What radar service do you require?

[Trim Stab]

Departing from Bournemouth recently with an IFR plan to Spain, I was surprised to be told by the controller "IFR ends at FL60 - what radar service do you require?".

Can anybody explain what the correct answer is, and where can us non-UK pilots read up on such oddities before we go back!

[Glamdring]

Seems like a strange transmission. Are you sure they said "IFR"?

Being asked what service you require would suggest that you are about to leave CAS and therefore will no longer be under a Radar Control Service. The controller was asking you what service you would like outside CAS, i.e. Basic, Traffic, or Deconfliction Service.

[Trim Stab]

Glamdring - now that you remind me (it was a few months ago) she probably did say "leaving controlled air space".

Nevertheless, it was a surprising transmission which I have not heard before, though admittedly I don't fly very often in UK.

Where can I read up on UK definitions of these different levels of radar service?

[soaringhigh650]

i.e. Basic, Traffic, or Deconfliction Service.

Yes. Only the UK makes an incredibly stupid meal out of this and asks pilots for the type of service.

Other countries have one service - Flight Information Service (and radar derived too!).

[Jof_1999]

Depending on how much time you want to take to look into it then follow this link and I am sure you can find what your looking for.

NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=4&Itemid=11.html)

[Spitoon]

CAP774 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3174) is the doc you need.

[NorthSouth]

TS: Traffic Service and Deconfliction Service are the two radar services available outside controlled airspace. The latter gives you 5nm separation or 3000ft separation against unknown traffic; the former gives no separation, just information on any conflicting traffic. They're summarised in the UK AIP at ENR 1.6.1 and if you want more detail you can find it here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3174).
NS

[Glamdring]

No. A Deconfliction service does not provide any form of seperation!

Under a deconfliction service the controller will aim to achieve a deconfliction minima but there are no guarantees, and the pilot remains ultimately responsible for his own separation.

[Trim Stab]

Ok, but if I am flying an IFR flight plan, why would I want anything other than a Traffic service?

[2 sheds]

Ok, but if I am flying an IFR flight plan, why would I want anything other than a Traffic service?

Because you might be in IMC?

2 s

[NorthSouth]

Glamdring:A Deconfliction service does not provide any form of seperationQuite right. Sloppy wording. Should be "aims to provide"

TS: if you're in uncontrolled airspace, the fact that you've filed an IFR flight plan makes no difference to your chances of hitting another aeroplane. In the UK I could file an IFR flight plan through Class G airspace and speak to no-one and receive no air traffic service whatsoever. I could be the guy coming directly at you.

NS

[Trim Stab]

Because you might be in IMC?


Exactly - so why would anybody flying IFR want anything other than a Traffic service?

[zkdli]

In the UK when flying in class G airspace the only requirement for IFR flight is to comply with the quadrantal rule when above the transition altltude.
Do not confuse IFR with IMC in the UK :O

[reportyourlevel]

Because you might be in IMC?
Exactly - so why would anybody flying IFR want anything other than a Traffic service?

Traffic service may not be appropriate for IMC, you might be better with deconfliction service. You need to read up on the services. Try here (http://airspacesafety.com/atsocas) which has a short précis and the full interactive guide complete with RTF examples.

[Trim Stab]

Reportyourlevel - thanks.

I'll be a little better prepared next time I'm in the UK, but I expect there will be yet another local idiosyncrasy to discombobulate me! UK is always an interesting but odd place to fly...

[mutt]

Same thing happened to us going into Farnborough, when I queried it here, I was pointed towards this document.

GASCo - Revised Safety Sense Leaflet 08 (http://www.gasco.org.uk/pages/news_item.asp?i_ToolbarID=1&i_PageID=562)

You might find it interesting.

Mutt

[reportyourlevel]

The ICAO definition of "radar contact" is:

The situation which exists when the radar position of a particular aircraft is seen and identified on a situation display.

Where does that state the level of service being provided? I suspect some ATCOs outside the UK may use it as a shorthand for the level of service, but I believe this to be incorrect.

[Trim Stab]

Where does that state the level of service being provided? I suspect some ATCOs outside the UK may use it as a shorthand for the level of service, but I believe this to be incorrect.


Outside of UK these different levels of radar service do not exist (well as far as I know anyway, flying mostly in Europe and Africa).

In Europe, if a controller says "radar contact" then the implication is that you are positively controlled. Why bother installing a radar if you are not going to use it to control aircraft? If they do not have radar contact they will tell you (implying that you are responsible for your own separation). Often they will also specifically tell you that you are responsible for your own separation until radar contact can be established. Nice and simple!

Hence it was quite odd to me to be flying in UK with radar coverage and be offered a "choice" of different services. As I said earlier, I would want the a service that prevents me crashing into other planes - why would I want anything less?

