Limited Radar Information
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Limited Radar Information
I was given a Radar Information service today. Just like that.
It made me realise how virtually every time I talk to a LARS unit they don't say "Radar Information Service" they say "Radar Information limited from all around due to poor radar performance/your proximity to the radar overhead/your altitude/weather"...the list is endless.
Now this didn't use to happen. In the olden days we just got the Radar Information Service.
Is the new, nearly universal, form of words a by-product of recently recognised Duty of Care considerations...or is it that the radar infrastructure is getting as ****ty as the road and rail infrastructure?
W
It made me realise how virtually every time I talk to a LARS unit they don't say "Radar Information Service" they say "Radar Information limited from all around due to poor radar performance/your proximity to the radar overhead/your altitude/weather"...the list is endless.
Now this didn't use to happen. In the olden days we just got the Radar Information Service.
Is the new, nearly universal, form of words a by-product of recently recognised Duty of Care considerations...or is it that the radar infrastructure is getting as ****ty as the road and rail infrastructure?
W
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Identified Radar Information Service BLAH BLAH BLAH ... Acknowledge!"
Both ... but mainly the former.
It is not just the LARS units either. Some of the changes that you note have come about following the tragic Scottish F15 crash a couple of years ago. See here:
F15 Court Martial Thread
For example, controllers are legally required to have you acknowledge your responsibility for terrain clearance when receiving a RIS in a height block encompassing terrain.
That said, there is too much information and it has now got to the point where I would guess most crews will acknowledge the information without necessarily understanding it or even taking it in. No slur intended, we are all bound by QRs and MAFL, and ignorance is no defence, but how many of us actually know much more than the basic elements?
STH
It is not just the LARS units either. Some of the changes that you note have come about following the tragic Scottish F15 crash a couple of years ago. See here:
F15 Court Martial Thread
For example, controllers are legally required to have you acknowledge your responsibility for terrain clearance when receiving a RIS in a height block encompassing terrain.
That said, there is too much information and it has now got to the point where I would guess most crews will acknowledge the information without necessarily understanding it or even taking it in. No slur intended, we are all bound by QRs and MAFL, and ignorance is no defence, but how many of us actually know much more than the basic elements?
STH
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Toppam - maybe the Air Defence world needs to streamline its procedures then. I can assure you that LARS units don't have to do what you suggest - at least not in the real (read civil 
) world. Some of us actually hold a licence which has stronger ramifications. (I haven't been bound by QR's or MAFL since 1995 - and it feels damn good!)
Ok - dig at the scopies done - now to answer Mr C's question.
Over the last 10 years the airspace has got busier. I've noticed it, you must have done in your travels. A lot of the limitations (apart from the radar overhead one - that's always been used for as far back as I can remember) are down to the units workload. A certain unit in the midlands (whenever I take traffic from them) will always have the traffic on a limited RIS because it doesn't like working traffic outside CAS. The limitation is one way of reducing liability. There's no technical reason for it - their radar is better than mine - but they limit. The trouble is there are quite a few controllers who limit without actually understanding why they're doing it, but are just following a trend which has been set by others.
If you're working traffic close to the edge of cover and you're limiting the service because of it then why are you working the traffic? At that point you should have given it to someone better placed (one military unit in particular comes to mind - no names).
There are units where there is a genuine reason for limiting - one in particular which has had a c**p radar ever since it was installed in 1989. Radar performance and technology on the whole is such that there is no technical need to limit and if you are doing it consistently then you should be asking yourself - "Should I really be providing the service here?" and if the answer is "no" then tell it to call someone else. It's not an admission of failure - it's a positive decision which ensures best service for the customer.
) world. Some of us actually hold a licence which has stronger ramifications. (I haven't been bound by QR's or MAFL since 1995 - and it feels damn good!)Ok - dig at the scopies done - now to answer Mr C's question.
Over the last 10 years the airspace has got busier. I've noticed it, you must have done in your travels. A lot of the limitations (apart from the radar overhead one - that's always been used for as far back as I can remember) are down to the units workload. A certain unit in the midlands (whenever I take traffic from them) will always have the traffic on a limited RIS because it doesn't like working traffic outside CAS. The limitation is one way of reducing liability. There's no technical reason for it - their radar is better than mine - but they limit. The trouble is there are quite a few controllers who limit without actually understanding why they're doing it, but are just following a trend which has been set by others.
If you're working traffic close to the edge of cover and you're limiting the service because of it then why are you working the traffic? At that point you should have given it to someone better placed (one military unit in particular comes to mind - no names).
