FIS for aircraft outside controlled airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FIS for aircraft outside controlled airspace
I recently flew around the West side of Birmingham outside controlled airspace in my little C150. As I usually do, I asked for a FIS from Birmingham Approach because I was at times under their zone, although I had no intention of going into controlled airspace. My question is, do busy Air Traffic Controllers like light aircraft getting in touch and asking for FIS or would you prefer it if I kept quiet and let you get on with controlling the big boys?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best rule is common sense; if you're going to be operating in an area likely to conflict with any of our traffic, then give us a call. I would go for within 5 miles of the zone laterally (or at any time when "under" controlled airspace in the vicinity of a CTR as you describe) as a good rule of thumb.
And don't be afraid to call if you're further afield - if we're too busy we'll tell you, but I think that most approach units will do their best to provide FIS as far as their workload allows.
This probably isn't the case in the London TMA, but I'll let those better qualified in that area field that one....
And don't be afraid to call if you're further afield - if we're too busy we'll tell you, but I think that most approach units will do their best to provide FIS as far as their workload allows.
This probably isn't the case in the London TMA, but I'll let those better qualified in that area field that one....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR,
good question and I hope you will chat to your friendly flying folk about this.
ATC is there to provide EVERYONE(B747 or c150) with the best information that they can for EVERYBODY'S safety. (its our job, we are trained to do it ,we get paid for doing it and please dont tell management but we actually quite enjoy doing it!).
When you talk to London Information you are talking to a trained senior assistant who can provide you with generic information about the airspace you are in. (London Information has no Radar display to guide them).
However when you are close to an airfield, the approach controller can give more detailed traffic information as he can see it and sometimes you on radar. So although the controller may say FIS you are really ,when necessary getting a limited RIS. This helps you to spot exactly where your traffic is, it helps the controller because otherwise he would have to take 5,000 feet or 5 miles from unknown traffic and it helps the bucket and spade brigade to get back 5 minutes earlier without jolting their G+T's.
If ever a controller sounds alittle Pi**ed off that you have called please dont take it as a personal affront, we are feeling undervalued at the moment and sound just as Pi **ed off when the big boys call as well. (see I told you its the same service for everyone!)
good question and I hope you will chat to your friendly flying folk about this.
ATC is there to provide EVERYONE(B747 or c150) with the best information that they can for EVERYBODY'S safety. (its our job, we are trained to do it ,we get paid for doing it and please dont tell management but we actually quite enjoy doing it!).
When you talk to London Information you are talking to a trained senior assistant who can provide you with generic information about the airspace you are in. (London Information has no Radar display to guide them).
However when you are close to an airfield, the approach controller can give more detailed traffic information as he can see it and sometimes you on radar. So although the controller may say FIS you are really ,when necessary getting a limited RIS. This helps you to spot exactly where your traffic is, it helps the controller because otherwise he would have to take 5,000 feet or 5 miles from unknown traffic and it helps the bucket and spade brigade to get back 5 minutes earlier without jolting their G+T's.
If ever a controller sounds alittle Pi**ed off that you have called please dont take it as a personal affront, we are feeling undervalued at the moment and sound just as Pi **ed off when the big boys call as well. (see I told you its the same service for everyone!)
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the very least, call the nearest unit who could provide you with a FIS, even though 99 times out of 100 they may sound disinterested, you can guarantee that on the other occasion, your call will solve the mystery for them, and the ATCO involved will give a big sigh of relief. It's good practice to call, and if you fall out of the habit of following "good practice", it may all end in tears.
BTW, next time, go up the east side of Brum, the guys at Cov will give you a FIS, sometimes up as far as Lichfield. And they're better than many.
BTW, next time, go up the east side of Brum, the guys at Cov will give you a FIS, sometimes up as far as Lichfield. And they're better than many.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheelybin's reply is interesting. Many approach controllers are clearly happy to provide FIS or RIS to traffic outside their zone or CTA, but it is certainly not universal.
My experience is that Luton have not provided FIS to traffic (unless it wishes to transit) since they stopped providing a LARS service last year. Mostly a request for FIS is met with an instruction to call London Information. It would seem that they do not wish to know about traffic which is quite legally flying close to the lateral or vertical boundary of their airspace. Does this cause problems in acheiving IFR seperation? Is the radar controller required to achieve 5m lateral seperation (or vertical seperation, if unverified mode C squawk is seen) from unknown traffic which is outside his CTR/CTA/TMA? This would seem to dramatically reduce the useful size of the controlled airspace.
However I have also found Luton helpful, on IMC days, in providing a radar service outside their CTA -- thanks for this, it is really appreciated, even on a 'controller workload permitting' basis.
Birmingham have also issued a Notam which explains that they may limit their radar service to aircraft in their CTA, and may also not allow transits to traffic not intending to land at Birmingham. Until recently, I had never been refused a transit, but last week (Thursday pm), I was told to 'remain clear.' I was offered FIS, (without squawk, suggesting that seperation of their controlled traffic from me was not their intention.
Essex, on the other hand, despite their reputation for lack of interest in GA traffic, have often offered me a service outside CAS in IMC, and have often offered a transit of the Stansted CTA. Again, much appreciated.
