IFR on a RIS
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a small point
if the callsign is xxx radar then thay have a radar, and therefore provide radar services
if the callsign is xxx approach - then they don't and would be providing a procedural service - and therefore could not provide a RIS
louby
if the callsign is xxx radar then thay have a radar, and therefore provide radar services
if the callsign is xxx approach - then they don't and would be providing a procedural service - and therefore could not provide a RIS
louby
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Class G airspace what does IFR mean anyway??
That the pilot is flying quadrantals and according to the minimum height rule. Nothing really technical there and nowhere does it imply that separation is not the pilots responsibility. I thought that was what uncontrolled airspace was about?
I don't recall anywhere in the MATS pt one saying there are any standard separations to be applied in Class G airspace unless the aircraft are under a RAS.
So IFR...RIS...does not make any odds...we pass traffic...pilot takes responsibility for seeing and avoiding. Just cos they are IFR does not mean they may not be VMC..and in most cases the pilot will advise...sorry we are IMC when you pass traffic (which defeats the purpose of asking for a RIS anyway).
I would be happy in court with that aswell...the pilots should know what they are asking for when they request ATSOCA..and RAS is the only one that requires controller separation.
As a question....how many PPLs know the difference between the FIS, RIS and RAS.
Also what difference to a controller should IFR or VFR make outside controlled airspace?
That the pilot is flying quadrantals and according to the minimum height rule. Nothing really technical there and nowhere does it imply that separation is not the pilots responsibility. I thought that was what uncontrolled airspace was about?
I don't recall anywhere in the MATS pt one saying there are any standard separations to be applied in Class G airspace unless the aircraft are under a RAS.
So IFR...RIS...does not make any odds...we pass traffic...pilot takes responsibility for seeing and avoiding. Just cos they are IFR does not mean they may not be VMC..and in most cases the pilot will advise...sorry we are IMC when you pass traffic (which defeats the purpose of asking for a RIS anyway).
I would be happy in court with that aswell...the pilots should know what they are asking for when they request ATSOCA..and RAS is the only one that requires controller separation.
As a question....how many PPLs know the difference between the FIS, RIS and RAS.
Also what difference to a controller should IFR or VFR make outside controlled airspace?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and gents
Do we really think that the drivers be they PPLs or ATPLs know the difference between “ XXX RADAR good afternoon” and XXX APPROACH good afternoon, NO
Hand on heart do we all change the words from XXX RADAR to XXX Approach depending on wheather a Spam can local or a Giant Jet inbound
Do we really think that the drivers be they PPLs or ATPLs know the difference between “ XXX RADAR good afternoon” and XXX APPROACH good afternoon, NO
Hand on heart do we all change the words from XXX RADAR to XXX Approach depending on wheather a Spam can local or a Giant Jet inbound
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand on heart do we all change the words from XXX RADAR to XXX Approach depending on wheather a Spam can local or a Giant Jet inbound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rodan
Fair enough, but therefore what type of service are you providing to a VFR local if on first call you identify yourself as RADAR
especially if the driver thinks as he goes IMC/IFR "it ok RADAR is watching me
Fair enough, but therefore what type of service are you providing to a VFR local if on first call you identify yourself as RADAR
especially if the driver thinks as he goes IMC/IFR "it ok RADAR is watching me
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of the suffix 'radar' would generally denote the availibility of the service, but then you've got the potential that pilots assume they're in receipt of a radar service, Part 1 warns about this specifically.
Married a Canadian...I'm guessing you've never worked outside CAS?
MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3 says....
1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise
specified, between:
...
g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;
The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.
Married a Canadian...I'm guessing you've never worked outside CAS?
MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3 says....
1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise
specified, between:
...
g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;
The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocean 1 0:
OK, I'm not being funny here, but I am giving them whatever service they request.
Like I said, not being funny, and I'm with you on the glaring incongruity within MATS 1 re. separation of IFR when providing a RIS.
OK, I'm not being funny here, but I am giving them whatever service they request.
