Confusion between services outside CAS & ATC Service

[alexj83]

Heya,

I am a bit confused about the details of aircraft recieving an ATSOCAS service but also recieving an ATC service such as Approach Control. There are still a few comercial aerodromes who operate entirely outside CAS; from my point of view Exeter - so any EXT controllers are welcome to respond.

If an aircraft is requesting a FIS outside CAS yet also wanting vectors to the ILS, how does the controller go about this? According to CAP493 the controller may radar identifity the aircraft for purposes of co-ordination & monitoring, not vectoring. This seems to apply to aircraft recieving a RIS & RAS, although it is said that under a RAS a aircraft may be vectored for tactical planning.

Now under a Approach Control service an aircraft inbound to an airfield should accept the vectors given to the aerodrome by the controller, outside CAS they are not obliged to follow them.

Now I am confident in these two things as seperate entities which would be fine inside CAS as the rules of a RCS would apply but outside CAS the two interact and I am not sure how they do!

If anyone could provide me with an explanation it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Alex

[Chilli Monster]

If an aircraft is requesting a FIS outside CAS yet also wanting vectors to the ILS, how does the controller go about this?

Basically - decide what you want, because you're not getting both. You want a FIS, then it's going to be a VFR, own navigation, report the field in sight call - you want Radar to the ILS then you're getting a RIS. It's up to the pilot to know what service they want, what they're entitled to, and what best suits their phase of flight.

Now under a Approach Control service an aircraft inbound to an airfield should accept the vectors given to the aerodrome by the controller, outside CAS they are not obliged to follow them.

In which case you're going to get the above scenario again - you either want an IFR approach, in which case you accept the vectors, or you don't, in which case you either ask for a FIS or a RIS and recover VFR.

Bear in mind that, should the environment be Procedural (Plymouth for example) then you're going to be under an Approach Control service, but the information you receive will be FIS only due to no radar.

[alexj83]

Heya,

That is how I've been regarding it lately, correct me if this is wrong:

Approach Control is the service they are under however RIS/RAS is the level of information that may be provided and Approach Control automatically enables to controller to identify and vector the aircraft.

I thought that if the aircraft was receiving a ATC Service inbound to an aerodrome they may request a FIS but that being the level of information and still be provided with the level of service required under Approach Control.

I'm not a qualified ATCO as is hopefully obvious so am not trying to sound stubborn or anything like that but would like it cleared up in my mind.

Thanks

Alex

[bookworm]

My (amateur) reading of MATS Part 1 suggests that the Air Traffic Services described are not mutually exclusive. You can provide an Approach Control Service with radar, a Flight Information Service and an Alerting Service.

Where the requirements of the services differ, common sense should prevail, but for the most part it's pretty obvious, isn't it? I know there has been some discussion previously on the separation provided to IFR flights by an Approach Control Unit offering a Radar Information Service

According to CAP493 the controller may radar identifity the aircraft for purposes of co-ordination & monitoring, not vectoring.

I don't think you're parsing that as intended.

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.

I read that as meaning that a controller is entitled to identify a flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes alone, or for any other purpose. Thus a pilot cannot assume that identification means that a radar service is being provided -- it may be for monitoring and coordination only. It does not prohibit vectoring of flights receiving a FIS (unless I'm missing that elsewhere).

[NudgingSteel]

In the FIR an aircraft can operate VFR or IFR, and basically any aircraft will either be operating on one or the other. Regardless of which they are under, they can ask for (and receive) a Flight Information Service, which is the most basic of services. A FIS could be offered by a big radar unit, a tower-only controller, or an AFISO.
If the ATC unit has radar then they can offer a radar service to the aircraft, either a RIS or a RAS. This is purely to assist pilots to avoid other known and / or observed traffic also operating outside controlled airspace. Note that VFR traffic can only be given a RIS; if you want a RAS you have to be operating under IFR. RIS and RAS are not really related to the vectoring to the ILS.

If a pilot requests radar vectoring to the ILS then the controller has to ascertain whether they are operating VFR or IFR. If they are IFR then all the ATCO has to do is give headings and levels, and can assume that the pilot will accept those (unless they report that they don't want to, for any reason....). If the pilot is operating VFR then it is up to him / her to remain in VMC, clear of cloud etc, therefore technically VFR traffic should not be issued with headings or fixed levels.
This is all a bit of a simplification but hope it explains a bit.

[machinehead]

just a sec bro/sis

think simply

FIS - can identify, cannot vector.
RIS - can vector above minimum levels set by ATSU regardless of IFR or VFR
RAS - can provide service only above minimum levels set by ATSU to IFR only.

so,

Bod A requests vectors to ILS.

ATC will need to check if IFR or VFR but as long as the aircraft is above the miniumum level set (usually MSA) then vectors can be provided to ILS approach. VFR aircraft under RIS but IFR under RAS and RAS separation.

