Radar Control Service in Class D VFR

[HeliComparator]

So, I am in UK, in receipt of a traffic service, I am approaching Class D airspace on a VFR flight, I request transit, I am instructed to route to a specific point within the Class D at a specified altitude. On entering the Class D, the controller says "Radar Control Service".

My question please is, what does that actually mean and where can I find it in print?

HC

[TCAS FAN]

As you are VFR an ATCO cannot technically require you to fly at a specific altitude/track as you may need to change either to remain VMC. Notwithstanding this, to expedite a CTR or CTA crossing it is a common practice to do it in the UK, I did it frequently, however with the proviso "advise if you require to change track or level to maintain VMC".

With respect to "radar control service" UK MATS Part 1 (CAP 493) requires ATCOs to change their service from an ATSOCAS when entering controlled airspace, in this Class D. However this opens a proverbial can of worms as to what is technically correct.

As you are VFR you cannot in the UK technically become a controlled flight as this could be seen as "controlled VFR" which is something that the UK does not practise, and would require Class C airspace to do it in. Class C control zones and lower airspace contol areas are not available in the UK.

My advice would be tell ATC if you expect/require to change track or level to remain VMC and put "radar control service" down to something that UK ATCOs have to say to avoid getting their knuckles wrapped by their unit examiners or the CAA.

[HeliComparator]

Thanks TCAS. My issue was not one of difficulty in maintaining VMC. I will await any further posts from pilots (because I realise I didn't know what this service means, and I suspect there are lots of pilots out there in the same boat) but in the mean time could you point me to a document describing what this service actually means?

HC

[Benet]

When aircraft are flying within controlled airspace such as airways, they are usually under the positive control of ATC. This means the controller will issue positive intsructions to the aircraft such as speed, level and heading control. Airacraft being transferred from one unit to the next remain under positive control and details of the flight are co-ordinated prior to handover by the controller.

From UK Air Traffic Control (http://www.aviate.flyer.co.uk/functions-services.htm)

The CAA website contains a document relating to Radar Control Service in Class D airspace which was withdrawn in 2003. I suspect it's obsolete!

[HeliComparator]

A bit of a dearth of replies makes me think everyone else is as much in the dark about RCS as me. So next question, whilst in receipt of RCS in Class D when VFR, what should ATC do with regard to preventing you from crashing into someone else?

HC

[SUMBURGH DIRECTOR]

HC,
RCS means that
a) you are inside controlled airspace
b) you are receiving a surveillance service

Flying VFR inside CAS you will be provided with traffic information against other VFR, SVFR and IFR flights. No "separation" is established.
However to facilitate safe and orderly integration of VFR/IFR traffic inside class D and around airports, some forms of positive controlling are applied, even though they are not aimed at establishing "separation" per se, such as orbits, visual reporting, holding points, VFR/SVFR routes, flying not above/not below a certain level etc etc


I now quote CAP493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services) (some of it doesn't really apply to most ATC units with processed radar data, but anyway..)

Provision of Surveillance Services
1.1.1 Surveillance services comprise:
a) separation of arriving, departing and en route traffic;
b) vectoring;
c) position information to assist in the navigation of aircraft;
d) monitoring traffic to provide information to the procedural controller;
e) assistance to aircraft crossing controlled airspace.

1.1.2 Before a controller provides any of the above services he shall either:
a) identify the aircraft, using a method appropriate to the surveillance system in use;
or
b) have had the identity of the aircraft transferred from another controller.
The act of identifying an aircraft does not imply that a service is being given.

1.1.3 Surveillance systems may also be used to provide the following, whether or not the
aircraft has been identified:
a) Information on the position of aircraft likely to constitute a hazard;
b) Avoiding action;
c) Information about observed weather for pilots and other controllers; and
d) Assistance to aircraft in emergency

1.1.4 Surveillance services shall be provided to the maximum extent practicable to cover
the operational requirement subject only to workload, communications or equipment
capability.

1.1.5 Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing
shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a
risk of collision exists

1.2 Type of Surveillance Service
1.2.1 The airspace within which the aircraft is flying determines the type of surveillance
service available, as shown in the table below.

Type of Airspace - Surveillance Service
Controlled Airspace - Radar Control Service
Outside Controlled - Airspace Deconfliction Service or Traffic Service


1.2.2 Pilots must be advised if a service commences, terminates or changes when:
a) they are operating outside controlled airspace; or
b) they cross the boundary of controlled airspace

1.3 Radar Control Service
1.3.1 A Radar Control Service may be provided to aircraft operating IFR, Special VFR or VFR.
When providing the service controllers issue instructions to which:
a) pilots of aircraft operating IFR are required to comply; and
b) pilots of aircraft operating Special VFR or VFR will comply unless they advise the
controller otherwise.
NOTE: The manner in which VFR flights under Radar Control Service may be safely
integrated with the IFR traffic flow in the vicinity of aerodromes is described
in Section 3.
1.3.2 Before an aircraft enters controlled airspace the controller must establish which flight
rules the pilot will be operating under.
1.3.3 Before a Radar Control Service to IFR flights is terminated procedural separation must
be applied, except at ACCs when an aircraft will be entering an adjacent sector and:
a) a radar handover has been given; or
b) the conditions of any standing agreement have been met.

Hope this helps, although I understand it is not a very straight forward read.

Simple practical example:
IFR flight on short final ILS. VFR aircraft wants to transit through the overhead at the same time, at 1000' AGL.
By the book, the requirement would be to say to the VFR flight "GABCD, traffic is B747 2 mile final runway 27" and to the B747 "Traffic is cessna 152 east of the field etc etc routing east to west via the overhead at 1000' has you in sight (or not).

However this is such a critical phase of the flight that to avoid the unnecessary RT and to protect the landing traffic from a potential go around it is much easier and safer to hold the VFR transit one side of the field and as soon as there's a suitable gap in the sequence of the landing IFR traffic bring the VFR across.
This judgement call is made by the Tower man but if there's a busy sequence of inbounds coming in and no "gaps" to allow this transit the controller may suggest a rerouting, or ring the radar man and ask for a gap, he will then extend someone else downwind for a couple of miles etc etc so that there is enough room to bring the transit across.
Very simple and basic example but also shows how sometimes the reason for an instruction you are given by a controller may not necessarily be on the same frequency or possibly quite a few more miles down the line.

I realise it's a bit of a long convoluted message but it can be printed out and make for good toilet reading!! ;)

regards

[TroyTempest]

I love the old terms that everyone used. Radar Contolled Service. Ahh. Even foreign pilots understood ATC.
Maybe drifting off track, but what happened to Radar Advisory Service, etc. At least the pilot from overseas could guess what it meant! Deconfliction Service seems politically correct to someone, who doesn't know!
But I'm sure this has been covered.
Sumburgh, you do cover the Radar Control Servive for ATCO. I would always follow Radar Control Service near zones, bur Radar Advisory Service outside was understandable.

[HeliComparator]

Thanks Sumburgh

A few thoughts:

The doc you quote from is an ATC doc, not normally read by pilots.
The doc still doesn't actually say what the service entails, only the conditions for giving it etc.

Do any pilots know what service an RCS actually gives?

