Radar identification of VFR flights

[1999]

Hi folks ...

what are the procedures or the daily practice at your unit in regard to the above question :
VFR flight calls in from E Class airspace - would you use phrase "Identified" (or whatever else you use in that regard) at all ? And if so - what kind of service you provide in that case speaking of legal terms ..

Thanx a lot

1999

[Spitoon]

If you want a 'legal' answer, you'll have to be a bit more specific. For a start, which country?

[!turnleftrightnow!]

In Germany:
"XYZ for flight information service contact FIS-frequency on 123.45!"

:E:E:E:ok:

[10 DME ARC]

In the UK @ EGNT we identify VFR all the time, if possible ie transponder code, as part of LARS and offer the service requested i.e. 80% FIS. For a FIS we would not tell them they are identified.

[chevvron]

I'm not getting involved in this; Talkdownman where are you?

[1999]

LOL @ chevvron (
I'm not getting involved in this; Talkdownman where are you?)

I'm in Slovenia - we adopted ICAO procedures in whole without any significant State additions .

We had a heated debate a while ago about the subject and the opinions differed - based mostly on the origin of the initial training facilities we attained years ago ( Langen/Germany , UK , USA ..)
Therefore i was just curious how folks deal with it elsewhere ..

Thanx guys/gals and keep 'em commin' :p

1999

p.s. I personally prefer "Germans" way ( according to !turnleftrightnow! - for FIS contact freq... ) although i did all of my training in the UK .

[chevvron]

OK but I can only speak for operation in class G airspace.
In the UK, IFR commercial flights can and do operate to/from airfields in class G airspace. There is in fact very little class E airspace, those airfields with sufficient passenger throughput having class D airspace protection. Several of the airfields in class G have their own radar approach control and when an IFR arrival or departure is handled, it is given a radar service; if there is VFR traffic around and it is identified, the workload for controller/pilot is reduced because the VFR traffic then becomes known traffic, thus there is no need to pass unnecessary avoiding action to the IFR traffic. The VFR traffic is normally (at my unit) identified using SSR, and our CAA have told us that when we do this we must tell the pilot he is identified and verify any associated altitude readout from his transponder. He is not provided with radar service, just Flight Information Service in spite of the fact ICAO Doc 4444 does describe the 'Use of radar in the Flight information Service' in Chapter 8 Section 8.11, the UK CAA insist on providing a range of radar services which are not listed in any ICAO document (as far as I know!).

[SwanFIS]

Just in case someone doesn't know..............:rolleyes:

In the UK, if you are receiving a FIS from London Information in Class G airspace you are given a squawk to make you visible to ATC units that are radar equipped.

London Info is a non-radar unit providing a Flight Information Service only.

[Talkdownman]

Dear Old Mate chevvron said: The VFR traffic is normally (at my unit) identified using SSR, and our CAA have told us that when we do this we must tell the pilot he is identified and verify any associated altitude readout from his transponder. He is not provided with radar service, just Flight Information Service in spite of the fact ICAO Doc 4444 does describe the 'Use of radar in the Flight information Service' in Chapter 8 Section 8.11, the UK CAA insist on providing a range of radar services which are not listed in any ICAO document (as far as I know!).

You're the only one at your unit who does it properly, chevvers, so we all know where we are with you.
I'm sure that you will agree that there are some at your unit who will pass 'the unnecessary avoiding action' to all the VFR traffic by providing FIS traffic with vectors or vertical (control) separation regardless of VMC availability. FIS becomes blurred into RIS with deconfliction, RIS becomes RAS with separation and RAS is unachievable because of traffic congestion and airspace constraints and becomes FAS. Jobsworth ticking of the CAA ATSD 'verification' boxes adds significantly to the RT congestion which in turn compromises flight safety. ATS frequently fails to keep to the terms of the Service Type Contract therefeore there is no wonder that confusion prevails and aircrew are deluded into thinking that lookout may be relaxed. When under a FIS I have been given vectors, procedurual separation and incessant range/bearing radar information. When I query the service provision I am informed FIS only. Small wonder I do my own thing in your local area. It's analagous to FISOs regulating runway occupancy..........perish the thought :ugh:

[Lurking123]

The UK rules can be confusing. From an ATC perspective, we don't ordinarily think about flight rules in Class G, we are more interested in the type of service you want (there are some tenuous links but they aren't necessarily that obvious). Personally, I would like to be able to identify as many aircraft as I can - regardless of flight rules.

