Basic and Traffic Service

[londonblue]

I have a couple of questions regarding traffic and basic services? (Apologies if this has been asked before. I did a search but couldn't find a thread on this.)

Firstly. does anyone ever ask for a traffic service as opposed to a basic service? If you do, how often do you actually receive it rather than be told you're getting a basic service anyway?

Secondly. Is anyone able to confirm (or otherwise) my belief that an "A/G" cannot give either service, and an "Information" can only give a basic service. i.e. to get a traffic service you need a "radar" such as Farnborough?

[2 sheds]

londonblue...

Your first query - yes, of course - and most of the time, I would hope.

CAP774 tells you...
ATS provision
1.5 Controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to provide the ATS that a pilot requests. However, due to finite ATS provider resources or controller workload, tactical priorities may influence ATS availability or its continued provision. Therefore, a reduction in traffic information and/or deconfliction advice may have to be applied, and in some circumstances an alternative ATS may have to be provided in order to balance overall ATS requirements. FISOs are not licensed to provide Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service, or Procedural Service. Therefore, pilots are not to request any of these ATS from a FISO unit.
FISO units are established to provide ATS at notified aerodromes and Area Control Centres (ACC), and can be identified by the RTF suffix ‘Information’, e.g. ‘London Information’.

Your second point...you are correct. In fact, the AGCS does not count as an air traffic service, by definition. Although one could be forgiven for thinking that it was an AFIS - on the cheap, unlicensed and unregulated - in some cases!

2 s

[londonblue]

Thanks for that. Maybe I'm a bit too much of a pessimist in only asking for a basic service...

[stevelup]

Depends who you ask and when you ask it!

How much you need it is inversely proportional to the likelihood you'll get it.

Try getting a TS on a busy weekend anywhere in the South East, and you've got no chance.

[londonblue]

Try getting a TS on a busy weekend anywhere in the South East, and you've got no chance.

Ok, so now I just consider myself pragmatic!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

How much you need it is inversely proportional to the likelihood you'll get it.
In other words ... if you've got a radar controller with nothing else to do who would love to give you a TS just in order to have someone to chat to just to relieve the boredom, it'll be on a day when you're the only person at 6,000' for 50 miles in every direction and there's no real need to be talking to him at all!

[2 sheds]

I hope that this is not going to degenerate to the same level as the Cambridge thread!

2 s

[stevelup]

That wasn't my intention - I was just pointing out an incontrovertible fact.

When there is more need for a TS, there will be more demand for it. Therefore you are less likely to receive a TS when you actually need it. Certainly not having a dig at anyone in particular.

[Jan Olieslagers]

@t/s: just come flying in civilised FIR's and you can forget about all that crap. In continental FIR's, you are either controlled or not-controlled, and that's it.

Non-controlled meaning that you are not under any obligation to call them, but you always can. If you have no transponder, they'll be unable to do very much for you, yet they'll help when asked. You might even be told about possibly conflicting traffic but only at times of great quiet, i.e. not on a sunny Saturday or Sunday afternoon. In some FIRs, you might be queried about your position and/or intentions, each every so often.

The whole "traffic / basic / extended" issue is no more than another UK-only peculiarity.

[fireflybob]

Locally we work a military station for basic service but request and usually are provided with a traffic service to climb/descend through cloud to be VMC and then change back to basic.

All very straightforward and they provide an excellent service. On rare occasions on a nice sunny weekend afternoon when everyone is out we might be refused basic service but if the weather is good VFR why would you need it anyway?

The whole "traffic / basic / extended" issue is no more than another UK-only peculiarity.

When in Rome do as the Romans

[2 sheds]

Quote:
The whole "traffic / basic / extended" issue is no more than another UK-only peculiarity.
When in Rome do as the Romans

Indeed - so what if it is a UK peculiarity (or rather, a much enhanced FIS)? There is no obligation to participate - just crack on, squawking 7000 (or not).

2 s

[Jan Olieslagers]

When in Rome do as the Romans

I'll rather stay away from said Rome, by a wide berth!

