"Limited Radar Service" what exactly is it
Acksherly Doc 4444 says a lot more than that; it says you may provide identified traffic with a service very similar to what we presently call RAS/what will be called de-confliction service! The next Para then describes the use of radar in the provision of Air Traffic Advisory Service!!!
So why isn't the UK following Doc 4444 chapter 8 guidance; why in fact did the DAP working group totally ignore this section of Doc 4444 when I pointed it out to them?
(Sorry thread creep)
So why isn't the UK following Doc 4444 chapter 8 guidance; why in fact did the DAP working group totally ignore this section of Doc 4444 when I pointed it out to them?
(Sorry thread creep)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff Chevvron - though I think the way we in the UK provide the three different services is good and provides an unambiguous (I think) differentiation. Unfortunately it does cause confusion when A/C from othwer countries get involved, therefore your suggestions may have some worth
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I acknowledge that some people think that limiting a service is just an exercise in covering the controller's 6, but if you know that the picture is not as good or complete as it should be you need to tell the pilot. If you don't, you are leaving yourself wide open. It is negligent to mis-lead the pilot into thinking that the controller can see everything out there. Getting a radar service does not mean that the controller can protect the pilot from everything. Limiting the service reminds that pilot of that part of the contract you may not be able to fulfill. A lot of pilots do not know what their responsibilities are when in receipt of a radar service, nor the conditions that apply to the service.Similarly, reminding the pilot of his responsibilities with respect to terrain clearance when working at the MSFL or SSA is necessary as a lot of pilots don't know what their responsibilities are!
As for limiting a FIS - total hoop!
JSP 552 235.125.1 FIS is a non-radar service provided, either separately or in conjunction with other services, for the purpose of supplying information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flight. Under a FIS the following conditions apply:
a. Provision of the service includes information about weather, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes and any other information pertinent to safety.
b. 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.
c. Controllers are not responsible for separating or sequencing aircraft.
d. Where a controller suspects, from whatever source, that a flight is in dangerous proximity to another aircraft, a warning is to be issued to the pilot. It is accepted this information may be incomplete and the controller cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy.
As for limiting a FIS - total hoop!
JSP 552 235.125.1 FIS is a non-radar service provided, either separately or in conjunction with other services, for the purpose of supplying information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flight. Under a FIS the following conditions apply:
a. Provision of the service includes information about weather, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes and any other information pertinent to safety.
b. 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.
c. Controllers are not responsible for separating or sequencing aircraft.
d. Where a controller suspects, from whatever source, that a flight is in dangerous proximity to another aircraft, a warning is to be issued to the pilot. It is accepted this information may be incomplete and the controller cannot assume responsibility for its issuance at all times or for its accuracy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Acksherly Doc 4444 says a lot more than that; it says you may provide identified traffic with a service very similar to what we presently call RAS/what will be called de-confliction service! "
That is what they seem to provide in France. An FIS but it's obvious they have you on radar and they give you traffic info with possible avoidance directions as necessary.
Why can't the UK do the same pragmatic approach?
The whole thing seems bound up with tight rules and it also looks like there are rules on whether an ATCO of a certain grade is allowed to see a radar screen.
That is what they seem to provide in France. An FIS but it's obvious they have you on radar and they give you traffic info with possible avoidance directions as necessary.
Why can't the UK do the same pragmatic approach?
The whole thing seems bound up with tight rules and it also looks like there are rules on whether an ATCO of a certain grade is allowed to see a radar screen.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRPilot2006 - if you want a RADAR service in the UK......................don't ask for a FIS - how simple does it have to be?
Regardless of what happens in other countries, we do it our way. Who is right and who is wrong has nothing to do with it - it's laid down in black and white what each service provides, you as an IR pilot should know the services provided and conditions attached to each verbatim.
Start giving someone traffic info when they are on a FIS, and then when you are busy doing something else you omit to give traffic info and an incident happens, sure as eggs are eggs, the pilot will try to hang the controller.
All of the above does not take away a moral obligation that a controller may have if he thinks that staying quiet could be dangerous... i.e. giving traffic info to someone on a FIS is not inherently wrong, if it is deemed that there is a real risk of collision or very near miss (old style phrase), however we are not (or should not be) going to supply you with traffic info on anything that is going to puncture the 3/5 mile bubble!!
