Obeying requests when on a FIS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
desked atco:
I don't think anyone's saying that. So far this has all been about military units with the exception of my experience of getting radar-based tfc info while on a FIS. On which subject, I don't think you can call this "overcontrolling". It's just the controller choosing to do his/her best, which happens to go beyond what the rules specifically require. I don't ever assume I'll get this type of service, and certainly don't relax my lookout when I'm receiving it. It's just an added bonus when it comes.
Good to hear that - what does it actually say? It's so often lack of knowledge which leads to misunderstandings.
are we saying that our civilian colleages choose to ignore this MATS Part 1 definition
The procedures to follow in agreeing coordination with a pilot under FIS are clearly and sensibly stated in mil JSP552
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not on a boat, thankfully.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understanding of 'why?' ATC do things seems to be the underlying theme here.
One thing we are always happy to do at the LARS unit where I normally work is to welcome organised visits from flyers who operate in our area.
ATCers, both Civ and Mil, will get familiarisation flights are part of their job if they are not already pilots themselves.
Flyers should maybe get in and actually see what the ATC job involves. Sit with a Controller and see how it really works. The people I show around are usually quite amazed how the job is done, how intermittent a track can be in certain situations, how the rules are maintained and how busy the airspace really looks.
You should be able to get hold of a Liaison Officer through the switchboard of your local Airport/Military Unit.
I also actively encourage my collegues to read PPRuNe as it has certainly allows Controllers to realise many conciderations not written in the ATC manuals.
Oh, and for those Controllers out there that aren't getting their Fam Flights in, hastle your bosses more. It is Flight Safety after all!
One thing we are always happy to do at the LARS unit where I normally work is to welcome organised visits from flyers who operate in our area.
ATCers, both Civ and Mil, will get familiarisation flights are part of their job if they are not already pilots themselves.
Flyers should maybe get in and actually see what the ATC job involves. Sit with a Controller and see how it really works. The people I show around are usually quite amazed how the job is done, how intermittent a track can be in certain situations, how the rules are maintained and how busy the airspace really looks.
You should be able to get hold of a Liaison Officer through the switchboard of your local Airport/Military Unit.
I also actively encourage my collegues to read PPRuNe as it has certainly allows Controllers to realise many conciderations not written in the ATC manuals.
Oh, and for those Controllers out there that aren't getting their Fam Flights in, hastle your bosses more. It is Flight Safety after all!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree its not why ATC do things. Its why Mil units seem to use different rules and methods of controlling to civi units. Are the civi controllers wrong? and the mil are doing it right.
The RAF phrasiology dosn't lend itself to the conveyance of requests. They all sound like instructions.
A civi controller will ask "can you except not above ...." if you say negative its not mentioned again.
mil will be just straight "not above ....." and they really don't like it when you say "negative"
And in my experence mil controllers will always try to move VFR traffic to make room for thier IFR traffic. If you don't like it, don't take any service off them. To be honest it dosn't really effect your safety if flying VFR. They tend not to give you flight info anyway unless it suits them. All IFR traffic will be vectored round you. Better to keep your head out the window and fly unstressed.
And maybe if more GA didn't take a service. Some of the issues discussed here would actually get fixed. Instead of pilots getting pissed off and confused getting some bastardised form of service which does them no favours but in fact makes them work harder constantly having to monitor if the request / instruction is
A) legal under civilian rules (aka not below to VFR traffic)
b) is going to drop them in the poo remaining VMC or suitable forced landing area.
And the couple of times i have phoned LARS units about issues there is definatly a cover the mils arse attitude, keep it in unit and for gawds sake don't produce any paper work.
And maybe if the RAF decided to actually use CAP413 for its RT while working civi traffic it would solve most of the conflicts with interpretations of what both sides are meaning.
tescoapp
The RAF phrasiology dosn't lend itself to the conveyance of requests. They all sound like instructions.
A civi controller will ask "can you except not above ...." if you say negative its not mentioned again.
mil will be just straight "not above ....." and they really don't like it when you say "negative"
And in my experence mil controllers will always try to move VFR traffic to make room for thier IFR traffic. If you don't like it, don't take any service off them. To be honest it dosn't really effect your safety if flying VFR. They tend not to give you flight info anyway unless it suits them. All IFR traffic will be vectored round you. Better to keep your head out the window and fly unstressed.