[Glamdring]

At most airport units in the UK the radar has not been installed in order to provide radar services to any Tom, Dick and Harry outside CAS. It has been installed to provide Radar Control Services to traffic to and from the airport inside CAS.

A controller may be too busy to provide you with a radar service outside CAS. If you do get a radar service from a non-LARS unit outside CAS, consider yourself lucky.

By asking what service you want, we can decide if it is within our ability to provide it in addition to our other tasks.

[reportyourlevel]

I think I might have intended to post my earlier comment in the other thread running at the moment with similar content - mods, would it be appropriate to merge these?

In Europe, if a controller says "radar contact" then the implication is that you are positively controlled.

My bold highlights the exact issue I have with this system. Nothing should be left to implication or assumption. Terms of service should be stated clearly and acknowledged - it is important to note that this may not be that which was requested.

On top of the issue that Glamdring raises, is the fact that radar coverage is not absolute. There are areas that I work traffic in where I have good SSR cover but no PSR cover - I cannot therefore guarantee that I can see all traffic as it may not be transponding. Further, there is no need for this traffic to call me (indeed, no need to be RTF equipped) as it is in class G airspace. Also, a lot of pilots (including those of some airlines on revenue flights, I might add) prefer the autonomy offered by a traffic service over a deconfliction service.

[soaringhigh650]

it was quite odd to me to be flying in UK with radar coverage and be offered a "choice" of different services. As I said earlier, I would want the a service that prevents me crashing into other planes - why would I want anything less?

Quite right! But the CAA clearly isn't bright enough to figure this one out.

Every pilot who's flown there asks me what they should get.

I say to them in layman's terms:

Basic Service = Useless service. Only used by newbie pilots and controllers to tie up the radio waves and collect everyone's flight details on a strip which eventually gets trashed. Typically you get nothing useful out of this service, but if you are lucky you may receive some limited traffic info. You might as well just listen in to the frequency and cut the babble.

Traffic Service = Tells you about some traffic around you, half of these are too far away and you may never see it. There are also others you may see but you ain't alerted because it is outside radar range or the controller is too busy to tell you about it. You get downgraded to a pseudo Useless Service when there's too much traffic around you.

Deconfliction Service = Tries to prevent you from crashing into other planes. The service everyone really wants but nobody gets. Why? Because the traffic around you is almost always too dense to achieve their huge 5nm/3000ft deconfiction minima. The end result? You get a Useless Service.

Procedural Service = Like a Deconfliction Service with a heads up that ATC has no radar. Clearly someone hasn't grasped what it means when the term "radar contact" is not used, so they invented this whole new service just for this.

There is only one service recognized internationally that combines the best elements of all the above and cuts out all the trash.

Believe it or not, it is called .... Flight Information Service!

[throw a dyce]

The old Flight Information Service was a Basic Service in the UK.We used to have Radar Information,and Radar Advisory which are now Traffic and Deconfliction.
I'm curious about your interpretation of Procedural Service.At our unit you do get these,and it's because there is no radar controller.Often the person providing the service doesn't have a radar rating.
I believe that the ATSOCAS were aligned to the military hymn sheet,so your saying that it's all useless.:D
Look forward to offering a Useless service but downgraded to Hopeless,or just C:mad:p ,next time your inbound to Bonny Scatland.:hmm:

[2 sheds]

IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
d) RADAR CONTACT [position];
e) IDENTIFIED [position];
Options of phraseology from PANS-ATM. Nothing to do with being "positively controlled" (whatever that is), but the identification process.. Whether an aircraft is being controlled or not depends on the class of airspace.

2 s

[topdrop]

Terms of service should be stated clearly and acknowledgedElsewhere in the world they are clearly stated in AIP - and you don't need 15 levels of service in class G. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[reportyourlevel]

Elsewhere in the world they are clearly stated in AIP - and you don't need 15 levels of service in class G.

Erm, I make it four. One allows total autonomy, one points out traffic, one avoids traffic and the last accounts for areas without radar coverage. I really don't see the issue, unless your training is so poor that you don't understand it.

The other end of the scale is a system where I impose a certain service on you. the problem with this is what level should I provide? Control everyone as if they are VMC (I doubt the airlines will be happy with that) or as if they are IMC (most PPLs won't be happy with that)? Hence, as is appropriate, you are allowed to choose what you want.

For my benefit, could someone explain exactly what the problem with this choice is?

[soaringhigh650]

the problem with this is what level should I provide?
Control everyone as if they are VMC (I doubt the airlines will be happy with that) or as if they are IMC (most PPLs won't be happy with that)?
Hence, as is appropriate, you are allowed to choose what you want.