I'll reveal my hand now! The reason for the question was as follows:

In receipt of traffic service, get clearance to transit Class D at 2500' VFR via theshold of a runway (so to a specific point in space) so put that waypoint in FMS and fly towards it at 2500'. Controller says "radar control service" as I enter CAS. He mentions a light aircraft that is also crossing via the same point. His clearance is "not above 2500'" and he reports he is 2300'. Although it is gin clear, I can't see the light aircraft yet but feel that RCS means that ATC are looking after me. However I start to get a bit uncomfortable because i don't know from where or to where he is going, just that at some point he is going to be at the same place as me at nearly the same height, so I request climb to 3000'. This is denied me, I must remain at 2500'. I am on approach frequency, it's in the evening and have heard no other traffic.
Finally I see the traffic at a mile or two (which is a realistic distance to be able to see a light a/c below you) and he is going right to left with enough bearing change to mean I am not going to hit him, but pass behind. ATC offers me an orbit if I wish but if I do that, I will probably lose sight of him so don't.

We are now about 0.5 miles from the threshold. If I were not under RCS I would have changed heading a bit, but feel I must comply with ATC instructions, after all I am not going to get closer than about 300 metres and i will soon pass behind.

But just as he comes into my 12 o'clock he banks steeply to the right so is now directly in front of me on the same track. I am doing 155kts, he perhaps 90 so he is getting bigger in the windscreen very quickly. I have to take an evasive manoeuvre by banking 30 deg into an orbit.

So as I understand it, RCS means that you must do what the controller says, but he has no obligation to stop you hitting something and is within his rights to direct 2 aircraft with very different speeds to the same point is space to arrive at the same time. Something is wrong with that system!

HC

[TroyTempest]

If you are VFR in Class D and the controller says Radar Control Service, then a Cessna or stealth fighter hits you? Remember who's in charge, not always ATC?

[HeliComparator]

I agree Troy, and that is why I didn't hit him! But being under RCS made me reluctant to deviate from my clearance, resulting in me getting closer than I would have done if I were just on a general VFR clearance such as we normally get in Aberdeen.

Seems to me : No-one (as in pilots) knows what a VFR RCS entails and if they did, they would not like it!

HC

[ShyTorque]

The acceptance of radar control doesn't mean that you can't ask to change the clearance given if unhappy at any time. I sometimes do this even SVFR in Class A.

[10W]

1.3.1 A Radar Control Service may be provided to aircraft operating IFR, Special VFR or VFR.

When providing the service controllers issue instructions to which:

a) pilots of aircraft operating IFR are required to comply; and
b) pilots of aircraft operating Special VFR or VFR will comply unless they advise the controller otherwise.


HeliComparator,

If I understand correctly, your clearance was to transit VFR via the threshold. That means the navigation is up to you, as well as the separation from other aircraft. If you need to adjust track to avoid another aircraft, there's nothing to stop you doing it. If the controller wanted you to follow a specific route or track, he would have issued you with a heading or a restriction (e.g. fly no further East than the Mxx motorway). You are then responsible for advising if at any time you can't comply.

I think you are getting too hung up on the words Radar and Control. It's Radar because surveillance is available and this can be used in a manner of different ways as detailed in a previous post. It's Control because you are no longer outside Controlled Airspace. Control does not necessarily mean rigid though. It can be done with a light hand by using level blocks (e.g. not above/below a level) or general routeings (e.g. via a VRP or an Entry/Exit lane).

If you don't think VFR and 'self separation' is a good thing, think about what the alternative would be. A rigid IFR type system with Controlled Airspace entry severely limited as the controllers would have to provide positrive separation between all aircraft. That would severely limit the capacity of many Class D areas and result in lots of refusals or delays for transit aircraft. That's not a road I would like to go down, either as a pilot or controller.

[HeliComparator]

Shy - if you read the post again you will see that I did ask for a change of clearance but it was refused

10w your last para first, yes of course I do think self separation is a good thing.

2nd para quite agree, I was too hung up on RCS and now realise that I didn't really know what it meant. In fact I still don't know what it means and no-one so far has been able to point me to a written description so perhaps that is not too surprising. Certainly the name to me implies more rigid control and this was compounded by fixed altitude. The tone of the controller when I asked for altitude change was a littile along the lines of "you just do as you are told and everything will be fine".

This is the intended main thrust of this thread.

As far as the track went, it wasn't "direct to the threshold" but when things got sticky I was nearly over the threshold so a deviation at that point would have meant I didn't comply with the clearance.

Perhaps it boils down to what one is accustomed to. At my home airfield in Class D when we fly VFR it is just that. Only when IFR do we hear "Radar Control Service" . At the airfield I was transiting they clearly have a different policy in that all VFR traffic is told "RCS". I think that is the root of my being misled and just goes to show what lack of standardisation does. Perhaps there are 2 groups of pilots, one who routinely hear "RCS" and to them it just means "fly VFR", another who don't. For the latter I think there is a danger of not understanding what is meant, and that is due to the choice of its name and seeming lack of any information being promulgated about it.

From your lack of comment I presume you think the controller showed good practice when he cleared 2 aircraft to the same place to arrive at the same time, same altitude?

HC

[10W]

2nd para quite agree, I was too hung up on RCS and now realise that I didn't really know what it meant. In fact I still don't know what it means and no-one so far has been able to point me to a written description so perhaps that is not too surprising. Certainly the name to me implies more rigid control and this was compounded by fixed altitude. The tone of the controller when I asked for altitude change was a littile along the lines of "you just do as you are told and everything will be fine".

I agree that the term is not widely publicised and it's not surprising it means many different things to many people. Perhaps the CAA should consider publishing details about the services inside Controlled Service through the Airspace & Safety Initiative, similar to those they brought out for ATSOCAS (http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/ATSOCAS.asp#) ? That would clarify it for everyone.

In the same way that a pilot tells a controller he is unable to comply with an instruction, I think controllers should also tell pilots why they are unable to approve any request. Controllers have the big picture and so it might not always be apparent to the pilot what the problem is. Unfortunately, like all walks of life, there are some controllers who have attitude problems and forget the 'S' in 'ATS' stands for Air Traffic SERVICE.

As far as the track went, it wasn't "direct to the threshold" but when things got sticky I was nearly over the threshold so a deviation at that point would have meant I didn't comply with the clearance.


Remember that you can deviate from a clearance if the safety of your aircraft will be compromised. Ideally, tell the controller you are doing it first, but if it is urgent, make the manouevre and call as soon as you can thereafter. You have the ultimate responsibility for avoiding collisions, so ensure that becomes your priority.

At my home airfield in Class D when we fly VFR it is just that. Only when IFR do we hear "Radar Control Service" . At the airfield I was transiting they clearly have a different policy in that all VFR traffic is told "RCS". I think that is the root of my being misled and just goes to show what lack of standardisation does. Perhaps there are 2 groups of pilots, one who routinely hear "RCS" and to them it just means "fly VFR", another who don't. For the latter I think there is a danger of not understanding what is meant, and that is due to the choice of its name and seeming lack of any information being promulgated about it.


I think it needs split down even further. There will be 2 different methods depending on whether your flight originates and remains inside Controlled Airspace, or whether you are joining or transiting from outside Controlled Airspace (regardless of the airspace at your departure airfield).

If you start off in Class D, ATC will give you an appropriate clearance, but will not generally give you the service being provided. You will be expected to know that it is a Control Service, and although strictly speaking it could be either Radar or procedural, it doesn't make a lot of difference since the 'contract' you have with ATC (for Control Service) is already a given.

