Obeying requests when on a FIS

[NorthSouth]

I spend quite a lot of my time flying under a FIS from a military LARS unit. From time to time we get commercial IFRs descending over the top of us, both of us in Class G, with the IFR generally under a RAS. When that happens some controllers ask us to operate "not above x thousand" so they can descend the IFR to x + 1. I always accede to those requests but if I was on the flightdeck of that airliner I think I might have a slight doubt about the dependability of the separation, given that (a) I am still under a FIS, (b) I have no transponder, (c) I have not been radar-identified, (d) I am in an area which they frequently refer to as "an area of poor radar performance" and (e) I am under no obligation to stick to whatever I might have said I would do since I am operating VFR in Class G under a FIS.

Comments anyone?

[ayrprox]

If you are VFR in class g then my understanding is that you should not be being given seperation anyway as we seperate participating IFR not IFR vs VFR, and that (and i am ready to be corrected on this as i'm no expert) the controller by asking you to fly not above is ensuring more seperation than he requires (duty of care etc). my thinking is that all the controller is required to do is pass traffic info to both of you and let you maintain your own seperation, as your intentions are not guaranteed.
Regarding the having no obligation bit, as you have no mode c the controller is relying on you to maintain the bargain you made of not above such and such, and if you are no longer able or willing to stick to it then it would be a coutesy to tell him/her so that they can inform the other aircraft of your last known intentions.
A controller can only go on the info they are given.

[tescoapp]

Sounds like a certain Highland Airport.

You don't have to do anything Lxxxx say you have to do while operating under a FIS. They can't give you any clearances vectored, not above, not below (which really is taking the piss with VFR traffic).

They can request that you tell them your maximum operating level or that you inform them before changing level but thats it.

To be honest its pretty dangerous operating under the inbound AR at a level that they are happy with for seperation from the inbound IFR traffic. You have to be sub 500ft agl over a featureless peat bog for 3-4 miles with no chance if you donk goes. And your right in the slot for coming head to head with a tornado who is trying to avoid speaking to them and sneaking round the back to get to the bombing range.

Next question is why are they seperating VFR traffic from IFR in class G anyway? As soon as you are QSY to the twr you won't be seperated from them and you won't be seperated at the weekend.

And in answer to your question the pilots who operate in that area regularly have there heads out the window as much as possible in VMC. And it is nearly always safer to do a visual app than an instrument where you won't have any protection at all. one pair of eyes will need to be inside flying the procedure instead of two sets outside flying the approach and watching for traffic.

I heard rumours there is controlled air space on the cards with a civi controller. The seperation instructions will change to normal which civi pilots know and understand and which comply with normal rules of the air and air space classifications.

tescoapp

[rodan]

If you are VFR in class g then my understanding is that you should not be being given seperation anyway as we seperate participating IFR not IFR vs VFR

All true, but if the IFR traffic that is conflicting with you is under RAS, then there is the requirement to essentially provide vectors and levels that resolve the confliction. Quite often I'll ask a VFR a/c if they are able to maintain 'not above' a certain level or follow a particular route for the purposes of making this conflict resolution easier, and no-one ever complains. Before anyone goes off on an 'I'm VFR, I can go where I like' rant, the operative words in my last sentence are ask and able. If you can't/don't want to, fine. If you can and don't mind, what's the problem? We rely on the goodwill of VFR pilots in such situations, and more often than not receive it.

[NorthSouth]

The last time this happened to me I was asked my altitude (which was something like 3500) and then asked to fly not above 2000 till advised. I agreed and started the descent rapido. In the meantime they asked my heading, gave me a turn for identification, but never told me I was identified, and in doing all this I had effectively stopped teaching so my student was paying for us to fly in a straight line for no purpose other than to save the airliner maybe 20 or 30 seconds of flight time.