This could be a multi page thread.:hmm:

[chevvron]

I experienced 'vectoring under FIS' once myself; southbound towards the Bignor Roman Villa from Blackbushe, called Dunsfold; 'what type of service?' they asked. I replied 'flight information'; 'roger flight information service, turn right heading 230 degrees to avoid IFR traffic inbound'!!!

[1999]

Thanx for the input .... I'm fully aware of the differences from the ICAO recommendations and practices applied throughout the world which in turn causes a lot of headaches not just to us controllers but to the pilots even more i would say....
I agree with Lurking123's remark - this could be another one of those multi page threads ... and the bottom line again is a " non-standard " regulations or better "state sovereignity" ....

In the case i mentioned the aircraft was in Class E airspace ( as defined by ICAO Airspace Classification) and it was bellow MSA and Minimum Radar Vectoring altitude . Although our AIP states that use of Radar in special casses may be applied as the sole mean of information, but does not in any case relief the VFR pilot from its responsibility in regard to VFR Flight Rules .

So the real "issue" of our debate was : Is the use of the word "Identified" for such VFR flight pure "sacrillege" ?

[Talkdownman]

Ah, so Vectoring Whilst Under A FIS contagious.....caught from Dunsfold next door, adults exchanging messages over a direct link.
You had better take your medicine, look what happened to them!

[chevvron]

I see nothing wrong with telling VFR traffic they're identified even when below minimum radar vectoring altitude; identification on its own does not imply a radar service is being provided.

[Bern Oulli]

OHMIGOD! Vectoring FIS traffic! All my years instructing would-be radar controllers was obviously a complete waste of time. I shall never fly again (well, until tomorrow anyway), things are not what they used to be, controllers of today, mutter mumble dribble...........

[airac]

Here we go again:ugh:
Just noticed it's my 100th posting does that mean I qualify for a pprune straight jacket, (Green of course ):8

[Lurking123]

Vectoring under a FIS is absolutely no problem, unless you are in the UK:}

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Since I have already met similar question in my carrier and taking into account that I could understand better your question I will try to give you some answers.
At first it is very important to define class of Airspace. If it is D or E ( because whole Slovenia is something like CTR) then::)
-you may identified VFR traffic in order to give appropriate traffic info for IFR traffic. Instruction for VFR flights should be in accordance with: " I suggest hdg... if you could comply with instructions.. and so on. Never forget that service must not make situation worse.
-If it is class F and G: What the Hell you are doing as ATCO in such airspace. :=
It is clearly written that there is no atc service provided. You may get infos but "Identified" means that you are taking responsibility even your state defined this as F or G. If state thinks that this is enough than as ATCO you are not qualified to change it. Unless you are thinking that your salary and T&C are excellent and you want to work more than expected. :ugh:

[1999]

SINGAPURCANAC - you hit the nail there :) and i couldn't agree more with you ...
It was the specified portion of the Class E airspace in question - what you said sums it all quite nicely ..
Thanx

And yes Slovenia is what you said - one nice CTR :)

Take care

1999

[SINGAPURCANAC]

@1999,
thank you,
Both you and me belong to the same system and we are affected with similar problems. Since I have fights on daily basis with local "experts" I know this and many other answers to similar question. All those questions are usually stupid but "experts" are not familiar with relevant documents. your question is still "normal' one but what would you say after this:
"You can't use Transition level!":=- This is direct quote :D. this guy is OJTI with 20+years of experience!:ugh:
Keep well,

[chevvron]

SINGAPURCANAC: As I said before, in the UK both military and civil ATC operate in class G airspace, there being little E and F, and any airport who the government decides needs it gets class D or higher. This means many airfields both ,military and civil with maybe 200 IFR movements per day each have NO protection, let alone class E like you have.

[Spitoon]

As has been clearly stated earlier, the UK treats this topic rather differently to many other countries. The problem is less that we have all these odd radar based services in the UK but, more fundamentally, that we seem happy to provide ATC services outside controlled airspace (a bit of an oxymoron creeping in there!) which as SINGAPURCANAC points out is not really what ICAO ATC has in mind.