If you are joining or transiting, then you have been subject to a different set of services (or indeed no service at all) prior to entering Controlled Airspace. ATC must advise you of any change in service and you cannot receive the ATSOCAS services within Controlled Airspace. ATC therefore have no choice but to tell you what your new service is. That will be either Procedural Control service (no surveillance available) or Radar Control service.

If you leave Controlled Airspace, then once again ATC have to advise you of the change in service. This could be by asking you what service you require from them, by transfer to another unit, or by terminating their service and clearing you to contact whoever you wish.

From your lack of comment I presume you think the controller showed good practice when he cleared 2 aircraft to the same place to arrive at the same time, same altitude?


Yes. You are both VFR. You are both responsible for your own separation and none is provided by ATC. The only requirement is to provide salient traffic information to the pilots to assist them in separating themeselves. If you want something more, then IFR or SVFR should be the flight rules you fly under :ok:

[SUMBURGH DIRECTOR]

HC

the example you provide to me sounds like poor controlling. Regardless of the flight rules, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known traffic.
The minimum service offered by ATC to VFR flights inside CAS is traffic information on all other known flights. That is the MINIMUM. Nothing is to stop the controller to take further actions to prevent an unsafe situation developing.

At your home airfield, when arriving VFR, you will go directly from outside CAS on offshore deconfliction to Aberdeen Tower which being a Tower doesn't provide you with a radar service. That's why you won't get the RCS transition as you would normally do when arriving IFR via Aberdeen approach and director.

I would be interested to know what airport you were transiting in the example you provided. Were you given o'clock type of traffic information?

Remember that if you felt it was too close for comfort, or you had to take avoiding action, even if it's VFR vs VFR you are fully entitled to file an airprox. They get taken very seriously and investigated thoroughly and could lead to a good lesson to be learned.

10W.. I take it you work en route? Do you get many VFR - VFR conflictions in the airways? ;)
I don't think clearing 2 a/c to same place same level at same time is a great idea, even if VFR.

[HeliComparator]

10W thanks or the detailed response. Clearly you are quoting the "party line" and you are correct within the context of the systems currently applied by ATC. My point is that the system is IMHO not a good one from the pilot's point of view, not well understood by some pilots including me ( a TRE with more than 10000 hrs) and not promulgated to pilots in any way that I can find.

In terms of it's name, "radar control" implies positive control like IFR, and as for "service" I struggle to see what benefit I am receiving from this "service". I must do as I am told and only deviate if I am about to crash. Seems like ATC has all the power but no responsibility, and the only ones benefitting from the service are ATC.

In terms of your last para, I think you make the point well that ATC have lost the plot with regard to what they should be trying to achieve, and a great deal of this results from the first priority being to not get sued, flight safety is somewhere further down the list. Please don't take personal offence by my comments, it is an institutional issue not a personal one.

[HeliComparator]

Sumburgh - many thanks for your support, part of the reason for this thread is to decide what if any action I should take, in terms of an Airprox the outcome will of course be "no risk of collision", so maybe just an MOR, but as I allude to in the reply just made, I feel ATC culture is increasingly following an agenda where "arse covering" is the highest priority and that is a shame because there are many great individual controllers for whom safety is the highest priority ( yourself included I am sure).

HC

Ps no clock codes as far as I remember, just info that another aircraft was crossing via the same point.

[SUMBURGH DIRECTOR]

Ps no clock codes as far as I remember, just info that another aircraft was crossing via the same point.

That is poor controlling IMO. Conflicting traffic, same level, same place, with you expressing concern (as demonstrated by the request for a change of level).

I'd like to know where it happened, if you don't feel like doing it publicly you could do so via PM. Thanks

[10W]

HeliComparator

Please don't take personal offence by my comments, it is an institutional issue not a personal one.

None taken. The debate is useful. :ok:

I feel ATC culture is increasingly following an agenda where "arse covering" is the highest priority and that is a shame because there are many great individual controllers for whom safety is the highest priority ( yourself included I am sure).


It's wider than that. It comes from society in general. That said, the VFR 'rules' are not something new. The requirements and responsibilities have been there as long as I remember and come from internationally agreed practices. If the industry and pilot community want them to change, there are various umbrella groups who have the ability to try and change things, first nationally, then internationally. I am not sure there is any underlying support to change anything though. Changes would only introduce even more 'control' and regulation and that's a Pandora's box that GA pilots shouldn't want to open.

Ps no clock codes as far as I remember, just info that another aircraft was crossing via the same point.

Without the controller report, there could be legitimate reasons for this, for example, the other aircraft not identified and thus not receiving a surveillance service. Normally however:

Whenever practicable, information regarding traffic on a possible conflicting path should be given in the following form:
a) relative bearing of the conflicting traffic in terms of the 12 hour clock with the optional prefix ‘left or right’ as appropriate; or, if the aircraft under service is established in a turn, the relative position of the conflicting traffic in relation to cardinal points i.e. northwest, south etc.;
b) distance from the conflicting traffic;
c) direction of flight of the conflicting traffic; and
d) relative speed of the conflicting traffic or the type of aircraft and level if this is known.

From the preceeding post:

Clearly you are quoting the "party line" and you are correct within the context of the systems currently applied by ATC. My point is that the system is IMHO not a good one from the pilot's point of view, not well understood by some pilots including me ( a TRE with more than 10000 hrs) and not promulgated to pilots in any way that I can find.

It's not so much the party line, it's the procedures published by ICAO and the CAA. The controllers have to work under the same rules as the pilots, although the levels of education between the two sides are of course differing in some cases. I don't mean that as an insult, just a fact that a 20 hour GA pilot or an IFR 747 pilot may not have the depth of detail that the controller is required to have, nor be aware of all the nuances, especially if they are not regulars to the airspace or the procedures being used. A controller using it every day will have a very high level of knowledge of the theory and the practical rules. They need it to practice their black arts ;)

In terms of it's name, "radar control" implies positive control like IFR, and as for "service" I struggle to see what benefit I am receiving from this "service". I must do as I am told and only deviate if I am about to crash. Seems like ATC has all the power but no responsibility, and the only ones benefitting from the service are ATC.

A few more CAA quotes which might help :ok:

Radar Control - Term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service.

An ATC service is provided according to the particular circumstances and class of airspace, for the purpose of:

a) preventing collisions between aircraft in the air;
b) assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft moving on the apron and the manoeuvring area;
c) assisting in preventing collisions between aircraft and obstructions on the
manoeuvring area;
d) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic.

So that's the service you receive. Point a) is the thrust of this thread. The controller's job is to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air. As it states, this depends on the circumstances and class of airspace. Ultimately, the circumstances and airspace class dictate that a VFR-VFR encounter/confliction requires no separation standard to be applied in Class D airspace, at least by ATC. The controller is not required to give you any, but he is required under the ICAO and CAA rules to give you traffic information which will help prevent that collision. If based on that information, either you or the controller are unhappy, then one of you has to raise the ante and ask for something else. In the controllers mind however, you are VFR and in visual conditions, you have been given the information. That's totally acceptable right up until the point where you have said you can't see the traffic and need another course of action. In this case the controller has a duty to reassess the situation and help you out. That help may have come from the other pilot calling that he has you in sight and is happy, it could be an orbit, or something else. Or it could be the controller assessing that you were not going to hit each other (either vertically or laterally) and so no other course of action was deemed necessary. Without appropriate RT and radar recordings, it's hard to tell if he performed badly or not.