As an aside - in France (your example), under a FIS, if they give you avoidance instructions i.e. vectors, who is responsible for terrain clearance?
Regardless of what happens in other countries, we do it our way. Who is right and who is wrong has nothing to do with it - it's laid down in black and white what each service provides, you as an IR pilot should know the services provided and conditions attached to each verbatim.
Start giving someone traffic info when they are on a FIS, and then when you are busy doing something else you omit to give traffic info and an incident happens, sure as eggs are eggs, the pilot will try to hang the controller.
All of the above does not take away a moral obligation that a controller may have if he thinks that staying quiet could be dangerous... i.e. giving traffic info to someone on a FIS is not inherently wrong, if it is deemed that there is a real risk of collision or very near miss (old style phrase), however we are not (or should not be) going to supply you with traffic info on anything that is going to puncture the 3/5 mile bubble!!
As an aside - in France (your example), under a FIS, if they give you avoidance instructions i.e. vectors, who is responsible for terrain clearance?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is normally a VFR flight context, so there is no question about who is reponsible for terrain clearance - the pilot.
As regards asking for RADAR, come on boys you know it isn't that simple. One can get LARS, generally but not always, or a reluctant radar service from somebody else e.g. Thames.
As regards asking for RADAR, come on boys you know it isn't that simple. One can get LARS, generally but not always, or a reluctant radar service from somebody else e.g. Thames.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRPilot2006
We're at the point of going round in circles here, maybe you should visit a unit and they will explain things to you but......
99 times out of 100, LARS is a service that is provided in addition to the main unit task i.e. if the unit has the manpower or capacity to provide it. If they refuse and give a FIS instead, it is usually for a very good reason.
Or would you rather be given a radar service by a controller who is unable to really give 100% to the task due to other commitments?
I am hopefully well off the mark here, but do you think that receiving a radar service means that you do not need to keep a good lookout? That's how it comes across!!
We're at the point of going round in circles here, maybe you should visit a unit and they will explain things to you but......
As regards asking for RADAR, come on boys you know it isn't that simple. One can get LARS, generally but not always, or a reluctant radar service from somebody else e.g. Thames.
Or would you rather be given a radar service by a controller who is unable to really give 100% to the task due to other commitments?
I am hopefully well off the mark here, but do you think that receiving a radar service means that you do not need to keep a good lookout? That's how it comes across!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK one could easily by in IMC in Class G; that's when most pilots would like a RIS. On a VFR flight one can change VFR/IFR at any time as required. Terrain separation is down to the pilot at all times when in Class G.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRPilot2006
I think you are getting yourself confused... in earlier posts you extolled the virutes of the french system whereby you get radar derived traffic info and even avoiding vectors when receiving a FIS (paraphrasing your words from 4 posts ago)
In the UK you can receive a RIS or a RAS regardless of whether your are VMC or IMC... yo ucan have a RAS on a gin clear blue day if you so please, ... if you are a civvy, you need to be IFR to receive a RAS (I believe that's still the case..... I work in class A only now). These rules do not change what the service provides, nor the obligations of either the controller or the pilot.
Regarding terrain separation, we will not provide a RAS (i.e. a service under which we can issue vectors) to A/C flying below specified levels (used to be called radar vectoring charts, might still be), so yes you the pilot are ultimately responsible for terrain separation in class G, but we will not put ourselves in a position in the first place whereby we will vector you into Cumulus Granite-is.
None of what you have said makes any difference - if you want traffic called out to you, you ask for a RIS... if you want advisory headings to provide radar separation, you ask for a RAS. The receipt of either of those services does not negate the pilots responsibility to use the mark one eyeball to look outside as part of his overall scan (unless you are in really thick IMC, when it's a bit disorientating to do so!).
If you are happy looking out the window, and only want updated on major aerial activities, or strange weather phenomena or airfield unserviceabilities etc etc or want to participate in an alerting service - you ask for a FIS.
You can ask for a RIS or a RAS for any reason, a good one may be the fact that due to tasking, you are busy heads-down in the cockpit for longer than usual and are therefore not able to maintain the full lookout that you normally would.
FIS, RIS and RAS are laid down in black and white, they are very simple to follow, I for one do not understand why anyone should get confused.