To be honest I'd far rather have been given traffic info on the IFR then I could have judged for myself the best way of keeping out of his way horizontally and would have had useful cues for acquiring him visually - I could then have reported him visual and the controller would then have been able to get him through without the requirement for 5nm separation - "ABC123 traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles 500 feet below working this unit has you visual" or something of the sort.

[rodan]

That is a pretty restrictive request, a descent of 1500'. Normally I'd ask an aircraft to stay below the level it's already at. But I have to ask, if you didn't want to do it, why did you agree to it? We aren't mind-readers, and we do appreciate that you are trying to achieve certain objectives from your flight too.

'Negative, unable. Request position of the traffic please, I'll see if I can get visual contact' perhaps? Or an offer to take up a different track?

[Spitoon]

So far on this thread the facts stated all appear correct - the opinions and interpretations I'm less sure about.

If you are VFR in Class G and a controller (whether in uniform or not) asks you if you could please do x or y, you can say yes and do it or say you'd rather not, thank you. If you say you'll do it please keep your side of the bargain or tell the controller that you've changed your mind, and if you say no it's always nice to give a brief explanation why.

Be careful of making assumptions. If the controller asks you to turn it's not necessarily to identify you (although I admit there's not much other reason for the request). If you are not told that you are under a radar service ... then you're not getting any sort of radar service.

Speaking as a controller, taking big aeroplanes through Class G is an interesting task and involves careful interpretation of the rules if everyone is going to get the best deal that they can. No separation is required twixt VFR and IFR but the big aeroplane is often under a service where the controller has to make sure it stays away from other radar targets (VFR, IFR , talking to the controller or not talking, day or night ... you get the picture). But there's a balance to be found. If the controller tries to identify every aircraft that talks to him/her, the workload increases significantly for relatively little benefit.

FWIW using fly not above etc. if the aircraft is not identified sounds a bit iffy.

[Pie Man]

I could then have reported him visual and the controller would then have been able to get him through without the requirement for 5nm separation - "ABC123 traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles 500 feet below working this unit has you visual" or something of the sort.

NS

It's not quiet that simple, you reporting visual with traffic does not absolve the controller from getting standard separation under RAS - if the IFR traffic is visual and happy to continue that's a different matter. One problem is that it may be a gin clear day but some companies insist on RAS in the open FIR.

Regards

Pie

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

............. another problem is that some companies flatly refuse to provide a RAS.

[Evil J]

I must admit that the situation at the certain Highland Airport is ridiculous. To the point now that even though I am an ATCO and sympathise with the problems that the certain Mil unit has they do take the pee a lot of the time.

Transiting south of the range once I was aked (by the range) my altitude, to which I think I said 3.2A or similar, was then transfered back to tp the LARS freq, meantime I had climbed to 4.2 to avoid a ridge by a little more and was bo@*cked by the LARS unit for apparantly going above "my cleared level". To which I replied that no such level was imposed nor would it have been accepted had they tried to iompose one!!

Similarly going north one afternoon, VFR quite high I was TOLD "not below x altitiude" do range traffic inbound. To which I replied that most of Scotland was closed to allow protection of the Mil traffic, I was staying out of the closed airpspace they should stay inside the closed airspace as that's what its for <i know I'm probably gonna get some stick for that one but I was visual with the FJ traffic>

i know as an ATCO that you need to engender the good will of GA pilots in the FIR if you want/need their help and I'm afraid when I "turn poacher" up there they have lost my good will by consistent inappropriate controlling-IMHO anyway.

The civvie radar and CAS can't come soon enough

[M609]

When are you UK chaps going to get a proper airscpace stucture? There are countless treads about this topic here, all give hints about ATC having to deal with to much IFR traffic in class G.

Your mil boys manage to operate in CAS just fine when they are abroad, maybe they should try it at home? :}

[NorthSouth]

rodan: "if you didn't want to do it, why did you agree to it?"
Fair point. Only airing it on here with hindsight really. My general disposition is to say yes to these requests because I don't want to deliberately make life more difficult for people. But in this particular case I think if I'd known in advance how it was going to work I'd probably have suggested that I maintain my altitude but "remain east of xxxx" or something.

