Basic Service Outside CAS
Thread Starter
Basic Service Outside CAS
A discussion in the Private Flying part of PPRUNE about ATC services outside CAS got the comment below which is generally as we understand it:
This does raise the question though about what controllers should do when they have two aircraft on the same frequency heading towards one another, one is on a Basic Service and the other on a Traffic or Deconfliction Service?
In fact controllers are specifically forbidden to give a higher level of service than what is requested.
- Tell one that they have traffic same level at 12 o'clock and the other nothing?
- Offer the Basic Service pilot a Traffic service and, if he accepts, tell him his future?
- Other?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If neither are on a deconfliction service tell them about each other; separation is their responsibility. If one is on a deconfliction service then give him advice to avoid the other.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one is on a TS and the other basic:-
* Pass radar derived traffic info to the one on a TS and if you have time or capacity non radar derived traffic info to the one on a basic (not mandatory) and let the pilots decide on a course of action as per their responsibility.
One on a DS and the other a basic.
* As above, but with deconfliction advise to the one on a DS. Its upto the pilot if he/she wishes to take that advice.
It is not the responsiblilty of the ATCO to offer an upgrade in service. Its up to the pilot to know the terms of the service he/she is receiving and has requested, and to request an upgrade if they want one.
I have read the Forum you mention. Its concerning the lack of understanding still about the service provison of ATSOCAS in the UK. Its been in since last March.
I can understand foreign pilots who maybe visit once in a blue moon. But for UK based pilots its laziness (IMHO). As an ATCO I was required to complete a training program and was tested on the new ATSOCAS prior to its implementation. We still have flying instructors and commercial pilots that regularly fly outside that don't understand the service they have asked for.
Sorry soap box moment at the end.
* Pass radar derived traffic info to the one on a TS and if you have time or capacity non radar derived traffic info to the one on a basic (not mandatory) and let the pilots decide on a course of action as per their responsibility.
One on a DS and the other a basic.
* As above, but with deconfliction advise to the one on a DS. Its upto the pilot if he/she wishes to take that advice.
It is not the responsiblilty of the ATCO to offer an upgrade in service. Its up to the pilot to know the terms of the service he/she is receiving and has requested, and to request an upgrade if they want one.
I have read the Forum you mention. Its concerning the lack of understanding still about the service provison of ATSOCAS in the UK. Its been in since last March.
I can understand foreign pilots who maybe visit once in a blue moon. But for UK based pilots its laziness (IMHO). As an ATCO I was required to complete a training program and was tested on the new ATSOCAS prior to its implementation. We still have flying instructors and commercial pilots that regularly fly outside that don't understand the service they have asked for.
Sorry soap box moment at the end.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would pass traffic info to both aircraft and deconfliction advice to the aircraft on a Traffic service.
Even if I was working just the one aircraft and it was on a BS I would pass traffic info if something was headon and similar level (depending on workload). We have a 'duty of care' to prevent collisions.
Even if I was working just the one aircraft and it was on a BS I would pass traffic info if something was headon and similar level (depending on workload). We have a 'duty of care' to prevent collisions.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Happyville
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that this is all a matter of interpretation. If you have 1 TS aircraft with a BS aircraft in their 12 o'clock, but 5 miles away and reciprocal, I'd give traffic information to the TS aircraft then and there. I'd then update this traffic information a short while later, possibly asking the pilot to report visual. If still not visual by ~2miles, I may pass traffic information to the BS aircraft and ask if they are visual with the TS aircraft. This is not really to assist the BS aircraft, but if the BS aircraft if visual with the TS aircraft this may make a difference later on.
If the TS aircraft still has not seen the other aircraft when range is ~1 mile, I'd be thinking about suggesting an avoiding action. This is quite a subjective thing, though; if I thought that there was a risk of collision then I'd definitely pass the suggestion avoiding action. However, if the BS aircraft was visual with my TS aircraft then I'd not bother with the avoiding action suggestion.
As far as Deconfliction vs Basic, then I'd avoid the BS aircraft with the DS aircraft and try to coordinate.