I think you are getting yourself confused... in earlier posts you extolled the virutes of the french system whereby you get radar derived traffic info and even avoiding vectors when receiving a FIS (paraphrasing your words from 4 posts ago)
In the UK you can receive a RIS or a RAS regardless of whether your are VMC or IMC... yo ucan have a RAS on a gin clear blue day if you so please, ... if you are a civvy, you need to be IFR to receive a RAS (I believe that's still the case..... I work in class A only now). These rules do not change what the service provides, nor the obligations of either the controller or the pilot.
Regarding terrain separation, we will not provide a RAS (i.e. a service under which we can issue vectors) to A/C flying below specified levels (used to be called radar vectoring charts, might still be), so yes you the pilot are ultimately responsible for terrain separation in class G, but we will not put ourselves in a position in the first place whereby we will vector you into Cumulus Granite-is.
None of what you have said makes any difference - if you want traffic called out to you, you ask for a RIS... if you want advisory headings to provide radar separation, you ask for a RAS. The receipt of either of those services does not negate the pilots responsibility to use the mark one eyeball to look outside as part of his overall scan (unless you are in really thick IMC, when it's a bit disorientating to do so!).
If you are happy looking out the window, and only want updated on major aerial activities, or strange weather phenomena or airfield unserviceabilities etc etc or want to participate in an alerting service - you ask for a FIS.
You can ask for a RIS or a RAS for any reason, a good one may be the fact that due to tasking, you are busy heads-down in the cockpit for longer than usual and are therefore not able to maintain the full lookout that you normally would.
FIS, RIS and RAS are laid down in black and white, they are very simple to follow, I for one do not understand why anyone should get confused.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing - absolutely agree. It concerns me just how many pilots do not know what they are asking for when they request a radar service, nor what they can expect from each type of service.
One pilot receiving a RIS from me, on a gin clear day, complained that I had not called a particular contact to him, having already given him traffic information on the four or five contacts I thought were conflicting. (He was flying through a large stream iof gliders on a cross country competition). Having no one else on freq, I then called to him every one of those primary only contacts (about 20), especially the ones that were no confliction. He got the message.
The best (worst?) response I have had to the question "What type of service do you require?" was "Oh, just the usual". He got a FIS. Idiot.
As a footnote, you are correct that RAS is only available if operating IFR.
One pilot receiving a RIS from me, on a gin clear day, complained that I had not called a particular contact to him, having already given him traffic information on the four or five contacts I thought were conflicting. (He was flying through a large stream iof gliders on a cross country competition). Having no one else on freq, I then called to him every one of those primary only contacts (about 20), especially the ones that were no confliction. He got the message.
The best (worst?) response I have had to the question "What type of service do you require?" was "Oh, just the usual". He got a FIS. Idiot.
As a footnote, you are correct that RAS is only available if operating IFR.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ICAO documentation was where the ATSOCAS working group started from. However, the provisions within ICAO allow the full range of options to be provided under the term FIS, including avoiding action. This did not accord with the Statement of User Requirement (SUR) that called for distinct service levels that were clearly defined and constrained. Therefore, it was not possible, practicable or desirable to simply adopt DOC 4444 principles (which are guidance not regulation) within class G in UK airspace. This was briefed and discussed at the Industry Workshop held on 8 May 07 and was agreed that the principle of adopting ICAO in total would not work for the UK.
Following the workshop the working group also considered what was done in other European countries and also the US. It was shown that there was no common standard for the application of services outside controlled airspace within Europe or between Europe and the US. Therefore, whilst the UK could have adopted one of the models, in actual fact it would only have standardised the UK with one other country and in reality none of their models actually answered thre requirements of the SUR.
However, to achieve greater compliance with ICAO the new suite of services will come under the overarching banner of FISs as desccribed in the RIA. Therefore, rather than 'not listen' I think it would fairer to say all avenues identified and suggested were explored, but at the end of day not everything people suggested proved to be pratical or implementable.
Following the workshop the working group also considered what was done in other European countries and also the US. It was shown that there was no common standard for the application of services outside controlled airspace within Europe or between Europe and the US. Therefore, whilst the UK could have adopted one of the models, in actual fact it would only have standardised the UK with one other country and in reality none of their models actually answered thre requirements of the SUR.
However, to achieve greater compliance with ICAO the new suite of services will come under the overarching banner of FISs as desccribed in the RIA. Therefore, rather than 'not listen' I think it would fairer to say all avenues identified and suggested were explored, but at the end of day not everything people suggested proved to be pratical or implementable.