Spitoon: "If you say you'll do it please keep your side of the bargain or tell the controller that you've changed your mind, and if you say no it's always nice to give a brief explanation why"
Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that, having said "roger not above 2000ft till advised" I would then decide 'sod it let's climb to 5000' - even if I did tell the controller that's what I was doing. I was really just mulling over the uncertainties that might spring into the mind of the IFR flight crew.
"If the controller asks you to turn it's not necessarily to identify you". In this case he said "for identification turn right 30 degrees". Not sure if it's different in the RAF but my normal experience when radar-identified on a FIS from a civil controller is that the controller tells you you're "identified Flight Information Service".

Pie Man: looking again at the rules, I had to remind myself that MATS Part 1 says purpose of RAS is "to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service", so even if the other traffic is on a RIS from same unit the separation would still have to be 5nm/3000' - or does RIS count as part of "the advisory service"? And the only difference between separation from other RAS traffic and other RIS traffic would be that you can apply 1000ft vertical separation in the former case?
Looking back again at my incident, it would appear that the controller was applying 3000ft vertical separation. I don't recall hearing what he descended the IFR to but 5000 would have been acceptable for his descent profile at that point.

Evil J: different airport and LARS unit, but the other week a colleague of mine was told on first contact with said unit "avoiding action hard right turn multiple departures from XXXX remain clear of XXXX airspace". This was after initial call requesting FIS and MATZ penetration. He may have been squawking 7000 and may have been the only such traffic around but it sounded like panic to me.

I would be the first to accept that as civil pilots working VHF we only ever get to hear less than half of the radio picture with a mil LARS unit - indeed that's part of the problem - but it's difficult to reconcile the times when (a) we hear not a cheep out of ATC and get all kinds of FJs, Hercs etc above and below us with (b) the times we're ordered to do this that and the next thing while flying VFR in Class G on a FIS, for reasons that are not too clear.

As regards range traffic, much of the difficulty you're talking about is due to the fact that range danger areas were for the most part drawn up many years ago and simply aren't large enough to encompass all the range patterns and inbound target runs.

Again, in general I prefer the service I get from civil radar controllers where they will make clear you're on a FIS but will give you very accurate traffic info based on radar, to the military who tend to give no traffic info but will ask you to do all sorts of things to keep out of the way of their traffic without telling you where it is.

[Pie Man]

civil radar controllers where they will make clear you're on a FIS but will give you very accurate traffic info based on radar
If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RIS. The very reason RAF controlers don't tell you are identified is because a FIS is (and I quote) 'a non-radar service provided, either separately or in conjunction with other services' and further down the page ' The controller may attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only. Such identification does not imply that a radar service is being provided or that the controller will continuously monitor the flight. Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service.'

"to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service"
The controller also needs to avoid traffic that is not participating in the advisory service unless co-ordination has been obtained. With co-ordination/agreement of pilot separation can be reduced to 1000ft and in some cases 500ft for military controllers.


he descended the IFR to but 5000 would have been acceptable for his descent profile at that point
Did you see the IFR traffic and are you current on the type? If not can you be sure what was acceptable to another pilot?

Regards

Pie

[Chilli Monster]

If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RIS. The very reason RAF controlers don't tell you are identified is because a FIS is (and I quote) 'a non-radar service
Nothing to stop him giving 'non-radar' traffic information if he feels it might aid the aircrafts safety because of the proximity. It's called providing a service to the customer ;)
"avoiding action hard right turn multiple departures from XXXX remain clear of XXXX airspace". This was after initial call requesting FIS and MATZ penetration. He may have been squawking 7000 and may have been the only such traffic around but it sounded like panic to me.
Ouch! Panic is probably the nicest thing you can call it. He gives a turn to an aircraft, not positively identified,not on a radar service, without knowing whether the aircraft captain is qualified to take that turn that could possibly have put him IMC.

