Obeying requests when on a FIS

[NorthSouth]

I spend quite a lot of my time flying under a FIS from a military LARS unit. From time to time we get commercial IFRs descending over the top of us, both of us in Class G, with the IFR generally under a RAS. When that happens some controllers ask us to operate "not above x thousand" so they can descend the IFR to x + 1. I always accede to those requests but if I was on the flightdeck of that airliner I think I might have a slight doubt about the dependability of the separation, given that (a) I am still under a FIS, (b) I have no transponder, (c) I have not been radar-identified, (d) I am in an area which they frequently refer to as "an area of poor radar performance" and (e) I am under no obligation to stick to whatever I might have said I would do since I am operating VFR in Class G under a FIS.

Comments anyone?

[ayrprox]

If you are VFR in class g then my understanding is that you should not be being given seperation anyway as we seperate participating IFR not IFR vs VFR, and that (and i am ready to be corrected on this as i'm no expert) the controller by asking you to fly not above is ensuring more seperation than he requires (duty of care etc). my thinking is that all the controller is required to do is pass traffic info to both of you and let you maintain your own seperation, as your intentions are not guaranteed.
Regarding the having no obligation bit, as you have no mode c the controller is relying on you to maintain the bargain you made of not above such and such, and if you are no longer able or willing to stick to it then it would be a coutesy to tell him/her so that they can inform the other aircraft of your last known intentions.
A controller can only go on the info they are given.

[tescoapp]

Sounds like a certain Highland Airport.

You don't have to do anything Lxxxx say you have to do while operating under a FIS. They can't give you any clearances vectored, not above, not below (which really is taking the piss with VFR traffic).

They can request that you tell them your maximum operating level or that you inform them before changing level but thats it.

To be honest its pretty dangerous operating under the inbound AR at a level that they are happy with for seperation from the inbound IFR traffic. You have to be sub 500ft agl over a featureless peat bog for 3-4 miles with no chance if you donk goes. And your right in the slot for coming head to head with a tornado who is trying to avoid speaking to them and sneaking round the back to get to the bombing range.

Next question is why are they seperating VFR traffic from IFR in class G anyway? As soon as you are QSY to the twr you won't be seperated from them and you won't be seperated at the weekend.

And in answer to your question the pilots who operate in that area regularly have there heads out the window as much as possible in VMC. And it is nearly always safer to do a visual app than an instrument where you won't have any protection at all. one pair of eyes will need to be inside flying the procedure instead of two sets outside flying the approach and watching for traffic.

I heard rumours there is controlled air space on the cards with a civi controller. The seperation instructions will change to normal which civi pilots know and understand and which comply with normal rules of the air and air space classifications.

tescoapp

[rodan]

If you are VFR in class g then my understanding is that you should not be being given seperation anyway as we seperate participating IFR not IFR vs VFR

All true, but if the IFR traffic that is conflicting with you is under RAS, then there is the requirement to essentially provide vectors and levels that resolve the confliction. Quite often I'll ask a VFR a/c if they are able to maintain 'not above' a certain level or follow a particular route for the purposes of making this conflict resolution easier, and no-one ever complains. Before anyone goes off on an 'I'm VFR, I can go where I like' rant, the operative words in my last sentence are ask and able. If you can't/don't want to, fine. If you can and don't mind, what's the problem? We rely on the goodwill of VFR pilots in such situations, and more often than not receive it.

[NorthSouth]

The last time this happened to me I was asked my altitude (which was something like 3500) and then asked to fly not above 2000 till advised. I agreed and started the descent rapido. In the meantime they asked my heading, gave me a turn for identification, but never told me I was identified, and in doing all this I had effectively stopped teaching so my student was paying for us to fly in a straight line for no purpose other than to save the airliner maybe 20 or 30 seconds of flight time.

To be honest I'd far rather have been given traffic info on the IFR then I could have judged for myself the best way of keeping out of his way horizontally and would have had useful cues for acquiring him visually - I could then have reported him visual and the controller would then have been able to get him through without the requirement for 5nm separation - "ABC123 traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles 500 feet below working this unit has you visual" or something of the sort.

[rodan]

That is a pretty restrictive request, a descent of 1500'. Normally I'd ask an aircraft to stay below the level it's already at. But I have to ask, if you didn't want to do it, why did you agree to it? We aren't mind-readers, and we do appreciate that you are trying to achieve certain objectives from your flight too.

