Super New UK RT Phraseology

[Medevacjock01]

Don't you feel grateful to the UK CAA for changing from those old obscure RT terms - Flight Information, Radar Information and Radar Advisory - to the wonderfully clear and innovatory Basic, Traffic, DECONFLICTION and Procedural?

With these changes nearly one year old now, could the CAA publish an analysis of the costs of the change and the wonderful increase in safety we now enjoy because of them?

And how many jobs have been saved at the CAA by all the labour involved in bringing about these changes?

:rolleyes:

[flybymike]

The stupidity of the name changes were well publicised before they even took place. In my view changing internationally recognised terms actually detracts from safety and does not add to it. However, apparently the CAA felt they needed to be seen to be doing something (anything) about the perceived (ie compulsorily reported) increase in infringements and the resultant perceived increased threat of collisions as a result of it. I can only imagine that the thinking was that the publicity generated would result in more widespread responsible use of traffic avoidance options but I have no idea how this thinking was arrived at.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

I must say, I'm in agreement with the previous two posts, and even now it feels 'odd' requesting a traffic service where I would have normally requested a RIS, or a basic service as opposed to a FIS etc... I know it's not strictly speaking the same, but... oh, errr, yes it is really!

Personally I don't see the need to fix something that's not broken, and to extend on one of the points above, there's an additional safety issue (in my view) that this introduces - it's all dry and fine that all us with CAA issued pilot's licences had a handy CD drop through our doors, but what about the thousands of foreign GA pilots who fly into the UK every year? I'm sure it's quite plausible that many, especially operating out of the smaller strips overseas, are used to the older system and are completely unaware of the new operating regime. Yes, they should be having a good look through the UK AIP before coming over, but let's be honest, how many times do you really read the overseas equivilant cover to cover before each and every trip abroad?!

I guess there's no point moaning, it's here to stay, but what's next?

Beginner's service, Orientation service and Anti-crash service?!

:\

[gasax]

Well my understanding is that it is here to stay - until the European airspace classification is changed and the CAA will not be able to twiddle with things just becasue they can.

Along with the new classes of airspace one would presume there will be new 'service levels' - but at least they will be common across Europe (although given the EU's usual approach not anywhere else...).

Is it just my perception but the number of times I actually get a 'traffic' service seems substantially less than a RIS? In other words there is less 'service' available as a direct result of these changes?

[dont overfil]

There was minor changes which brought military and civil into line which was a good thing. I initially did not understand why a name change was necessary but after all the posts on here and other forums it was clear that a large number of pilots did not understand the old system.
Perhaps the enforced re-learning was also a good thing. Can we change back now please?
DO.

[grafity]

Would they not of brought the military into line with civil? At least that way it's much easier to insure military personnel are retrained and it reduces the problems for foreign GA pilots?

[AdamFrisch]

This is something I've completely missed.

So instead of Basic Service when I call up Farnborough, what should I now ask for to comply with CAA?

[jxc]

You still ask for basic service you used to ask for FIS flight information service

[AdamFrisch]

Oh, so I did comply;)

[jonkil]

It gets me in a twiddle when I chat to Shannon and then Belfast.... The amount of times I have asked Shannon for a Basic service and Belfast for a FIS...!!...starting to get used now to it !.... can't for the life of me see the reason for this stupid absurd name change.:mad:http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_mad.gif

[niknak]

It was all led by EASA and the CAA were forced into it to bring them into line with the rest of Europe and as part of the scheme to rationalise Mil procedures with Civil ones in both the UK and elsewhere.

Personally I can't see what all the fuss is about, it works well and there doesn't seem to be any justifcation whatsoever in complaining a year after it was implemented (and nearly two years after the consultation process was held when you could have complained..).

[nakuru flyer]

The Law of Unexpected Consequences. I commonly hear the request for a Basic Flight Information Service!:D

[chevvron]

Another common one is pilots requesting CONfliction Service or Traffic Information Service (which did exist at one time before it was quickly re-named Radar Information Service, which aptly described it!!!)

[Droopystop]

I personally think it's been a good thing. Much less confusing once you get used to it.

[flybymike]

Another common one is pilots requesting CONfliction Service

Kame Kazi pilots obviously....

[Foxy Loxy]

... and I've heard one ask for a "Deconfliguration Service." We still don't know for sure he wasn't taking the urinal :}:hmm:

[leader3]

trouble is that if you ask for a basic service thats what you get especially with farnbrough north.
it not the best in the world if your at the extreme end of their coverage and the controller has a heavy work load.
but thats progress!!!!!

[Spitoon]

It was all led by EASA and the CAA were forced into it to bring them into line with the rest of Europe and as part of the scheme to rationalise Mil procedures with Civil ones in both the UK and elsewhere.

Interesting comment niknak, do you have any references??

