Calling All Piots Who Fly Outside Of Controlled Airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling All Piots Who Fly Outside Of Controlled Airspace
I am applying for a job position as a Flight Information Service Officer. I have to write a small essay answering the following question, "How do you see the FIR operation in the future and how could it continue to improve safety and reduce infringments?" I would be very gratefull for any ideas of any kind. Any one whos used the service, or didn't use it and infringed or anyone who thinks it can be improved. I would also like to hear from anyone who doesn't know about the service or anyone that wouldn't use it for any reason. I would also be interested to know if a Flight Information service is advertised anywhere in your club. Thanks for your time.
Do we assume that you are referring to an aerodrome-based FIS?
It seems a rather pompous way for an employer to select someone for this sort of position, on the basis of what, in their view, "might be", rather than "what is". I would be sorely tempted to give a "politician's answer" by telling them for a start that they are asking the wrong question. What they really mean to refer to is "operation in Class G airspace"! Also, it presupposes an understanding of all the ATSOCAS, not to mention future airborne collision avoidance systems - all outside the realm of the FISO.
2 s
It seems a rather pompous way for an employer to select someone for this sort of position, on the basis of what, in their view, "might be", rather than "what is". I would be sorely tempted to give a "politician's answer" by telling them for a start that they are asking the wrong question. What they really mean to refer to is "operation in Class G airspace"! Also, it presupposes an understanding of all the ATSOCAS, not to mention future airborne collision avoidance systems - all outside the realm of the FISO.
2 s
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vacancies are for the Flight Information Service Officers position (London Information) at the Swanwick ATC Centre. I would have thought that you could baffle the interviewers as neither of them have FISO (Area) experience. There is an old adage "Bull**** baffles Brains" and in this case it certainly does!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vacancies are for the Flight Information Service Officers position (London Information) at the Swanwick ATC Centre. I would have thought that you could baffle the interviewers as neither of them have FISO (Area) experience. There is an old adage "Bull**** baffles Brains" and in this case it certainly does!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'How could it improve safety and reduce infringements?'
For a start, how about by transferring traffic to more appropriate local ATC units with radar and more pertinent information on local traffic and airspace retsrictions, and able to provide a radar service if needed.
For a start, how about by transferring traffic to more appropriate local ATC units with radar and more pertinent information on local traffic and airspace retsrictions, and able to provide a radar service if needed.
Last edited by Red Four; 5th Nov 2009 at 22:48. Reason: typo
Completely agree with Red Four. Very frustrating to see an "FIR" squawk drifting along within just a few miles of a radar-equipped aerodrome. Really, it's just a smart-@rse question framed inaccurately by people who do not understand the subject. Perhaps they should aquaint themselves with the very limited scope of the Basic Service which has only recently been defined by CAA.
2 s
2 s
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 SHEDS...
Why???.....the whole point of the FIR squawk is indeed to help stop airspace infringements. If the aircraft is happy with a Basic Service from the FIR sector then as a radar controller working inside controlled airspace why should that frustrate you?? If it looks like the squawk is going to infringe your airspace then a quick call to the FIR sector and the aircraft will be transferred to your frequency to stop any possible infringement...
Very frustrating to see an "FIR" squawk drifting along within just a few miles of a radar-equipped aerodrome.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Fisbangwallop. I regularly fly VFR near to CAS talking to FIS or not talking to anybody. If the weather is VMC and I am on a sightseeing trip/pleasure flight why would I want to talk to a radar controller who more often than not will only give me a basic service anyway and less professionally than the London/Scottish FISO.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At no point did red four state that the appropriate radar atc service would be provided by a unit inside controlled airspace. There are plenty of units providing radar services outside of it, which would be able to give said FIR squawker a better service if they are in close proximity.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: From Despair To Nowhere
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revert to the old ATSOCAS system. The new one is crap, and someone I knew who was on the committee that made the original findings these changes were responding to said they are not the changes they expected. What was really needed was better pilot training and an awareness campaign for the old system (FIS, RIS and RAS) not an entirely new system!
Red Four and 2 Sheds are completely right, and when I fly OUTCAS that is how I use the service - I use London/Scottish Info when no service is available from a nearby ATSU that might have more pertinent traffic information. My priority is radar unit, procedural unit then area FIS (or possibly AFIS or A/G operator if I am very close, although that is really a second-box operation).
However fisbang and DC10 indicate the problem. I am a commercial pilot, and often have added responsibilities/liabilities (passengers to you). A lot of private pilots just want to enjoy the flight with minimum interruption from the radio*, minimal changes of frequency, especially pilots who only fly occasionally from small airfields for whom RT does not necessarily flow naturally and quickly.
* Not intended as a criticism - I can understand the feeling, I used to be the same, and everyone who flies for pleasure makes their own judgement to balance risks and enjoyment. Pilots on commercial flights should however be minimising risks as far as reasonable.