Wants b:mad:y shooting if you ask me :)

[NorthSouth]

pm:If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RISBut if you're given it without asking should you say "no thanks I'm going to ignore that because I didn't ask for it"?
Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar serviceIndeed, which is why "identified Flight Information Service" fits the bill quite nicely. You know you're not getting a radar service but you also know that the controller has the additional tool of your radar position to assist with traffic info. Doesn't stop you from looking out the window. Good case in point today. Just left the zone on a FIS from XXXX. They called "traffic in your 2 o'clock SE-bound indicating 2500 ft unverified". Actually that traffic was in our 1030 - although of course there may also have been tfc in our 2 o'clock which we didn't see. I spotted the 1030 just as the call came in and I was directing my attention to 2 o'clock. Then again that begs your question pieman. Would the call have been more accurate (i.e 10/11 o'clock instead of 2) if I had been under a RIS? I doubt it. The other thing this unit is very good at is, just before you leave CAS they'll tell you how busy the adjoining airspace looks - "be advised multiple contacts in the xxxx area". Very handy.

[jack-oh]

This is not new ground, but highlights the problem we have with RAS, RIS and FIS here in the uk. These services have served us well over a number of years but were written for a different age. Now that SSR is commonplace and ac are fitted with TCAS, the requirement to identify one ac and then provide that service in an unknown radar environment with primary radar blips appearing and disappearing has had its day. Now ac are fitted with SSR and can indicate to all radar units their flight rules and levels without even speaking to them an update of the service is desperately needed. The problem is compounded by commercial aircraft wanting a RAS despite the prevailing weather conditions. For example a military ac only asks for RAS as it descends or climbs through cloud, almost immediately requesting RIS when it is once again VMC, a RAS in these circumstances is a valuable tool. Equally, when the weather is poor and a military ac is on a radar recovery it will ask for RAS. The weather in such circumstances is usually to poor for other ac to fly VFR and therefore the service works. However, commercial ac will ask for RAS in gin clear weather when there are lots of VFR ac around and this is were all the problems occur.

As stated earlier under RAS the controller will pass advice necessary to maintain separation between participating ac (it doesn't say what type of participating ac just all of them) or advice necessary to maintain standard separation between unknown ac. This causes problems in the open FIR as controllers would much rather seek to co-ordinate rather than avoid as it is in the best interest of all parties.

As I work at the highland radar unit that seems to be getting all the flak, I would like to put your minds at rest on some of the issues. Commercial ac that only have advisory routes to fly on want to stick to these like glue. They are their only defence against military ac who do there best (sometimes) to avoid them. Once they come off an advisory route they are in uncharted waters and we much prefer to keep them in their comfort zone, especially as some of them are carrying up to 300 passengers. Because of this we try and co-ordinate rather than avoid and thus take them off route. If you are under a service from us, we may request that you fly not above an altitude so that we can affect co-ordination between you and the commercial ac so that 1000ft separation may be achieved. In all cases, this is a request and you are not duty bound to comply. A great deal of controller training revolves around terrain separation and instructions or request to fly not above levels. If you cannot comply with any of our requests, then say so. If for example we ask you if you could fly not above 3000ft and you can’t, you can always come back and say that you can fly not above 5000ft, in that way I can descend an ac above you to 6000ft. In all such cases you must be identified for the co-ordination to be effected, this does not mean that the controller will necessarily tell you that you are identified, this will depend on the type of service that you have asked for. All requested height restrictions should be cancelled once they are no longer valid.

It is interesting to note that the problems highlighted all revolve around civil ac both CA and GA most of the military ac are not a factor. It is also worth noting that we have received no end of thanks from the CA fraternity for the service we provide and there hasn't been a serious incident since the service started.

To re-cap the rules under which we operate don’t allow for IFR/VFR interaction only separation from all ac. These rules are both civil and military. However, I am aware there are differing interpretations. In all events, these need to be looked at again, and soon.
Requests to fly not above or not below altitudes are just that, requests. However if you say you can then please comply. If you have any burning issues then we are only a phone call away and would like to hear from you.