Your last sentence is wrong. ATC have the responsibilities laid down as the service. Their responsibility for the provision of separation is also laid down as mentioned, dependent on rules of flight and class of airspace. But, there are also pilot responsibilities which are laid down under the rules which you elect to fly. If a pilot is VFR, he can't just ignore the see and be seen principles, the rules of the air, and airspace classifications, and then do the Telegraph crossword expecting ATC to move everything out of their way. Pilots need to know what is expected of them and know how ATC can help them comply with their responsibilities. It's a two way street, but in VFR, most of the requests and initiations to avoid collisions have to come from the pilot who a) knows what he can and can't see and b) knows what is the best course of action in preventing any potential collision.

The benefits of the service are that IFR and SVFR flights, whose visibility may be limited, operate in a known traffic environment, where separation is assured. The benefit for VFR flights are that they can operate in a known traffic environment without the need for IFR ratings or equipment, and follow the VFR rules and conditions within Controlled Airspace which might otherwise be off limits to them (e.g. Class A) with a little help from ATC in identifying potential conflicts.

In terms of your last para, I think you make the point well that ATC have lost the plot with regard to what they should be trying to achieve, and a great deal of this results from the first priority being to not get sued, flight safety is somewhere further down the list.

ATC has always had the service goals quoted above. Nothing has changed in that respect in the last 30 years. The only change is the introduction of a Duty of Care. The test of whether this is complied with is to ask what a reasonable person would have done. Not in your specific example, but as a generic statement, I would argue that a reasonable person who granted 2 VFR aircraft a clearance and told them about each other, in the absence of any other information from either pilot, would be compliant. In turn, would it be reasonable for either of the pilots not to speak up if they were not able to separate themselves ? I think not, and your specific issue indicates that you probably think so too. Without a full investigation and report, no one will ever know the issues in your case, so please file an Airprox if you are unhappy.


Sumburgh Director

At your home airfield, when arriving VFR, you will go directly from outside CAS on offshore deconfliction to Aberdeen Tower which being a Tower doesn't provide you with a radar service.

But they must provide a change of service surely if the aircraft is entering from outside Controlled Airspace ? It's mandatory to do so.

Remember that if you felt it was too close for comfort, or you had to take avoiding action, even if it's VFR vs VFR you are fully entitled to file an airprox. They get taken very seriously and investigated thoroughly and could lead to a good lesson to be learned.

I agree. The Board which investigates has a broad panel of expertise which is helpful to everyone.

10W.. I take it you work en route? Do you get many VFR - VFR conflictions in the airways?

I don't think clearing 2 a/c to same place same level at same time is a great idea, even if VFR.

We get them occasionally, but they are not frequent. Sometimes they are even gliders, so 'control' is a bit of a misnomer as there is little they can follow in terms of a clearance.

You think it's not a good idea, I think that's over-control, which is a particularly British disease ;) As a VFR GA pilot, I know my responsibilities and the last thing I want is ATC telling me to do this and do that in respect of another aircraft who I can see and avoid myself. On the occasions I can't see it, I'll do what HeliComparator did and ask for help. Many busy VFR places would grind to a halt if we had to start applying 'separation' between VFR aircraft which is effectively what you are suggesting. How would ATC ever be able to clear more than one VFR in the circuit ? :E

[HeliComparator]

10w in general I agree with nearly everything you say, for my particular event it comes back to my perception of being "forced" onto a collison course by ATC, having my attempts at applying vertical separation refused, with the consequence that, rightly or wrongly, I felt I must comply with the clearance until the point where doing so would have caused a collision and thus had to take "emergency" action rather than earlier action that would have been more comfortable.

I asked more TREs at work what Radar Control Service for VFR meant, none of them really knew and they had similar ideas to my original feeling that it gave some degree of safety / separation from other traffic. So it's primarily for that reason that I have now filed an Airprox.

HC

[Aucky]

I have been interested following this as I think that the confusion you felt is probably quite widespread. However, In my experience of flying through class D the phraseology upon entering the zone has usually been something to the effect of:

Approaching the zone - G-xxxx, cleared to enter controlled airspace, VFR, not above altitude XXXX' Route present position towards xxxx, if passing overhead Report the airfield in sight (for tower freq changeover).

Then on reaching the zone boundary - G-xxxx radar control service.

This is not precise but close as I recall, the main point being that its a VFR clearance, with a not above altitude xxxx, and without any instructions to 'steer heading xxx'. I have always assumed minor deviations in heading, whether to avoid another aircraft or even overflying a ground feature, are not prohibited, and ultimately as you are under radar control and therefore observation you will probably be prompted if any change in your heading is seen as unacceptable.... also being a 'not above' clearance would imply to me that there is probably a CTA overhead busy with hold traffic etc and that the grant of permission would probably be awkward to the controllers, but nothing wrong with descending to maintain a suitable separation is there if necessary?

As we know there is no separation provided in Class D between VFR and VFR flights so gotta do what we gotta do within the bound of our clearance to maintain our own, equally there is no separation between VFR and IFR for that matter, just 'essential traffic' info if my air law knowledge serves memory correctly :}

I would be interested to hear if any of this is incorrect to avoid making any embarrasing slip-up's down the line, but this has not got me in any bother yet :ok:

[10W]

Thanks HeliComparator, I think an Airprox is probably the right thing in your case. It should address the issues you raise and perhaps provide some education for pilots and ATC alike, which can only be a good thing.

Aucky, that's about right. If an IFR flight requests avoidance from a VFR flight after receiving traffic information, then that's about the only other thing we would give which you haven't mentioned :ok:

[HeliComparator]

As an aside, I was impressed when it was explained to me in conversation with a senior ATCO in Aberdeen, that their training policy is always to get controllers if possible to avoid vectoring 2 IFR aircraft straight at each other even though there is vertical separation, just in case one of the aircraft fails to maintain prescribed altitude. Building in that sort of human-error-tolerance into the "system" is what I would call "good controlling"!

HC

[SUMBURGH DIRECTOR]

10W - agreed. I'm not in favour of over-controlling. But HC in this instance had expressed concerns and requested a climb. He also never got radar derived TI which is something you would really expect in CAS with 2 conflicting VFR transits under RCS.

[10W]

:ok: Sumburgh Director.

Building in that sort of human-error-tolerance into the "system" is what I would call "good controlling"!

Controllers in NATS are being encouraged to use such techniques as a 'best practice'. The term used is 'defensive controlling'.

[NorthSouth]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread because it seems to me it still raises unresolved issues.

I regularly fly VFR in a Class D zone where in 20 years of flying I have *never* been told, on entering controlled airspace, "you're entering controlled airspace, Radar Control Service". I suspect part of the reason for this is that in most circumstances, if there's no other traffic to affect, the approach (or radar...oooh, there's another debate) controller expects to transfer me more or less straight away to Tower. But even in circumstances where Approach (Rad...oh ok I won't go there now ;)) does expect to hang on to me because of other traffic, I've still never been told I'm under a Radar Control (nor indeed any other sort of) Service.

I've also never been told - as far as I can recall - that I've been identified on radar, even when given a specific squawk.