There are units where there is a genuine reason for limiting - one in particular which has had a c**p radar ever since it was installed in 1989. Radar performance and technology on the whole is such that there is no technical need to limit and if you are doing it consistently then you should be asking yourself - "Should I really be providing the service here?" and if the answer is "no" then tell it to call someone else. It's not an admission of failure - it's a positive decision which ensures best service for the customer.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 19th Sep 2003 at 15:10.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilie monster said:
"Radar performance and technology on the whole is such that there is no technical need to limit and if you are doing it consistently then you should be asking yourself - "Should I really be providing the service here?" and if the answer is "no" then tell it to call someone else."
Well, in this day and age, you'd think that wouldn't you? Well, our lovely unit has a brand new radar that contradicts what you have said completely! It doesn't show stuff that is there, and constantly shows stuff that isn't there. We're in an extremely busy area, that also has an awful lot of gliding. It can be a nightmare. They're still working on the radar after a year to try and sort it out, but so far no success. This type of radar has been put in at a few other places now, and I believe that they have the same problem. So new isn't necessarily better...
So that's a big reason to limit, on top of all the other standard Mats Pt 1 reasons...
Sonic
"Radar performance and technology on the whole is such that there is no technical need to limit and if you are doing it consistently then you should be asking yourself - "Should I really be providing the service here?" and if the answer is "no" then tell it to call someone else."
Well, in this day and age, you'd think that wouldn't you? Well, our lovely unit has a brand new radar that contradicts what you have said completely! It doesn't show stuff that is there, and constantly shows stuff that isn't there. We're in an extremely busy area, that also has an awful lot of gliding. It can be a nightmare. They're still working on the radar after a year to try and sort it out, but so far no success. This type of radar has been put in at a few other places now, and I believe that they have the same problem. So new isn't necessarily better...
So that's a big reason to limit, on top of all the other standard Mats Pt 1 reasons...
Sonic
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly regularly and work a very busy civil unit. I always ask for RIS and am often offered a FIS which I am happy to accept because I know that I shall receive either a RIS or a RAS and I shall accept the turns and/or level changes that are required. I am intrigued if this situation is a result of the courts martial, although the actual ATC service remains its usual high standard as always.
Can't speak for civil ATC, but as far as mil ATC is concerned, yes 'the F15 court martial' was a bit of a wakeup call. Aside from the issue of now reminding pilots about their responsibility for terrain clearance beneath minimum safety altitudes, the other limitations should have happened before and are nothing new. You may find however that mil controllers have now had it drummed into them that if, as is stated in JSP 552 (JSP 318A as was), you should be limiting service, then do it. If you don't, and something happens, you may be called to account. I think however, that the comment made about aircrew of all types not necessarily understanding the various limitations of service, and possibly engaging autopilot is the most concerning issue.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the good book there are five occaisions when you should limit a radar service.
a. When operating close to the vertical or lateral limits of radar cover. ( rule of thumb is 1000 ft every 10 miles, eg limit below if at 1500ft and 15 miles from radar source.
b. When the controller considers that the rardar performance is suspect. (eg using suppresion).
c. When operating close to permanent Echoes ( eg weather)
d. When providing a service using SSR only.
e. When operating in areas of high traffic density.
Unfortunately, this means that If you request a radar service on a poor weather day, below 3000ft, in the Vale of York;Gamston area; or Booker Air Park area (just to name a few) The chances are very likely that you will receive a limited service. These rules are not new, I think that after recent events, controllers are just more litigation concious and more likely to dot the i's and cross the t's.
a. When operating close to the vertical or lateral limits of radar cover. ( rule of thumb is 1000 ft every 10 miles, eg limit below if at 1500ft and 15 miles from radar source.
b. When the controller considers that the rardar performance is suspect. (eg using suppresion).
c. When operating close to permanent Echoes ( eg weather)
d. When providing a service using SSR only.
e. When operating in areas of high traffic density.
Unfortunately, this means that If you request a radar service on a poor weather day, below 3000ft, in the Vale of York;Gamston area; or Booker Air Park area (just to name a few) The chances are very likely that you will receive a limited service. These rules are not new, I think that after recent events, controllers are just more litigation concious and more likely to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins
Oh no you did not always get an un-restricted RIS!
What you have to remember is that the traditional non-RAF LARS units are quite a bit busier with commercial traffic now the Lo-Co's are rife. Those that are not designated, provide the service if they can, subject to.............., the same restrictions that designated units can place on any flight.
Nothing in life is for free, apart from a radar service, from the point of view of a private flyer.