'Negative, unable. Request position of the traffic please, I'll see if I can get visual contact' perhaps? Or an offer to take up a different track?

[Spitoon]

So far on this thread the facts stated all appear correct - the opinions and interpretations I'm less sure about.

If you are VFR in Class G and a controller (whether in uniform or not) asks you if you could please do x or y, you can say yes and do it or say you'd rather not, thank you. If you say you'll do it please keep your side of the bargain or tell the controller that you've changed your mind, and if you say no it's always nice to give a brief explanation why.

Be careful of making assumptions. If the controller asks you to turn it's not necessarily to identify you (although I admit there's not much other reason for the request). If you are not told that you are under a radar service ... then you're not getting any sort of radar service.

Speaking as a controller, taking big aeroplanes through Class G is an interesting task and involves careful interpretation of the rules if everyone is going to get the best deal that they can. No separation is required twixt VFR and IFR but the big aeroplane is often under a service where the controller has to make sure it stays away from other radar targets (VFR, IFR , talking to the controller or not talking, day or night ... you get the picture). But there's a balance to be found. If the controller tries to identify every aircraft that talks to him/her, the workload increases significantly for relatively little benefit.

FWIW using fly not above etc. if the aircraft is not identified sounds a bit iffy.

[Pie Man]

I could then have reported him visual and the controller would then have been able to get him through without the requirement for 5nm separation - "ABC123 traffic in your 2 o'clock 3 miles 500 feet below working this unit has you visual" or something of the sort.

NS

It's not quiet that simple, you reporting visual with traffic does not absolve the controller from getting standard separation under RAS - if the IFR traffic is visual and happy to continue that's a different matter. One problem is that it may be a gin clear day but some companies insist on RAS in the open FIR.

Regards

Pie

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

............. another problem is that some companies flatly refuse to provide a RAS.

[Evil J]

I must admit that the situation at the certain Highland Airport is ridiculous. To the point now that even though I am an ATCO and sympathise with the problems that the certain Mil unit has they do take the pee a lot of the time.

Transiting south of the range once I was aked (by the range) my altitude, to which I think I said 3.2A or similar, was then transfered back to tp the LARS freq, meantime I had climbed to 4.2 to avoid a ridge by a little more and was bo@*cked by the LARS unit for apparantly going above "my cleared level". To which I replied that no such level was imposed nor would it have been accepted had they tried to iompose one!!

Similarly going north one afternoon, VFR quite high I was TOLD "not below x altitiude" do range traffic inbound. To which I replied that most of Scotland was closed to allow protection of the Mil traffic, I was staying out of the closed airpspace they should stay inside the closed airspace as that's what its for <i know I'm probably gonna get some stick for that one but I was visual with the FJ traffic>

i know as an ATCO that you need to engender the good will of GA pilots in the FIR if you want/need their help and I'm afraid when I "turn poacher" up there they have lost my good will by consistent inappropriate controlling-IMHO anyway.

The civvie radar and CAS can't come soon enough

[M609]

When are you UK chaps going to get a proper airscpace stucture? There are countless treads about this topic here, all give hints about ATC having to deal with to much IFR traffic in class G.

Your mil boys manage to operate in CAS just fine when they are abroad, maybe they should try it at home?

[NorthSouth]

rodan: "if you didn't want to do it, why did you agree to it?"
Fair point. Only airing it on here with hindsight really. My general disposition is to say yes to these requests because I don't want to deliberately make life more difficult for people. But in this particular case I think if I'd known in advance how it was going to work I'd probably have suggested that I maintain my altitude but "remain east of xxxx" or something.

Spitoon: "If you say you'll do it please keep your side of the bargain or tell the controller that you've changed your mind, and if you say no it's always nice to give a brief explanation why"
Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that, having said "roger not above 2000ft till advised" I would then decide 'sod it let's climb to 5000' - even if I did tell the controller that's what I was doing. I was really just mulling over the uncertainties that might spring into the mind of the IFR flight crew.
"If the controller asks you to turn it's not necessarily to identify you". In this case he said "for identification turn right 30 degrees". Not sure if it's different in the RAF but my normal experience when radar-identified on a FIS from a civil controller is that the controller tells you you're "identified Flight Information Service".