[Inverted81]

The last post quite simply lays out what we can and cannot do as an ATCO.
I just want to clarify that an approach control service can be deemed to be a blanket term used to cover the services that controller can provide, i.e aerodrome to an area unit, or OCAS, and visa versa. FIS is ALWAYS provided along with an alerting service, whatever the service being provided is, RCS, RAS,RIS.

To this day i'm sure many a pilot does not really understand the implications of the type of service we provide, hence ATSIN90 (now cancelled) http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2433

now the military... a whole new issue :D

81

[Pierre Argh]

IMHO it is a big grey area, but let's try to look at this sensibly? Outside Regulated Airspace FIS/RIS/RAS are the available services, where the pilot "pays his money and takes his choice". So, theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a pilot under FIS requesting vectors to the ILS. But...?

Whilst being vectored, would the pilot expect to be separated from other a/c (known & unknown)? You might say "Not if under FIS", so what about duty of care? An ATCO might be thought irresponsible if they vectored one aircraft directly towards another unless they informed the pilot (sounds like RIS?) or attempted to maintain separation (not unlike RAS then?)... then there are other issues such as sequencing, terrain clearance etc etc.

If a pilot wants radar assistance, FIS is not appropriate and they should request a radar service. I suggest it's only common sense? That way, the level of service provision is defined, neither side is making any assumptions and both know their responsibilities.

[NorthSouth]

It's perhaps even greyer than you suggest, Pierre Argh, because controllers at many units will give radar-derived traffic information to aircraft on a FIS even though the pilot has not expressed any desire for radar assistance. Let me stress this is not a criticism - as a pilot I'm delighted to be given this information - but this sort of thing has been cited as creating the possibility in a pilot's mind about what kind of service he is getting. I don't think this is an issue for most UK GA pilots but it might be for some commercial pilots, especially non-UK ones.
NS

[BurglarsDog]

The whole issue of ATC services outside CAS is a dogs breakfast in the UK !!!! Look at who is posting and consider where they are living/ flying? UK only !. You will not find this confusion and misunderstanding anywhere else on PPRUNE!! It is about time that the civ/ mil adopt one type of ATC service and, or at least understand , the rules the other is playing by. This may then , hopefully , percolate through to the various groundschools around the counrty and everyone will (maybe) undertsand the implications of the daily, individual verbal agreemants that they sign up to. If anyone cares to check what the mil are teaching at the CATCS at Shawbury I bet a tasmanian dollar that ICAO is very rarley mentioned and that students will not know or care about the implications of IFR v VFR OCTA. Basic stuff for the rest of the world!!
Piolts should also remember that under FIS RIS RAS they also have options ; they can change heading level or surname at will, depending on type of service,. And lets face it if you are talking to any MIL LARS unit or Lon MIl I doubt if you are being charged for it anyway. I spent 7+ years in LJAO and never once issued a callsign to collect on !! Someone owes me somehwere I reckon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:sad:
Gone to look for that $$:(
DogGone

[2 sheds]

In response to NorthSouth's point, there should not be any such confusion. In the case of an aircraft under a non-radar service, any traffic information passed but obtained from radar should be in geographical terms rather than clock code. It would be passed because there is self-evident information that it is pertinent to the aircraft under service, either from the ATC unit's knowledge of the latter's flight details or by it being, co-incidentally, identified on radar. And the bottom line is - what service did you read back to the ATC unit?

[RAC/OPS]

It's amazing how many pilots will read back 'Flight Information', but trying to get them to say 'Radar....' is like pulling teeth!

[tribekey]

Not sure what the confusion is , the rules are clear, machinehead quoted them precisely. controllers can't vector a/c on a fis-simple.

[2 sheds]

Yes - and no. In some respects the criteria appear to be clear but if you look at all of them that apply in Class G airspace they are often not so clear cut - and the major problem occurs when aircraft under different services are about to occupy the same piece of sky.

The whole reason for the current ATSOCAS review is that the "rules" are not clear.

[Spitoon]

There certainly seems to be some confusion in some of these posts. I tend to agree that the rules are simple but their application in practice is not. Whilst I could understand confusion in the minds of pilots, particularly those that fly most of their time in the cosy environment of class A airspace or outside the UK, surely it shouldn't cause the debate that it does between controllers. Perhaps some of the confusion comes from controllers who do not work outside CAS for real?

Statements like Pierre's below do not help.
So, theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a pilot under FIS requesting vectors to the ILS. But...?

Whilst being vectored, would the pilot expect to be separated from other a/c (known & unknown)?.... In practice, a pilot receiving a FIS who asks for vectors to the ILS would surely be identified and placed under an appropriate service (radar advisory, radar control or, occasionally, radar information). Thereafter the rules for separation etc. applicable to that service should be applied. Admittedly this may create a conflict when providing a RIS to a flight under VFR but in this case the rules are simple, vectors for the ILS and information only on other traffic - but I find that the tactical headings that I need to issue to get the aircraft onto the ILS almost always seem to take it away from other targets....force of habit I guess.