Looking for basic/traffic service info

[JammedStab]

The quote below was made recently concerning a midair collision.

"neither agency could have provided anything more than a Basic Service. The accident occurred outside the area of responsibility of Farnborough North and London Info cannot give a Traffic Service at any time."

Being from out of the country and just learning about ATC service in Britain, some expanded information would be aprreciated.

How can I find out where the area of responsibility is. I do have a Listening squawks ans LARS printout from my flight school which has various frequencies.

Confirm that once outside an area of responsibility, one can still get basic service from that facility.

Why will London Info not give traffic service? Are they too busy and therefore have been told not to do so?

[TheOddOne]

Why will London Info not give traffic service? Are they too busy and therefore have been told not to do so?

In order to provide a Traffic Service, RADAR is required, along with a controller qualified to provide the service. London Information don't have access to RADAR information and the Flight Information Service Officers that operate the service aren't qualified to use it if they did.
A confusion sometimes arises when London Information issue a transponder code. All this does is show units that DO have RADAR that you have established 2-way with London Information. If said unit want to communicate with the aircraft, then they could call London on the phone and ask the subject aircraft to change to the unit's frequency.

There's a map available showing Farnborough North's coverage area. From my experience in the area, the traffic would be too dense for any meaningful Traffic information to be passed, anyway. As ever, the MK1 eyeball is the essential tool, until a foolproof collision avoidance system is developed for training aircraft. Farnborough's job isn't necessarily to provide us with anti-collision information, though on occasion if they can they might well. It's to keep aircraft out of controlled airspace and try and reduce the cost to the airlines of having to divert around infringers. It's the airlines who pay for this service, I understand.
TOO

[Sir Niall Dementia]

The quote below was made recently concerning a midair collision.

"neither agency could have provided anything more than a Basic Service. The accident occurred outside the area of responsibility of Farnborough North and London Info cannot give a Traffic Service at any time."

Being from out of the country and just learning about ATC service in Britain, some expanded information would be aprreciated.

How can I find out where the area of responsibility is. I do have a Listening squawks ans LARS printout from my flight school which has various frequencies.

Confirm that once outside an area of responsibility, one can still get basic service from that facility.

Why will London Info not give traffic service? Are they too busy and therefore have been told not to do so?

London Info are non radar and only able to give basic. If you are writing about the collision at Waddesdon then the Farnborough LARS will not give traffic in that area below 2300’, Luton would only provide basic outside controlled airspace (and at that time they would have been busy with IFR in and out bounds) Oxford would have been best, and the whole accident was on their radar.

Oxford Radar is bloody good, but too few transits use them. The Cabri at its altitude would have got basic, but the C152 was high enough to get traffic from Oxford.

I regularly hear aircraft in the WCO area asking Brize for a service when Oxford is closer, has better radar and a lot of the WCO traffic is often from Oxford and working radar on 127.75

If you’re in the area, give them a call, they are not scary, enjoy what they do and if you want a traffic service will do their best.

SND

[Heston]

How can I find out where the area of responsibility is. I do have a Listening squawks ans LARS printout from my flight school which has various frequencies.

Why will London Info not give traffic service? Are they too busy and therefore have been told not to do so?

The LARS print out is your lot for radar service. There are gaps. Outside this and controlled airspace the only service is basic. Which is as much use as a chocolate teapot or an ashtray on a motorcycle (choose your metaphor).


London info are great but they are what they say on the tin - an information service, not a live traffic service.(but they'll help all they can).

Welcome to the UK. It's a great place both for flying and other stuff, despite our odd ways.

[Jan Olieslagers]

But does the UK have any "area of responsability"? If so, where are the definitions? What are the areas and what and whose are the responsabilities?

[Broadlands]

TOO
Although London info don’t provide anything other than Basic, they seem to know exactly where I am a lot of the time.

They recognise my callsign and type now and sometimes give information that I swear can only come from a screen of some sort. I assume it’s there for SA but they can use it.

Or maybe it’s just my position reports.