Pie Man: looking again at the rules, I had to remind myself that MATS Part 1 says purpose of RAS is "to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service", so even if the other traffic is on a RIS from same unit the separation would still have to be 5nm/3000' - or does RIS count as part of "the advisory service"? And the only difference between separation from other RAS traffic and other RIS traffic would be that you can apply 1000ft vertical separation in the former case?
Looking back again at my incident, it would appear that the controller was applying 3000ft vertical separation. I don't recall hearing what he descended the IFR to but 5000 would have been acceptable for his descent profile at that point.

Evil J: different airport and LARS unit, but the other week a colleague of mine was told on first contact with said unit "avoiding action hard right turn multiple departures from XXXX remain clear of XXXX airspace". This was after initial call requesting FIS and MATZ penetration. He may have been squawking 7000 and may have been the only such traffic around but it sounded like panic to me.

I would be the first to accept that as civil pilots working VHF we only ever get to hear less than half of the radio picture with a mil LARS unit - indeed that's part of the problem - but it's difficult to reconcile the times when (a) we hear not a cheep out of ATC and get all kinds of FJs, Hercs etc above and below us with (b) the times we're ordered to do this that and the next thing while flying VFR in Class G on a FIS, for reasons that are not too clear.

As regards range traffic, much of the difficulty you're talking about is due to the fact that range danger areas were for the most part drawn up many years ago and simply aren't large enough to encompass all the range patterns and inbound target runs.

Again, in general I prefer the service I get from civil radar controllers where they will make clear you're on a FIS but will give you very accurate traffic info based on radar, to the military who tend to give no traffic info but will ask you to do all sorts of things to keep out of the way of their traffic without telling you where it is.

[Pie Man]

civil radar controllers where they will make clear you're on a FIS but will give you very accurate traffic info based on radar

If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RIS. The very reason RAF controlers don't tell you are identified is because a FIS is (and I quote) 'a non-radar service provided, either separately or in conjunction with other services' and further down the page ' The controller may attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only. Such identification does not imply that a radar service is being provided or that the controller will continuously monitor the flight. Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service.'

"to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service"

The controller also needs to avoid traffic that is not participating in the advisory service unless co-ordination has been obtained. With co-ordination/agreement of pilot separation can be reduced to 1000ft and in some cases 500ft for military controllers.

he descended the IFR to but 5000 would have been acceptable for his descent profile at that point

Did you see the IFR traffic and are you current on the type? If not can you be sure what was acceptable to another pilot?

Regards

Pie

[Chilli Monster]

If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RIS. The very reason RAF controlers don't tell you are identified is because a FIS is (and I quote) 'a non-radar service

Nothing to stop him giving 'non-radar' traffic information if he feels it might aid the aircrafts safety because of the proximity. It's called providing a service to the customer

"avoiding action hard right turn multiple departures from XXXX remain clear of XXXX airspace". This was after initial call requesting FIS and MATZ penetration. He may have been squawking 7000 and may have been the only such traffic around but it sounded like panic to me.

Ouch! Panic is probably the nicest thing you can call it. He gives a turn to an aircraft, not positively identified,not on a radar service, without knowing whether the aircraft captain is qualified to take that turn that could possibly have put him IMC.

Wants by shooting if you ask me

[NorthSouth]

pm:

If you want accurate traffic information based on radar you should ask for a RIS

But if you're given it without asking should you say "no thanks I'm going to ignore that because I didn't ask for it"?

Pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service

Indeed, which is why "identified Flight Information Service" fits the bill quite nicely. You know you're not getting a radar service but you also know that the controller has the additional tool of your radar position to assist with traffic info. Doesn't stop you from looking out the window. Good case in point today. Just left the zone on a FIS from XXXX. They called "traffic in your 2 o'clock SE-bound indicating 2500 ft unverified". Actually that traffic was in our 1030 - although of course there may also have been tfc in our 2 o'clock which we didn't see. I spotted the 1030 just as the call came in and I was directing my attention to 2 o'clock. Then again that begs your question pieman. Would the call have been more accurate (i.e 10/11 o'clock instead of 2) if I had been under a RIS? I doubt it. The other thing this unit is very good at is, just before you leave CAS they'll tell you how busy the adjoining airspace looks - "be advised multiple contacts in the xxxx area". Very handy.