[NorthSouth]

Good post jack-oh - PPRuNe at its best! Incidentally any comments I made weren't about your unit.

Are you perhaps being a little premature in believing SSR and TCAS make the current RAS provisions outdated? I can think of a few sources of primary-only contacts in your neck of the woods which SSR and TCAS won't help you with, and there's widespread doubt that, even if the UK officially sticks to mandatory Mode S implementation from March 2008, Paraglider Pete will (a) be in a position to shell out the money required and/or (b) give a toss about what the CAA says he should carry. So you'll still have primary-onlies - probably fewer, granted, but enough to make you think "now is that an aircraft or isn't it?" Plus there seems to be no let-up in the number of airlines who want to fly into airports with no CAS, so they'll still need the highest form of protection, which is RAS.

[desked atco]

Ok - held my tongue for long enough!

Re avoidance of unknown non participating traffic - MATS Part 1 and the Mil JSP552 both state that the controller "shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction" Therefore, if there is no agreement with the VFR pilot, the controller MUST attempt to achieve standard separation (5nms or 3000ft in Class G). This is standard practice for military controllers - are we saying that our civilian colleages choose to ignore this MATS Part 1 definition?

Actually achieving standard separation without negotiating with the multitude of FIS aircraft on frequency can be close to imposible at times. Therefore it is only sensible that some form of WORKABLE agreement is made with FIS aircraft on frequency that may have been identified but not told as such. The procedures to follow in agreeing coordination with a pilot under FIS are clearly and sensibly stated in mil JSP552

Overcontrol of FIS aircraft is a key issue and it sounds like North South has been on the receiving end of this. Of course we have an obligation under FIS to warn of 'aircraft in dangerous proximity' (try to define that exactly - another good topic for discussion!) But we must not turn FIS into RIS and blur the services.

Airspace is a problem - but more importantly, how can a certain Highland 'International' airport justify operating IFR in Class G airspace without search radar?

[Razors Edge]

I'd just like to point out that it's not the Airport which operates IFR, but rather the Aircraft .

[Spitoon]

how can a certain Highland 'International' airport justify operating IFR in Class G airspace without search radar?Procedurally.

[NorthSouth]

desked atco:are we saying that our civilian colleages choose to ignore this MATS Part 1 definitionI don't think anyone's saying that. So far this has all been about military units with the exception of my experience of getting radar-based tfc info while on a FIS. On which subject, I don't think you can call this "overcontrolling". It's just the controller choosing to do his/her best, which happens to go beyond what the rules specifically require. I don't ever assume I'll get this type of service, and certainly don't relax my lookout when I'm receiving it. It's just an added bonus when it comes.
The procedures to follow in agreeing coordination with a pilot under FIS are clearly and sensibly stated in mil JSP552Good to hear that - what does it actually say? It's so often lack of knowledge which leads to misunderstandings.

[ratt]

Understanding of 'why?' ATC do things seems to be the underlying theme here.

One thing we are always happy to do at the LARS unit where I normally work is to welcome organised visits from flyers who operate in our area.

ATCers, both Civ and Mil, will get familiarisation flights are part of their job if they are not already pilots themselves.

Flyers should maybe get in and actually see what the ATC job involves. Sit with a Controller and see how it really works. The people I show around are usually quite amazed how the job is done, how intermittent a track can be in certain situations, how the rules are maintained and how busy the airspace really looks.

You should be able to get hold of a Liaison Officer through the switchboard of your local Airport/Military Unit.

I also actively encourage my collegues to read PPRuNe as it has certainly allows Controllers to realise many conciderations not written in the ATC manuals.

Oh, and for those Controllers out there that aren't getting their Fam Flights in, hastle your bosses more. It is Flight Safety after all!

[tescoapp]

I disagree its not why ATC do things. Its why Mil units seem to use different rules and methods of controlling to civi units. Are the civi controllers wrong? and the mil are doing it right.