Sadly, until there is a method of actually paying for the FULL costs to an ATSU for providing LARS, life flying in the FIR will be very 'limited'. For dawn to dusk radar to be available for the sole intention of LARS is rather costly. Now if there was a method of FULL compensation to radar units, life within the FIR, it could be argued, would be safer, but as a pilot, would you be prepared to pay for this service?
What you have to remember is that the traditional non-RAF LARS units are quite a bit busier with commercial traffic now the Lo-Co's are rife. Those that are not designated, provide the service if they can, subject to.............., the same restrictions that designated units can place on any flight.
Nothing in life is for free, apart from a radar service, from the point of view of a private flyer.
Sadly, until there is a method of actually paying for the FULL costs to an ATSU for providing LARS, life flying in the FIR will be very 'limited'. For dawn to dusk radar to be available for the sole intention of LARS is rather costly. Now if there was a method of FULL compensation to radar units, life within the FIR, it could be argued, would be safer, but as a pilot, would you be prepared to pay for this service?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere in England!
Age: 67
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
At week-ends Waddington have to do this as quite often there is no one else to give the traffic to!
Regards
Pie
If you're working traffic close to the edge of cover and you're limiting the service because of it then why are you working the traffic? At that point you should have given it to someone better placed (one military unit in particular comes to mind - no names).
Regards
Pie
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: location, location
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I treat the limitation as licence protection but I won't do it as a matter of course because then there becomes no distinction between an 'average' day and a 'busy' day. I would prefer not to limit but if I have to, I'll normally try and say exactly what might be missed, e.g. non-squawkers, low-level, gliders etc.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah Blah
CM
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there and neglected to include our civil chums in the forum. The example of QRs/MAFL was just that, an example. ATCO banter for FCs ... how very '1990s'! There are no longer enough of us in either group to even have our own branches, we are merely 'specializations', with more in common than most would admit to (publicly at least).
WWW
I stand by my previous comments regarding understanding of radar services amongst a small section of the flying community - yes it is worrying, but we don't help ourselves by confusing the issue with a load of extraneous blah along with what should, in most cases, be a relatively simple statement to agree the contract of service.
In terms of understanding the 'limited' nature of a service, Shagster is spot on wrt the actual reasons why/when a service may be limited, but it all seems a bit pointless to me - do any pilots actually adjust their behaviour/look out simply because the service is 'limited'? Let's not forget either that even Radar Control may be limited.
STH
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there and neglected to include our civil chums in the forum. The example of QRs/MAFL was just that, an example. ATCO banter for FCs ... how very '1990s'! There are no longer enough of us in either group to even have our own branches, we are merely 'specializations', with more in common than most would admit to (publicly at least).
WWW
I stand by my previous comments regarding understanding of radar services amongst a small section of the flying community - yes it is worrying, but we don't help ourselves by confusing the issue with a load of extraneous blah along with what should, in most cases, be a relatively simple statement to agree the contract of service.
In terms of understanding the 'limited' nature of a service, Shagster is spot on wrt the actual reasons why/when a service may be limited, but it all seems a bit pointless to me - do any pilots actually adjust their behaviour/look out simply because the service is 'limited'? Let's not forget either that even Radar Control may be limited.
STH
Please don't abbreviate whowhenwhy to WWW as it confuses the heck out of me thinking I have been contributing to threads that I haven't even read yet...
Anyway. I always thought RAF Shawbury were very fair with their limited RIS - they would downgrade only when they were balls out or you were 3 counties away. Bristol Lulsgate do a similarly admirable job and their propensity to offer services even when busy ultimately improves the known airspace picture I find.
LARS needs more financial support as the UK FIR gets busier every year. The cost of infringements at the likes of STN and LTN alone mounts into tens of thousands as aircraft are held and vectored and TCASd due to light aircraft not enjoying the luxury of a good LARS.
Theoretically the owners of NATS would spot this fact but being beancounters they probably won't.
Cheers
WWW
Anyway. I always thought RAF Shawbury were very fair with their limited RIS - they would downgrade only when they were balls out or you were 3 counties away. Bristol Lulsgate do a similarly admirable job and their propensity to offer services even when busy ultimately improves the known airspace picture I find.
LARS needs more financial support as the UK FIR gets busier every year. The cost of infringements at the likes of STN and LTN alone mounts into tens of thousands as aircraft are held and vectored and TCASd due to light aircraft not enjoying the luxury of a good LARS.
Theoretically the owners of NATS would spot this fact but being beancounters they probably won't.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH
Ok - I would love to know how you limit "Radar Control"?
Please bear in mind that "Radar Control" in the ATC world is available only within CAS and cannot, by definition, be limited.
