bookworm

So I'm sitting there as safety pilot while we practice instrument approaches at an airport outside controlled airspace without radar, as I have done from time to time for the last 15 years. But this is the first such sortie since the ATSOCAS changes in March.

Our clearance to hold is an IFR clearance. Another IFR arrival is inbound from above our level. The controller asks us, "What type of service do you require, Basic or Procedural?" Blank looks between the crew members follow. "Basic" we reply. Then with us in the hold, the other IFR inbound is cleared for the procedure maintaining a level above us, and then, when past us, cleared to descend maintaining VMC through our level (with all the required conditions for that met). We continue to receive what appear to be IFR clearances.

Three intertwined Qs:

1) What separation if any can we expect when carrying out a terminal procedure (hold or IAP) under IFR with a basic service?

2) If, as I expect, the answer to 1 is "none", why was the "descent in VMC" manoeuvre (which I understand to be in lieu of separation) necessary? Couldn't he simply have descended through our level while inbound?

3) What does an IFR clearance to an aircraft on a basic service actually signify these days, given that, OCAS, it has never signified permission, and apparently no longer guarantees separation from other IFR flights?

(Yes, I could have called the ATC unit in question to ask, but I thought I'd pose the question here. And I'm not suggesting that ATC did anything wrong.)

rogervisual

This was a case of incorrectly using the new procedures.


1. If you are at a airfield using that airfields instrument approach/departure procedures
you should be on a Procedural service so as to get separation from other a/c under a procedural service and not on a Basic service.

2. See answer 1

3. You can transit the area IFR under a Basic service but that does not mean you are on a IFR clearance.

A procedural service offers the greatest protection to pilots at a unit that does not have radar.

bross_al

1) on a basic service NO Separation(deconfliction) is provided what flight rules you are under are not taken into account.

2) The only reason was possibly the controller felt he had A Duty of Care not to point two ifr a/c at each other so did slightly more than is actually required of him.

3) by this I think you mean "cleared for the VoR procedure" etc. personally i would use no known traffic for this rather than cleared for.

ross

callum91

I am not very clear about the use of the new ATSOCAS with regard to non-radar approaches. Can an instrument approach be carried out under a Basic Service? If there is an IFR arrival under Procedural Service and an IFR departure and for example, the departure requests only a Basic Service, do they get no separation from the arriving traffic?

NorthSouth

callum91:It only needs one of the two to be on a procedural service for separation to be applied. If the outbound chooses to be on a BS (presumably in order to avoid delays) but there's an inbound on a PS, the outbound will get no benefit because the controler will be applying vertical and/or time/distance separations to keep them clear of the inbound.
My (limited) experience of doing practice IFR approaches at an airfield outside CAS is that the ATSU insists that you remain in VMC. This enables them to, for example, release an IFR outbound and just give traffic info to both parties. Seems to work well although it can mean flying the practice approach (especially the hold join and any holds) can be a little challenging.
I find it hard to understand anyone in the approach environment asking only for a BS unless they are confident they will remain in VMC.
NS

coolbeans

If one is on a procedural and the other on the basic there is nothing to stop the controller launching the basic as there is no requirement to provide separation between procedural and basic aircraft

Only between participating procedural aircraft

If a likelyhood of confliction exists then the controller may pass traffic info

Feels kind of strange though

bookworm

Well that's the way we always used to do it when an IFR inbound needed to cross a practising aircraft's level: maintain VFR, and then the IFR vs IFR separation didn't apply.

But my reading of CAP 774 suggests that separation is only applied PS vs PS, not PS vs BS, as coolbeans says.

To be fair on the ATSU in question, I think it was more a case of a spontaneous realisation that the aircraft that elected to have a Basic service did so in a tone of voice that suggested that the crew did not, at the time, understand the consequences of the decision.

I don't think the inbound was in any way inconvenienced by being held above us temporarily -- the whole thing seemed like good sense. I just wanted to check my understanding of the procedures.

Thanks for the replies.

edinv

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE:
DURING NOTIFIED ATC HR OF SERVICE:-
A PROCEDURAL SERVICE WILL ROUTINELY APPLIED TO IFR FLIGHTS. PILOTS
WILL BE EXPECTED TO ACCEPT LVL,RDL,TR AND TIME ALLOCATIONS THAT MAY
REQUIRE FLIGHT IN IMC. A BASIC SERVICE WILL BE ROUTINELY APPLIED TO
VFR FLIGHTS. A PILOT MAY REQUEST ANOTHER SERVICE IF CONSIDERED MORE
APPROPRIATE.
or
AIR TFC SER OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE PROC:-
PILOTS FILING A VFR FPL OR BOOKING OUT VFR SHALL ENDEAVOUR TO NOTIFY
ATC PRIOR TO DEP IF A DECONFLICTION OR PROCEDURAL SER IS LIKELY TO
BE REQUESTED.
PILOTS FILING AN IFR FPL OR BOOKING OUT IFR SHALL NOTIFY ATC PRIOR
TO DEP IF ANY SER OTHER THAN DECONFLICTION OR PROCEDURAL SER IS
REQUIRED.
THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE PILOTS FM REQUESTING ANY APPROPRIATE SER ONCE
AIRBORNE. - similar.