And maybe if more GA didn't take a service. Some of the issues discussed here would actually get fixed. Instead of pilots getting pissed off and confused getting some bastardised form of service which does them no favours but in fact makes them work harder constantly having to monitor if the request / instruction is
A) legal under civilian rules (aka not below to VFR traffic)
b) is going to drop them in the poo remaining VMC or suitable forced landing area.
And the couple of times i have phoned LARS units about issues there is definatly a cover the mils arse attitude, keep it in unit and for gawds sake don't produce any paper work.
And maybe if the RAF decided to actually use CAP413 for its RT while working civi traffic it would solve most of the conflicts with interpretations of what both sides are meaning.
tescoapp
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northsouth
When mode S comes on line, Mode 3A will be redundant. At present there is no way of knowing whether an ac in Glass G is IFR or VFR; however, if VFR ac were required to squawk Mode 3A 7000 when operating autoniminiuosly and 6000 when they were IFR and individual control positions were given 2 squawks 1 VFR the other IFR, all controllers would know the flight rules as well as the callsign of the ac on the screen. In this way we could get rid of RAS, RIS and FIS and concentrate on VFR and IFR and get ourselves back in line with the rest of the world. IFR ac would be provided instructions to separate them from other IFR ac and information on VFR ac with avoidance on request (as they are in class D) and VFR ac that wished to recieve a service would be given traffic information on other ac as far as practicable. In one go you have turned an unknown enviroment into a known enviroment as far as practically possible whilst maintaing the freedom that the open FIR affords. You would be able to separate ac that declare themselfs as unable or unwilling to follow the see and avoid principle and on the other, there be no requirement to muck about with light ac that are quite happy flying VFR. There will always be the problem of people not buying the kit but in such circumstances or when their kit is u/s you simply say that they are not allowed to fly IFR.
I can think of a few sources of primary-only contacts in your neck of the woods which SSR and TCAS won't help you with, and there's widespread doubt that, even if the UK officially sticks to mandatory Mode S implementation from March 2008, Paraglider Pete will (a) be in a position to shell out the money required and/or (b) give a toss about what the CAA says he should carry
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ?
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I controlled at the northen unit and flew out of the neighbouring place as a student PPL. Here's my take on things for what its worth.....
It might have changed but when i was at that certain northern unit, at the time we started the service for the highland international airport, it was written into the flying order book that on certain depature routes the pointy pilots would accept 'not above' if there was conflicting in/out bound traffic. Even if they were FIS.
I don't remember ever imposing a not above on anyone 'cause if they are FIS they can do what they want.
It took a couple of close calls for people to accept that there was possibly a reason for the request and it became almost routine to ask VFR light ac to go no further west than a certain point and then not restict them at all (in height) if there was any remote possiblity that they would 'conflict' with the IFR.
But as this was several years ago - practice could have changed.
RATT fam flights are very very hard to come by - most controllers (especially Mil) don't get any [well not civi anyway].
TFB takes cover and retreats behind his shiney new MATS Pt1 !
edit - After thought, if there was something in the way the IFR ac usually got held at the hold as we were unwilling to let it get airborne. Sometimes they were launched anyhow and freecalled us in the climb normally in confliction with the one we were trying to prevent confliction with! - Go figure!!
It might have changed but when i was at that certain northern unit, at the time we started the service for the highland international airport, it was written into the flying order book that on certain depature routes the pointy pilots would accept 'not above' if there was conflicting in/out bound traffic. Even if they were FIS.
I don't remember ever imposing a not above on anyone 'cause if they are FIS they can do what they want.
It took a couple of close calls for people to accept that there was possibly a reason for the request and it became almost routine to ask VFR light ac to go no further west than a certain point and then not restict them at all (in height) if there was any remote possiblity that they would 'conflict' with the IFR.
But as this was several years ago - practice could have changed.
RATT fam flights are very very hard to come by - most controllers (especially Mil) don't get any [well not civi anyway].
TFB takes cover and retreats behind his shiney new MATS Pt1 !
edit - After thought, if there was something in the way the IFR ac usually got held at the hold as we were unwilling to let it get airborne. Sometimes they were launched anyhow and freecalled us in the climb normally in confliction with the one we were trying to prevent confliction with! - Go figure!!
