What type of service do you require? (UK)
 

Those of us who regularly provide ATSOCAS will have heard many different responses to the question in the title above from pilots who are not aware of the different services available in Class G airspace in the UK. The most common are:

• A radar service please.
• Ummm the best one.
• ummm, I don't understand the question.

Other than the above regular responses, what amusing answers have you heard?

I asked a French pilot recently what type of service he required and after a brief pause he confidently stated,

'Aiee weel bee sty-eeeng forrr waahn week'. :)

There's an airfield near me where radar asks the question of departing aircraft just as they are airborne, no doubt leading to distraction on the flight deck. Why doesn't the tower pose the question prior to take-off?

> It's in for its Annual check at **** . . . Do you have any idea of the bus times to **** please.

I kid you not :ugh:

:cool: . . 99

A fairly long pause followed by "A Traffic Confliction Service please"

Brilliant! :)

a guy i work with got the all time classic reply......"we can park on the grass if you want us too"

"Basic traffic information service".

"Fuel, and a Taxi to Bath please, Sir."

From a KLM crew, "What have you got?"


Last week from a BA crew, "Radar Advisory Service please." Oh how we laughed! :)

Daft question. The type of service required will inevitably not be the type you're going to give.

"Can I have the gold plated, bells and whistles service please?"

"Over my dead body mate. Basic and that's it. If fact, count yourself lucky you're getting that."

:):):):):):):):):):):)

Heard a crew once ask for the 'Full Service' once. Think that was KLM or Brussels Airlines but it sounded even better with the accent!

However on a more serious note, we have a laugh and a giggle at these interesting replies that we hear but are you surprised? The vast majority of foreign crews have no idea what different ATSOCAS are available in the UK. Such information is neither close to hand or easy to read when under time pressure during the pre flight stage or whilst en-route.

If a pilot from a commercial flight does not know what your asking him then I would suggest it gets noted with the operator being contacted. Holders of UK ATCO and Pilot licences all got a free DVD with a presentation of the changes. Was the same sent to the foreign operators who frequently fly in the open FIR?

No, I'm not at all surprised. The confused and amusing responses are inevitable really given that the UK is so divorced from ICAO when it comes to ATS outside controlled airspace. I'm a firm believer in keeping things straightforward and personally I'd like to see much more controlled airspace introduced. The downside of course would be being denied the opportunity to chortle heartily at pilot's responses when the type of service question is posed. :)

<<personally I'd like to see much more controlled airspace introduced.>>

Alelujah... someone after my own heart. Trouble is, the glider freaks and the clockwork mouse drivers would go out of their tiny little minds!!

Controversial . . HD . . I could not agree more :hmm:

(If I have told you a million times times before . . . don't exaggerate)

. . 99 :cool:

I think the military powers that be would have some objections as well.:hmm:

Aahhh - jobs for the boys, eh HD ?

Trouble is, there aren't enough ATCOs to go round at the moment anyway, let alone to cover any further (unnecessary) expansion of CAS ...

The latest half-baked plan is, of course, at Norwich (qv) ...


JD
:)

Aerodrome to inbound flight - "What type of service do you require?"

Flight - "A toilet service and some fuel"

The answer is a perfectly reasonable response to the question posed.

If on the other hand, ATC ask what type of flight information service is required then it is clear what the controller is seeking an answer to. It also gives a very big hint to the pilot that there are different services provided under the Flight Information Service heading in the UK.

Regards,

DFC

I bet pilots r laughing reading this thread:ok:

The problem is that it is a bit too late to discover this once your in the air and on your way!

It is the same as the UK R/T differences that exist. Many crews don't know what they are since no one can find them easily. Many pilots are still brought up with ICAO Doc 9432 being their one and only reference source for R/T training. It is ridiculous for the UK to have so many changes when these are hidden away and not easily accessible for foreign crews which is just like the ATSOCAS issue. However R/T is a different point and one that I won't drift onto.

No one will object to anyone doing something differently if there is a good safety reason behind it. However at least make the information easy to access. The CAA are to blame since they obviously think that foreign crews can report hours and hours before a flight and trawl through the AIP, all the AICs and study the Jeppesen supplements for the UK. Sadly in the real world this does not happen.

For airfields that are not in controlled airspace, then why doesn't the CAA publish the different ATSOCAS procedures in the AIP entries for these airfields? This will in turn get the third party chart suppliers to stick in a blurb in about ATSOCAS for the airfields concerned.

HD... Tarring all GA pilots with that brush is most unfair. There are some PPLs in the UK whose standard of training and attention to detail with their planning would make some of the foreign crews that fly large commercial transport aircraft in UK airspace, look like PPL students.

There should be more controlled airspace and I think many G/A pilots would approve of this once the pros and cons have been examined.

