ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.


Old 31st Jan 2020, 23:55
  #81 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
See #71 above.
I think the problem with the previous system was that at some units 'FIS' traffic was identified, becoming 'known traffic' and hence passed 'generic traffic info' but at others they weren't, making them total unknowns and the passing of traffic info 'blurred' the border between FIS and RIS; introduction of Basic and TS was supposed to stop this but obviously hasn't as at some places, traffic requesting basic still needs to be identified to produce a 'known traffic' environment.
Years ago we did try doing this at Farnborough ie not identifying traffic requesting FIS but had to abandon the trial within days because it meant there were too many 'unknowns' and we couldn't clear IFR depatures from either Odiham or Farnborough.
Chevron I am somewhat perplexed by your post above. Their is no requirement to identify ac under a basic service / FIS nor has there ever been. Even when identified it does not constitute known traffic cause it can change level / heading with out telling you. There is no such thing as a 'known traffic environment' in class G airspace. These days there is only co-ordinated and uncoordinated traffic.

From the CAP774 Basic Service

A controller may identify an aircraft to facilitate co-ordination or to assist in the provision of generic navigational assistance, but is not required to inform the pilot that identification has taken place. Identification of an aircraft in receipt of a Basic Service does not imply that an increased level of ATS is being provided or that any subsequent monitoring will take place.
At our unit the boundary between Basic and TS is a pretty clear, you call relevant traffic for one (TS) - only collision risk for the other (BS) IF you happen to see it.
If a controller/ FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning shall be issued to the pilot (SERA.9005(b)(2) and GM1 SERA.9005(b)(2))
With both the pilot remains solely responsible for separation. However when vectoring to final approach we DO NOT vector into conflict - that does not sit within an appropriate application of duty of care.
ATCO Fred is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2020, 00:02
  #82 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by whowhenwhy View Post
The previous system still included many differences to ICAO SARPS & PANS though and really was not that different from the arrangements that we have today.
One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS. Straight away this introduced blurring between BS and TS and thus confusion and by doing so undermined the main reason that we made the change in the first place.
For me there is no blurring but a distinct difference in the application of TS and BS. Perhaps Unit standards and the Unit Assessors need to be more pro-active. Surveillance under a BS / FIS has been going for 30 years so not sure what point you're trying to make there WWW?? Otherwise what the hell are you supposed to do with the BS service transit crossing you're final approach when you're vectoring inbound. With APS you can ID co-ord and carry on.

I'm really struggling to see the validity or relevance of " One of the problems with today's arrangements is that we've permitted the use of surveillance under a BS" as that is so far from reality. With Mode S and listening squawks it really allows approach radar to deal with the plethora of other aircraft operating within the vicinity of the aerodrome and it's approach paths easier, safer and minimises distractions and reductions in capacity.
ATCO Fred is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 20:19
  #83 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 709
ATCO Fred, sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that the ability to provide surveillance derived traffic information to BS aircraft has blurred the line with TS. Fully agree that the use of surveillance to identify BS aircraft and 'integrate' them with IFR inbounds/outbounds has been essential. Of course, if the UK were to fully adopt ICAO then we would only provide ATC service to IFR flights inside controlled airspace and only provide FIS (not the fudge that it UK FIS) outside controlled airspace.
whowhenwhy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.