Red Four and 2 Sheds are completely right, and when I fly OUTCAS that is how I use the service - I use London/Scottish Info when no service is available from a nearby ATSU that might have more pertinent traffic information. My priority is radar unit, procedural unit then area FIS (or possibly AFIS or A/G operator if I am very close, although that is really a second-box operation).
However fisbang and DC10 indicate the problem. I am a commercial pilot, and often have added responsibilities/liabilities (passengers to you). A lot of private pilots just want to enjoy the flight with minimum interruption from the radio*, minimal changes of frequency, especially pilots who only fly occasionally from small airfields for whom RT does not necessarily flow naturally and quickly.
* Not intended as a criticism - I can understand the feeling, I used to be the same, and everyone who flies for pleasure makes their own judgement to balance risks and enjoyment. Pilots on commercial flights should however be minimising risks as far as reasonable.
Last edited by 12Watt Tim; 6th Nov 2009 at 09:57.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12WattTim
If you fly outcas with passengers that is a different problem - you can't blame your problems or try to foist your way of operating on the GA community who are doing nothing wrong by speaking to a FISO*.
A LARS unit will provide no better service to someone in a puddle jumper who wants a BS - in fact if a LARS unit has a few under a TS or DS, then the BS will be way down the pile - they might not even be given a squawk...
Better that the aircraft is wearing a known squawk so that the ATSU whose airspace is about to be infringed knows who to telephone!
*As a non flyer, I think that some form of CAS protection should be afforded to as many passenger flights as possible, but realise that this is not feasible.
If you fly outcas with passengers that is a different problem - you can't blame your problems or try to foist your way of operating on the GA community who are doing nothing wrong by speaking to a FISO*.
A LARS unit will provide no better service to someone in a puddle jumper who wants a BS - in fact if a LARS unit has a few under a TS or DS, then the BS will be way down the pile - they might not even be given a squawk...
Better that the aircraft is wearing a known squawk so that the ATSU whose airspace is about to be infringed knows who to telephone!
*As a non flyer, I think that some form of CAS protection should be afforded to as many passenger flights as possible, but realise that this is not feasible.
fisbangwollop
As the whole theme of the thread is Class G airspace, that is what I was referring to - proximity to a radar-equipped aerodrome outside CAS.
DC10
How exactly do you justify that slur? Are you aware of the extremely limited nature of the BS?
2 s
Why???.....the whole point of the FIR squawk is indeed to help stop airspace infringements. If the aircraft is happy with a Basic Service from the FIR sector then as a radar controller working inside controlled airspace why should that frustrate you??
DC10
...radar controller who more often than not will only give me a basic service anyway and less professionally than the London/Scottish FISO.
How exactly do you justify that slur? Are you aware of the extremely limited nature of the BS?
2 s
Daft thing is, the Area FISOs at Swanwick have access to a radar display, but it only shows 1177s, every other code is filtered out. But then the FISOs are not ATCOs, so if there was more info, they might get tempted to warn pilots of conflictions in addition to proximity to CAS, and that would never do would it. By the way, the radar display cannot be viewed easily from the 'control' position which the FISOs normally use, thus negating its prime function of 'spotting' infringements.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: From Despair To Nowhere
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
I actually do it even when positioning empty, just good habit for a commercial pilot. However I am not blaming any 'problem' on anyone, or even indicating there is a problem. Nor did I suggest anywhere that anyone is doing anything wrong by talking to a FISO, in fact I specifically said that no criticism was intended. It would be safer if the units I am talking to knew about more local traffic, but I know how private pilots operate, they are perfectly entitled to make that decision, and I take that into account when deciding to fly OUTCAS.
However you are completely wrong to say that a LARS will provide no better service than an area FISO. For a start they should know about all their local traffic, and give pertinent traffic information if they have time to do so (which in my experience they usually do). Even a good procedural controller will do that accurately enough for you to spot most of the known aircraft. If everyone used them when passing they would also know about most of the transit traffic, and could give even more detail. London will give information, but in my experience local airports know about more local traffic than London do, especially on a sunny afternoon when a lot of local training flights go out.
Many LARS also either have a conspicuity squawk for their traffic or issue squawks to traffic even on a basic service (most mil LARS will do so, as will Farnborough, the busiest LARS out there!). Otherwise if you are talking to the nearest airport they are likely to get a speculative call anyway if you are heading to the nearest CTR, so 1177 is no real advantage, especially as a LARS is more likely to notice you approaching controlled airspace than London are. It's just as easy for Essex to call Wattisham or Cambridge as it is for them to call London, despite the last being the same building.
I actually do it even when positioning empty, just good habit for a commercial pilot. However I am not blaming any 'problem' on anyone, or even indicating there is a problem. Nor did I suggest anywhere that anyone is doing anything wrong by talking to a FISO, in fact I specifically said that no criticism was intended. It would be safer if the units I am talking to knew about more local traffic, but I know how private pilots operate, they are perfectly entitled to make that decision, and I take that into account when deciding to fly OUTCAS.