The RAF phrasiology dosn't lend itself to the conveyance of requests. They all sound like instructions.

A civi controller will ask "can you except not above ...." if you say negative its not mentioned again.

mil will be just straight "not above ....." and they really don't like it when you say "negative"

And in my experence mil controllers will always try to move VFR traffic to make room for thier IFR traffic. If you don't like it, don't take any service off them. To be honest it dosn't really effect your safety if flying VFR. They tend not to give you flight info anyway unless it suits them. All IFR traffic will be vectored round you. Better to keep your head out the window and fly unstressed.

And maybe if more GA didn't take a service. Some of the issues discussed here would actually get fixed. Instead of pilots getting pissed off and confused getting some bastardised form of service which does them no favours but in fact makes them work harder constantly having to monitor if the request / instruction is

A) legal under civilian rules (aka not below to VFR traffic)
b) is going to drop them in the poo remaining VMC or suitable forced landing area.

And the couple of times i have phoned LARS units about issues there is definatly a cover the mils arse attitude, keep it in unit and for gawds sake don't produce any paper work.

And maybe if the RAF decided to actually use CAP413 for its RT while working civi traffic it would solve most of the conflicts with interpretations of what both sides are meaning.

tescoapp

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Why doesn't PPRuNe have a spell checker? :{

[jack-oh]

Northsouth

I can think of a few sources of primary-only contacts in your neck of the woods which SSR and TCAS won't help you with, and there's widespread doubt that, even if the UK officially sticks to mandatory Mode S implementation from March 2008, Paraglider Pete will (a) be in a position to shell out the money required and/or (b) give a toss about what the CAA says he should carry

When mode S comes on line, Mode 3A will be redundant. At present there is no way of knowing whether an ac in Glass G is IFR or VFR; however, if VFR ac were required to squawk Mode 3A 7000 when operating autoniminiuosly and 6000 when they were IFR and individual control positions were given 2 squawks 1 VFR the other IFR, all controllers would know the flight rules as well as the callsign of the ac on the screen. In this way we could get rid of RAS, RIS and FIS and concentrate on VFR and IFR and get ourselves back in line with the rest of the world. IFR ac would be provided instructions to separate them from other IFR ac and information on VFR ac with avoidance on request (as they are in class D) and VFR ac that wished to recieve a service would be given traffic information on other ac as far as practicable. In one go you have turned an unknown enviroment into a known enviroment as far as practically possible whilst maintaing the freedom that the open FIR affords. You would be able to separate ac that declare themselfs as unable or unwilling to follow the see and avoid principle and on the other, there be no requirement to muck about with light ac that are quite happy flying VFR. There will always be the problem of people not buying the kit but in such circumstances or when their kit is u/s you simply say that they are not allowed to fly IFR.

[tired-flyboy]

I controlled at the northen unit and flew out of the neighbouring place as a student PPL. Here's my take on things for what its worth.....

It might have changed but when i was at that certain northern unit, at the time we started the service for the highland international airport, it was written into the flying order book that on certain depature routes the pointy pilots would accept 'not above' if there was conflicting in/out bound traffic. Even if they were FIS.

I don't remember ever imposing a not above on anyone 'cause if they are FIS they can do what they want.

It took a couple of close calls for people to accept that there was possibly a reason for the request and it became almost routine to ask VFR light ac to go no further west than a certain point and then not restict them at all (in height) if there was any remote possiblity that they would 'conflict' with the IFR.

But as this was several years ago - practice could have changed.

RATT fam flights are very very hard to come by - most controllers (especially Mil) don't get any [well not civi anyway].

TFB takes cover and retreats behind his shiney new MATS Pt1 !

:ok:

edit - After thought, if there was something in the way the IFR ac usually got held at the hold as we were unwilling to let it get airborne. Sometimes they were launched anyhow and freecalled us in the climb normally in confliction with the one we were trying to prevent confliction with! - Go figure!!