Like I said, not being funny, and I'm with you on the glaring incongruity within MATS 1 re. separation of IFR when providing a RIS.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATS Part 3
and then:
You seem to be saying two different things here. All flights regardless of flight conditions are IFR at night outside CAS in the UK. Ergo, need to be separated if being given an Approach Service. But then you say that if IFR then regardless of the type of service being provided by an Approach Control Unit (as per MATS Part 1), separation must be provided to (IFR) flight. Your first statement refers to an 'Approach Control service', your second to any kind of service (which surely includes FIS and ALR) being provided by that kind of unit.
As you say:
At my Unit, we have recently got around the night IFR issue by using this bit: -
1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace 1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA...
The Aerodrome Operator (i.e. me!) has determined that we won't provide an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating in VMC at night, solely by refernce to the surface...i.e. the night rating, 'VFR at night' brigade.
1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace 1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA...
The Aerodrome Operator (i.e. me!) has determined that we won't provide an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating in VMC at night, solely by refernce to the surface...i.e. the night rating, 'VFR at night' brigade.
MATS Pt 1 S1 Ch 3 says.... 1 Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided, unless otherwise specified, between: ... g) IFR flights in Class G airspace being provided with a service by an approach control unit;
The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.
The type of service you're providing doesn't matter...if they're IFR, you still have to separate.
As you say:
Wouldn't want to test it in court!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR on a RIS
As AlanM says these three words in MATS pt 1 may be relevant here
unless otherwise specified .
RIS/FIS requested - I don't require separation.
RAS requested - please separate me.
Ras does require separation from other IFR traffic, whether RIS or FIS, which normally can be done by asking the RIS/FIS a max/min level, or to report before making a turn toward the RAS. Making sure, of course that traffic info is passed
unless otherwise specified .
RIS/FIS requested - I don't require separation.
RAS requested - please separate me.
Ras does require separation from other IFR traffic, whether RIS or FIS, which normally can be done by asking the RIS/FIS a max/min level, or to report before making a turn toward the RAS. Making sure, of course that traffic info is passed
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Radar
I know, I know!!! We're talking about 2 different scenarios here though.
1. Just because you don't have to separate on a RIS, doesn't absolve you from your obligations to separate IFR flights. End of story.
2. The night thing is different. It's always been that way, and no-one's ever bothered to do anything about it, probably because SRG don't do validations outside office hours, ergo at night. Fact is, it's impossible to apply the Part 1 in Class G at night. In this litigious society, it concerned me that my ATCO's couldn't apply 'the rules' and were, therfore, exposing themselves to potential problems in the event of an airprox or worse. (didn't this happen at Oxford, and the ATCO was criticised?) So, in consultation with SRG, we developed a Special Separation Standard in our MATS Part 2, and agreed it with the Authority. Co-incidently, the hard copy is in my Inspector's inbox as we speak, having been verbally agreed a few months ago. All being well, we'll be applying it later this week.
The point I was trying to make is that Aerodrome Operators have the option to 'determine' which aircraft they provide an Approach service to: -
S3 Ch 1
1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace
1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA....
This useful 'get out of jail card' offers, what I hope is an appropriate level of protection in our particular night scenario and could, potentially, be expanded to incorporate RIS tracks.
Hell, I'd like to see it expanded to Aerodrome as well...something along the lines of 'thou shall not provide a service to circuit bashers'
I know, I know!!! We're talking about 2 different scenarios here though.
1. Just because you don't have to separate on a RIS, doesn't absolve you from your obligations to separate IFR flights. End of story.
2. The night thing is different. It's always been that way, and no-one's ever bothered to do anything about it, probably because SRG don't do validations outside office hours, ergo at night. Fact is, it's impossible to apply the Part 1 in Class G at night. In this litigious society, it concerned me that my ATCO's couldn't apply 'the rules' and were, therfore, exposing themselves to potential problems in the event of an airprox or worse. (didn't this happen at Oxford, and the ATCO was criticised?) So, in consultation with SRG, we developed a Special Separation Standard in our MATS Part 2, and agreed it with the Authority. Co-incidently, the hard copy is in my Inspector's inbox as we speak, having been verbally agreed a few months ago. All being well, we'll be applying it later this week.