Feel happy to correct me.

[Heston]

But does the UK have any "area of responsability"? If so, where are the definitions? What are the areas and what and whose are the responsabilities?
Farnborough have defined areas of responsibility. the others in practice have the extent of their radar coverage, which is variable and difficult to define. Sometimes it's seems to depend on whether the controller likes you or not!

[ShyTorque]

The original quote was mine.

A G**gle search for "Farnborough LARS Guide" will provide you with a link to their pamphlet which includes a map of the areas covered.

[Mach the Knife]

Google ATSOCAS and read what it has to say in the top couple of hits from airspacesafety.com. This should explain UK ATC services and what you get. Or more to the point what you don’t get with a Basic or a Traffic Service.

[piperboy84]

Outside this and controlled airspace the only service is basic. Which is as much use as a chocolate teapot or an ashtray on a motorcycle (choose your metaphor).

I think it's location dependent, a basic service in rural areas of Scotland is a fundamental part of doing the best you can to have a safe flight and offers you the best chance of being found if you go down.

[Chris Martyr]

whose are the responsibilities?


Make no mistake , unless you're on an IFR flight plan. It's YOU .

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thanks, actually I think that should read "unless you are in controlled airspace" rather than "on an IFR flight plan". But yes indeed, the term "area of responsability" is as bewildering as the UK "rules of the air" can get. Where is it defined?

[BackPacker]

some expanded information would be aprreciated.

NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=165&Itemid=3.html)

In particular, check out section GEN 3.3, ENR 1.1, ENR 1.6 and the various maps under ENR 6.

[chevvron]

Farnborough have defined areas of responsibility. the others in practice have the extent of their radar coverage, which is variable and difficult to define. Sometimes it's seems to depend on whether the controller likes you or not!

I never minded providing a service outside the 'defined area' provided I wasn't in someone else's LARS area and provided it didn't degrade the service I was providing to other traffic inside my defined area.
On one day on LARS North, I first picked up a Hawk routing from Biggin to Valley and no sooner had I transferred him to London Military Radar east of Daventry for a Daventry crossing than Cottesmore phoned up to hand me a pair of Tornados in the same area inbound to Northolt. I gave Luton Radar a bit of a fright with those as I delayed their descent to go under the LTMA west of BKY until the last minute.
Nowadays the controllers at Farnborough are reluctant to do this due to what I'm told is more rigid application of the rules however the fact remains, Farnborough LARS sectors have sufficient radar coverage to operate well outside their notified areas of operation, especially to the north as the new radar head at Bovingdon must be on line nowadays and being some 500ft amsl, it would give excellent low cover north of the Chiltern Hills.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Chevvron;

Im Oxford based and my experience on an almost daily basis is that the Farnborough LARS coverage peters out near Aylesbury Thame gliding site and is pretty much non existent north of there.

The BNN site helps, but it doesn't cover the lee of the ridge that well.

SND

[ShyTorque]

SND, I totally agree. Problem with Farnborough seems to be understaffing. I use them regularly (as many of us in the corporate rotary industry do) but it appears that for much of the time, one Farnborough controller is presently often dealing with two, if not three areas, covering more than one frequency.

If you call up Farnborough North for a service when travelling from the Midlands they will only provide a basic service until you reach the boundary of their area of responsibility, when they will upgrade to traffic service. Similarly, if going north, they will normally downgrade you to a basic service once beyond the boundary shown on the chart in their pamphlet.

I first began flying for a living in 1977. Over the last forty years, with the closing of a number of military airfields (e.g. Cottesmore, Wittering) and now some more recent civilian ones, such as Coventry, the chances of getting a meaningful radar service in Central England have reduced. As I said before, there is a significant gap in the Southeast Midlands, where many aircraft must route and train.

If you fly by night, of late there is often no-one to talk to - even London Info have NOTAM'd closures late at night.