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ils_sont_fous,_ces_Romains_!

Sono pazzi, questi Romani!

[tmmorris]

An instructor I knew took the opposite view: on a bright sunny day with good viz you won't get a traffic service, but the weather is crappy and you are in IMC you stand a good chance as no one else will be flying...

[Johnm]

Unless you need information from the controller a basic service is more useless than a really useless thing, but it loads the controller and so reduces the possibility of getting a Traffic Service for others.

If you are in good VMC and need no information then just listen out on the frequency and squawk the listening squawk if one is available and keep an eye out for traffic.

Otherwise ask for a traffic service.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

on a bright sunny day with good viz you won't get a traffic service, but the weather is crappy and you are in IMC you stand a good chance as no one else will be flying...
... and back to the old "what use is TS in IMC anyway" ... "traffic crossing right to left, two miles ahead, no height information" ... so what??

[2 sheds]

So turn right a tad to avoid it!


2 s

[fireflybob]

Anyone who flies in cloud outside CAS without some form of radar cover (e.g. Traffic Service) is playing Russian Roulette - ok even radar isn't 100% but it's not the sort of risk I feel comfortable with.

[ShyTorque]

Anyone who flies in cloud outside CAS without some form of radar cover (e.g. Traffic Service) is playing Russian Roulette - ok even radar isn't 100% but it's not the sort of risk I feel comfortable with.

Bit of a problem where there is no radar service available.

[soaringhigh650]

back to the old "what use is TS in IMC anyway" .
So turn right a tad to avoid it!

No. That would be short sighted. You can't see it, why you be guessing how you might avoid it?

The last time I was in the UK I was shown AIC: Y 106/2012

If your flight conditions and/or nature of flight are such that you need advice on how to avoid conflicting aircraft (e.g. flight in IMC and/or where cockpit lookout is constrained) then you should ask ATC radar units for a Deconfliction Service

[fireflybob]

Bit of a problem where there is no radar service available.

Of course but the "Russian Roulette" rule still applies but you can manage the threat better by use of the best service that's available and/or avoid certain choke points etc.

If you're still not happy with that then stay on the ground or conduct all your flights in controlled airspace but even that can have "risks".

[piperboy84]

Basic service is all I need, it gives me:

1. When the engine quits or things go to shyte over the highlands I don't have to spend the valuable and limited time I have "introducing" myself as they already know even without radar coverage who I am , where I am coming from and going to, and what my current approximate position is based on the average speed of a spam can which should be enough to vector the cavalry to my approximate position then my fancy ELT that's registered with the emergency services will hopefully pinpoint my position from there and allow them to deliver any emergency resources needed such as first aid or Marlboros.

2. As for advising there is/may be other traffic, it's nice to have but unless I am flying under positive control I am never relieved from devoting 100% of my paranoia to my see and avoid duties.

[fireflybob]

If your flight conditions and/or nature of flight are such that you need advice on how to avoid conflicting aircraft

But in the case quoted you don't need "advice" - you have been given traffic information and decide if and how you want to avoid it.

I would rather be in receipt of a Traffic Service in IMC etc rather than just a Basic.

Seems like common sense to me rather than arbitrarily following "rules".

1. When the engine quits or things go to shyte over the highlands I don't have to spend the valuable and limited time I have "introducing" myself as they already know even without radar coverage who I am , where I am coming from and going to, and what my current approximate position is based on the average speed of a spam can which should be enough to vector the cavalry to my approximate position then my fancy ELT that's registered with the emergency services will hopefully pinpoint my position from there and allow them to deliver any emergency resources needed such as first aid or Marlboros.


piperboy84, my sentiments also. Another bonus is that the agency you're talking to might be able to give you rapid bearing and distance information from a suitable landing site within glide range.

[chevvron]

piperboy/fireflybob:
This is why when I did Farnborough LARS East, I encouraged people to stay on my frequency when crossing to Le Touquet, especially if they coasted out at SFD, even though it was outside my 'official' area of responsibility.
I had you identified on Basic (then called FIS of course) and I had a single button to press to contact D & D if the worst happened.