The point I was trying to make is that Aerodrome Operators have the option to 'determine' which aircraft they provide an Approach service to: -
S3 Ch 1
1.4 Outside Controlled Airspace
1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA....
This useful 'get out of jail card' offers, what I hope is an appropriate level of protection in our particular night scenario and could, potentially, be expanded to incorporate RIS tracks.
Hell, I'd like to see it expanded to Aerodrome as well...something along the lines of 'thou shall not provide a service to circuit bashers'
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATS PT 3
Afraid I worked Thames which is Class G city..and gets referred to as the Dustbin of air traffic as that is where all the crap gets chucked..IFR VFR..RAS..RIS FIS..RCS the lot.
And as MR Moss has mentioned it got a wee bit difficult with the restrictions of the TMA above Thames airspace and the amount of unknown traffic in the FIR coupled to our inbounds into City and BIggin
As our primary task was to sequence City and Biggin Inbounds I wasn't overly worried what flight rules someone was flying outside controlled airspace IF they asked for a RIS.
RAS is a different ball game I agree...and aircraft under an approach control service I will agree with you. But for aircraft receiving basic Atsoca...If I was controlling two IFR aircraft under a RIS I would not consider it my responsibility to separate them. Otherwise we might as well change the requirements for providing the service.
If someone called up flying IFR asking for a FIS would you take it upon yourself to separate them from other aircraft?
Afraid I worked Thames which is Class G city..and gets referred to as the Dustbin of air traffic as that is where all the crap gets chucked..IFR VFR..RAS..RIS FIS..RCS the lot.
And as MR Moss has mentioned it got a wee bit difficult with the restrictions of the TMA above Thames airspace and the amount of unknown traffic in the FIR coupled to our inbounds into City and BIggin
As our primary task was to sequence City and Biggin Inbounds I wasn't overly worried what flight rules someone was flying outside controlled airspace IF they asked for a RIS.
RAS is a different ball game I agree...and aircraft under an approach control service I will agree with you. But for aircraft receiving basic Atsoca...If I was controlling two IFR aircraft under a RIS I would not consider it my responsibility to separate them. Otherwise we might as well change the requirements for providing the service.
If someone called up flying IFR asking for a FIS would you take it upon yourself to separate them from other aircraft?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone called up flying IFR asking for a FIS would you take it upon yourself to separate them from other aircraft?
By the book, I don't have any choice. As an Approach Control Unit (with, or without Radar), I have to separate known IFRs. Given that Thames isn't, specifically associated with a particular aerodrome, it could be a bit different, but probably not when it comes to court!!
By the book, I don't have any choice. As an Approach Control Unit (with, or without Radar), I have to separate known IFRs. Given that Thames isn't, specifically associated with a particular aerodrome, it could be a bit different, but probably not when it comes to court!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying that if 4 IFR aircraft outside CAS were just transitting the area - and I was very busy with my IFR traffic inside CAS you would expect me to separate them all? (And to open another can of worms - Thames only has two levels inside CAS 3000ft and 4000 ft with inbounds on a silent handover at 4000ft and outbounds thrown on a heading to miss at 4000 ft - so are you saying that 3000 ft cannot be used against the IFR outside CAS at 2400ft underneath?)
The Thames area of responisbility outside CAS is East of the Battersea Heliport North-South line and inside the M25. Not a lot of airspace and all capped at 2500 ft.
Given that the only IFR safe level is 2300ft , and the Heathrow to Gatwick zones are about 10 miles apart (and you can't vector the RIS's unless on tactical vectors for the ILS) how would you separate them? Suggest they turn to the unknown traffic?
As an aside pt3 - are you at a LARS unit?
The Thames area of responisbility outside CAS is East of the Battersea Heliport North-South line and inside the M25. Not a lot of airspace and all capped at 2500 ft.
Given that the only IFR safe level is 2300ft , and the Heathrow to Gatwick zones are about 10 miles apart (and you can't vector the RIS's unless on tactical vectors for the ILS) how would you separate them? Suggest they turn to the unknown traffic?
As an aside pt3 - are you at a LARS unit?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATSPt3... It's interesting the differing interpretations this raises, but IMHO I believe you are interpretting the rules too literally? If you are providing an Approach Service, then I agree you should separate participating IFR traffic on Approach (no question)...
