, imagine that you are an airline pilot who was tasked to fly into a foreign airfield, do you:
a. Read up about that particular airfield's procedures from the numerous sources available prior to flight, or even telephone/fax/e-mail the English-speaking controllers?
b. Cuff it on a wing and a prayer and wonder why you had questions to ask after the event?
c. None of the above.

[Chilli Monster]

Your point being.............................?

[airmanship]

Hello guys, thanks a lot for the replies and explanations. Thanks Mike for the link to the UK R/T manual which is very useful.

No Idea why RAF is using theyre specific procedures in foreign airspace. But on the other side, why should they adapt to local procedures for the RAF traffic?

Greetings: Airmanship

[Scott Voigt]

Interesting....

I had found in my years in the military that we always provided ATC no matter where we were in the world to the US standard that we would find in both the FAAH 7110.65 and the Air Force or Navy Standards ( I did both. ). We did have differences training to let us know what the locals might ask for and what it meant. However, we always provided our standards as we had been taught all those years <G>...

That said, we also have NO RIS in the US. All flight following type of work that we do it in the form of RAS...

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety Dweeb

[atcea.com]

This thread is a bit unnerving to me as frequent flier. How's a pilot to know if he's receiving service from a civilian or military controller; a local or someone from another country; someone following ICAO procedures or someone who's reading from a different book. :confused:

We need to get together on this stuff!

ATC 24/7 (http://atcea.com)

[NDB]

Whilst under Radar Adv from a well know CMATZ (not that far from Rutland!) in the clag!

The controller asked 'Would you mind taking up a Southerly heading!!!'

'180 said us!!!!'

I was on the radio not flying it so happly watching the odd bit of land/blue sky appear and dissapear just as quickly when! I saw one of those forward, backward, up and down things wheels down and pilots mouth wide open!!!

It made me think..... 'If birds don't fly in cloud why should I!!'

Would the controller be in charge if we were IFR and he was VFR?

NDB

[Scott Voigt]

ATCEA'

I wouldn't be so worried about if someone was using ICAO or US type procedures so much as who is providing the service. We all know there are those who provide different levels of service no matter whose book they are using. Some better than others.... Names intentionally left blank <G>....

regards

Scott

[lippiatt]

NDB

If you were where you say you were then you are in charge (I take it you mean responsible for collision avoidance???) as it is within class G airspace. IFR / VFR makes no real difference to mil!in class G.

However, if you were under a RAS and had been for a while (ie not just uprgraded from RIS due to change in flight conditions), you should ideally have been warned about the traffic, if it was within 10 miles you should have heard "avoiding action turn/climb/descend....blah blah", more than 10 miles "traffic left/right, clock code if not sighted turn/climb or descend.....blah, blah.

But under a RAS, one of the sub paras mentions possible loss of seperation due to unexpected turns etc of traffic. This is because of the classification of the airspace, unregulated, therefore standard seperation (3000' or 5 miles without co-ordination)may not be achieved!

Could you tell me what type of aircraf you were in, routing to etc??

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

I think the key word is Advisory.

[Mister Geezer]

The topic of asking you what type of service you require is a procedure that I hope one day will be a thing of the past.

If ATCOs can offer a RAS to all IFR flights then would it not be a good idea if they offered a RAS and leave the option to downgrade with the crew if they choose to do so? Many foreign pilots have no idea of what a FIS, RIS or a RAS is and ultimately who is responsible for separation! I heard a KLM being asked once what type of service he required and the reply was 'the full service please'!! Dutch full service mmm! :D I have heard Americans confuse a Radar Information Service with being asked if they have the Information (ATIS).

I know that SRG are hard on implementing this for the civil controllers and in most cases they can only offer a FIS or a RIS. However for a public transport aircraft, it baffles me that civilian ATCOs have to ask if you would like a RIS or a FIS. Maybe the passengers might have something to say if they knew how basic a FIS was!

I am not having a go at the ATCOs on the front line but at the rules that they have to abide by and those that rules clog up R/T time and confuse the foreign pilots that fly through our airspace. Surely the CAA and the Military can change their ways???:rolleyes:

[norvenmunky]

Many foreign pilots have no idea of what a FIS, RIS or a RAS is and ultimately who is responsible for separation!

Seems like a personal problem to me! If pilots are going to fly in our airspace, they should know the friggin rules, especially if they are cutting corners by leaving CAS to save a few Euros.

'KLM123 Radar Advisory, you are in class G, please clear away lunch and fasten your seatbelts'

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Having spent the early years of my aviation career operating in the UK I have no problem with RIS/RAS operations, definitions and their limitations. To anyone who has not spent a lot of time operating outside controlled airspace in the UK they must be pretty confusing.