So why are there variations?
Regards.
My experience is that Luton have not provided FIS to traffic (unless it wishes to transit) since they stopped providing a LARS service last year. Mostly a request for FIS is met with an instruction to call London Information. It would seem that they do not wish to know about traffic which is quite legally flying close to the lateral or vertical boundary of their airspace. Does this cause problems in acheiving IFR seperation? Is the radar controller required to achieve 5m lateral seperation (or vertical seperation, if unverified mode C squawk is seen) from unknown traffic which is outside his CTR/CTA/TMA? This would seem to dramatically reduce the useful size of the controlled airspace.
However I have also found Luton helpful, on IMC days, in providing a radar service outside their CTA -- thanks for this, it is really appreciated, even on a 'controller workload permitting' basis.
Birmingham have also issued a Notam which explains that they may limit their radar service to aircraft in their CTA, and may also not allow transits to traffic not intending to land at Birmingham. Until recently, I had never been refused a transit, but last week (Thursday pm), I was told to 'remain clear.' I was offered FIS, (without squawk, suggesting that seperation of their controlled traffic from me was not their intention.
Essex, on the other hand, despite their reputation for lack of interest in GA traffic, have often offered me a service outside CAS in IMC, and have often offered a transit of the Stansted CTA. Again, much appreciated.
So why are there variations?
Regards.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no requirement to separate traffic inside controlled airspace from traffic outside controlled airspace, however daft that sounds. Obviously, good practice suggests that you do - as far as possible.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll usually only be given a squawk if there is a need to identify you when you are receiving a FIS ie: when there is IFR traffic nearby or aircraft getting a RAS etc.
If your route is well clear of any of this that is probably why you've not been issued with a squawk.
As previously stated, give the nearest airfield a call first, then the FIR if nothing doing.
If your route is well clear of any of this that is probably why you've not been issued with a squawk.
As previously stated, give the nearest airfield a call first, then the FIR if nothing doing.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to contradict the last post which should be correct. Lots of units will give squawks to FIS traffic on the basis it shows other units who is working the traffic. Places like Newcastle seem give to everything that talks which unfortunately clutters up the screens of the bigger units around.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Findo
The squawks cluttering up the screens for the bigger units may not always be FIS but could be RIS/RAS. My point stands that not all FIS traffic are issued with a squawk, but that they could be if need be by that unit.
The squawks cluttering up the screens for the bigger units may not always be FIS but could be RIS/RAS. My point stands that not all FIS traffic are issued with a squawk, but that they could be if need be by that unit.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphaalpha makes a good point. It is the fact that whilst some units are clearly happy to help, some, particularly darn sarf seem to have an active policy of no ATSOCA. Everybody has their own impressions as to who the units concerned are, and Luton has already been mentioned.
There is more than the slight glimmer in many GA pilots' minds that the provision of service at certain units, and on certain shifts, has more to do with ATC politics than it has to do with the desire to provide a consistent response to aircraft operating in the vicinity of controlled airspace.
None of this is to deny the fact that many ATC units are badly stretched, and controllers are overworked. It does appear nonetheless that this is not the only reason lying behind the occasional denial of service, and the DAP is known to be looking into the matter, if recent circulars are anything to go by.
Hope this doesnt offend, but it does reflect common perception and experience.
There is more than the slight glimmer in many GA pilots' minds that the provision of service at certain units, and on certain shifts, has more to do with ATC politics than it has to do with the desire to provide a consistent response to aircraft operating in the vicinity of controlled airspace.
None of this is to deny the fact that many ATC units are badly stretched, and controllers are overworked. It does appear nonetheless that this is not the only reason lying behind the occasional denial of service, and the DAP is known to be looking into the matter, if recent circulars are anything to go by.
Hope this doesnt offend, but it does reflect common perception and experience.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: FIS for aircraft outside controlled airspace
If you are close to controlled air space, it is always wise to call and obtain flight following (FIS), even more so when you are near the arrival or departure corridors.
In the US it is easy to navigate just outside of Class B or C airspace, but is it wise too. We have had occurances where pilots were trying to navigate around our Class C without talking to approach and almost became hood ornaments on a flight of F16's or an airliner.
If you tune into the frequency and here that the controllers are up to their armpits in traffic, then I would refrain from calling and asking for flight following until things calm down alittle. If possible I would also steer alittle further away from controlled airspace.
If I have the time I'm more than happy to provide radar flight following to VFR pilots flying through or near my airspace, I'd rather know who is out there and at what altitude, then guess.
Mike R
FWA
In the US it is easy to navigate just outside of Class B or C airspace, but is it wise too. We have had occurances where pilots were trying to navigate around our Class C without talking to approach and almost became hood ornaments on a flight of F16's or an airliner.
If you tune into the frequency and here that the controllers are up to their armpits in traffic, then I would refrain from calling and asking for flight following until things calm down alittle. If possible I would also steer alittle further away from controlled airspace.
If I have the time I'm more than happy to provide radar flight following to VFR pilots flying through or near my airspace, I'd rather know who is out there and at what altitude, then guess.
Mike R
FWA