[Discorde]

The Oxford Approach listening squawk facility is useful in a very busy area. We were routing Gloucester to Cranfield recently and dialled up 4517. After a few mins Oxford called to check we were listening and informed us of a bizjet manoeuvring for the ILS. Very helpful - the system works!

[James Chan]

It's the airlines who pay for this service, I understand.

Not exactly. Someone else can probably give a better answer than me, but as I understand the money basically comes from a combination of:

1) Eurocontrol route charges - Anyone over 2MT flying IFR, 5.7MT flying VFR, and other criteria where charges are due
2) Navigation service charges - Anyone regardless of weight who is inbound and lands at the aerode providing the service (e.g. Farnborough)
3) Government funds - A small pot of money is allocated to incentivise units to provide a service. This money falls far short of the cost of providing the service.

Farnborough's job isn't necessarily to provide us with anti-collision information... It's to keep aircraft out of controlled airspace...

Though it would be incredibly silly to keep aircraft out of airspace when there is no chance of conflict.

Far better instead to be providing traffic information or deconfliction advice between actual aircraft to help pilots avoid collisions.

Unfortunately there will always be limitations of (radar) service provision when flying outside controlled airspace.

If someone wants a “guaranteed” service they should file and fly IFR inside controlled airspace instead.

[TheOddOne]

A NATS team based at Farnborough Airport has cause to celebrate having helped prevent its 3,000th airspace infringement.

The Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS), which is joint-funded by NATS and Farnborough Airport, was set up in 2008 specifically to help pilots flying on the edges of the London Terminal Manoeuvring Area (LTMA) – one of the busiest areas of airspace anywhere in the world.

It exists to help reduce the chance of aircraft infringing into controlled airspace, something which is both a potential safety risk and disruptive to airport operations.

Even a 15 minute stop in departures at Heathrow Airport due to an infringing aircraft can cause delays that take two hours to recover from.

The 10-strong Farnborough team constantly monitors flights to identify those that have a high risk of entering controlled airspace, either by geographical position, direction of flight, or level. The NATS controller then makes contact to alert the pilot and offers them advice on avoiding an infringement.


The above is from NATS' own website.

No too much in there about collision avoidance for training aircraft carrying out exercises 4-11 above the Aylesbury Plain.

TOO

[chevvron]

Chevvron;

Im Oxford based and my experience on an almost daily basis is that the Farnborough LARS coverage peters out near Aylesbury Thame gliding site and is pretty much non existent north of there.

The BNN site helps, but it doesn't cover the lee of the ridge that well.

SND
Correction: the SERVICE peters out near Aylesbury, but radar coverage is excellent. I've never seen the new Bovingdon 23 cm radar but if it's any near as good as the Debden which can see aircraft just above the ground at Wyton, then barring some shielding by the Chiltern Ridge, low coverage in the WCO area must be quite good. Even when I was at Farnborough, the Heathrow 10cm radar could see traffic just below 1,500ft in this area.
Just in case you think the lower limit of 1,500 ft below which Farnborough will not provide radar service is due to radar coverage, it's not. In the planning stages, the CAA insisted we put a common lower limit on radar service provision over the entire LARS area rather than have sectors where the lower limit varied from this so we came up with 1,500ft for terrain clearance. Even this of course, doesn't apply within 3nm of the Midhurst and Sevenoaks TV masts though!

[jollyrog]

A couple of months ago, at a rock solid 2,300ft near WOD, I received an unsolicited call from the Farnborough ATCO to tell me "Not above your current level due to Heathrow inbounds above".

There then followed a bit of a jumbled conversation, during which I asked her if that was a request or an instruction as I was confused as to the purpose of the call. She fumbled her response, decided it was "advice" and muttered something about Heathrow inbounds being downwind.

It was all complete and utter nonsense, but doubtless as part of their self promotion, has been chalked up as one of the 3,000.

[jollyrog]

Just to add... twice in the last year, on a Traffic Service, I've had close encounters with other aircraft who were both also in receipt of a Farnborough service.