A foreign flight requsting a direct routing outside CAS might not be aware that they will leave CAS when they make the request. After all, the charts airlines use are hardly the clearest documents and their scale is often not ideal if you want to just knock the corner off a route.

Comments have been made here about how pilots should "... know the... rules" or "read up... prior to flight". On the face of it sensible suggestions, but how am I supposed to know every intricacy of every FIR/UIR I fly through? It is simply unfeasible for all pilots to know all the rules for all the countries they fly through, especially as they may only fly to some irregularly, and (in the example cited) when they get there the rules of a different nation are being used!

Perhaps it is time that we reappraised RIS and RAS. I am not for one minute suggesting we get rid of them both. Perhaps it should become ICAO standard that a RAS is provided in airspace where there is uncontrolled traffic (eg. below FL100 in large parts of Germany, below 12000' in the USA etc). This RAS would be modified from the current version and would automatically come with warnings about little or no warning of fast moving traffic/traffic at the edge of cover etc. Pilots would then be made aware immediately they enter airpace where there is traffic not subject to ATC - surely an enhancement to safety?

The RIS could be dispensed with as over-complicating the options and since the RAS comes with enough caveats, the RIS is no longer required anyway.

Just some thoughts

G W-H

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Sorry G w-H, have to disagree. RIS is the ideal 'open FIR' service. Controllers become another pair of eyes for the pilot. Just because RAS/RIS is not standard ICAO/FAA does not imply its no good! This a classic case of where we have got it right and the rest of the world could learn. Of course, what didn't help was the half witted CM last year that has led to matter being clouded by 'duty of care' issues. Its responsibility that matters and the old rules were VERY clear IF you bothered to read them. When ATSORA first came in, Civ and Mil rules were the same so there was no confusion there either, but the legal eagles and jobsworth's have changed all that!

The UK class G radar services offer an excellent addition to flight safety. I recall the USAF CO at Upper Heyford remarking that the things he would miss when the base closed was "Warm beer and the Brit ATC system, which is flexible, helpful and very professional" I though that was very magnamious.

As an ex-Mil ATCO, I offer the following advice:

Good VMC - RIS. If the controller says that traffic is within, say, 3000 ft of you - look very carefully!

Less than good VMC - RAS. BUT you don't have to take the turns. If the contact called is out side 3,000 ft the risk is small that he's going to be a real conflictor - mode C is USUALLY very accurate and relaible; "I'll maintain my own separation" is a good call then everyone knows who's responsible for what! You can always ask for an update if you get that creepy feeling!

If the contact called is within 3,000 ft or "no height information" - take the turn!

In IMC: Take the turn! You can always run your own risk assessment if the height called suggests 'no threat' BUT ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY from then on!

NEVER TAKE A RIS PENETRATING CLOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!

[whowhenwhy]

Part of the reason why ATSOCAS in the UK receives bad press is because of the differring ways that it is applied. What I am about to say will, I'm afraid, cause offence to some, however when you look at various UKAB reports the fact is that civil controllers applying RAS do not apply it some times in the same way as a mil controller would. Saying that, there are a number of mil controllers out there who are guilty as well, but that is down to either poor basic radar skills, experience or not applying the rules correctly. As a for instance, some controllers have been heard to say that there are parts of the country where you cannot give a RAS because it's too hard, there's too much traffic. Just use the rules of RAS to your advantage! Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with ATSOCAS, as long as people operating within the airspace (ATCOs and aircrew) know and apply the rules correctly!

The issue of ac being routed outside of CAS is another issue, totally divisive and has been visited sooooooo many times. Unless something very bad happens, nothing will change because there is too much economic pressure from various angles!

[EESDL]

Chilli Monster
Sorry, I've re-read my post and obviously I have disguised the actual point by foolishly assuming it would be all too obvious:-)
That's the trouble with beer and the internet - it short-circuits on the odd occasion.

Whilst there has been some suggestion that a pilot could not possibly be expected to be totally au-fait with every en-route FIR procedure and quirk (seperate issue) - arguing that perhaps a 'working knowledge' should be sufficient - the ATC procedures/definitions that were queried were those of the pilot's destination, not some en-route facility.
The other clue was in the airfield's name 'RAF' Akrotiri.
So, in short, the chances of the crew being surprised/confused by certain ATC terms could have been reduced prior to getting airborn (how many p's in the adage?)

Don't get me wrong, Akrotiri lost the plot a while ago when they started repeated calling 'contacts' that were evidently sea-going oil tankers!

It would be interesting to hear how difficult it was for the author to find details on such a destination and no doubt their Ops Dept updates such information for the crews concerned.