Ok - I would love to know how you limit "Radar Control"?
Please bear in mind that "Radar Control" in the ATC world is available only within CAS and cannot, by definition, be limited.
Oh yes he is!! I never thought I'd ever say that a scopie was correct but he is. You may not limit service in class a AS because, according to our rules at least, you must have at least 5000' SOLID radar cover around your ac and 10 nms SOLID radar cover either side of your ac's track, and 10nms either side of the portion of CAS that you are crossing. Inside the MRSA (class B) you can limit all you like, with all the standard limitations as stated in JSP 552, 318A RIP and MATS pt 1. You can also of course limit service in class D AS, which, I think I'm right in saying, is also a form of CAS. Don't know a thing about C&E!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH
I feel obliged to expand on your previous comments. A lack of confidence in the processing and display bearer system can periodically occur, due to technical problems. Thus we have to limit the services we provide, usually having to work outside of all controlled airspace. It is not always the quality of the actual radar that is at fault.
On the subject of pilots appreciating the limited service - doubtful, very doubtful.
Regards
I feel obliged to expand on your previous comments. A lack of confidence in the processing and display bearer system can periodically occur, due to technical problems. Thus we have to limit the services we provide, usually having to work outside of all controlled airspace. It is not always the quality of the actual radar that is at fault.
On the subject of pilots appreciating the limited service - doubtful, very doubtful.
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIMITED RADAR CONTROL
WhoWhenWhy
Thanks for defending me ... this is not the first time someone has questioned the ability to limit RC, so I was not entirely surprised by CM's query.
Frogbox
I have PM'd you. I am not questioning the requirement to limit services ... as you are well aware, we are often ordered to do so following software upgrades or if, as so often happens, our kit goes a bit wonky. I would just like to see (hear) a reduction in the amount of unnecessary blah when an ac comes on channel; I don't think it's helpful, and I don't think it makes anything safer.
While we're on the subject, with modern ac and avionics systems, do we really need to verify SSR Mode C? Do civvy ATCOs do it? If Mil IFF is so unreliable, why do we only check it once?
Regards
STH
Thanks for defending me ... this is not the first time someone has questioned the ability to limit RC, so I was not entirely surprised by CM's query.
Frogbox
I have PM'd you. I am not questioning the requirement to limit services ... as you are well aware, we are often ordered to do so following software upgrades or if, as so often happens, our kit goes a bit wonky. I would just like to see (hear) a reduction in the amount of unnecessary blah when an ac comes on channel; I don't think it's helpful, and I don't think it makes anything safer.
While we're on the subject, with modern ac and avionics systems, do we really need to verify SSR Mode C? Do civvy ATCOs do it? If Mil IFF is so unreliable, why do we only check it once?
Regards
STH
Certainly as far as we're concerned STH as mil controllers, either your kind or mine, with the general accuracy of modern systems the requirement to verify c is normally important to confirm pilots are flying on 1013Mb. Many times ac come out of the MDA, or on handover from yourselves and their c seems to indicate out of tolerance. A swift check with the pilot finds that they simply forgot to reset 1013, having flown on the regional QNH for their sortie. Having said that, there are the odd occasions when the system is nadged! Sorry, still think its important!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VERIFIED MODE C
CM
Touched a nerve, sorry - I'm not questioning whether there is a 'legal requirement' (of course there is) just wondering if anyone can remember one reading inaccurately (as opposed to failing completely) in recent times.
WhoWhenWhy
Most of the time the crews leaving MDAs, or fighting anywhere else where RPS has been set, are told to reset 1013. However, I guess it doesn't happen some times, especially if a formation element simply declares bingo and goes on route!
C verifying a singleton is pretty straightforward. When you have a formation of 6, all squawking because we need them to, C verification can be a little more troublesome, simply adding to the sortie admin that this thread started on! Can Mode C be verified on the ground?
Happy verifying!
Regards
STH
Touched a nerve, sorry - I'm not questioning whether there is a 'legal requirement' (of course there is) just wondering if anyone can remember one reading inaccurately (as opposed to failing completely) in recent times.
WhoWhenWhy
Most of the time the crews leaving MDAs, or fighting anywhere else where RPS has been set, are told to reset 1013. However, I guess it doesn't happen some times, especially if a formation element simply declares bingo and goes on route!
C verifying a singleton is pretty straightforward. When you have a formation of 6, all squawking because we need them to, C verification can be a little more troublesome, simply adding to the sortie admin that this thread started on! Can Mode C be verified on the ground?
Happy verifying!
Regards
STH
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wondering if anyone can remember one reading inaccurately (as opposed to failing completely) in recent times.