[soaringhigh650]

When the engine quits or things go to shyte over the highlands I don't have to spend the valuable and limited time I have "introducing" myself as they already know even without radar coverage who I am , where I am coming from and going to, and what my current approximate position is based on the average speed of a spam can which should be enough to vector the cavalry to my approximate position then my fancy ELT that's registered with the emergency services will hopefully pinpoint my position from there and allow them to deliver any emergency resources needed such as first aid or Marlboros. Isn't that what a VFR flight plan is for? You file the plan. They have your details. You listen on frequency. You transmit when you have an emergency. They determine your position via radar and triangulating your radio transmission.

Then there's no need to introduce yourself and spend time trying to explain everything.

If every man and his dog calls up trying to give their details just in case they might have an emergency, there will be no radio space left when you really do have an emergency!

[ShyTorque]

Quote:
Bit of a problem where there is no radar service available.
Of course but the "Russian Roulette" rule still applies but you can manage the threat better by use of the best service that's available and/or avoid certain choke points etc.

If you're still not happy with that then stay on the ground or conduct all your flights in controlled airspace but even that can have "risks".

Stay on the ground......? I wish we could. Unfortunately it's not possible or practical to fly many of our operations in CAS, so it's not unusual for us to be required to fly IMC outside. At least we have TCAS but obviously it's not the full shilling and there are now some quite significant gaps in the UK's radar LARS coverage, far more than when the system was first introduced. Unfortunately, to get the job done, we have to put up with this unsatisfactory situation.

From an ATC assistance point of view, it's often preferable to fly in poor weather because it keeps a lot of potential conflicts on the ground and those who are airborne are likely to be more experienced pilots in better equipped aircraft. Those who use Farnborough Radar will know how swamped the controllers can become, especially at weekends.

[chevvron]

SH650: it doesn't work that way in the UK; en-route ATC units do not get VFR flight plans.

[ShyTorque]

SH650,

In an ideal world, I'd agree. But in UK, the system is different. It's not common to file VFR flight plans in the way that you will be used to doing because it usually isn't a legal requirement unless crossing an international FIR border and there isn't an effective flight following service for VFR unless you also make RT contact with a relevant ATC unit. Not even for IFR flights outside CAS. Our airspace is often very congested so pilots tend to use a LARS service on an "ad hoc" basis instead and are encouraged to do so by the authority.

[soaringhigh650]

en-route ATC units do not get VFR flight plans. Sounds like a technology issue then. If someone wrote something that worked then it will cut down a whole load of radio if people wanted to file.

Otherwise you'll have to pay more controllers and open more positions to keep the airwaves clean.

it usually isn't a legal requirementSame over here too. It is optional and so it should be, but it's good to file if going to remote areas for emergency sake.

If we use flight following, handovers are mostly automated and electronic nowadays.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

it's good to file if going to remote areas for emergency sake
That's the recommendation in the UK too, but there aren't any "remote areas" where most people do most of their flying.

[chevvron]

And don't forget in the US you're talking about class E airspace not class G.

[stevelup]

Sounds like a technology issue then.

It's not about technology, it's about money.

There is all but zero state funding for GA air traffic services. The situation really couldn't be any more different than it is in the US.

[fireflybob]

That's the recommendation in the UK too, but there aren't any "remote areas" where most people do most of their flying.

I believe the whole of Scotland and the Moors are considered "difficult for search and rescue".

Stay on the ground......? I wish we could. Unfortunately it's not possible or practical to fly many of our operations in CAS, so it's not unusual for us to be required to fly IMC outside.

Shy Torque, Yes I do realise that - am not that naive! But nevertheless you are making a choice to fly in those conditions. There may be other ramifications of staying on the ground but that is another matter.

