Procedural vs Basic Service

[bookworm]

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

To add to the other stuff, in this case, had we not been asked about type of service, we probably would have offered to maintain VFR as in the old days when IFR vs IFR separation was mandatory and automatic. We were genuinely confused about the separation provided at the time, hence my post, but if there had been any safety issue, we would have asked.

While I agree that a Procedural Service should be the default, I think that the ability to offer a Basic Service is a useful flexibility.

[monkeyspunk]

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

Rogervisual - Sorry I should have made myself more clear. I don't think it's right to just send someone outbound on a PS wihtout due regard for other traffic around. I was simply stating he could under the current rules and regulations.

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.

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.

Yes, maybe the controller had put himself in a position where he was hoping the crew would say BS rather than PS because of the complexity of the situation, economic factors with holding ac and the associated fuel usage etc, but at least he had another trick up his sleeve to be 'belt and braces'. As the MATS 1 says, nothing in there prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative. And yes i do agree that the pilots should have never been in any doubt as to the service they were under. If they were both on a PS then the old '5 mins flying time from holding ac' separation would have probably been more prudent(ommitting economic factors). Or, as bookworm stated, 'good VMC we'll go VFR' then just tfc info. You're right though, without the full facts it's hard to determine the right course of action and all of this is just supposition, but to me it sounds like the controller concerned did his job safely.

I had a (sort of) similar situation yesterday. Helicopter on photographic detail at 2000' 5NM West on a BS, AC on PS outbound to the West descending 2500' to 1500'. Now according to the rules, I didn't NEED to tell them about each other BUT I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night if i just let it ride. Apart from that, i'm sure SRG would enjoy the bonfire party with my licence sat on top as the Guy!

P.S - I don't profess to know everything from my 11 years of controlling but even when I have 20 yrs plus under my belt, in this situation, I would still say he did ok!

[2 sheds]

Now according to the rules, I didn't NEED to tell them about each other

CAP774 Re Procedural Service...
"The controller shall provide traffic information, if it is considered that a confliction may
exist, on aircraft being provided with a Basic Service and those where traffic
information has been passed by another ATS unit; however, there is no requirement
for deconfliction advice to be passed..."

[rogervisual]

As more details came to light on this situation its not quite the bad situation as i initially thought, that being said a BS service whilst using instument procedures
is open for misuse and a very slippy slope if not correctly managed i believe

Economics has never influenced my decision to the extent i have fudged it to solve a ATC problem. As the book says "safe, expeditous flow of air traffic" etc. Safe comes before expeditous for a reason and there is no pilot out there who will come to the subsequent inquiry if you fudge and it all goes pear shape to defend you because you were saving him fuel.