[BillieBob]

....do you have any references??Unlikely since it had nothing whatever to do with EASA and the matter of alignment with other countries' procedures did not feature in the deliberations. In some ways the introduction of ATSOCAS complicates the interface between UK and European procedures - in the case of Jersey, for example, aircraft within those parts of the Channel Islands Control Zone that are in the UK FIR receive a 'Basic Service' whereas those in the same Control Zone but in the French FIR receive a FIS.

The ATSOCAS review was, in fact, a response to AAIB and AIRPROX reports, as well as feedback from CAA Safety Evenings. It also presented an opportunity to improve alignment between civil and military procedures, although this was not of itself a reason for initiating the review.

[Odi]

Leader 3; I'm not entirely sure what your point is with "trouble is that if you ask for a basic service thats what you get". If you've asked for a Basic Service then that is what you will get; the whole point of the new services is that you ask for what you want.

In fact controllers are specifically forbidden to give a higher level of service than what is requested.

[flybymike]

In fact controllers are specifically forbidden to give a higher level of service than what is requested.

But will invariably do so when appropriate due to "Duty of Care" considerations

[Spitoon]

Thank you BillieBob, that was my understanding the origin of the new FIS too.

What is worrying though, is that when EASA does get involved, all of these new, non-standard flight information services (in name and, in most cases, detail) would probably have to change again.

[Jim59]

In fact controllers are specifically forbidden to give a higher level of service than what is requested.


So what should controllers do when they have two aircraft on the same frequency heading towards one another and one is on Basic Service and the other on Traffic or Deconfliction Service? Tell one that they have traffic same level at 12 o'clock and the other nothing? Perhaps I should ask on the ATC part of PPRUNE!

[Captain Stable]

Jim - see flybymike's post 2 above yours.

[dublinpilot]

I seem to remember that traffic information can (must) be provided under a basic service, when ATC believes a collision is imminent. Of course they aren't looking out for such a situation....but if they happen to notice it, then they will pass on the information.

I could have imagined that, but I'm pretty sure it was in the documentation published about the 'new' services.

dp

[Jim59]

Post
http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=5421906&posted=1#post5421895
in the ATC forum gives an excellent clarification...

[chevvron]

Leader 3: 'extreme end of Farnborough North coverage'.
This shouldn't be a problem. I spent many of my final days operating LARS North sometimes combined with LARS East, and this gave me time to 'experiment' with the radar feeds available and recommend what I thought should be used. I found that to the north, coverage using Debden 23cm was far superior to coverage from the Stansted 10cm,(f'rinstance with Debden, you could see traffic almost to ground level at Wyton) and to the north west, the 'new' Heathrow 10cm (near T4/Hilton Hotel) was far better than the Heathrow 23cm (T1a car park), thus providing good solid low cover above about 1500ft amsl throughout the whole of the notified LARS North area. Course my recommendation fell on deaf ears as it was not in line with what the techies told us, so they're probably still using Stansted 10cm and Heathrow 23cm, which gives them the excuse to say 'Basic service only due to poor radar performance' etc.

[englishal]

Does it matter what they [the services] are called?

[leader3]

thats interesting about the radars being used and the wavelengths.
so when you only get a basic service its not just controller work load but can be a deficiency in the equipment.

[chevvron]

I wouldn't say a deficiency in equipment; NATS have provided (at their own expense ie you don't pay) the best possible kit for the Farnborough LARS task; more like inexperienced controllers operating 'by the book' rather than seeking the means to provide the BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE at all times, which is what I was taught to do when I first started at Farnborough way back in 1974.

[Captain Stable]

In my experience Farnborough LARS (particularly 125.25, the frequency I use most) provide a very good service, and often go beyond what they are required to provide.

[Captain Smithy]

There are still people moaning about this even after all this time?

What's in a name? And more to the point, who cares?

[leader3]

i would agree with Captain Stable that Farnbrough south do provide a good service and generally are very accommadating.

And as this is the most congested airspace in the country it is nice to know that your going to get a good service even if it is just a basic service.
its the bit about inexperienced controllers that could be worrying, dont mind if they do things by the book as they are trained too.
Just so long as they maintain standards that we have got acustomed too.

[chevvron]

Don't worry, they're not allowed to operate 'solo' until they've got through a very rigorous training regime; but like in all things, you don't really start to learn and develop yourself until you're on your own with no mentor sitting next to you to give advice. On LARS North f'rinstance, the boundary is well to the south of Huntingdon, so when you're newly certificated, you play safe and freecall traffic to 'en-route', whereas an old lag would hold on for a few miles more and give you a radar handover to Cottesmore. Likewise on east, if you're routing SFD - LFAT, you can still be seen on radar well outside the east area, so I personally would allow people to stay on frequency just that little bit longer so that, if the worst happened, I could pinpoint your position to D & D.

[Captain Smithy]

Of course as we Frozen Northerners know FBW and chums over at Scottish always give us an excellent service without fail. :)

Smithy