Seems like many commenting are expecting some sort of control service with radar outside CAS - something which is an anathema to some airspace users. As stevelup says it's down to funding. Also it's a question of numbers - if a couple of light aircraft collide in Class G and nobody is hurt on the ground the authorities would just put it down to a random event. On the other hand if one aircraft was a large public transport aircraft and several hundred people came to grief I am sure the authorities would be taking some pretty large steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's all a matter of risk management - at least in Class G airspace there is a certain amount of random separation with a/c flying different tracks and altitudes and as Shy has stated some a/c have TCAS but of course not all users have transponders.

[no slots]

A rule of thumb to consider;
a. Are you out for a fly around on a nice day looking at various points of interest etc? A basic service would be fine as it does not restrict you in any way.
b. Are you going from A-B in nice or marginal wx? Ask for a traffic service. It is restrictive in the fact that you shouldn't change heading or levels without informing the controller as you may be subject to coordination with other aircraft.
c. Are you going from A-B in IMC? Ask for a deconfliction service. You will be passed advice/ instructions to assist you in maintaining standard separation from other seen aircraft. After any avoiding action, you will be released own navigation so you need to be able to navigate yourself from the point that you are released after such action. In all the above the aircraft commander is ultimately responsible for avoiding other aircraft.
1 final point. If your routeing takes you through any controlled airspace/ ATZ's you are responsible to obtain the clearances yourself. it's not the controllers responsibility to guess what you need.
Hope that helps.:)

[AdamFrisch]

As someone said once said "how about you give me the service where I don't run into another aircraft and crash and burn?". Can't wait for mandatory ADS-B, so we can get rid of all these ridiculous and useless 'services'.

[no slots]

ADSB will only work if ALL AIRCRAFT are fitted with the equipment. While you have your head inside avoiding the Cessna you can see on your ADSB you could run into the para motor, glider etc which isn't equipped. Any device that draws your attention into the cockpit when you are flying in a 'see and be seen ' environment is unsafe. You will never hit the things you see!

[mm_flynn]

ADSB will only work if ALL AIRCRAFT are fitted with the equipment. While you have your head inside avoiding the Cessna you can see on your ADSB you could run into the para motor, glider etc which isn't equipped. Any device that draws your attention into the cockpit when you are flying in a 'see and be seen ' environment is unsafe. You will never hit the things you see!Unfortunately the see and be seen environment has a lot of limitations - fundamentally on the performance of the Mark I eyeball, so having something that alerts you to most traffic is almost surely a net improvement. Of course having the technology cheap, light, and low power enough to be in the vast majority of aircraft would be better.

[AdamFrisch]

ADSB will only work if ALL AIRCRAFT are fitted with the equipment. While you have your head inside avoiding the Cessna you can see on your ADSB you could run into the para motor, glider etc which isn't equipped. Any device that draws your attention into the cockpit when you are flying in a 'see and be seen ' environment is unsafe. You will never hit the things you see!

It will be mandatory on all flying objects eventually. The technology will become so cheap and small it will be even in hobby drones or paragliders. We're no more than a year or two away from a crash and fatality between a real plane and a joyriding drone. When that happens, we will see big change real quick.

[fireflybob]

so having something that alerts you to most traffic is almost surely a net improvement

which can lure some into a false sense of security - you need to lookout whatever and indeed there is a legal requirement to do so even when flying IFR along an airway.

[Jan Olieslagers]

It will be mandatory on all flying objects eventually. The technology will become so cheap Yes, indeed. But authorities keep on making it expensive and tiresome, not to say exhausting, to get any bit of avionics certified. As long as they keep to that policy, the equipment will be expensive, and offered only by a few.

which can lure some into a false sense of security Which is my argument against them FLARM thingies, as nice as they look, and I won't deny they can contribute to safety. Under the eyes of a pilot (or team of aviators) who know its limitations.

[Piper.Classique]

Unfortunately the see and be seen environment has a lot of limitations - fundamentally on the performance of the Mark I eyeball, so having something that alerts you to most traffic is almost surely a net improvement. Of course having the technology cheap, light, and low power enough to be in the vast majority of aircraft would be better.


So, that would be Flarm, then?

Had to put one in the glider to fly in France, the FFVV mandated it and then subsidised it. Paid about 600 euros over three years. Of course, nearly everyone needs to have it before it is really useful.