I've always assumed from this long experience that the service I'm getting inside CAS is an Air Traffic Control Service without surveillance, i.e. I haven't formally been identified and I'm not necessarily being continuously monitored on radar; I'm separating myself from all other traffic and all terrain and obstacles visually therefore I don't need radar assistance.

I know there are other zones where it's routine to tell everyone when they enter CAS "entering CAS, Radar Control Service".

I'm not bothered by any of this in terms of what service I should expect - I'm VFR, therefore all separations are up to me - but it seems to me there is still a large area of uncertainty for both pilots and controllers in terms of what an RCS means when it's given to VFR traffic, and what pilots should assume in terms of whether controllers sitting at a radar screen, whether they call themselves Approach or Radar (damn! I promised not to go there!), are monitoring their progress.

Any views, 18 months on from the last exchanges? I'd be interested in some Class D zone ATCO views.

NS

[Inverted81]

Well I'll give it a go.

I'm a UK controller who works in class D surrounded by G.
Unfortunately, I think this whole debacle is a victim of a poor choice of wording on behalf of the regulator.

Radar Control Service with reference to VFR only for this explanation,
To a casual reader it obviously implies that you are being controlled using radar right? Wrong. What is actually means, is that a surveillance system is being used to provide a service (read assistance) inside CAS. This service includes everything you would expect from a basic service, with some additions (Wx, integration of traffic within the CTR/CTA, routing and or level 'requests', and basically anything else we can do to help. I've ordered fuel and a breakfast before now!!) as SD explained earlier, we segregate rather than separate VFR vs IFR or VFR vs VFR. A basic duty of care still rests with the controller, however, you guys can see out of the window and ultimately make the decision whether you can comply with our instructions. If not, we'll come up with another plan to fit you in the prevailing traffic situation with any risk negated to help you with your arrival/transit.

If you have never been told upon entering CAS that you are on a RCS either the controller is non conforming, OR they do not see or have not identified you on radar. Generally not best practice, and we particularly like to know what and where everything is inside the zone.

In basic terms, if you are VFR you are responsible for separation. We will provide appropriate traffic info on any other a/c that maybe in the vicinity. We may suggest a course of action to "segregate" but don't always expect it. If you can't comply with a level restriction (usually a not above) or a routing, then tell us. The original example shows a very poor attitude towards VFR in class D

Oh and the approach vs radar thing.

"ZZZZ Approach" means an approach controller is using procedural methods for the approach i.e. no radar. So you'll be flying full arrival procedures or will be VFR.

"ZZZZ Radar" guess what, means the controller is using a surveillance system to monitor your flight, so full radar vectors etc can be expected to save all those extra procedure miles (unless I'm vectoring of course ;) ) with reference to VFR you'll just get less or no requests for your position.

[HeliComparator]

I haven't looked again recently, but for me the biggest issue remains that RCS is not defined anywhere. Controllers seem to somehow know what it means, but how are pilots supposed to know? It's not in the ANO, not in the AIP, not even in MATS. Where is it?

[Inverted81]

CAP493 MATS Pt1 Section 1 Chapter 5


Chapter 5 ATS Surveillance Systems 1 Services
1.1 Provision of Surveillance Services
1.1.1 Surveillance services comprise:
a) separation of arriving, departing and en route traffic;
b) vectoring;
c) position information to assist in the navigation of aircraft;
d) monitoring traffic to provide information to the procedural controller; e) assistance to aircraft crossing controlled airspace.
1.1.2 Before a controller provides any of the above services he shall either:
a) identify the aircraft, using a method appropriate to the surveillance system in use; or
b) have had the identity of the aircraft transferred from another controller.
The act of identifying an aircraft does not imply that a service is being given.
1.1.3 Surveillance systems may also be used to provide the following, whether or not the aircraft has been identified:
a) Information on the position of aircraft likely to constitute a hazard;
b) Avoiding action;
c) Information about observed weather for pilots and other controllers; and d) Assistance to aircraft in emergency.
1.1.4 Surveillance services shall be provided to the maximum extent practicable to cover the operational requirement subject only to workload, communications or equipment capability.
1.1.5 Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.
1.2 Type of Surveillance Service
1.2.1 The airspace within which the aircraft is flying determines the type of surveillance
service available, as shown in the table below.
1.2.2 Pilots must be advised if a service commences, terminates or changes when:
a) outside controlled airspace;
b) entering controlled airspace;
c) leaving controlled airspace, unless pilots are provided with advance notice in accordance with paragraph 1.2.3 below.
Type of Airspace
Surveillance Service
Controlled Airspace:
Radar Control Service
Outside Controlled Airspace:
Deconfliction Service or Traffic Service

1.2.3
1.3 1.3.1
1.3.2 1.3.3
1.4 1.4.1
2
2.1
2.2
3
3.1
3.1.1 3.1.1.1
For flights leaving controlled airspace controllers should provide pilots with advance notice of:
a) the lateral or vertical point at which the aircraft will leave controlled airspace. Such notice should be provided between 5-10 nm or 3000-6000 ft prior to the boundary of controlled airspace;
b) the type of ATS that will subsequently be provided, unless the aircraft is coordinated and transferred to another ATS unit before crossing the boundary of controlled airspace.
Radar Control Service
A Radar Control Service may be provided to aircraft operating IFR, Special VFR or VFR. When providing the service controllers issue instructions to which:
a) pilots of aircraft operating IFR are required to comply; and
b) pilots of aircraft operating Special VFR or VFR will comply unless they advise the controller otherwise.
NOTE: The manner in which VFR flights under Radar Control Service may be safely integrated with the IFR traffic flow in the vicinity of aerodromes is described in Section 3.
Before an aircraft enters controlled airspace the controller must establish which flight rules the pilot will be operating under.
Before a Radar Control Service to IFR flights is terminated procedural separation must be applied, except at ACCs when an aircraft will be entering an adjacent sector and:
a) a radar handover has been given; or
b) the conditions of any standing agreement have been met.


A bit wordy. Remember however, we are applying other procedures at the same time that may come across as part of a RCS but in fact are either just a local procedure or the latest must do from the CAA.

If you have any queries have you thought about plugging in at a radar unit? It's a great eye opener for both parties

[NorthSouth]

Inverted81:If you have never been told upon entering CAS that you are on a RCS either the controller is non conforming, OR they do not see or have not identified you on radarQuite. But if they haven't identified me they can't provide an RCS, which suggests that the reason I've never been told I'm on an RCS is because I never have been on an RCS (on the other hand, we're frequently given a discrete squawk which must mean identification). Which leads me on to your second point:

"ZZZZ Approach" means an approach controller is using procedural methods for the approach i.e. no radar. So you'll be flying full arrival procedures or will be VFR.

"ZZZZ Radar" guess what, means the controller is using a surveillance system to monitor your flight, so full radar vectors etc can be expected to save all those extra procedure miles (unless I'm vectoring of course ) with reference to VFR you'll just get less or no requests for your position.Indeed. In the zone I'm talking about, in 99% of cases when we transfer from Tower we're told "contact XXXX Approach", and vice versa. In the 1% of cases when the Tower controller says "contact XXXX Radar" and you call them up as Radar, they inevitably respond as XXX Approach!

This may be explained by the fact that in the good old days there were often two approach controllers at this unit - Approach dealt with all the VFRs, while Radar did the IFRs, on the same frequency. By definition this meant that the VFR controller wasn't using radar.