A PA28 at Guildford, which the UKAB decided was an Airprox category A and didn't have any nice things to say about Farnborough in their summary, and more recently a Dove, who I saw in good time so no big deal, but was about 200 metres away from me, same level and opposite direction and close enough that I was able to identify it as a Dove. Reported that as an MOR, failure of service, but surprisingly, no reply or follow up to the MOR.

I do not have any confidence in their radar services, particularly the West position.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Correction: the SERVICE peters out near Aylesbury, but radar coverage is excellent. I've never seen the new Bovingdon 23 cm radar but if it's any near as good as the Debden which can see aircraft just above the ground at Wyton, then barring some shielding by the Chiltern Ridge, low coverage in the WCO area must be quite good. Even when I was at Farnborough, the Heathrow 10cm radar could see traffic just below 1,500ft in this area.
Just in case you think the lower limit of 1,500 ft below which Farnborough will not provide radar service is due to radar coverage, it's not. In the planning stages, the CAA insisted we put a common lower limit on radar service provision over the entire LARS area rather than have sectors where the lower limit varied from this so we came up with 1,500ft for terrain clearance. Even this of course, doesn't apply within 3nm of the Midhurst and Sevenoaks TV masts though!

And my daily experience at 2400’ is no traffic service until past Aylesbury Thame. And a good sized comms/Radar black hole north of there. ShyTorque and I are through there most days, that is our experience as pilots.

SND

[chevvron]

A couple of months ago, at a rock solid 2,300ft near WOD, I received an unsolicited call from the Farnborough ATCO to tell me "Not above your current level due to Heathrow inbounds above".

There then followed a bit of a jumbled conversation, during which I asked her if that was a request or an instruction as I was confused as to the purpose of the call. She fumbled her response, decided it was "advice" and muttered something about Heathrow inbounds being downwind.

It was all complete and utter nonsense, but doubtless as part of their self promotion, has been chalked up as one of the 3,000.
Were you watching a radar display? Did you see the Heathrow inbound traffic descending to 3,000ft for the 09L ILS heading towards you?
Your altimeter may have been showing you 2,300ft, but the mode C on radar might have been as high as 2,500ft and still been within tolerance. A slight bit of turbulence and with no control input on your part, your Mode C is showing 2,600ft ie inside controlled airspace.
I lost count of the number of times my traffic routing through WOD in either direction at 2,400 ft (seen on Mode C and confirmed by the pilot) triggered a TA on Heathrow traffic which was descending towards it and remaining inside controlled airspace, then I would get an irate phone call from the TC Group Supervisor complaining about my traffic which I would then quietly point out was operating quite legally outside controlled airspace.
Then it was written reports all round.
I hate TCAS!

[chevvron]

And my daily experience at 2400’ is no traffic service until past Aylesbury Thame. And a good sized comms/Radar black hole north of there. ShyTorque and I are through there most days, that is our experience as pilots.
SND
No No NO you're not getting it are you?
The multiple radar sources can certainly see north of Aylesbury and coverage extends at 2,400ft a considerable distance further north, but the controllers aren't allowed to provide radar service outside the LARS North boundary as portrayed on the official maps. If they could, they would.
Having said that, I often DID provide service north of Aylesbury but I think I got away with it.

[jollyrog]

Were you watching a radar display? Did you see the Heathrow inbound traffic descending to 3,000ft for the 09L ILS heading towards you?
Your altimeter may have been showing you 2,300ft, but the mode C on radar might have been as high as 2,500ft and still been within tolerance. A slight bit of turbulence and with no control input on your part, your Mode C is showing 2,600ft ie inside controlled airspace.
I was watching my altimeter. It was fine. It said 2,300ft. My SkyDemon said 2,300ft. The FR24 trace of my flight shows 2,300ft. QNH 1015. It was as calm as anything up there, my level was as stable as it gets and my flight record confirms that.

I appreciate what you say, but it was a case of Farnborough being Farnborough. She didn't ask me my altitude, which I believe would have been the appropriate call if I was activating CAIT.