[India Four Two]

So, that would be Flarm, then?PC,

PowerFlarm is becoming very common in the gliding community in Canada, particularly after a head-on fatal collision in BC a couple of years ago.

It is ubiquitous in my club now and is very useful, providing pilots remember to turn it on!

I have a few hours experience with it, mainly in tow planes and I am impressed. I had my first alarm the other day, when I was descending towards the downwind leg and there was a glider head-on to me, also aiming for the downwind leg. I had already seen him and was planning to avoid, but he hadn't seen me, so it was it useful wake-up.

There are two drawbacks to this technology, in my opinion. One, there is a tendency to concentrate on the display at the expense of a good lookout. Two, in the case of our tow plane, there are significant blind spots behind the aircraft, where the PowerFlarm target disappears.

[PA28181]

Unfortunately the see and be seen environment has a lot of limitations - fundamentally on the performance of the Mark I eyeball, so having something that alerts you to most traffic is almost surely a net improvement

I was lucky to attend a conference held at Upper Heyford many years ago (was allowed to fly in) it was a basic PR excercise for the USAF to try to pacify the locals due to the racket from F111's and the opening of garage doors when the ECM Ardvaarks forgot to switch off.

The most valuable lecture was from the USAF Flight Surgeon who explained how the MK1 eyeball functions when staring out against a featureless sky/ground combination. The eye tends to fix a distance not that far ahead unless the head is made to move and the eyes constantly made to focus in the distance, this can be tiring on a long flight so any help particularly from a "TS" which is the only service I ever ask for (and probably get 50% of the time), coupled with an auto-pilot does allow excellent "See & Avoid" along with traffic the MK1 cannot see due to WX or into sun etc.

[robin]

Was at a presentation by NATS recently

They are developing a cheap ADS-B output that will give and receive traffic information.

They made the point that FLARM was in an unprotected part of the spectrum so not to put your faith too much in it

[Jan Olieslagers]

There are two drawbacks to this technology, in my opinion.

Fully agreeing to the first,not knowing about the second, I'd like to add two more:

3) flarm is not governed or controlled by any normative body, it is anybody's guess wether today's equipment will work tomorrow. If it doesn't, there's nobody to blame.

4) flarm uses consumer grade electronics for the essential radio data link - which neatly explains the low cost - if comms fail, again there's nobody to blame.

All in all, flarm offers worthwhile information with perhaps 90% availability, and nobody should reject it - the danger is to believe in it 100%.

[Steve6443]

4) flarm uses consumer grade electronics for the essential radio data link - which neatly explains the low cost - if comms fail, again there's nobody to blame.

All in all, flarm offers worthwhile information with perhaps 90% availability, and nobody should reject it - the danger is to believe in it 100%.

Jan, for me any collision avoidance equipment I use (I have an old Xaon MRX) is used IN ADDITION to other methods of detecting traffic - for example, my primary means of seeing and avoiding will always be using the Mk 1 eyeball of myself and other passengers; on top of that I regularly request a traffic service - whether I get it when in the UK is another story :}

So, put in that context, I'd rather have a piece of equipment with me with consumer grade electronics in it which MIGHT fail as part of an extending net to help find and avoid traffic than rely on just my eyes solely - after all, if it points out conflicting traffic which I've not seen, then it's done it's task......

[India Four Two]

So, put in that context, I'd rather have a piece of equipment with me with consumer grade electronics in it which MIGHT fail as part of an extending net to help find and avoid traffic than rely on just my eyes solely - after all, if it points out conflicting traffic which I've not seen, then it's done it's task...... Steve,
I agree with you. An interesting point about my club's experience, is that there is a lot of Mode C traffic in our airspace that we weren't previously spotting visually.

For the benefit of people not familiar with PowerFlarm, it gives range, azimuth, track direction and altitude differential of other PF and ADS-B equipped aircraft. For Mode C equipped aircraft, that are being interrogated by SSR, it shows an estimated range ring, based on the power of the received signal plus the altitude differential.