However you are completely wrong to say that a LARS will provide no better service than an area FISO. For a start they should know about all their local traffic, and give pertinent traffic information if they have time to do so (which in my experience they usually do). Even a good procedural controller will do that accurately enough for you to spot most of the known aircraft. If everyone used them when passing they would also know about most of the transit traffic, and could give even more detail. London will give information, but in my experience local airports know about more local traffic than London do, especially on a sunny afternoon when a lot of local training flights go out.
Many LARS also either have a conspicuity squawk for their traffic or issue squawks to traffic even on a basic service (most mil LARS will do so, as will Farnborough, the busiest LARS out there!). Otherwise if you are talking to the nearest airport they are likely to get a speculative call anyway if you are heading to the nearest CTR, so 1177 is no real advantage, especially as a LARS is more likely to notice you approaching controlled airspace than London are. It's just as easy for Essex to call Wattisham or Cambridge as it is for them to call London, despite the last being the same building.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12Watt Tim,
Having flown in the military, then working as a civvy controller (including giving LARS) I do know what LARS units do... when very busy they cannot always update on traffic, the new BS makes it more difficult for them to coordinate traffic, and uinless you can agree a course of action with a pilot under BS, then you have to avoid it anyways!
However my tone of post might have come across wrong - I was trying to get across that there is nothing wrong with a FISO giving a BS as opposed to a LARS unit... better that than not speaking to anyone, as is the right of GA within class G.
I reckon that a lot of GA pilots would rather speak to a FISO than to 'bother' a busy LARS/Approach unit (either due to lack of confidence or misplaced belief that they would be hassling the LARS unit).
As you touched on in another post, education is the key, and always has been. Proper education of the old FIS/RIS/RAS was what we should have had, not a bodged attempt at redefining the services!!
Having flown in the military, then working as a civvy controller (including giving LARS) I do know what LARS units do... when very busy they cannot always update on traffic, the new BS makes it more difficult for them to coordinate traffic, and uinless you can agree a course of action with a pilot under BS, then you have to avoid it anyways!
However my tone of post might have come across wrong - I was trying to get across that there is nothing wrong with a FISO giving a BS as opposed to a LARS unit... better that than not speaking to anyone, as is the right of GA within class G.
I reckon that a lot of GA pilots would rather speak to a FISO than to 'bother' a busy LARS/Approach unit (either due to lack of confidence or misplaced belief that they would be hassling the LARS unit).
As you touched on in another post, education is the key, and always has been. Proper education of the old FIS/RIS/RAS was what we should have had, not a bodged attempt at redefining the services!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
education is the key, and always has been.
I would much prefer these pilots to bummble through my class "G" airspace and come on the frequency to say hello than stay quiet. I believe the more people that use the service the better the service will be. There seem to be too many folk on this forum that try to put down the benefits of the "Basic service". I think if you ask any of my customers about the service they recieve from Scottish the response will only be posative....so come on guys please dont slagg off the BS...and for those that dont think its worth a call next time just give it a go!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot I would suggest you couldn't go far wrong with comparing Scottish FIS and London FIS.
I have never heard a pilot yet up North that doesn't praise Scottish info or advise not to bother with them. Hell if the wx is crap and I want the current ATIS for HIAL airports I give Scottish Info a call from way above 5000ft, 9 times out of ten they seem to have it in front of them (different to what the volmet is saying) they give you that and tell you they will phone the tower for the latest. I wouldn't dream of doing that down south.
London though appears not to have the same broad appeal.
Although Scottish info does seem to be crewed by some right characters (said in the nicest possible way) London in my limited experience also seems to have proactive characters who seem to have a genuine love of the job.
As for the safety and infringements if an aircraft is speaking to the service and another controller spots an issue at least the information service can QSY them to said controller when requested to sort it out.
What's the difference's between the two which mean pilots don't use London when in a similar situation they would use Scottish.
I have never heard a pilot yet up North that doesn't praise Scottish info or advise not to bother with them. Hell if the wx is crap and I want the current ATIS for HIAL airports I give Scottish Info a call from way above 5000ft, 9 times out of ten they seem to have it in front of them (different to what the volmet is saying) they give you that and tell you they will phone the tower for the latest. I wouldn't dream of doing that down south.
London though appears not to have the same broad appeal.
Although Scottish info does seem to be crewed by some right characters (said in the nicest possible way) London in my limited experience also seems to have proactive characters who seem to have a genuine love of the job.
As for the safety and infringements if an aircraft is speaking to the service and another controller spots an issue at least the information service can QSY them to said controller when requested to sort it out.
What's the difference's between the two which mean pilots don't use London when in a similar situation they would use Scottish.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: From Despair To Nowhere
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often been offered weather unsolicited by London if going somewhere not on the VOLMET. I have always received a good service, including evidence that someone is watching the radar (to confirm exact routing, not keep me away from controlled airspace) and good enough information to know another aircraft had an ETO for a beacon exactly the same as mine, with 200 feet altitude difference (yes I saw him!).