If we stuck to ICAO rules and did ATC inside CAS and FIS if you want it outside CAS we wouldn't need all the odd radar services - but that would require far more CAS to be established. So, because we don't apply one bit of ICAO rules (about establishing CAS) we end up having to fudge other bits of the ICAO rules (about ATS) which assume the airspace is there.

So, all in all, the UK is not a good model for Slovenia. But it is why we make a big distinction between identification and provision of a service - and I'm not sure that that is the norm elsewhere. In the UK we might ID a VFR aircraft for our own purposes, perhaps to decide that traffic information does not need to be passed to an IFR flight, but without providing any service to the VFR flight. In my experience elsewhere, having told a pilot that he or she is identified they will automatically assume that they are getting a radar service (radar control often being the only one available) and also make assumptions about the responsibilities that the controller is taking on.

A quick look at the ICAO books (well Doc 4444 which is the only one I have to hand) is interesting - although not as helpful as one might like. At para 8.6.2.1.1 it says 'Before providing radar service to an aircraft, radar identification shall be established and the pilot informed. Thereafter, radar identification shall be maintained until termination of the radar service. This would seem to support the assumption that identification=radar service.

Later on in para 8.7.1 which deals with the Use of radar in the ATC service there is no mention of how radar could/should be used in the circumstances in question. However reference to para 8.11 about Use of radar in the FIS refers to providing information to 'identified aircraft' so, if Slovenia sticks to ICAO rules, I imagine your VFR aircraft calling up in Class E airspace should be identified and tolf that it is ID'ed and told it is getting a FIS.

FWIW, personally I have no difficulty ID'ing an aircraft simply to improve my situational awareness and without providing a radar service. In this case I would use the phraseology 'Identified, no radar service' or 'Identified, flight information service continues' to try and stress the point that I will not be providing a radar service to the aircraft. It doesn't matter to me what level the aircraft is at. If it later becomes helpful to put the aircraft under a radar service (and we've got lots to choose from in the UK, although as chevvron pointed out FIS with radar is not one of them) I might ask the pilot if he/she can accept this - although I recognise that I may have to fall back on my charm and personality if the pilot says "No, I'm happy to continue VFR thanks"! - in which case level, flight rules and pilot qualifications are all considerations.

One final point. Talkdownman says 'Jobsworth ticking of the CAA ATSD 'verification' boxes adds significantly to the RT congestion which in turn compromises flight safety.' In this particular case I'm not sure that it is box-ticking. If one assumes that the aircraft has been identified using a discrete code then any other unit can take vertical separation based on the mode C displayed. For this reason any aircraft on a discrete code associated with a particular unit and not nominated as conspicuity code should have the level checked. (P.S. This is a UK answer based on the 'Deemed verified' rules we have.)

[SINGAPURCANAC]

It is probably question of money and consecutively profit. But my experience told me that D class of airspace for CTR and E for TMA is minimum. And above 190 C. I don't know the reason why it is not like this in UK or anywhere else, but this is my logic.
regarding military traffic I remember times where all military traffic was VFR but they separate each a/c as two IFR. So experiences all over world are different but if you follow ICAO rules in class D and E ( as it was in this topic) than it is as....

And one joke finally:
two Bosnian guys( Mujo & Haso) were travelling to UK by car. Somewhere in south England they switched radio to local station. There were warning: DRIVERS, DRIVERS WARNING! At the highway south of London one car using wrong direction. CAUTION!
"What one?", said Mujo, " thousands of them!"

[chevvron]

On my one visit to Mauritius about 40 years ago(!) I was pleased to find that they drove on the correct side of the road like the UK.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I guess the UK could adopt the ICAO procedures in full ... and then the military could just operate under due regard, since the C in ICAO stands for civil. Our Middle East ATC colleagues could probably tell us whether that kind of a system is a goer or not in safety terms. :ok:

It's just a shame that there is a need to defend your country or fight wars, even in Europe in very recent times. Without them we would have no need for accomodating operational training by our military brethren and could all have one big happy airspace continuim :D

[kontrolor]

I'm from the same CTR as 1999, so I know the heat of the debate quite well :)

I have no problem indentifying VFR traffic, using correct ICAO procedure on the way. Identifying traffic doesn't mean taking over the whole responsibilty from the pilot...especialy of VFR flights, where it is clear, that PIC is responsible for separation from terrain. My million dollar question to those who refuse to identify VFR traffic was - what will you do with it in C airspace (in regards to separation of VFR and IFR flights)?