However, to add to the confusion, we regularly get surveillance-based info from "Approach" as we leave the zone - and while on a Basic Service outside it too! I'm not complaining, it's all good stuff and I never assume that someone else is looking out for me, it's just the differences in practice between zones that get me.

NS

[Art of flight]

Sounds very much like Southend, took me years to realise it had more to do with what time the Radar 'controller' went home.;)

[HeliComparator]

Inverted, yes I read that before. It names the RCS and says when it can and cannot be given etc, but it doesn't really say what it actually is! Plus I would say that MATS is not a document covered in flight training for a pilot.

[Inverted81]

Couldn't agree with you more HC. Perhaps a note to CHIRP might yield some better answers. Highlighting a potential issue may help others as well.

[HeliComparator]

Well it was the main thrust of my Airpox report, but completely ignored by the panel. I lost faith in that system at that point.

[good egg]

I'm a little late in my response to this thread but would like to add a few observations....

Whilst the different types of service (particularly those outside CAS) have been rebranded/renamed/altered in recent years, I find it concerning that a VFR pilot within Class D controlled airspace is unaware of what service he/she is actually receiving and that his/her perception of a "control service" could be so different to that of the air traffic controller.

Even a rudimentary search on google (other search engines available :ok: ) directs me to several reliable sources (i.e. not un-cited Wikipedia entries :ugh: ) of information...CAA, AIP, ICAO, etc...referring to "control service" (both Radar Control and Aerodrome Control btw - let's not forget the guys & gals in the tower!).

However I have no idea what is involved in training for (and maintaining) a pilot licence...I'd be pretty shocked however if ATC services/responsibilities within controlled airspace are not covered along with pilot responsibilities.


Without knowing more about the specifics of the incident in question I think it is rather subjective to question the actions of anyone/everyone involved.

For example, points have previously been made regarding refusal of request for higher altitude (possible TMA above = change of airspace classification, or, even if it was same classification, another controller's airspace?).

I would concur with various posts that VFR is normally restricted to "not above" a specific altitude - however, in certain circumstances, particularly for airfield overhead/threshold transits it may be more beneficial for all parties (VFR aircraft, IFR aircraft on approach, ATC) for a VFR flight to maintain a specific altitude during transit to effectively deconflict (or "segregate" as someone else described it!) flightpaths, and missed approach procedures, without causing delay. That is, of course, subject to Met conditions and ability to maintain VMC...

(Were both VFR aircraft actually instructed to maintain the same altitude? Or were they "not above" a specific altitude?)

Without knowing the bigger picture, the airspace, the overall traffic situation - not just the 2 VFR flights (there are, after all, more aircraft about than just "you") - then it is difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion - or apportion blame (as some are keen to do) - except that responsibilities (both pilot and ATC) and ATC "duty of care" should be better understood by all.

I think that was the crux of the original post and IMHO it should be addressed by training - pilot training (both VFR & IFR pilots) and ATC training.

Providing a snapshot of an incident, a singular perspective, is only likely to stir various parties to comment without full understanding. On this front I am disappointed to hear about your dissatisfaction regarding feedback from filing your AIRPROX report...but I would always encourage you to file such a report whenever you believe aircraft safety has been compromised (or would have been had action not been taken).

Regards

[HeliComparator]

Good egg, I think the main thrust of my argument remains that "radar control service " is not defined anywhere, unlike the (overly complicated!) ATSOCAS.

So although you talk about training, that is hard to achieve when the definition is not promulgated in any official documentation, and therefore is only hearsay, or custom and practice by ATC. You will baulk at that because you are so familiar with the term, but that familiarity is not shared by pilots - who in general have heard it but don't really understand it. In any case, its a really bad term because of its implied plain-English meaning.

So I agree that trying to apportion blame to individuals is pointless. It is the system that is to blame with use of this "unofficial" terminology being perpetuated by custom and practice with no-one prepared to address the issue. Unfortunately even Airprox board were unwilling to grasp the nettle.

[good egg]

From ICAO (​in accord with the ADREP 2000 standard as defined by an international working group chaired by ICAO and implemented in version 4.2.6 of ECCAIRS)

Radar Control - "Term used to indicate that radar derived information is employed directly in the provision of an air traffic control service".



Similarly, CAP 493 defines Radar Control as "Term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service.

Furthermore that the airspace within which the aircraft is flying determines the type of surveillance service available:

Controlled Airspace = Radar Control Service
(Outside Controlled Airspace = Deconfliction Service or Traffic Service)



So, in my mind, the term is defined. Whether "Radar Control Service" is taken by some to mean something more than the above, IMHO, is down to level of initial/refresher training and/or examinations.

I hear your argument relating to the implied plain-English meaning of "control service" but would argue that if you are in controlled airspace you must comply with instructions (or advise that you cannot) then your flight is being "controlled".

Also, and perhaps a little pedantic (put that down as an ATC trait!), most dictionary definitions of "control" generally go something like:

Noun
The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Verb
Determine the behavior or supervise the running of.


Seems to me like a reasonable phrase, even in plain-English?

Regards

[HeliComparator]

Well first of all, CAP493 is MATS - manual of air traffic services - and doesn't form any part of pilot training syllabus nor air law nor licensing exams. It's a document written by the ATC club for the ATC club to use. In the same way, I wouldn't expect Controller training to take in aircraft Flight Manuals nor Operations Manuals (even generic ones, such as JAR-OPS 3).

Secondly, although you could argue that the terms is defined in MATS, its a definition not a description, and a rather convoluted one at that. I could read the definition and still not really understand the implications. For something so often used, I continue to maintain that its very badly described even in MATS and not at all in any material considered relevant to a pilot.

It would be so easy if it were described in the AIP, or if UK used the same terminology as the rest of the world. I have never heard the term in France, Italy, Netherlands nor Malta (recent trips) and having flown a helicopter from UK to Borneo and back can't recall hearing it then either (although it was some time ago). ATSOCAS is similarly non-standard and causes a hoot in the channel area when listening to UK pilots asking French ATC for one of the services, or French pilots being told by London what service they are getting, to a blank and confused response.

I suppose I sound as though I have a bit of a downer on ATC and its true, I do. But not on the individuals, most of whom are great, but on the system. My feeling is that since privatisation of ATC, priority 1 is to not be liable / get sued, with flight safety coming in a distant second.

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

But not on the individuals, most of whom are great, but on the system. My feeling is that since privatisation of ATC, priority 1 is to not be liable / get sued, with flight safety coming in a distant second.

You are certainly not the only pilot to feel this way!

[TCAS FAN]

Hadn't realised that this thread was still active, how time flies when you are retired.
Here is another issue to ponder, the term "control" is something of an anomaly. If a flight is VFR according to ICAO it is not a controlled flight unless operated in Class C airspace whereby it becomes a "controlled VFR" flight and ATC are responsible for providing separation between IFR and VFR, something that this thread has illustrated to be the case in UK Class D airspace.
As the UK is increasingly anxious to align itself to ICAO Annex 11, PANS ATM Doc 4444 and all things ICAO (Single European Skies approaching?) may be its time that AATSD sorted this out and formally required what they apparently have been pressuring ATCOs to do in Class D, ie separate VFR from IFR. Have seen too many former colleagues hauled over the coals after providing precise traffic information to IFR on VFR, no risk of collision, TCAS RA, ATCO suspended and criticised for not separating.
Time for Class C CTA and CTR in UK?