BS vs Bs = give traffic information if I thought there was a definite risk of collision only, subject to my workload. Bit more difficult to offer avoiding action here as identification issues are added to the mix.
Some controllers may do this slightly differently, but this is my interpretation of the Duty of Care mentioned by FBW & Vortex. We have a duty to try and prevent collisions, which is why sometimes pilots will get elements of a service above that which they are in receipt, i.e. traffic infromation to a BS aircraft or deconfliction advice to a TS aircraft. As Barnaby has said, it is not the responsibility of the ATCO to offer an upgrade in service, but where safety is likely to be compromised it is part of the Duty of Care to assist where possible.
All this, of course, is subject to workload (that old chestnut, but very pertinent), and does not absolve the pilots of their ultimate responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft OCAS.
HTH
If the TS aircraft still has not seen the other aircraft when range is ~1 mile, I'd be thinking about suggesting an avoiding action. This is quite a subjective thing, though; if I thought that there was a risk of collision then I'd definitely pass the suggestion avoiding action. However, if the BS aircraft was visual with my TS aircraft then I'd not bother with the avoiding action suggestion.
As far as Deconfliction vs Basic, then I'd avoid the BS aircraft with the DS aircraft and try to coordinate.
BS vs Bs = give traffic information if I thought there was a definite risk of collision only, subject to my workload. Bit more difficult to offer avoiding action here as identification issues are added to the mix.
Some controllers may do this slightly differently, but this is my interpretation of the Duty of Care mentioned by FBW & Vortex. We have a duty to try and prevent collisions, which is why sometimes pilots will get elements of a service above that which they are in receipt, i.e. traffic infromation to a BS aircraft or deconfliction advice to a TS aircraft. As Barnaby has said, it is not the responsibility of the ATCO to offer an upgrade in service, but where safety is likely to be compromised it is part of the Duty of Care to assist where possible.
All this, of course, is subject to workload (that old chestnut, but very pertinent), and does not absolve the pilots of their ultimate responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft OCAS.
HTH
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: somerset
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change of services last year was meant to clarify and delineate the responsibilities of the pilot and the controller when under ATSOCAS. Indeed, the rules laid down are very clear for each service. BUT, some bright spark added the phrase 'duty of care' , muddling the whole thing up again, as we see from different controllers' interpretations of the rules. On asking for clarification of where duty of care lies in the sort of circumstances described above the answer from SRG was 'that would be decided in court' (in the event of a collision, accident etc). Therefore, in order to avoid being the guinea pig in court when some relatives of a dead pilot sue etc etc.... my duty of care extends to using radar derived information to pass traffic to aircraft on a basic service if i believe there is a risk of a collision or very close miss. Simple.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one is on a TS and the other basic:-
* Pass radar derived traffic info to the one on a TS and if you have time or capacity non radar derived traffic info to the one on a basic (not mandatory) and let the pilots decide on a course of action as per their responsibility.
* Pass radar derived traffic info to the one on a TS and if you have time or capacity non radar derived traffic info to the one on a basic (not mandatory) and let the pilots decide on a course of action as per their responsibility.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Middle England, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: the above
I think they may have meant that traffic to aircraft on the DS or TS was given as such "traffic, 12o'clock 5 miles, opposite direction blah blah blah"
And traffic to the other on the basic service "traffic is a PA28 routing A to B, VFR at 2000ft estimating point X at time 12"
I think that's what was meant?
And in response to HD; It's insinuated in the MATS 1 and in the ATSOCAS document and in our unit guide that under no circumstances are we to cloud the pilots' understanding of the specific service being provided by giving confusing and 'contradictory advice/instructions' above and beyond what they are entitled to.
eg; if you're on a basic service, you're not entitled to get any traffic information, but you may get some, if controller feels the need.
The thinking being (I think) is that if a pilot hears a constant barrage of traffic information on a basic service, they'll ask for that service at other units where the traffic info won't be so forthcoming or available.