[jack-oh]

This is not new ground, but highlights the problem we have with RAS, RIS and FIS here in the uk. These services have served us well over a number of years but were written for a different age. Now that SSR is commonplace and ac are fitted with TCAS, the requirement to identify one ac and then provide that service in an unknown radar environment with primary radar blips appearing and disappearing has had its day. Now ac are fitted with SSR and can indicate to all radar units their flight rules and levels without even speaking to them an update of the service is desperately needed. The problem is compounded by commercial aircraft wanting a RAS despite the prevailing weather conditions. For example a military ac only asks for RAS as it descends or climbs through cloud, almost immediately requesting RIS when it is once again VMC, a RAS in these circumstances is a valuable tool. Equally, when the weather is poor and a military ac is on a radar recovery it will ask for RAS. The weather in such circumstances is usually to poor for other ac to fly VFR and therefore the service works. However, commercial ac will ask for RAS in gin clear weather when there are lots of VFR ac around and this is were all the problems occur.

As stated earlier under RAS the controller will pass advice necessary to maintain separation between participating ac (it doesn't say what type of participating ac just all of them) or advice necessary to maintain standard separation between unknown ac. This causes problems in the open FIR as controllers would much rather seek to co-ordinate rather than avoid as it is in the best interest of all parties.

As I work at the highland radar unit that seems to be getting all the flak, I would like to put your minds at rest on some of the issues. Commercial ac that only have advisory routes to fly on want to stick to these like glue. They are their only defence against military ac who do there best (sometimes) to avoid them. Once they come off an advisory route they are in uncharted waters and we much prefer to keep them in their comfort zone, especially as some of them are carrying up to 300 passengers. Because of this we try and co-ordinate rather than avoid and thus take them off route. If you are under a service from us, we may request that you fly not above an altitude so that we can affect co-ordination between you and the commercial ac so that 1000ft separation may be achieved. In all cases, this is a request and you are not duty bound to comply. A great deal of controller training revolves around terrain separation and instructions or request to fly not above levels. If you cannot comply with any of our requests, then say so. If for example we ask you if you could fly not above 3000ft and you can’t, you can always come back and say that you can fly not above 5000ft, in that way I can descend an ac above you to 6000ft. In all such cases you must be identified for the co-ordination to be effected, this does not mean that the controller will necessarily tell you that you are identified, this will depend on the type of service that you have asked for. All requested height restrictions should be cancelled once they are no longer valid.

It is interesting to note that the problems highlighted all revolve around civil ac both CA and GA most of the military ac are not a factor. It is also worth noting that we have received no end of thanks from the CA fraternity for the service we provide and there hasn't been a serious incident since the service started.

To re-cap the rules under which we operate don’t allow for IFR/VFR interaction only separation from all ac. These rules are both civil and military. However, I am aware there are differing interpretations. In all events, these need to be looked at again, and soon.
Requests to fly not above or not below altitudes are just that, requests. However if you say you can then please comply. If you have any burning issues then we are only a phone call away and would like to hear from you.

[NorthSouth]

Good post jack-oh - PPRuNe at its best! Incidentally any comments I made weren't about your unit.

Are you perhaps being a little premature in believing SSR and TCAS make the current RAS provisions outdated? 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. So you'll still have primary-onlies - probably fewer, granted, but enough to make you think "now is that an aircraft or isn't it?" Plus there seems to be no let-up in the number of airlines who want to fly into airports with no CAS, so they'll still need the highest form of protection, which is RAS.

[desked atco]

Ok - held my tongue for long enough!

Re avoidance of unknown non participating traffic - MATS Part 1 and the Mil JSP552 both state that the controller "shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction" Therefore, if there is no agreement with the VFR pilot, the controller MUST attempt to achieve standard separation (5nms or 3000ft in Class G). This is standard practice for military controllers - are we saying that our civilian colleages choose to ignore this MATS Part 1 definition?

Actually achieving standard separation without negotiating with the multitude of FIS aircraft on frequency can be close to imposible at times. Therefore it is only sensible that some form of WORKABLE agreement is made with FIS aircraft on frequency that may have been identified but not told as such. The procedures to follow in agreeing coordination with a pilot under FIS are clearly and sensibly stated in mil JSP552

Overcontrol of FIS aircraft is a key issue and it sounds like North South has been on the receiving end of this. Of course we have an obligation under FIS to warn of 'aircraft in dangerous proximity' (try to define that exactly - another good topic for discussion!) But we must not turn FIS into RIS and blur the services.

Airspace is a problem - but more importantly, how can a certain Highland 'International' airport justify operating IFR in Class G airspace without search radar?

[Razors Edge]

I'd just like to point out that it's not the Airport which operates IFR, but rather the Aircraft .

[Spitoon]

how can a certain Highland 'International' airport justify operating IFR in Class G airspace without search radar?

Procedurally.