[apa]

My experience. I was on a break from flying when Southend added its D airspace. First time I flew there VFR and controller informed me about Radar Control Service I did like the sound, but didn't know if I should say something back. My instructor pointed it out right away and said it was important to read it back. So I was thinking about it later: what kind of an agreement/commitment/troubles I sign for if I acknowledge the RCS? After reading these comments I got tired, my brain overloaded and reduced to basic services. I started goofing with RCS translation:
1. ATC "Rules with Caution Service"
2. "Referee with Camera Service"
3. "Random but Clever Service"
4. "Cessna Repellant Service"
To me all VFR ATC service types come down to one formula: "help me to help you service". The difference between FIS, Basic, Traffic, Decon, Proc, RCS are in two sliders: 'help' and 'equipment'. So, FIS is practically zero on 'help' and 'equipment' required from the both sides, while RCS 'help' and 'equipment' required a lot more from both sides. Now I have to take a break from thinking.

[AnFI]

it is just 'job creation'

FIS
RIS
RAS

was cool

this is BS

[good egg]

It would be so easy if it were described in the AIP

Well, here's a definition for you (again)...
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)

Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)

Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.

A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-EAB1D07392C3E134D8CA1104E264D3B7/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_6_en_2016-03-31.pdf

There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.

[AnFI]

it really depends on where the comma is

you could think of it as a 'Radar-Control' Service

That is a Service provided by a Radar Controller

As opposed to a Radar 'Control-Service' where some guy with a Radar tells you what to do. (as they might in 'C' and above)

It is not in the spirit of the intent of class D airspace that everyone should be directed (commanded or controlled) as in "you are cleared to x, route this way, hold 1 mile north of the threshold, report when you have y in sight, behind the Kyrgyzstani Cessna 152 at 5 miles cross the date line etc.

It is not the responsibility of ATC to seperate VFR traffic from IFR, and having now routinely done so for so long they have created the danger that pilots will believe this will happen as a matter of course. This and the unfortunate emphasis on the word 'control' leads to confusion.

It is understandable that controllers do this, since they live in terror, and have little faith in pilots.

Yes once a clearance is given and accepted, the VFR pilot must comply with it untill she says that she no longer wishes to.

I often hear PPilots being bullied, sometimes the pilots need to remind ATC that its their ass in the air. Most ATC is superb at this, particularly at bigger airports.

I note a slight difference between 'controllers' Inverted81 and Good Egg, with G'egg slightly more in the I'm going to tell you what to do camp?

[good egg]

I note a slight difference between 'controllers' Inverted81 and Good Egg, with G'egg slightly more in the I'm going to tell you what to do camp?

I doubt you have any experience or knowledge of how I provide my service.
If any pilot wants to discuss the service I provide they are more than welcome to pick up the phone or come and visit. I encourage it, in fact, because there are always things to learn on both sides of the mic.

[good egg]

So, FIS is practically zero on 'help' and 'equipment' required from the both sides, while RCS 'help' and 'equipment' required a lot more from both sides.

I'm puzzled...what extra requirement is there on a VFR pilot when in receipt of a Radar Control Service as opposed to any other service whilst in controlled airspace?

[AnFI]

Gegg
Yup definately much to learn from both sides, and in general pilots have the highst regard for the way 'our' guys do ATC, and I am sure that includes you !!

Just reading between the lines on your posts, sounds like you are slightly more in the "Radar, Control-Service" camp compared to Inverted81.

We get to hear many controllers, possibly more than you get to hear? (and they are generally amazingly good, with a few nutty exceptions, like the Channel Islands, doh. and Stanstead and Edinburgh sometimes)

[HeliComparator]

Well, here's a definition for you (again)...
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)

Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)

Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.

A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-EAB1D07392C3E134D8CA1104E264D3B7/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_6_en_2016-03-31.pdf

There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.
For the first part of you post you are defining radar control. But not radar control service. Not very useful. I want to know what "service" I can expect, not how it is derived. (Service in quotes because actually it is nothing of the sort).

The middle part of your post is the crux of the problem. In class D, ATC doesn't have to provide seperation for VFR. But ATC can control VFR, ie make them do something. Without regard to whether it's going to cause them to crash into someone else. So as in my case, my clearance says I must fly over the threshold of the runway at the specified altitude. A specific point in space. When I am very close to the overhead that severely constrains my ability to change my flight path at all, and still comply with my clearance. But then another aircraft at substantially different speed gets the same clearance. So that we will be in the same point in space at the same time but with a big speed differential. All on the whim of ATC who is not worried about whether we might crash, and all when there is a massive amount of sky that we could be flying in to increase our separation were it not for ATC's desire to funnel us into the same point.

If you can't see that the system is fundamentally flawed, then you are part of the problem.

The last part of your post, link doesn't work but I'll have a look at the AIP.

[HeliComparator]

Had a look at AIP 1.6 para 1.2. Nope, it doesn't tell me what radar control service is, it just talks about a situation where there is unknown /lost traffic. In my case both lots of traffic were known and not lost, but put into a collision scenario by ATC, which apparently is fine.

[good egg]

Here's the thing though...in Class D you can expect traffic information on IFR & VFR...that is your service. Under radar control service you could expect more updates on traffic - doesn't sound like you did though...did you call "visual" with the traffic? (In which case I doubt you'd get further updates as the point of traffic info is to "see and avoid")
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.

The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.

[AnFI]

HC quite right

Gegg:
"The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights."
maybe "should not try to" is an alternative.

Brize also will not allow VFR traffic to self separate from it's IFR traffic.

I guess the service being provided in Class D should be a 'Traffic Service' ?

The fact that VFR pilots have become used to being directed ('controlled') will cause a problem in the future.

[[email protected]]

Brize also will not allow VFR traffic to self separate from it's IFR traffic. That is because it has to provide protection for its IFR traffic and it can't do that if VFR traffic isn't doing what it is told. You don't know what the clearance of the IFR traffic is and where it is going but ATC does - that is why they will control you to ensure safe separation.

[good egg]

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-185C21691017E242A56DF9F904157092/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_4_en_2016-03-31.pdf

Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace

Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."

That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.

[HeliComparator]

Here's the thing though...in Class D you can expect traffic information on IFR & VFR...that is your service. Under radar control service you could expect more updates on traffic - doesn't sound like you did though...did you call "visual" with the traffic? (In which case I doubt you'd get further updates as the point of traffic info is to "see and avoid")
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.

The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.
Once I got visual with the traffic (at pretty close range) it all happened very quickly. There was no other VFR traffic. I believe there was one IFR around but it was more than 10,000' above. It was Newcastle, the class D goes up a long way IIRC. The airprox report said he could easily have allowed me higher, but of course was not obliged to. I was cleared at 2500' it was not a "not above" clearance unlike the other chap. I asked for the alt of the other traffic when I felt it was getting squeaky, I was told he was at 2300' - initially the traffic info was just that he was on a not above 2500' clearance.

You are right, in Class D ATC dont have to seperate VFR on VFR, however can you not see the folly of deliberately putting VFR traffic on a collision course such that if they obey the clearance, they will crash? They only didn't crash because I deviated from my clearance at the last minute. There is nothing wrong with this - by the book. But by any measure of common sense and a desire for flight safety, it is barking. That is my thrust. The controller didn't do anything wrong. But that means it is the system that is wrong.