Last edited by tired-flyboy; 9th Dec 2004 at 07:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
jack-oh:
Sounds interesting. Trying to get my head round the idea but a few questions pop up (if you pardon the pun):
1. IFRs may be flying in VMC or IMC, but VFRs can often be flying in what, for them, is VMC, but would be IMC for something bigger/faster (e.g. <140kts below 3000 feet: clear of cloud & in sight of surface).
2. If you're only giving traffic info to your IFRs on the VFRs, what rules would you have for IFRs passing close to VFRs? You're not providing separation, so how close could you take them?
3. This is a clearly a mandatory SSR environment. You'd have to not only say "you can't fly IFR if your squawk's bust" you'd actually have to say NO-ONE flies if their transponder's u/s because otherwise you lose all the benefits and have to go back to 5nm avoidance of all unknowns since you'd have no idea what height they were at. I guess the proponents of mandatory Mode S will say that's why it has to be for everyone because the benefits reduce sharply if only the IFRs are carrying it.
4. What do you do about autonmous VFRs who don't know their transponder's u/s and aren't talking to anyone? What about if it's only their Mode C u/s? Happens a lot in my experience with current equipment. Will Mode S be any better?
NS
Sounds interesting. Trying to get my head round the idea but a few questions pop up (if you pardon the pun):
1. IFRs may be flying in VMC or IMC, but VFRs can often be flying in what, for them, is VMC, but would be IMC for something bigger/faster (e.g. <140kts below 3000 feet: clear of cloud & in sight of surface).
2. If you're only giving traffic info to your IFRs on the VFRs, what rules would you have for IFRs passing close to VFRs? You're not providing separation, so how close could you take them?
3. This is a clearly a mandatory SSR environment. You'd have to not only say "you can't fly IFR if your squawk's bust" you'd actually have to say NO-ONE flies if their transponder's u/s because otherwise you lose all the benefits and have to go back to 5nm avoidance of all unknowns since you'd have no idea what height they were at. I guess the proponents of mandatory Mode S will say that's why it has to be for everyone because the benefits reduce sharply if only the IFRs are carrying it.
4. What do you do about autonmous VFRs who don't know their transponder's u/s and aren't talking to anyone? What about if it's only their Mode C u/s? Happens a lot in my experience with current equipment. Will Mode S be any better?
NS
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Up, up and away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack-oh
jack-oh, are you suggesting that all UK uncontrolled airspace should be made into what sounds like Class E airspace? With transponders mandatory?
Sounds like a great idea, but I can already hear GA and the mililtary frothing at the mouth...
Sounds like a great idea, but I can already hear GA and the mililtary frothing at the mouth...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I was aware the Mode s was going to be a mandatory requirement as is Mode C, I am sure there are going to be loads of people trying to wriggle out of it but this is always the case. As for my cunning plan the emphasis was avoiding action on request, if an IFR ac believes its safety may be compromised because its IMC and you are reporting another ac on its nose at 3nm that is supposed to be VFR, then obviously the eyebrows are going to twitch. I am aware that the VFR criteria changes for the speed of the ac but this is also the case in class E, D and I believe C airspace but this does not stop the rest of the world from using these criteria. The practice of getting 5nm separation harks back to a time when radar returns were 5nm long, plot extracted pictures with all the gismos are a different kettle of fish and provided that separation of any kind is achieved (rather like TCAS) then an accident has been avoided. I appreciate that this may cause the sucking of teeth but the alternative is to solder on with ever increasing traffic levels in a more and more crowded FIR. I know for a fact that some pilots will not ask, even if they are IMC, for RAS because they know that there are so many other ac around that they will be turned all over the sky and never end up going where they wanted to. Equally, some units refuse to provide RAS in the open FIR because it is impossible to maintain separation iaw with the rules. On the other hand, VFR pilots believe they are being mucked about so much when they ask for a service that they would prefer not to receive one and rely on looking out the window. If this is the case then the system doesn't work and needs to be changed. While on the surface it may seem like the rules for Class E it is not, primarily because you would not need to file a flight plan to fly IFR thereby allowing you the freedom to change from 1 flight rule to the other as the weather dictated
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this topic. An interesting strain of conversation here I think, as a Mil ATCO with PPL I can certainly see both sides of the coin.