As for separating ALL IFR traffic in unregulated airspace, when the traffic has no mandate to call you, that's probably impossible? How can you guarantee separation? You don't know the flight rules the unknown traffic is operating under, and more importantly you don't know its intentions (a VFR pilot may be happy with a close pass at much less than standard ATC separation)
So, if I am providing RIS to an IFR flight I will NOT give a vector or climb/descent instruction that will put the aircraft into confliction with other known traffic (unless, exceptionally, the pilot indicates (s)he is happy to continue).... But against unknown traffic, I will only pass traffic information for the following reasons:
IAW the definition of RIS, I am not obliged to separate aircraft and I feel strongly we should not apply our own spin to the rules (if it worries you, by passing traffic info you have met your duty of care obligation)...
The IFR flight may be in VMC or if not, feel able to take their own separation from other aircraft...
If the pilot requires separation or avoiding action (s)he simply has to request an upgrade to RAS...
There is no obligation in Class G for IFR traffic to receive or remain under a service, as long as the pilot applies and basic Rules of the Air for the prevention of collisions and can comply with IFR.
Maybe the original scenario was too vague... Were both aircraft known, were both aircraft IFR, were both on approach or was one, or both, transitting?
Without that information, when we set the scenario in out own airspace against local procedures, the answers are very likely to sound contradictory.
As for separating ALL IFR traffic in unregulated airspace, when the traffic has no mandate to call you, that's probably impossible? How can you guarantee separation? You don't know the flight rules the unknown traffic is operating under, and more importantly you don't know its intentions (a VFR pilot may be happy with a close pass at much less than standard ATC separation)
So, if I am providing RIS to an IFR flight I will NOT give a vector or climb/descent instruction that will put the aircraft into confliction with other known traffic (unless, exceptionally, the pilot indicates (s)he is happy to continue).... But against unknown traffic, I will only pass traffic information for the following reasons:
IAW the definition of RIS, I am not obliged to separate aircraft and I feel strongly we should not apply our own spin to the rules (if it worries you, by passing traffic info you have met your duty of care obligation)...
The IFR flight may be in VMC or if not, feel able to take their own separation from other aircraft...
If the pilot requires separation or avoiding action (s)he simply has to request an upgrade to RAS...
There is no obligation in Class G for IFR traffic to receive or remain under a service, as long as the pilot applies and basic Rules of the Air for the prevention of collisions and can comply with IFR.
Maybe the original scenario was too vague... Were both aircraft known, were both aircraft IFR, were both on approach or was one, or both, transitting?
Without that information, when we set the scenario in out own airspace against local procedures, the answers are very likely to sound contradictory.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA
A/C departs on a local flight (in marginal weather) and when asked FLIGHT RULES replies IFR, when asked Service required replies RIS which is given.
In the way is an IFR transit that is also on a RIS.
Traffic info given at appropriate time but a/c come within 2nm and 700ft. Transit a/c ( which has TCAS) not happy" I am IFR" etc so says he will file.
This is the scenario, answers on a postcard.
We are not talking about separating unknown from known.( dont do that on RIS)
Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.
Looks like most say yes MATS pt 3 says no.
How do we get a definitive answer?
A/C departs on a local flight (in marginal weather) and when asked FLIGHT RULES replies IFR, when asked Service required replies RIS which is given.
In the way is an IFR transit that is also on a RIS.
Traffic info given at appropriate time but a/c come within 2nm and 700ft. Transit a/c ( which has TCAS) not happy" I am IFR" etc so says he will file.
This is the scenario, answers on a postcard.
We are not talking about separating unknown from known.( dont do that on RIS)
Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.
Looks like most say yes MATS pt 3 says no.
How do we get a definitive answer?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocean Wun Zero
Traffic that is IFR in poor vis and then asks for a RIS does not understand provisos of service.
Therefore when I am in court I get my lawyer to stand up and grill the professional pilot on the provisions of Atsoca and what it entails and why they asked for a particular service if they did not know what MY duty of care was. If they are not happy with 2 miles and 700ft with traffic info passed when THEY asked for the RIS then that is not my problem.