The rest of the world seems to operate like this:

If the aircraft is operating IFR, deconflict where practicable as if they are operating in IMC, unless they have reported visual with traffic then allow them to self-separate.
If the aircraft is operating VFR, point out the traffic where practicable. If they not visual and/or they request avoidance vectors, deconflict.


For my benefit, could someone explain exactly what the problem with this choice is? I really don't see the issue, unless your training is so poor that you don't understand it.

It is out of line with international practice. The rest of the world does not need it. It has never heard of it, and probably never will.

[mad_jock]

For my benefit, could someone explain exactly what the problem with this choice is?

Because unless you have a yellow peril and also a poo brown/blue/green cover book and are operating in the area that you provide a service in. You won't have a clue what to expect in the air. The variation in service provision is huge between units and mostly is directly linked to how much you pay in landing fee's.

ATSOCA isn't fit for purpose. It ignores flight rules, forgien pilots and alot of commercial pilots that normally operate in CAS don't have a clue how it works. And the pilots that do know how it all works employ ways and means to circumvent the spirit of the service that it was designed to allow because they don't want to be controlled in class G. Why should they burn extra fuel so a loco gets less track miles?

[Dont tell um pike]

Those pilots from Forg can be a pain :E

[LEGAL TENDER]

regardless of the opinion, the fact that the "new" ATSOCAS are still being discussed in this manner after 3 and a half years from introduction, perhaps says a lot..

[mad_jock]

Aye they are :D

And so are :mad: like me who can't be bothered with it and have got fed up and can't be bothered with the arguments about refusing coordination so don't take any service at all and remain unkown traffic. And to be completely honest I haven't really noticed the difference between having a service and not having one apart from a distinct lack of :mad: around being over controlled.

Basic they will only speak to you if the want to move you and they won't give you a traffic service because of controller work load, and you won;t get a deconfliction unless you paying a landing fee. Might as well not bother and keep 121.5 on and look out the window and save 40 quid in fuel in a SEP and 400 quid if flying the TP. TP we pay airways charges anyway if we are VFR and we still don't get a traffic service until the controller spots we are doing 220knts and :mad: themselves when a warner goes off.

[Talkdownman]

And so are :mad: like me who can't be bothered with it and have got fed up and can't be bothered with the arguments about refusing coordination so don't take any service at all and remain unkown traffic. And to be completely honest I haven't really noticed the difference between having a service and not having one apart from a distinct lack of :mad: around being over controlled.

Basic they will only speak to you if the want to move you and they won't give you a traffic service because of controller work load, and you won;t get a deconfliction unless you paying a landing fee. Might as well not bother and keep 121.5 on and look out the window and save 40 quid in fuel in a SEP
Eloquently put. You haved saved me the job. Thank goodness I am not alone.

What is the point of having CAP774 if service providers are not going to comply with it...

[reportyourlevel]

Basic they will only speak to you if the want to move you and they won't give you a traffic service because of controller work load, and you won;t get a deconfliction unless you paying a landing fee. Might as well not bother and keep 121.5 on and look out the window and save 40 quid in fuel in a SEP and 400 quid if flying the TP.

If this is the way it is working for you, then I understand and even sympathise with your problem. I don't believe this is how it is supposed to work - if you're getting this regularly from notified LARS units then you need to MOR it, as they are getting paid to provide ATSOCAS. I'm in the lucky position of having a well staffed unit with controllers more than happy to provide a service to whoever wants it, regardless. The only time you wouldn't get traffic/deconflition is if you're not in radar cover, which is fair enough. In the case of high workload, most would say "traffic service, reduced/late warning of traffic due controller workload" so you'll still get some traffic information which you wouldn't with a basic. I think this might go some way to explaining why I like the system - you tell me what you want and I give it to you. The basic premise of that is good, you must agree.

[Glamdring]

I'm quite happy to provide Traffic and Deconfliction services when requested. And I don't even work in a LARS unit. :ok:

95% of our VFR traffic, however, requests a basic service.

[mad_jock]

Its normally regional airport/mil approach controllers who are the worst for it. But there is such huge variations you can never tell what your going to get. It even changes between ATCO's on the same unit.

I don't think its the way it should work either. Nobody would design it the way its being done just now.

But there was a major flaw built into the system when there was no link to flight rules. Which are pretty standard world wide with only the numbers for viz and distance from clouds changing locally for VFR. And its pretty solid in a pilots head which one they are operating under.

When the seperation is more stringent than operating in CAS there is something wrong. Change the deconfliction seperation for all traffic to unknown/IFR and pass traffic info to known VFR. Instead of the current situation of VFR being seperated by 3/5miles on traffic they can see.