[NorthSouth]

jack-oh:
Sounds interesting. Trying to get my head round the idea but a few questions pop up (if you pardon the pun):

1. IFRs may be flying in VMC or IMC, but VFRs can often be flying in what, for them, is VMC, but would be IMC for something bigger/faster (e.g. <140kts below 3000 feet: clear of cloud & in sight of surface).

2. If you're only giving traffic info to your IFRs on the VFRs, what rules would you have for IFRs passing close to VFRs? You're not providing separation, so how close could you take them?

3. This is a clearly a mandatory SSR environment. You'd have to not only say "you can't fly IFR if your squawk's bust" you'd actually have to say NO-ONE flies if their transponder's u/s because otherwise you lose all the benefits and have to go back to 5nm avoidance of all unknowns since you'd have no idea what height they were at. I guess the proponents of mandatory Mode S will say that's why it has to be for everyone because the benefits reduce sharply if only the IFRs are carrying it.

4. What do you do about autonmous VFRs who don't know their transponder's u/s and aren't talking to anyone? What about if it's only their Mode C u/s? Happens a lot in my experience with current equipment. Will Mode S be any better?

NS

[cdb]

jack-oh, are you suggesting that all UK uncontrolled airspace should be made into what sounds like Class E airspace? With transponders mandatory?

Sounds like a great idea, but I can already hear GA and the mililtary frothing at the mouth...

[jack-oh]

As far as I was aware the Mode s was going to be a mandatory requirement as is Mode C, I am sure there are going to be loads of people trying to wriggle out of it but this is always the case. As for my cunning plan the emphasis was avoiding action on request, if an IFR ac believes its safety may be compromised because its IMC and you are reporting another ac on its nose at 3nm that is supposed to be VFR, then obviously the eyebrows are going to twitch. I am aware that the VFR criteria changes for the speed of the ac but this is also the case in class E, D and I believe C airspace but this does not stop the rest of the world from using these criteria. The practice of getting 5nm separation harks back to a time when radar returns were 5nm long, plot extracted pictures with all the gismos are a different kettle of fish and provided that separation of any kind is achieved (rather like TCAS) then an accident has been avoided. I appreciate that this may cause the sucking of teeth but the alternative is to solder on with ever increasing traffic levels in a more and more crowded FIR. I know for a fact that some pilots will not ask, even if they are IMC, for RAS because they know that there are so many other ac around that they will be turned all over the sky and never end up going where they wanted to. Equally, some units refuse to provide RAS in the open FIR because it is impossible to maintain separation iaw with the rules. On the other hand, VFR pilots believe they are being mucked about so much when they ask for a service that they would prefer not to receive one and rely on looking out the window. If this is the case then the system doesn't work and needs to be changed. While on the surface it may seem like the rules for Class E it is not, primarily because you would not need to file a flight plan to fly IFR thereby allowing you the freedom to change from 1 flight rule to the other as the weather dictated

[SID East]

Just found this topic. An interesting strain of conversation here I think, as a Mil ATCO with PPL I can certainly see both sides of the coin.

The one thing that springs to my mind about this from the ATCO perspective is the "fear factor". It's no secret that the junior controller cadre (me included) had the prospect of courts martial, negligence charges and the like thrown at us from week one of JATCC following several incidents over the last few years The phrase "get it on the tapes" particularly springs to mind. I think that there is definitely a culture in which controllers think they need to be seen to have done as much as possible so that if Joe Bloggs scrapes his Cessna 152 against Captain Smith's Dash 8 in Open FIR then the blame does not lie with the controller in subsequent Boards of Inquiry etc.

From the PPL side, I know that many junior and inexperienced PPL holders would not dare argue with instructions from ATC, even if they are not entirely sure of the reasons why. I dare say there is the potential for the GA aircraft put in an unsafe situation in order to protect the integrity of an IFR track to which the controller ultimately has greater responsibility. Controllers are not necessarily as aware of what the GA aircraft are trying to achieve and height restrictions are certainly part of this.