It is not my job to second guess pilots and tell them what service they require outside controlled airspace. And an aircraft departing from an airfield outside controlled airspace....when does he cease to be under the Approach control service. If he is transitting to an airfield 40-50 miles away and I can work him that far....is he under APC the whole way in class G??
We have to be careful not to over control. Class G is called UNcontrolled airspace for a reason.
Traffic that is IFR in poor vis and then asks for a RIS does not understand provisos of service.
Therefore when I am in court I get my lawyer to stand up and grill the professional pilot on the provisions of Atsoca and what it entails and why they asked for a particular service if they did not know what MY duty of care was. If they are not happy with 2 miles and 700ft with traffic info passed when THEY asked for the RIS then that is not my problem.
It is not my job to second guess pilots and tell them what service they require outside controlled airspace. And an aircraft departing from an airfield outside controlled airspace....when does he cease to be under the Approach control service. If he is transitting to an airfield 40-50 miles away and I can work him that far....is he under APC the whole way in class G??
We have to be careful not to over control. Class G is called UNcontrolled airspace for a reason.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married A Canadian asks 'when does he cease to be under the Approach control service?'
MATS Pt 1 again:
...shall provide approach control service from time & place at which :
b)Departing aircraft are taken over from ADI until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach controluntil they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive as serviceor are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
Both these aircraft would seem then be requiring such a service.
Ocean 10 says:
Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.
I agree with MATS Pt3.
There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?)
What service did your transitter originally request? RIS/RAS/FIS?
Also, if I knew weather was marginal or IFR and I had a departure to go, then I would be expecting the departure to suddenly be requiring some sort of separation in a hurry from the transitter (who I already knew to be IFR).
Until SRG actually give more guidance on how Approach units outside CAS are to apply the rules in practise, it remains somewhat open to interpretation. Luckily? I understand ATSOCAS are under review at present, but whether this will make it easier for radar ATCOs to apply... who knows.
4
MATS Pt 1 again:
...shall provide approach control service from time & place at which :
b)Departing aircraft are taken over from ADI until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach controluntil they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive as serviceor are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
Both these aircraft would seem then be requiring such a service.
Ocean 10 says:
Basic question is do the rules of RIS supersede the requirement to separate Tfc IFR.
I agree with MATS Pt3.
There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?)
What service did your transitter originally request? RIS/RAS/FIS?
Also, if I knew weather was marginal or IFR and I had a departure to go, then I would be expecting the departure to suddenly be requiring some sort of separation in a hurry from the transitter (who I already knew to be IFR).
Until SRG actually give more guidance on how Approach units outside CAS are to apply the rules in practise, it remains somewhat open to interpretation. Luckily? I understand ATSOCAS are under review at present, but whether this will make it easier for radar ATCOs to apply... who knows.
4
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Four states:
"There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?) "
However there is something in the Part 1 which states that under a RIS:
"The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot."
So if we do separate 2 IFR's under a RIS by using vectors, are we going against the Part 1?
Confused? You and me both!
My take on it, if they request a RIS, they don't want separation to be the responsibility of ATC, otherwise they would have requested a RAS.
"There is not anything in MATS 1 to say that a RIS being provided negates the need to apply the basic separation requirement of Approach Control provisions (assuming you are at a unit providing Approach control services?) "
However there is something in the Part 1 which states that under a RIS:
"The controller may provide radar vectors for the purpose of tactical planning or at the request of the pilot. However, vectors shall not be provided to maintain separation from other aircraft, which remains the responsibility of the pilot."
So if we do separate 2 IFR's under a RIS by using vectors, are we going against the Part 1?
Confused? You and me both!
My take on it, if they request a RIS, they don't want separation to be the responsibility of ATC, otherwise they would have requested a RAS.
Traffic that is IFR in poor vis and then asks for a RIS does not understand provisos of service.
What is important is that the pilot under a RIS is able to decide (and subsequently knows) whether or not he is separated from known IFR traffic, in other words the standard provisions of an approach control service.
While it's helpful in some circumstances to be able to decline such an ACS, the default should be to separate, just as it would be for a unit with no radar, when the pilot "places herself under the control" of the unit.