I do not need warnings when I have 200ft at my disposal and am not bouncing around. That's not what I took their service for.

3rd Sep, 0840Z.

[chevvron]

I was watching my altimeter. It was fine. It said 2,300ft. My SkyDemon said 2,300ft. The FR24 trace of my flight shows 2,300ft. QNH 1015. It was as calm as anything up there, my level was as stable as it gets and my flight record confirms that.

I appreciate what you say, but it was a case of Farnborough being Farnborough. She didn't ask me my altitude, which I believe would have been the appropriate call if I was activating CAIT.

I do not need warnings when I have 200ft at my disposal and am not bouncing around. That's not what I took their service for.

3rd Sep, 0840Z.
Nonetheless, your Mode C could still have been showing higher than 2,300 on the radar, so the controller under 'duty of care' elected to remind you of Heathrow inbounds less than 1,000ft above you. If she was being 'checked out' at the time, it could be an 'extra' she slipped in to demonstrate to the examiner she was aware of the 'hazards' in that area.
I don't think Farnborough controllers get a readout from CAIT which in my experience (which I admit could be out of date)i usually only operates in CTRs not CTAs.

[SonicTPA]

Just to add... twice in the last year, on a Traffic Service, I've had close encounters with other aircraft who were both also in receipt of a Farnborough service.

A PA28 at Guildford, which the UKAB decided was an Airprox category A and didn't have any nice things to say about Farnborough in their summary, and more recently a Dove, who I saw in good time so no big deal, but was about 200 metres away from me, same level and opposite direction and close enough that I was able to identify it as a Dove. Reported that as an MOR, failure of service, but surprisingly, no reply or follow up to the MOR.

I do not have any confidence in their radar services, particularly the West position.

What was the Airprox report number? I’d like to read what it says.

[chevvron]

What was the Airprox report number? I’d like to read what it says.

Shirley in the case of a Cat A airprox, the Farnborough controller involved would have been the subject of (shall we say) 'interviews'? I know I certainly was (Dunsfold departure vs one downwind for PAR 25)
Jollyrog: what type of service were YOU getting from Farnborough at the time of that AIRPROX?

[custardpsc]

Jammed Stab - There are no real 'areas of responsibility' in the sense I think you mean because there is no real responsibility - basic service in general, and certainly outside controlled airspace is more of a priviledge than a requirement ! think of it more as 'areas of possibility'.

In response to your request for more info about how to get some external service:

Firstly, consider the airspace definitions as your first place to start. Obviously if you are in controlled airspace ( ie not G ) then you will have someone to provide service. If you are around busy airspace but not inside it, you may find mandatory or recommended radio or transponder requirements, which again will point to who to speak to. ( the oxford/luton comments above are good examples and both excellent at being helpful/providing whatever service they can spare)

Then , if well outside controlled airspace, the LARS coverage map does show coverage, but quite a lot of it is not H24, so that is not always helpful.

Then, you can ask for basic service from anywhere you are flying close to, or over the top of.

Then, there is London/Scottish information, which does have good coverage, but is only really of use if you need info such as METARS or if you are in minor difficulties. They don't have radar service , as stated above. (but they can 'look over the radar operators shoulder')

but to clarify your original question - basic service is indeed really basic. It is really only having someone to talk to. Here is the definition

A Basic Service is an ATS provided for the purpose of giving advice and
information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights. This may include
weather information, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at
aerodromes, general airspace activity information, and any other information
likely to affect safety. The avoidance of other traffic is solely the pilot’s
responsibility.
Basic Service relies on the pilot avoiding other traffic, unaided by controllers/
FISOs. It is essential that a pilot receiving this ATS remains alert to the fact that,
unlike a Traffic Service and a Deconfliction Service, the provider of a Basic
Service is not required to monitor the flight.

That is from this doc https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20774Issue2_3.pdf

which you may find helpful.

You are, of course, not obliged to use any service or even have a radio when in class G.

Does that help?