I don't agree with the rules / procedures / implementation process / continued pilot education. I just have to read the documents, do what I'm told and try not to ruin people's day.
I'm not planning on being the board of enquiry guinea pig either.
I think they may have meant that traffic to aircraft on the DS or TS was given as such "traffic, 12o'clock 5 miles, opposite direction blah blah blah"
And traffic to the other on the basic service "traffic is a PA28 routing A to B, VFR at 2000ft estimating point X at time 12"
I think that's what was meant?
And in response to HD; It's insinuated in the MATS 1 and in the ATSOCAS document and in our unit guide that under no circumstances are we to cloud the pilots' understanding of the specific service being provided by giving confusing and 'contradictory advice/instructions' above and beyond what they are entitled to.
eg; if you're on a basic service, you're not entitled to get any traffic information, but you may get some, if controller feels the need.
The thinking being (I think) is that if a pilot hears a constant barrage of traffic information on a basic service, they'll ask for that service at other units where the traffic info won't be so forthcoming or available.
I don't agree with the rules / procedures / implementation process / continued pilot education. I just have to read the documents, do what I'm told and try not to ruin people's day.
I'm not planning on being the board of enquiry guinea pig either.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok perhaps you mid understand me. Pilots should be absolutely clear about the service they have requested, and what is provided by the ATCO and what is not. Quite often they don't.
At the same time, ATCO's should not imply that an aircraft on a Basic is being monitored on radar and therefore give the pilot a false sense of security.
When I say Radar Derived Traffic, I mean passing traffic as you would to you aircraft on a TS/DS.
For example; Traffic 2 o'clock 6 miles, crossing right to left etc.
If I have the capacity to pass traffic to the Basic Service traffic as well, I would not pass it in that format. I would instead pass it as traffic overhead dinglydell tracking northbound similar level.
That way you do not imply he is being monitored on radar, but he has situational awareness.
The key point is that an aircraft that has requested a Basic service should not expect any traffic information. Or get the impression his flight is being monitored, and therefore reducing his\her lookout.
If aircraft are given timely traffic information, they will normally requested to climb descend or change track to avoid the receprical traffic anyway.
If we go back to giving aircraft a higher service than requested, Ie the old FRISing, the changes implemented may as well be scrapped, because pilots will have a false sense of security.
At the same time, ATCO's should not imply that an aircraft on a Basic is being monitored on radar and therefore give the pilot a false sense of security.
When I say Radar Derived Traffic, I mean passing traffic as you would to you aircraft on a TS/DS.
For example; Traffic 2 o'clock 6 miles, crossing right to left etc.
If I have the capacity to pass traffic to the Basic Service traffic as well, I would not pass it in that format. I would instead pass it as traffic overhead dinglydell tracking northbound similar level.
That way you do not imply he is being monitored on radar, but he has situational awareness.
The key point is that an aircraft that has requested a Basic service should not expect any traffic information. Or get the impression his flight is being monitored, and therefore reducing his\her lookout.
If aircraft are given timely traffic information, they will normally requested to climb descend or change track to avoid the receprical traffic anyway.
If we go back to giving aircraft a higher service than requested, Ie the old FRISing, the changes implemented may as well be scrapped, because pilots will have a false sense of security.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But - there is nothing wrong nor incorrect with passing traffic to a BS aircraft in the form of radar traffic...
There never was under the old services and there isn't now. The problem with the old services was that when quiet/bored ATCOs giving a FIS under LARS etc would give too much info to FIS traffic, thus giving a quasi RIS.
Some pilots also did not understand the services.
The new services will not change this - I bet you any money that 2 or 3 years down the line, some ATCOs will do the same (in the mistaken belief they are providing the best BS they can) and some pilots will still not understand the services.
Re-education, not an overhaul, was what was needed.
Non-radar derived info is just that, information obtained without the use of a radar. Using vague phraseology to a BS aircraft to tell them of conflicting traffic, particularly in the example from the OP, is nonsensical (and pointless - why pass vague position of traffic that is a possible collision risk when you have the precise position) when you have accurate info at hand.