- Both texts taken from current NOTAMs at some HIAL ATSUs. i.e.
If VFR routinely basic If IFR routinely Procedural ( or Deconfliction with RADAR).

bross_al

"It only needs one of the two to be on a procedural service for separation to be applied. If the outbound chooses to be on a BS (presumably in order to avoid delays) but there's an inbound on a PS, the outbound will get no benefit because the controler will be applying vertical and/or time/distance separations to keep them clear of the inbound."

Not true NO Seperation is provided between Basic and Procedural and yea it feels very strange sometimes. The notams are only for the specific airport, at my unit if you come off or are heading to the advisory you are procedural anyone else is asked what service they want(which is the system as by CAP774 and from conversation with srg inspectors).
And yea you can carry out an instrument approach on a basic service.

rogervisual

This situation smacks of a cop out by the ATC unit involved and relinquishing the duty of care. I would like to know SRG views on it.

coolbeans

I don't follow what your saying, seems to me that the controller took the extra belt and braces approach by giving the descending aircraft a VMC descent against the holding aircraft. Wheres the cop out and relinquishment of DOC

monkeyspunk

This comment smacks of someone who doesn't have a clue about the rules for VMC climb/descent! As a procedural controller myself, I know that trying to separate IFR without any surveillence eqipment can be quite tricky. The controller in this situation could've just sent the ac on a PS outbound for the procedure without having to say anything to the ac on a BS. If one ac is on a PS and one on a BS then, as coolbeans correctly said, the controller did more than was required AND applied a DOC where he didn't have to. I'd like to see what SRG would say about that!

coolbeans

Well done?

monkeyspunk

Exactly mate!

rogervisual

My comments are aimed at the fact the ATCO asked what type of service the pilot wanted whilst he was in the hold(which i take to be part of the instrument procedures for that airport). So there was no requirement to ask the service required as it would be a procedural service as the a/c was using the instrument procedures. This also makes me wonder how long had this a/c been receiving a service and what type service was he in receipt of up till this situation. Which to me (and the collegues on my watch when discussed)gives the impression of a cop out by the ATCO.
Totally agree with coolbeans as regard the belt and braces, but as he said it was unecessary by the book. But the ATCO probably did this as he new his plan to resolve this situation was a fudge. I could understand it if the a/c was asked to leave the hold in order for the pilot to be more flexable in his lookout and getting a BS.

Monkey -procedural control is no trickier now ,than it was 20 years ago when i first started (radar is much more fun)but that is what we are there for .When you get some more experience under your belt you will know what i mean(if anything the new procedures will make it easier) It concerns me that you think the controller could have sent the a/c outbound on PS

One thing we all agree on is that we would like to know what SRG's take on it would be.

bross_al

Got to agree with coolbeans and monkeyspunk, Any aircraft not coming off the adivsory is asked what service they require. You can fly the procedures on a basic service, you can be in the hold on a basic service( both things brought up with SRG inspector before implementation) and the first post does not mention being in the hold when asked what service.

coolbeans

I can sort of see your point rogervisual, if the aircraft was already in the hold then it should probably be assumed it was on a procedural service. If it wasnt then basics fair game.

I dont think it was a cop out though, it sounds to me like the atco was trying to expedite non-training traffic ahead of a trainer and found a safe way to do it (get everyone onto a basic service )

Either way he tacked on a vmc descent so its all good and safe.

Hey Bookworm, why didn't your man just say procedural?

bookworm

I think the question was asked while we were in the hold, but only on the first occasion that it made any difference at all, i.e. when ATC was aware of an IFR inbound that needed to descend through our level. For the rest of the time, there was no other IFR traffic.

I guess because it was a gin clear day and, in the absence of a descent-in-VMC, it would have been a real pain to separate us. As it was the other inbound had an extra 1000 ft to lose in the procedure, and if he'd had to wait to pass an outbound DME fix, the rate of descent required would have been uncomfortable.

rogervisual

Without the full info on this there are a lot of 'ifs' etc. But my general concern on this is that a ATCO could be working a A/C in similar situation
and the pilot may be under the impression of being in receipt of PS and the ATCO decides to ask the pilot what service he wants because he has a separation problem(hoping he says BS) and some pilots may feel pressured to take a BS , when the situation really indicates that a PS would be the best protection for the pilot. I feel the ATCO could be on a sticky wicket as regards to duty of care.

Bross - no argument with SRG approved procedures and as you say it does not say in was in the hold, but is also does not say he was not. The "blank looks" between the crew statement set off the alarm bells if you know what i mean.

Bookworm - maybe you could shed some more light on what you thought you were getting and what caused the blank looks.

rogervisual

Bookworm - sorry typing my post whilst you were posting yours.