[jollyrog]

What was the Airprox report number? I’d like to read what it says.
2016201.

The Dove filed as MOR AR.EU-GB-2017-013361 which you should have access to.

[jollyrog]

Shirley in the case of a Cat A airprox, the Farnborough controller involved would have been the subject of (shall we say) 'interviews'? I know I certainly was (Dunsfold departure vs one downwind for PAR 25)
Jollyrog: what type of service were YOU getting from Farnborough at the time of that AIRPROX?
Traffic Service. In words only I suspect, they had no interest in me whatsoever, other than for their own purposes.

[chevvron]

Traffic Service. In words only I suspect, they had no interest in me whatsoever, other than for their own purposes.

I'm rather sad that you have that opinion about my successors and/or ex colleagues and puzzled that under TS you weren't warned of the traffic.
I can only assume that LARS West was bandboxed with approach (something which I always opposed because it was so difficult to predict when you would need to split the frequencies and have an extra controller standing by) and the workload got too high. In such a case, the controller gives priority to Farnborough arrivals and departures, but that's no excuse, the Watch Manager or Senior Controller on Duty should have been there to assist.

[jollyrog]

I have made my opinion very clear on the other forum.

They choose (are instructed) to provide a DS to all their inbounds, by default.
Providing a DS is hard, so they complain that they need CAS.
Because they can’t get CAS, their primary method of resolution has become to “control” the light GA, in the guise of “coordination “.
They use the LARS West position to achieve this.
The West ATCOs are overloaded and have (mostly) insufficient capacity to provide higher levels of service than Basic to light GA, particularly at the times when higher services would be desirable.
The solution is clearly to remove step 1 from this process but TAG won’t let them.

Watch the video from the Flying Reporter’s visit to Farnborough and see the manager squirm when questioned about this.

Filed another MOR last week. Clear skies, night, hardly anything up there, yet I was *summoned*, from another frequency to West. Upon initial call, attempted to impose a service (declined) for “coordination”. Just me and the jet up there, yet with the whole region available to apply the DS to the aircraft in receipt of it, or downgrade him to TS, primary resolution was *still* to control the light GA.

[chevvron]

'Providing a DS is hard'
Well actually it's not (and don't forget I did it for 34 years when it was called RAS and before it was called DS) provided the controller provides 'quality' traffic information as well as vectoring aircraft clear of conflictions. The easiest ones were the fastest; with a Buccaneer doing 500kts at 2000ft (legal 'cos he's military) you could look 10 miles ahead, point it at a gap in traffic and know he would be OK.
More recently with the advent of TCAS which I disliked intensely, I used it to advantage passing traffic info to an aircraft under DS (or RAS as it was then) and my aircraft replying 'we've got it on TCAS, no confliction' and there it was on the tape so if there was an Airprox report, I was covered as was the pilot.

I can't comment on your MOR of last week because I don't know the exact circumstances.(maybe Sonic does)

[ShyTorque]

TBH, I often inwardly groan when someone calls up for a deconfliction service, if the frequency is already busy. It means that the airwaves are going to be constantly full of instructions and responses to that one aircraft, to the detriment of everyone else. It can be a major distraction, to the point of becoming a flight safety issue. I've often decided we're better off going "en route" in those circumstances.

[jollyrog]

I'm rather sad that you have that opinion about my successors and/or ex colleagues and puzzled that under TS you weren't warned of the traffic.
I can only assume that LARS West was bandboxed with approach (something which I always opposed because it was so difficult to predict when you would need to split the frequencies and have an extra controller standing by) and the workload got too high. In such a case, the controller gives priority to Farnborough arrivals and departures, but that's no excuse, the Watch Manager or Senior Controller on Duty should have been there to assist.
I don't recall West being bandboxed with Approach and the report makes no mention of it, suggesting the opposite.

The report does criticise me for not reporting the Airprox on the RT, but to be honest, I'd lost interest in them by then and just wanted to get off their frequency. I did report it online promptly, but the report says that the ATCO has no recollection. Convenient.