You use the aids you have available. If you have a radar you use it, but you use it correctly i.e. you do not overcontrol/hassle/disturb BS traffic unless you deem there to be a (serious) risk.
Passing traffic in the form
is not the correct implementation of the services.
Using vague RT does not mean you are complying witht the rules under service provision, rather it implies a misunderstanding of the rules, and why they were changed!!!
There never was under the old services and there isn't now. The problem with the old services was that when quiet/bored ATCOs giving a FIS under LARS etc would give too much info to FIS traffic, thus giving a quasi RIS.
Some pilots also did not understand the services.
The new services will not change this - I bet you any money that 2 or 3 years down the line, some ATCOs will do the same (in the mistaken belief they are providing the best BS they can) and some pilots will still not understand the services.
Re-education, not an overhaul, was what was needed.
Non-radar derived info is just that, information obtained without the use of a radar. Using vague phraseology to a BS aircraft to tell them of conflicting traffic, particularly in the example from the OP, is nonsensical (and pointless - why pass vague position of traffic that is a possible collision risk when you have the precise position) when you have accurate info at hand.
You use the aids you have available. If you have a radar you use it, but you use it correctly i.e. you do not overcontrol/hassle/disturb BS traffic unless you deem there to be a (serious) risk.
Passing traffic in the form
And traffic to the other on the basic service "traffic is a PA28 routing A to B, VFR at 2000ft estimating point X at time 12"
Using vague RT does not mean you are complying witht the rules under service provision, rather it implies a misunderstanding of the rules, and why they were changed!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: around
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did i read some where that if 2 a/c were going to pass within 3 miles of each other traffic should be passed depending on controller work load? Even if both aircarft were on basic service? Not sure if I read it or dreamt it though!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing again I think you misunderstand me.
Of course I use the radar to provide the BS traffic accurate traffic. But I would not pass it in the same format as traffic on a TS implying the BS is identified or giving a false sense of 'flight following'
I will however pass the exact position of the 'identified' TS aircraft using known geographical features or exact reporting points, depending on the situation.
If I understand you correctly you pass the BS traffic information in the same format as you would to your TS traffic if you feel a collision may exist. What do you say to that aircraft subsequently?
Is he now on a TS imposed by you? Or do you then reiterate he is on a BS? But he now thinks everytime an aircraft gets close you will warn him in the same way.
What happens next time when your attention is diverted to your surveillance traffic or other priorities, and the guy on the BS has a close one or worse a collision, because his lookout was diminished by a false sense of security?
That is my point. And the reason why it's important pilots understand the service they have requested and that service provision is not blurred. That can be achieved as well as providing the best service to all users.
Otherwise if you work in an area with limited available lateral or vertical space you are going to be very busy, or you might as well give everyone a reduced
Traffic service in the first place.
By the way I think your !!!! is sticking.
Of course I use the radar to provide the BS traffic accurate traffic. But I would not pass it in the same format as traffic on a TS implying the BS is identified or giving a false sense of 'flight following'
I will however pass the exact position of the 'identified' TS aircraft using known geographical features or exact reporting points, depending on the situation.
If I understand you correctly you pass the BS traffic information in the same format as you would to your TS traffic if you feel a collision may exist. What do you say to that aircraft subsequently?
Is he now on a TS imposed by you? Or do you then reiterate he is on a BS? But he now thinks everytime an aircraft gets close you will warn him in the same way.
What happens next time when your attention is diverted to your surveillance traffic or other priorities, and the guy on the BS has a close one or worse a collision, because his lookout was diminished by a false sense of security?
That is my point. And the reason why it's important pilots understand the service they have requested and that service provision is not blurred. That can be achieved as well as providing the best service to all users.
Otherwise if you work in an area with limited available lateral or vertical space you are going to be very busy, or you might as well give everyone a reduced
Traffic service in the first place.
By the way I think your !!!! is sticking.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnaby
I honestly think you are over analysing the rules and adapting them to do what you think they mean...