The one thing that springs to my mind about this from the ATCO perspective is the "fear factor". It's no secret that the junior controller cadre (me included) had the prospect of courts martial, negligence charges and the like thrown at us from week one of JATCC following several incidents over the last few years The phrase "get it on the tapes" particularly springs to mind. I think that there is definitely a culture in which controllers think they need to be seen to have done as much as possible so that if Joe Bloggs scrapes his Cessna 152 against Captain Smith's Dash 8 in Open FIR then the blame does not lie with the controller in subsequent Boards of Inquiry etc.
From the PPL side, I know that many junior and inexperienced PPL holders would not dare argue with instructions from ATC, even if they are not entirely sure of the reasons why. I dare say there is the potential for the GA aircraft put in an unsafe situation in order to protect the integrity of an IFR track to which the controller ultimately has greater responsibility. Controllers are not necessarily as aware of what the GA aircraft are trying to achieve and height restrictions are certainly part of this.
The one thing that springs to my mind about this from the ATCO perspective is the "fear factor". It's no secret that the junior controller cadre (me included) had the prospect of courts martial, negligence charges and the like thrown at us from week one of JATCC following several incidents over the last few years The phrase "get it on the tapes" particularly springs to mind. I think that there is definitely a culture in which controllers think they need to be seen to have done as much as possible so that if Joe Bloggs scrapes his Cessna 152 against Captain Smith's Dash 8 in Open FIR then the blame does not lie with the controller in subsequent Boards of Inquiry etc.
From the PPL side, I know that many junior and inexperienced PPL holders would not dare argue with instructions from ATC, even if they are not entirely sure of the reasons why. I dare say there is the potential for the GA aircraft put in an unsafe situation in order to protect the integrity of an IFR track to which the controller ultimately has greater responsibility. Controllers are not necessarily as aware of what the GA aircraft are trying to achieve and height restrictions are certainly part of this.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WARNING - this is probably going to ramble off topic, but I had a hard day at the office avoiding bloody military jets playing around Advisory Routes ........
Jack-oh wrote
Hmmm ...? I rather take exception to the 'wriggle out of it' jibe - wriggle out of what? A system that is not there to help the majority of C of A holders. I'm afraid this smacks of over-controlling, which a lot of people do (but often with the best of intentions).
Let me explain.
There are some 10000 private aircraft in the UK and about 1000 commercial. Mode S requirements will force all these owners (I am one) to spend some £4000? on a new piece of electro-kit. Now would someone please explain the benefits to me?
I have just recovered from having to fit an 8.33 Khz spacing radio
(cost minimum £2500) so that I can legally train to fly IFR in Class D. But will we ever actually have 8.33 use below FL150 ? Doubt it. Another burdensome cost, that benefits someone else (the commercial operators in high level sectors).
But doesn't it create a known traffic environment? Well, currently, radar screens are so cluttered in many of the high density areas that it is well nigh impossible to rotate labels fast enough to get a clear picture (and that is if the software hooks the target in the first place). So how impossibly cluttered will that become if every microlight, balloon (beancounter or otherwise) or aeronaut must carry one ? I shudder to think.
And then, you could well get a lot of pissed off aviators thinking - "right if they want to know where I am they can bloody speak to me as well ......" ..... how blocked will all those frequencies become ? How many extra ATCOs/FISOs will need to be employed to 'satisfy the demand'?
Cost? If the benefit is to the commercial operators then GAs loss is their gain. Will GA be compensated for this ?
TCAS - now this is an idea that has possibilities. However, until the fast pointy things are equipped with TCAS it is a pointless exercise (scuse the pun). Look at the Airprox reports. 90% of them involve mil ac.
Sounds like you want to overcontrol things. We've all done it - usually in the early years of our careers - but as you mellow (well some folk mellow ;-) )- you learn to accommodate the rules.
Personally I might well put a squawk on a FIS and ask if he could maintain not above X thousand feet. Explain that there is IFR traffic above. If he says no, then fine, he's not obliged. But the RIS/RAS/FIS clarity is only in the minds of those who sit behind desks and write the rules. Get out to a few flying clubs and speak to PPLs. Most are totally bamboozled by the differences.