[whowhenwhy]

EESDL, yes they may appear to have lost the plot, unfortunately they are following the rules. Unless you're sure that a radar contact is clutter (difficult to tell, especially on newer rasterscan displays) then you need to report it. You can add that you believe that it may be a surface contact, but you need to report it still as a contact. Imagine what would happen if they didn't, the weather was poor and it turned out to be an actual ac, very slow with no transponder- microlight?

[EESDL]

I fully appreciate the raison d'etre for calling all contacts but it is difficult to believe that your radar/training cannot differentiate between the 2.
Is this the same radar technology that has now meant that our new PARs are 'restricted' for use!
It's a farce and I hope someone has been given a very short plank to walk along.
Unfortunately for RAF/ATC, it does your standing no good when your procedures have you 'calling' the newly-built hospital (Swindon) as a contact, repeatedly.

Whilst we keep operating duff kit, is there the option of shortening the call to an acronym to stop blocking the airwaves with 'legalese'.

Suggestions please:

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

EESDL, the PAR is cr*p because we only had two and sixpence allocated for purchase. The radar is cr*p because it is early 70s technology. The radios are cr*p becuase they are mid 50s technology. The controllers are apparantly cr*p because they are afraid of being in front of the Beak (Ben McDui). Fail to strategically invest in infrastructure and this is what you get. For too long we have focused on fast pointy things (or their equivalent) and forgotton/neglected the whole package that supports. Ask any "blunty" and you will get the same response.

PS. I agree with you about the bo**ocks, six covering phraseology; it means nothing whe the pilot is in 8/8 cloud.

PPS. ATSOCAS is, again, under review.

[KPax]

'Newly built hospital at Swindon'. All we would ask is that you ask your Nav (K's) if you are on J's then ask a Nav how to get to ATC, have a look and sit with the guys for a while and see what we are dealing with. We try our best but as stated eslsewhere we can only work with what we have.

[whowhenwhy]

Trained to differentiate? No! Experienced enough to differentiate? Probably not now no! Within RAF ATC a LOT of the experience has left, leaving all units under-manned and with very little experience. The lack of experience at the front-line means that the lessons that would normally have been passed on, aren't being-it is a problem!

Using common sense you should look at a radar contact and if it doesn't move over an extended period then it's not an ac. Then you limit for radar clutter!

[Skycop]

Downwind.Maddl-Land

In some parts of the UK, in Class G, if we did operate under radar advisory and "took the turn" every time someone got within 3,000 ft of us we would increase our airborne time by a very large amount and our passengers would get airsick.

For example, under the London Control Zone it would be unworkable because I suspect ATC would probably have trouble coping and put folk back on RIS or FIS.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

SkyCop, twas the aircrew complaining of constant AA turns that "degraded" service provision. When I were a lad, everyone always got a RAS unless they were manouevring. Every time ATC issue a "avoiding action" or "if not sighted" there was one of three responses:

"VMC, happy to maintain"
"Visual"
"Turning"

Back then it seemed to work OK although the R/T was often rather busy...........

[rej]

Goodness me! It must be all of 18 months since someone had a dig at ATC for calling the c@*@ that appears on the secret Wiltshire airbase's radar. The kit is not ideal but it is all they have to work with

My advice would be to put up with the occasional call and make the most of receiving a service from their highly capable controllers. I know that a great deal of work has been done to eliminate the requirement to call the clutter insider the known traffic environment of Class D. However, the hospital (GWH) is located in Class G airspace. In addition junction 15 of the M4 is a VRP frequently used by light ac and in particuular microlites routing Kemble to the microlite factory at Manton near Marlborough.

I'm no pilot BUT, if they still do business as I know they did up to 5 months ago, I am pretty sure the the controllers call it as traffic, position, possible radar clutter. It always pays to look out of the window and not pay lip service to such a, R/T call - the hospital is a great nav feature which helps to ident the VRP.

KPax and Whipping Boy's SATCO, good accurate responses.

EESDL I suggest that you get try to arrange a trip up to the tower. You might just realize that your rose tinted specs do not work up there.

[Skycop]

Whipping Boy's SATCO,

I wonder what the relative traffic density under the London Control Zone was back then compared to today?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Skycop, I speculate that the level of activity underneath a Control Zone has remained exactly the same - nothing. ;) If you mean a Control Area such as the London TMA, I can say that traffic levels some 3 years ago were similar to background traffic levels in many parts of the UK and Europe in the late 80's. Admittedly, weekends and nice summer evenings are somewhat busier and I would also offer that the airspace structure is more complex. I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can do a data trawl and put some meat on the bone; I will get back to you with some accurate statistics.

[rej]

Skycop

I reckon that the M25 is fairly busy now compared with 'then' .........thats the only way you'll get traffic under the London Control ZONE.:ok:

[NorthSouth]

Re the 'Newly built hospital at Swindon' - why not just stick a nice big radar reflector on the top of it and designate it as a PE?