Then there is the names of the services, they are so far away from anywhere else nobody who hasn't flown extensively in the UK won't have a clue what they are and opt for the one they do understand which is usually basic.

How about

Flight information service
Radar information Service
Radar control service.

You need to have radar somewhere in the names for the radar services and the "I am speaking to you just in case I need to pass a mayday but don't actually expect anything and also want to do the nice thing so I am known traffic" Is pretty globally known as flight infomation service. And something which denotes you are being vectored/controlled on the top level service. Information always means you have to deal with the information and decide your own actions. Radar Seperation Service might work for the top level.

You can get fancy with english if you like with the names but it will just wash over the heads of any ICAO 4 english speakers like the Taffs and Jocks ;)

Procedural needs looked at so that IFR flights get given a procedural service as standard and arn't asked what type of service they require. Then the current situation of folk getting passed traffic in IMC of whats on the procedure on a basic service doesn't happen. Hopefully this will stop the situation of two aircraft on the procedure with one of them not controlled and in alot of cases don't even realise they are not being controlled and its up to them to seperate themselves. If they can see the airport they will ask for a visual.

[soaringhigh650]

Flight information service. Radar information Service. Radar control service. You need to have radar somewhere in the names for the radar
services.


Not really. You are still making a meal out of the different service types.

[chopper2]

This used to be easy to answer ATC Services (http://www.takeflightaviation.co.uk/uploads/7/2/0/9/72092367/air_traffic_services.pdf) … what’s changed?

[2 sheds]

Chopper
That is years out of date!
2 s

[chevvron]

This used to be easy to answer ATC Services (http://www.takeflightaviation.co.uk/uploads/7/2/0/9/72092367/air_traffic_services.pdf) … what’s changed?
The list shown is pre 2007; the names of the service changed in 2009 and in addition, Manston, Cottesmore, Coltishall and Bristol Filton no longer exist, Bristol withdrew from LARS and Farnborough operates 3 sectors with separate frequencies instead of just one.

[Equivocal]

… what’s changed?Just about everything!

[ShyTorque]

Surely it’s just a matter of reading up and understanding the current rules and regulations….

Reminds me of the awfully well spoken pilot I overheard flying north near Saltby glider site trying to gain “permission” to enter the Yorkshire AAIA.

[chevvron]

Erm, I make it four. One allows total autonomy, one points out traffic, one avoids traffic and the last accounts for areas without radar coverage. I really don't see the issue, unless your training is so poor that you don't understand it.

The other end of the scale is a system where I impose a certain service on you. the problem with this is what level should I provide? Control everyone as if they are VMC (I doubt the airlines will be happy with that) or as if they are IMC (most PPLs won't be happy with that)? Hence, as is appropriate, you are allowed to choose what you want.

For my benefit, could someone explain exactly what the problem with this choice is?
When I first started providing services outside CAS in 1974 (having been posted to Farnborough), that's the way it used to be; I think it changed in about '78.
You had:-
Flight Information Service as per ICAO ie with or without the use of radar.
VMC Radar Advisory Service where the pilot was informed of conflicting traffic but advisory avoiding action was only passed at the request of the pilot or if the controller deemed it necessary.
IMC Radar Advisory Service where the controller passed advisory avoidng action unless the pilot stated he could see and/or avoid the traffic.
Simples.

Then some d1ckhead decided to change it all and we ended up with the mess we have nowadays.

[Dan Dare]

Then some d1ckhead decided to change it all and we ended up with the mess we have nowadays

so true, and yet while people are now getting used to the odd current offering I recently heard rumour that the CAA are looking at wholesale change of ATSOCAS again :rolleyes:

[chevvron]

so true, and yet while people are now getting used to the odd current offering I recently heard rumour that the CAA are looking at wholesale change of ATSOCAS again :rolleyes:
According to another forum, the UK is considering adopting ICAO Doc 4444 para 8.11 (The use of radar in the Flight Information Service) which is what I've been suggesting for years.

[Gonzo]

so true, and yet while people are now getting used to the odd current offering I recently heard rumour that the CAA are looking at wholesale change of ATSOCAS again :rolleyes:

They might well have an ambition, but they certainly haven’t worked out how to pay for it.

[oceancrosser]

Perhaps IATA should implement the In-Flight Broadcast Procedure (IFBP) over the UK. Is 126.9 available for use there?
It´s worked over Africa for decades… :}

[chevvron]

Perhaps IATA should implement the In-Flight Broadcast Procedure (IFBP) over the UK. Is 126.9 available for use there?
It´s worked over Africa for decades… :}
I think you'll find that, especially in the south east of England, Africa is a bit less congested and full of controlled airspace.