MATS part 1 states (and stated a very similar thing under the old services) that:
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
You ask:
Nothing - point 1 and 2 cover this above. The agreement (accord) between a pilot an controller state the service. Subsequent actions by the controller do not, again as it states in MATS part 1, imply a new level of service unless that new agreement/accord is stipulated.
No, because you don't have to if you look at MATS part 1. As ATCOs we have to give pilots some credit for being able to understand the rules, unless they give us cause to believe otherwise.
But he now thinks every time an aircraft gets close you will warn him in the same way.
Your belief or interpretation only. Not MATS part 1. Again we cannot jump into the cockpit and fly the aircraft for the pilot, we have to assume, unless we have indications otherwise, that a pilot understands the implications of the service provision... it is part of the requirements of the PPL.
MATS Part 1 specifically states that the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance in class F and G airspace. On top of that, again, I refer you to the above about pilots understanding of services - a requirement before they are licensed to fly solo.
And the reason why it's important pilots understand the service they have requested and that service provision is not blurred
100% correct. That's the whole idea behind the agreement or accord reached when you ask and read back the service at the beginning of the relationship. MATS part 1 is very clear on what you can and cannot do.
I do realise that you think that by what you are doing you are helping pilots by not confusing them... however it is at odds with MATS part 1, and it is interpreting the rules as you think they should be.
The reason that the rules were changed in the first place was, in part, because ATCOs had their own interpretation.
The fact that this is happening already goes to prove my point that re-education of the old services, not a half baked overhaul and re-naming, was what was needed.
We have to assume that a licensed pilot understands the rules that he/she is flying under. The majority will. MATS Part 1 is very clear on what we can do under a BS and is very clear about the contract between pilot and ATCO. There is no need to over analyse it - that's how it became a mess in the first place.
(And not even a ! in sight on this post)
I honestly think you are over analysing the rules and adapting them to do what you think they mean...
MATS part 1 states (and stated a very similar thing under the old services) that:
1.
Agreement to provide and acknowledgement of that level of service is an accord...
2.
Controllers may utilise ATS surveillance system derived information in the provision of a basic service
3.
A controller may identify an aircraft to facilitate coordination or assist in the provision of generic navigational assistance, but is not required to inform the pilot that identification has taken place.
3.
Identification of an aircraft in receipt of a BS does not imply that an increased level of service is being provided or that any subsequent monitoring will take place.
4.
A controller with access to surveillance derived information shall avoid routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft… However if a controller/FISO considers a definite risk of collision exists, a warning may be issued to the pilot…
You ask:
If I understand you correctly you pass the BS traffic information in the same format as you would to your TS traffic if you feel a collision may exist. What do you say to that aircraft subsequently?
Or do you then reiterate he is on a BS?
But he now thinks every time an aircraft gets close you will warn him in the same way.
What happens next time when your attention is diverted to your surveillance traffic or other priorities, and the guy on the BS has a close one or worse a collision, because his lookout was diminished by a false sense of security?
And the reason why it's important pilots understand the service they have requested and that service provision is not blurred
I do realise that you think that by what you are doing you are helping pilots by not confusing them... however it is at odds with MATS part 1, and it is interpreting the rules as you think they should be.
The reason that the rules were changed in the first place was, in part, because ATCOs had their own interpretation.
The fact that this is happening already goes to prove my point that re-education of the old services, not a half baked overhaul and re-naming, was what was needed.
We have to assume that a licensed pilot understands the rules that he/she is flying under. The majority will. MATS Part 1 is very clear on what we can do under a BS and is very clear about the contract between pilot and ATCO. There is no need to over analyse it - that's how it became a mess in the first place.
(And not even a ! in sight on this post
)Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key point is that an aircraft that has requested a Basic service should not expect any traffic information. Or get the impression his flight is being monitored, and therefore reducing his\her lookout.
No matter how you slice this or interpret this, this is the achilles heel of this system. There seems to be zero need for BS. Either remove it, or upgrade it so BS = TS.