[PH-UKU]

WARNING - this is probably going to ramble off topic, but I had a hard day at the office avoiding bloody military jets playing around Advisory Routes ........

Jack-oh wrote
As far as I was aware the Mode s was going to be a mandatory requirement as is Mode C, I am sure there are going to be loads of people trying to wriggle out of it but this is always the case.


Hmmm ...? I rather take exception to the 'wriggle out of it' jibe - wriggle out of what? A system that is not there to help the majority of C of A holders. I'm afraid this smacks of over-controlling, which a lot of people do (but often with the best of intentions).

Let me explain.

There are some 10000 private aircraft in the UK and about 1000 commercial. Mode S requirements will force all these owners (I am one) to spend some £4000? on a new piece of electro-kit. Now would someone please explain the benefits to me?

I have just recovered from having to fit an 8.33 Khz spacing radio
(cost minimum £2500) so that I can legally train to fly IFR in Class D. But will we ever actually have 8.33 use below FL150 ? Doubt it. Another burdensome cost, that benefits someone else (the commercial operators in high level sectors).

But doesn't it create a known traffic environment? Well, currently, radar screens are so cluttered in many of the high density areas that it is well nigh impossible to rotate labels fast enough to get a clear picture (and that is if the software hooks the target in the first place). So how impossibly cluttered will that become if every microlight, balloon (beancounter or otherwise) or aeronaut must carry one ? I shudder to think.

And then, you could well get a lot of pissed off aviators thinking - "right if they want to know where I am they can bloody speak to me as well ......" ..... how blocked will all those frequencies become ? How many extra ATCOs/FISOs will need to be employed to 'satisfy the demand'?

Cost? If the benefit is to the commercial operators then GAs loss is their gain. Will GA be compensated for this ?

TCAS - now this is an idea that has possibilities. However, until the fast pointy things are equipped with TCAS it is a pointless exercise (scuse the pun). Look at the Airprox reports. 90% of them involve mil ac.

On the other hand, VFR pilots believe they are being mucked about so much when they ask for a service that they would prefer not to receive one and rely on looking out the window. If this is the case then the system doesn't work and needs to be changed.

Sounds like you want to overcontrol things. We've all done it - usually in the early years of our careers - but as you mellow (well some folk mellow ;-) )- you learn to accommodate the rules.

Personally I might well put a squawk on a FIS and ask if he could maintain not above X thousand feet. Explain that there is IFR traffic above. If he says no, then fine, he's not obliged. But the RIS/RAS/FIS clarity is only in the minds of those who sit behind desks and write the rules. Get out to a few flying clubs and speak to PPLs. Most are totally bamboozled by the differences.

So, I would suggest that it is actually dangerous to tell someone they are indentified on a FIS. You could lull someone into a false sense of security. Just as now I always remind folk on a RIS that they are responsible for their own terrian clearance. I don't want them to be in any doubt (duty of care and remembrance of Spot's F15 CM).

Anyway, it is called "see and avoid". You drive a car without needing someone to over control you - so why should it be any different in a wee plane operating outside CAS ?

I scoot about at low level (below radar cover). Taking off and landing on lochs. It is my freedom. It is a right, just as walking the hills is a right. I don't speak to anyone, I dont use any VORs. I dont need or ask for any service. I would have TCAS, but the bloody fast jets that are the biggest risk don't carry it. AND I pay over £1 for a litre of overtaxed AVGAS, while the airlines pay 10p a litre for untaxed Jet A1.

Am I being unreasonable ?!!

[ShyTorque]

"There are some 10000 private aircraft in the UK and about 1000 commercial. Mode S requirements will force all these owners (I am one) to spend some £4000? on a new piece of electro-kit. Now would someone please explain the benefits to me?"

Just think of it as a New Labour idea to be able to TAX the use of the AIR!

Gordon Brown's dream! :mad: