(UK) Etiquette on service termination
Moderator
Thread Starter
(UK) Etiquette on service termination
Hi chaps,
I don't come in the ATC lounge very often, but I hope you'll forgve me barging in to ask a question.
I was on an average sized (~90minute) trip across the UK, VFR, in a single-pilot single at ~1500ft QNH (so below MSA, and around 1100ft agl). Weather and visibility started to deteriorate, so I asked the service working me, who I'd just joined, if they'd be happy for me to climb to an IFR level and upgrade from a basic to traffic service IFR. They were, and provided an excellent traffic service for which I was extremely grateful - certainly enhancing the safety of the flight as I was mostly in IMC, but at-the least now able to climb above MSA which I couldn't whilst maintaining VFR, and also there was certainly other traffic around - very little of which I saw.
40 miles or so further on, as I came towards the end of their area, in IMC, I got:-
"G-nn, service terminates, squawk 7000, suggest freecall xxxxxx for traffic information". (I may have the wording slightly wrong, but that's the gist.)
This was a bit of an irritant when already working fairly hard single-pilot IFR in IMC, in fairly crowded airspace, and preceded by no warning. At the very best, this was going to create an interruption in traffic information.
As the simplest solution and guessing correctly that the weather below me had improved somewhat I asked to stay with them until I'd descended back into VMC and then could return to VFR - which fortunately I could just before I descended below MSA. However, to my simple pilot's mind it was a tad unsatisfactory.
It seems to me that there were at-least three better ways ATC could have handled this...
(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.
Possibly I'm being a little precious about this and certainly should have had a bit more of a prior plan about my next frequency - but knowing what it does to both a controller's workload and mine, deliberately climbing IFR into IMC was a deliberate safety decision (rather than stooging around low level VFR in marginal VMC below MSA as I had been earlier), and having that decision cancelled out leaving me with increased workload and reduced safety information at no notice, was mildly stressful.
Any thoughts from anybody who either controls IFR traffic, or has a lot more IFR experience than my fairly minimal 40 hours or so? Was this reasonable? Should I have declined the cancellation initially and asked for a handover? Can I even legitimately do that?
G
I don't come in the ATC lounge very often, but I hope you'll forgve me barging in to ask a question.
I was on an average sized (~90minute) trip across the UK, VFR, in a single-pilot single at ~1500ft QNH (so below MSA, and around 1100ft agl). Weather and visibility started to deteriorate, so I asked the service working me, who I'd just joined, if they'd be happy for me to climb to an IFR level and upgrade from a basic to traffic service IFR. They were, and provided an excellent traffic service for which I was extremely grateful - certainly enhancing the safety of the flight as I was mostly in IMC, but at-the least now able to climb above MSA which I couldn't whilst maintaining VFR, and also there was certainly other traffic around - very little of which I saw.
40 miles or so further on, as I came towards the end of their area, in IMC, I got:-
"G-nn, service terminates, squawk 7000, suggest freecall xxxxxx for traffic information". (I may have the wording slightly wrong, but that's the gist.)
This was a bit of an irritant when already working fairly hard single-pilot IFR in IMC, in fairly crowded airspace, and preceded by no warning. At the very best, this was going to create an interruption in traffic information.
As the simplest solution and guessing correctly that the weather below me had improved somewhat I asked to stay with them until I'd descended back into VMC and then could return to VFR - which fortunately I could just before I descended below MSA. However, to my simple pilot's mind it was a tad unsatisfactory.
It seems to me that there were at-least three better ways ATC could have handled this...
(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.
Possibly I'm being a little precious about this and certainly should have had a bit more of a prior plan about my next frequency - but knowing what it does to both a controller's workload and mine, deliberately climbing IFR into IMC was a deliberate safety decision (rather than stooging around low level VFR in marginal VMC below MSA as I had been earlier), and having that decision cancelled out leaving me with increased workload and reduced safety information at no notice, was mildly stressful.
Any thoughts from anybody who either controls IFR traffic, or has a lot more IFR experience than my fairly minimal 40 hours or so? Was this reasonable? Should I have declined the cancellation initially and asked for a handover? Can I even legitimately do that?
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Genghis, the fact that you requested "traffic service" imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given; if the conditions were such that this was not possible then a "deconfliction service" might have been more appropriate. Controllers are specifically advised not to offer or provide a service beyond that requested by the pilot so that the descriptive boundaries of each type of service do not become blurred......the exception being a clear and present risk [such as collision]. I think your post is a good read....thank you for that......but actually you have virtually answered all the points yourself! If you need a better description of services look up CAP 774.
rgds.
rgds.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Poland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably pilots should be specifically advised to request an appropriate service as well...
You guys at UK make things much too complicated. ICAO rules are simple - airspace classification is clear and everybody knows what to expect. I'd always wanted to ask you - what is the reason that you provide an air traffic control in some uncontrolled airspace etc?
You guys at UK make things much too complicated. ICAO rules are simple - airspace classification is clear and everybody knows what to expect. I'd always wanted to ask you - what is the reason that you provide an air traffic control in some uncontrolled airspace etc?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Genghis,
From a pilot's point of view, I'm not sure why you are surprised or upset about this. From the tone of your post I assume you don't climb into IMC very often.
The service you received is what you can expect as the norm in UK but you got 40 miles worth of cover from a non-LARS ATC unit. I'd say that's pretty good going.
We are required to "Squawk 7000 and go to your en-route frequency" on a regular/routine basis in IMC, in Class G.
Sometimes there is no radar cover further along track and no-one to be handed over to. That's just the way it is; thankfully we have TCAS.
Not ideal, I'd agree. Your other option was a 180 degree turn, avoiding IMC of course....
From a pilot's point of view, I'm not sure why you are surprised or upset about this. From the tone of your post I assume you don't climb into IMC very often.
The service you received is what you can expect as the norm in UK but you got 40 miles worth of cover from a non-LARS ATC unit. I'd say that's pretty good going.
We are required to "Squawk 7000 and go to your en-route frequency" on a regular/routine basis in IMC, in Class G.
Sometimes there is no radar cover further along track and no-one to be handed over to. That's just the way it is; thankfully we have TCAS.
Not ideal, I'd agree. Your other option was a 180 degree turn, avoiding IMC of course....
Last edited by ShyTorque; 19th Aug 2012 at 18:43.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there were at-least three better ways ATC could have handled this...
(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.
(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.
1) That's not always possible for a number of reasons eg where I work, at weekends, we are one of the few LARS units operating, in fact we cover from the south coast (Lyme Bay direction) all the way up to Herefordshire, and if you track from Seaton (pvt strip) to Barton say, there are no units to handover to who will provide a LARS. We can only provide radar services to a prescribed limit, ours is to 42.5nm. Outside that radar services must terminate.
2) We're not required to do this, so we don't (well, some may, but not all). I see nothing wrong in what the ATCO did.
3) Ditto.
Begs the question, how was the ATCO to know you were still in IMC? And what exactly do you propose he or she does about it? There is a reason why we can only work to a set limit, who's fault would it have been if you had been receiving a radar service ie TS outside this limit, in IMC and had bumped into something? The authorities would have been going after the ATCO for doing so, and why, just because you think they should have still been providing a Traffic Service?
I know this isn't a fashionable view among all, but here goes, GA traffic gets a fairly good deal in the UK as far as I can see, but still the Air Traffic community gets complaints because the system isn't perfect. Perhaps you could, through some GA body, lobby the CAA to pay units more money to make it feasible so that every radar equipped unit can afford to offer a LARS function while they are open, then you would have better coverage. Oh, and look at my answer to a pilot a few days ago re co-ordinating onwards with other units, not always feasible.
Last edited by Standard Noise; 19th Aug 2012 at 19:24. Reason: Because I'm an ATCO with spelling issues, not a walking version of the fecking OED.
Moderator
Thread Starter
From a pilot's point of view, I'm not sure why you are surprised or upset about this. From the tone of your post I assume you don't climb into IMC very often.
Yes, I found the circumstance uncomfortable, but I'm trying to enhance my understanding - and very much appreciate the responses I'm getting. I'm being careful not to argue my corner, I'm trying to learn here and am quite willing to accept that my understanding is lacking, which is why I've asked.
The lesssons I'm getting here seem to be
(a) that I need to understand the air traffic services better
(b) that I need to be thinking ahead better towards the next service I'm seeking.
(c) that I have to accept such a service termination, and be prepared for it.
But I'm more than happy to do more thinking, and more learning, and thanks for your time informing me.
I do however think I was right to climb into IMC above MSA and above anybody else down there rather than stooge around in marginal visibility at low level, and yes the service I got was excellent. It's the service termination that I'm really trying to understand.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From now on G you need to plan your Flight IFR and take it as a bonus if you do it in VMC.
So to start with you will have to work out what ATC services are available on your route and what they can give you.
Actually when you are in the clouds thats when your safe, hasn't been a mid air in IMC for over 50 years.
Once you get your head round IFR and your going places not sightseeing its better to bang up into IMC icing permitting to get away from all the VFR planes.
Always presume you are going to get dumped by the controller you are speaking to and have the next agency lined up in your mind ASAP after sorting things out with the current one. After a while you will know the ones that will give you a service and which ones will tell you to poke off with a basic.
So to start with you will have to work out what ATC services are available on your route and what they can give you.
Actually when you are in the clouds thats when your safe, hasn't been a mid air in IMC for over 50 years.
Once you get your head round IFR and your going places not sightseeing its better to bang up into IMC icing permitting to get away from all the VFR planes.
Always presume you are going to get dumped by the controller you are speaking to and have the next agency lined up in your mind ASAP after sorting things out with the current one. After a while you will know the ones that will give you a service and which ones will tell you to poke off with a basic.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Mad Jock, I concur.
Genghis, my "bread and butter" UK flights, which are usually Class G transits, sometimes beginning or ending in other classes of airspace, often require letdowns into private landing sites, and are always planned to be flown as in IMC for transit. Why? Because, unless held back by fog or icing conditions, we are expected to go.
Having flown for a living in UK since 1977, in a variety of roles, I've seen LARS rise and fall from nothing. Unfortunately, these days, there are large areas of UK without the cover we had only a very few years ago. For example, "Cottesmore Zone" was the most recent to go and has left a big gap in busy airspace. East Midlands controllers try to help out but cannot be expected to take on a task for which they are not paid for.
My point being, ATC are stretched. If a non-LARS unit agrees to give a radar service at all, treat it as a bonus but don't expect a handover, too. We cannot expect a premier service from a shoestring setup. I say that without meaning to be at all demeaning to ATC.
All part of life's sweet tapestry, as my old Boss used to say.
Genghis, my "bread and butter" UK flights, which are usually Class G transits, sometimes beginning or ending in other classes of airspace, often require letdowns into private landing sites, and are always planned to be flown as in IMC for transit. Why? Because, unless held back by fog or icing conditions, we are expected to go.
Having flown for a living in UK since 1977, in a variety of roles, I've seen LARS rise and fall from nothing. Unfortunately, these days, there are large areas of UK without the cover we had only a very few years ago. For example, "Cottesmore Zone" was the most recent to go and has left a big gap in busy airspace. East Midlands controllers try to help out but cannot be expected to take on a task for which they are not paid for.
My point being, ATC are stretched. If a non-LARS unit agrees to give a radar service at all, treat it as a bonus but don't expect a handover, too. We cannot expect a premier service from a shoestring setup. I say that without meaning to be at all demeaning to ATC.
All part of life's sweet tapestry, as my old Boss used to say.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of radar handovers, sometimes when the receiving controller is busy he/she will instruct the controller attempting the handover to "freecall it". Some controllers prefer it like that rather than receive the handover over the phone whilst planes are constantly chirping away in his/her other ear. I certainly agree a freecall can be just as speedy providing your dealing with switched on pilots who give the pertinent details in a concise manner on first call!... So sometimes when you get "dumped" like that it's not to say we haven't tried handing you over, it's just sometimes more appropriate to freecall you over.
Being inexperienced I can understand why you would feel uncomfortable, but the fact you got in to the sky expecting a seamless radar service whilst flying low level, outside control airspace is a little naive. At least you now know to plan a bit more on which units to talk to for your next IFR flight.
Being inexperienced I can understand why you would feel uncomfortable, but the fact you got in to the sky expecting a seamless radar service whilst flying low level, outside control airspace is a little naive. At least you now know to plan a bit more on which units to talk to for your next IFR flight.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CENSORED
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really complicated
Samotnik,
Why is the UK anymore complicated than ICAO? Outside of controlled airspace the pilot requests the type of service they require, a service isn't forced on them (outside of controlled airspace) so they know exactly what to expect.
Sly
Why is the UK anymore complicated than ICAO? Outside of controlled airspace the pilot requests the type of service they require, a service isn't forced on them (outside of controlled airspace) so they know exactly what to expect.
Sly
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis' flight sounds a lot like the sort of sortie profile that I am quite familiar with where you stooge around at low level and have all the frequencies for enroute radar providers in the event that the weather goes punk and you have to pull out of low level and continue along your route IMC at Safety Alt in receipt of a radar service until you can either get a vectored descent into VMC low level or until the cloud goes away. 
At no point after a low level abort has any controller ever just dumped me out in the cold. Especially if you say that you've just pulled out of LL.
Clearly I have a lack of knowledge of Radar procedures as well as I was unaware that "traffic service imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given". If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS.
Fire away!
At no point after a low level abort has any controller ever just dumped me out in the cold. Especially if you say that you've just pulled out of LL.
Clearly I have a lack of knowledge of Radar procedures as well as I was unaware that "traffic service imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given". If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS.
Fire away!
Last edited by kharmael; 20th Aug 2012 at 14:48.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Clearly I have a lack of knowledge of Radar procedures as well as I was unaware that "traffic service imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given". If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS
Indeed, I virtually have never asked for a traffic / radar-information service if I have got good visibility as I consider it unnecessary and adding to controller workload for no good reason. So far as I know, the same is true of most other GA pilots - we ask for traffic information only if visibility is poor/nil.
G
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a browse of CAP 774 Chapter 3 (Traffic Service) and I can't seem to find anywhere stating that I should have 'visual references' to avoid traffic. I am happy to have it pointed out to me as I would prefer to have the facts. It does seem bizarre to be IMC but have 'visual references'...? 
I am loathed to use a deconfliction service unless I am really maxed out and don't have somewhere to be. If there is any traffic around it really messes up one's routing!
Also as Genghis said, if it's VMC then I see no need for a radar service!
I am loathed to use a deconfliction service unless I am really maxed out and don't have somewhere to be. If there is any traffic around it really messes up one's routing!
Also as Genghis said, if it's VMC then I see no need for a radar service!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a Traffic Service in respect to deconfliction:
(my bold)
How would you do that if you are IMC?
Whether traffic information has been passed or not, a pilot is expected to discharge
his collision avoidance responsibility without assistance from the controller. If after
receiving traffic information, a pilot requires deconfliction advice, an upgrade to
Deconfliction Service shall be requested. The controller shall make all reasonable
endeavours to accommodate this request as soon as practicable and provide
deconfliction advice at the earliest opportunity.
When providing headings/levels for the purpose of positioning and/or
sequencing or as navigational assistance, the controller should take into
account traffic in the immediate vicinity, so that a risk of collision is not
knowingly introduced by the instructions passed. However, the controller is not
required to achieve defined deconfliction minima.
his collision avoidance responsibility without assistance from the controller. If after
receiving traffic information, a pilot requires deconfliction advice, an upgrade to
Deconfliction Service shall be requested. The controller shall make all reasonable
endeavours to accommodate this request as soon as practicable and provide
deconfliction advice at the earliest opportunity.
When providing headings/levels for the purpose of positioning and/or
sequencing or as navigational assistance, the controller should take into
account traffic in the immediate vicinity, so that a risk of collision is not
knowingly introduced by the instructions passed. However, the controller is not
required to achieve defined deconfliction minima.
How would you do that if you are IMC?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because when the controller tells me what traffic is about I would have an idea where everything is relative to me and my routing in my head and whether it's going to be a factor or not. So if the traffic is in my way or poses a confliction I will know what direction to turn or if it all gets too much I can ask for a suggested heading or upgrade to deconfliction service.
Moreover, what's the point in having a radar service OCAS when it's gin clear outside?
Moreover, what's the point in having a radar service OCAS when it's gin clear outside?
Last edited by kharmael; 20th Aug 2012 at 15:55.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kharmael
I will re-quote the first part of what I bolded from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf Section 1 Chapter 11 4.6.1:
Agreed though about there should be no need for a radar service OCAS in CAVOK (or equivalent) for GA.
I will re-quote the first part of what I bolded from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf Section 1 Chapter 11 4.6.1:
Whether traffic information has been passed or not
Moderator
Thread Starter
There appears to be an argument building here that we should therefore always ask for a deconfliction service whenever in IMC?
Lovely idea - but a huge imposition on the controllers. Plus as Jock pointed out, given no IMC collisions in 50 years, hard to justify the extra ATC resources to support it.
Traffic service --> situational awareness --> avoidance as required based upon traffic reports seems to me workable, and a lot of experience by a lot of pilots seems to bear that out.
Plus, I've yet to have any problem obtaining a traffic service IFR, and since part of the rules of IFR is I have to be prepared to go IMC, that means that presumably air-trafficers and their managers across the country are quite happy with giving a traffic service IMC, and are aware that they're doing so.
G
Lovely idea - but a huge imposition on the controllers. Plus as Jock pointed out, given no IMC collisions in 50 years, hard to justify the extra ATC resources to support it.
Traffic service --> situational awareness --> avoidance as required based upon traffic reports seems to me workable, and a lot of experience by a lot of pilots seems to bear that out.
Plus, I've yet to have any problem obtaining a traffic service IFR, and since part of the rules of IFR is I have to be prepared to go IMC, that means that presumably air-trafficers and their managers across the country are quite happy with giving a traffic service IMC, and are aware that they're doing so.
G
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverrock:
Well this is what flying quadrantal levels and such is for, plus a massive load of big-sky theory since you're putting your faith in the controller seeing traffic. In addition, if you were under a deconfliction service and the controller didn't register some traffic you'd still fly into it anyway because you wouldn't have been vectored away from it...?
However I would suggest that if the airspace was as congested as it would need to be in order to have a controller not pass all relevant traffic through workload or cognitive failure then a Traffic Service probably wouldn't be appropriate though I can't think of many situations where that would happen OCAS because I think nearly every approach/ radar/ LARS controller I've spoken to in that scenario has been spot on
Well this is what flying quadrantal levels and such is for, plus a massive load of big-sky theory since you're putting your faith in the controller seeing traffic. In addition, if you were under a deconfliction service and the controller didn't register some traffic you'd still fly into it anyway because you wouldn't have been vectored away from it...?
However I would suggest that if the airspace was as congested as it would need to be in order to have a controller not pass all relevant traffic through workload or cognitive failure then a Traffic Service probably wouldn't be appropriate though I can't think of many situations where that would happen OCAS because I think nearly every approach/ radar/ LARS controller I've spoken to in that scenario has been spot on
Last edited by kharmael; 20th Aug 2012 at 16:55. Reason: sausage fingers