So, I would suggest that it is actually dangerous to tell someone they are indentified on a FIS. You could lull someone into a false sense of security. Just as now I always remind folk on a RIS that they are responsible for their own terrian clearance. I don't want them to be in any doubt (duty of care and remembrance of Spot's F15 CM).
Anyway, it is called "see and avoid". You drive a car without needing someone to over control you - so why should it be any different in a wee plane operating outside CAS ?
I scoot about at low level (below radar cover). Taking off and landing on lochs. It is my freedom. It is a right, just as walking the hills is a right. I don't speak to anyone, I dont use any VORs. I dont need or ask for any service. I would have TCAS, but the bloody fast jets that are the biggest risk don't carry it. AND I pay over £1 for a litre of overtaxed AVGAS, while the airlines pay 10p a litre for untaxed Jet A1.
Am I being unreasonable ?!!
Jack-oh wrote
As far as I was aware the Mode s was going to be a mandatory requirement as is Mode C, I am sure there are going to be loads of people trying to wriggle out of it but this is always the case.
Let me explain.
There are some 10000 private aircraft in the UK and about 1000 commercial. Mode S requirements will force all these owners (I am one) to spend some £4000? on a new piece of electro-kit. Now would someone please explain the benefits to me?
I have just recovered from having to fit an 8.33 Khz spacing radio
(cost minimum £2500) so that I can legally train to fly IFR in Class D. But will we ever actually have 8.33 use below FL150 ? Doubt it. Another burdensome cost, that benefits someone else (the commercial operators in high level sectors).
But doesn't it create a known traffic environment? Well, currently, radar screens are so cluttered in many of the high density areas that it is well nigh impossible to rotate labels fast enough to get a clear picture (and that is if the software hooks the target in the first place). So how impossibly cluttered will that become if every microlight, balloon (beancounter or otherwise) or aeronaut must carry one ? I shudder to think.
And then, you could well get a lot of pissed off aviators thinking - "right if they want to know where I am they can bloody speak to me as well ......" ..... how blocked will all those frequencies become ? How many extra ATCOs/FISOs will need to be employed to 'satisfy the demand'?
Cost? If the benefit is to the commercial operators then GAs loss is their gain. Will GA be compensated for this ?
TCAS - now this is an idea that has possibilities. However, until the fast pointy things are equipped with TCAS it is a pointless exercise (scuse the pun). Look at the Airprox reports. 90% of them involve mil ac.
On the other hand, VFR pilots believe they are being mucked about so much when they ask for a service that they would prefer not to receive one and rely on looking out the window. If this is the case then the system doesn't work and needs to be changed.
Personally I might well put a squawk on a FIS and ask if he could maintain not above X thousand feet. Explain that there is IFR traffic above. If he says no, then fine, he's not obliged. But the RIS/RAS/FIS clarity is only in the minds of those who sit behind desks and write the rules. Get out to a few flying clubs and speak to PPLs. Most are totally bamboozled by the differences.
So, I would suggest that it is actually dangerous to tell someone they are indentified on a FIS. You could lull someone into a false sense of security. Just as now I always remind folk on a RIS that they are responsible for their own terrian clearance. I don't want them to be in any doubt (duty of care and remembrance of Spot's F15 CM).
Anyway, it is called "see and avoid". You drive a car without needing someone to over control you - so why should it be any different in a wee plane operating outside CAS ?
I scoot about at low level (below radar cover). Taking off and landing on lochs. It is my freedom. It is a right, just as walking the hills is a right. I don't speak to anyone, I dont use any VORs. I dont need or ask for any service. I would have TCAS, but the bloody fast jets that are the biggest risk don't carry it. AND I pay over £1 for a litre of overtaxed AVGAS, while the airlines pay 10p a litre for untaxed Jet A1.
Am I being unreasonable ?!!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
"There are some 10000 private aircraft in the UK and about 1000 commercial. Mode S requirements will force all these owners (I am one) to spend some £4000? on a new piece of electro-kit. Now would someone please explain the benefits to me?"
Just think of it as a New Labour idea to be able to TAX the use of the AIR!
Gordon Brown's dream!
Just think of it as a New Labour idea to be able to TAX the use of the AIR!
Gordon Brown's dream!