[HeliComparator]

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-185C21691017E242A56DF9F904157092/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_4_en_2016-03-31.pdf

Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace

Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."

That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.
Yes we know that. But it is wrong that ATC has the power to out VFR traffic on a collision course and yet has no responsibility for the aftermath. It is power without responsibility. If you are just going to quote the book and say that, because it is in the book it must be intrinsically right, there is not much point in continuing the debate.

Of course the book is much the same in the other countries I have flown in, like France. But there, they seem genuinely concerned with your safety and not just interested in following the book because that will keep their arses covered.

[AnFI]

That is because it has to provide protection for its IFR traffic and it can't do that if VFR traffic isn't doing what it is told. You don't know what the clearance of the IFR traffic is and where it is going but ATC does - that is why they will control you to ensure safe separation.

Crab i refer you to the correct answer given by Gegg concerning Class D airspace.
It is damn rude and condescending to presume VFR traffic cannot separate itself from IFR traffic especially in good VMC. Even though sometimes there are grounds for worryiing.

The phrase "I have your Galaxy downwind in sight" is all the controller needs to know regardless of how indespensible they feel. ( own navigation, report when you have the xyz trafic in sight etc). Advise turn left 30 degrees to avoid conflict with Kyrgzstani Cessna 152 on 3 mile final. Please arrange your flight to pass behind that traffic. Advise when East of RW 13.


The problems with being non standard in this matter are potentially serious.

1 IFR aircraft in the downwind does not a busy airfield make.

[good egg]

HC

I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).

Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.

Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.

Did you consider calling the unit involved?

[HeliComparator]

HC

I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).

Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.

Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.

Did you consider calling the unit involved?
I was on a flight from France to Aberdeen so no I didn't request a specific routing, just to cross the class D. I was instructed to cross overhead the runway threshold (west end, can't remember the runway direction). There was no departing traffic. There was one IFR well above which I think was eventually going to fly an approach.

It might be easier if you dug out the Airprox report and I think I've said this before (bearing in mind it was all ~5 years ago) the other traffic had the same transit point (runway threshold) as me. But he got it wrong and was going for the other threshold. ATC noticed this and pointed out his error, which is why he ended up flying at nearly 90 degrees to the otherwise expected track. It was at this point that I became uncomfortable since I couldn't see him and clearly there was some confusion as to where he was. My earlier mental picture was shattered by discovering that he wasn't going where he was supposed to be going. No I didn't ask for further traffic info. Probably should have done - although expressing my concern and requesting an altitude change is a pretty good hint.

I phoned a mate at another ATC unit (supervisor) who explained to me what RCS meant but was generally disapproving of the controlling whilst having to point out that it was "legal".

I then phoned the unit but was fobbed off. That is when I decided to file an Airprox.

You are getting a bit bogged down in the detail, but it is the principle that I think is wrong:

With an RCS a controller can "legally" force two aircraft into a collision scenario, expect the pilots to sort it out by breaching their clearances, and if they don't, tough, not my fault mate. With the added fact that only controllers understand the full implication of an RCS, namely power without responsibility. That is wrong.

[good egg]

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2011/Airprox%20Report%202011082.pdf

I guess that sums up the incident.

[good egg]

Best practice to have you limited to maintain 2,500ft whilst other aircraft is on not above 2500ft? No. That leaves only the other aircraft open to altering vertical profile.

Were you actually forced to the same point in space, at the same time? Not really, both aircraft could adjust route towards the 07 threshold to transit at different times. (Sounds like there were potential departures from RW07 at the time, hence the necessary adjustment to the other aircraft routing.)

Was traffic info passed? Yes. Although the report acknowledges this was late.

Report doesn't make clear if the inbound had already been cleared to 3000ft but that's possibly why your request for 3000ft was not approved and an orbit offered instead.


I guess it's interesting in that ATC gets lambasted for over-controlling VFR in Class D at times and then for not separating VFR at other times. It's about responsibilities, ATC's and yours.

[HeliComparator]

Yes that's the report. What annoyed me and made me lose faith in the system was the conclusion that it was all my fault for not understanding what RCS meant. Not that the term RCS isn't defined anywhere, most pilots therefore don't understand it (not surprisingly),not that the controller forced us onto a collision course but held no responsibility for the subsequent collision. In other words not that the system is flawed - because inertia and going for the easy option makes that concept far too difficult to tackle.

Nope, easily summed up as my fault. Phew, we don't have to do anything. Is it time for lunch now?

By the way I am certain that I requested the climb before I had sight of the other traffic. I requested the climb because it was apparent the other traffic wasn't where he should have been and I didn't really know where he was. My mental picture was shattered, I couldn't see him, so the best course of action would have been vertical separation.

Regarding your point about "were you actually forced to the same point at the same time" yes we were. There was no scope for arranging different arrival times as individuals because we couldn't see each other until quite late - 1 mile to run or less, which doesn't take long at 155kts. Only ATC had the picture of both traffic and their arrival times at the specified crossing point (it was a point, not an area. Ie over the threshold, not east/west of the threshold or whatever).

[[email protected]]

AnFiCrab i refer you to the correct answer given by Gegg concerning Class D airspace.
It is damn rude and condescending to presume VFR traffic cannot separate itself from IFR traffic especially in good VMC. Even though sometimes there are grounds for worryiing.
As ever you didn't read what I wrote - the controller protects the IFR traffic by giving clearances to and controlling the VFR traffic - its not rocket science. It is controlled airspace and if you don't like being controlled or think it is 'rude' (FFS) then don't go in it.

Perhaps you should spend some time in an ATC unit so you understand things from their perspective.

[HeliComparator]

AnFi As ever you didn't read what I wrote - the controller protects the IFR traffic by giving clearances to and controlling the VFR traffic - its not rocket science. It is controlled airspace and if you don't like being controlled or think it is 'rude' (FFS) then don't go in it.

Perhaps you should spend some time in an ATC unit so you understand things from their perspective.
Perhaps you should check what the rules are in Class D? In Class D, there is no ATC separation of VFR from IFR. Only IFR and SVFR are seperated from each other. Well that is how it is supposed to be, but of course in good old gold-plating UK it is not in practice like that. Seems to work fine in other countries though.

[AnFI]

Oh dear I don't know what to do, "FFS" Crab, you are just wrong that I am wrong about that, that is not what Class D is, look it up perhaps, and be educated by PPrune again?

Try the USA, implementation of Class D

[[email protected]]

So, go into class D airspace as VFR traffic and see how close you are allowed to get to an IFR departure - the controller is required to give protection to IFR vs IFR traffic but in practice will try to keep VFR traffic away from it by issuing appropriate clearances.

It may not be what the rules say and traffic information is always subject to controller workload but it is what happens, especially at Brize.

When I am operating IFR there, I don't expect to have to take avoiding action on VFR GA because he hasn't seen me - I expect him to be kept away from me.

The FFS was to do with the fact you think it is 'rude' to be controlled in class D:ugh:

[AnFI]

The rules are already sufficiently complex to be a risk factor, the additional risk of people mis-applying the rules in this random way only makes it worse.

Crab:
"It may not be what the rules say and traffic information is always subject to controller workload but it is what happens, especially at Brize."
At least you realise what Class D airspace is now.