I really don't think that many would ... I certainly wouldn't ...

JD
:)

The cons are perhaps a bit of extra R/T if one needs to cross any CAS that was not there previously.

The pro is that commercial traffic is separated from G/A traffic and the PPL chappie can enjoy his trip rather than having to have eyes on his backside, whilst he looks out for an airliner doing two and a half times his speed. That is providing he calls up the appropriate ATS unit who have passed traffic information.

It is a no brainer really. CAS is there to help us all and G/A pilots don't like CAS since they have to use the radio and speak to ATC. When I instructed at PPL level, I always told my PPL students that ATCOs are your servants (i.e paid to help you). Make full use of them, treat them nicely and they won't bite! :}

I have just moved flying clubs from the South-East of England to rural Shropshire. The greatest pleasure in flying at the new location is the fact that I dont have to speak to ATC as there isnt any. I find that it just as safe, if not safer with less hassle.

I fly regularly in the South, in Class G and free from any commercial traffic - VFR/VMC on a see-and-be-seen basis - and I don't want (or need) any ATS Traffic or Control Service to do so. If I need to talk to ATS for information, I can easily do so - but that is my choice and I want it to remain so.

The picture you paint, Mister Geezer, is an idealised one and I am afraid it is not sympathetic to the needs of much of GA. It may be a "no brainer" to you but I can assure you that there is a significant number of us who would competently disagree with your over-simplification.


JD
:)

Jumbo Driver.. You are a professional pilot whilst many of the GA types are not. I've got enough grey hairs from dealing with them during a lifetime in ATC.

Mister Geezer is talking a whole lot of sense.

I well understand what you mean HD but, bearing in mind your comment about some "GA types", do you really think they would be the ones to benefit from extended CAS - or, alternatively, what about the rest of us - having all those extra, verbose calls would hardly oil the processes for an already understaffed ATC fraternity, would it? Everybody's service would suffer and it would very soon become counter-productive.

Besides, there are far too many constraints on our life already in every imaginable aspect of living - mostly imposed on us by others "for our own good". Why should we accept more "control" on ourselves, just to try and satisfy a minority of theorists ... ?

No, I'm afraid Mister Geezer has it wrong - significant extensions of CAS may be OK in theory but would never work for the overall benefit of GA in practice.


JD
:)


P.S. apologies for prolonging the thread creep ...

In that case then there is no need for controlled airspace. I still enjoy jumping into a light aircraft (when I can) and getting airborne. Light aircraft flying is all about having fun and the more complicated it becomes then the fun factor can start to diminish.

I am not suggesting that the whole of the SE of the UK suddenly changes to a large area of CAS. It would be a nightmare and the cost involved would be to the detriment of all of us and it would achieve little. It would make light aircraft flying a ball ache for us and for ATC too.

The case for more CAS lies in the regions. Norwich has been mentioned and that is a classic example. Others could include Inverness and don't forget the outbounds from Newcastle and Durham Tees that file direct to Otringham and blast straight through the Vale of York AIAA! The majority of operators from NT or NV do seem to resort to using P18 which is the safest option however some don't and those that don't are generally foreign operators, many of which won't have a clue what a AIAA actually is! :} The chances of getting more CAS in that part of the world is remote since the military will object. However the problem could be easily solved with outbound flight plans from NT and NV being met with a REJ message when attempting to file direct to OTR, thus forcing them to use CAS.

I started off my airline flying being a regular user of Class G airspace on the east coast so perhaps I am more aware of the need for more CAS than others might be. It is a few years ago since I flew in that part of the world but I do remember the close calls and the RA I had with two Tornados too! :eek: However I have not lost touch with my G/A roots and I am only too aware that light aircraft flying should be as straight forward and as fun as possible, which is why I still get involved with it.

There is no point ruining Joe Bloggs day trip to Le Touquet for lunch. However the line has to be drawn when someone can fly through the ILS localiser at Norwich (for example) without needing to talk to them. It might not be so bad if there are just a few movements a day but there are 19 IFR inbound flight plans to Norwich today. :hmm:

Well, there's a lot more in that last post, Mister Geezer, that I can agree with - I read it quite differently from where I thought you were coming from in your earlier posts on this thread.

However, you mention Norwich ... there are two other threads running already on that topic and I have made my views known there - but suffice it to say that I do not consider the airspace "grab" that Norwich Airport (NIA indeed!) are progressing is either necessary or appropriate. It is precisely that kind of proposal that angers many in GA (like being called "stakeholders") and generates the almost instinctive knee-jerk resistance to expanding CAS that currently exists outside commercial operators.

As HD has pointed out, we perhaps tend to view these matters from a rather different standpoint than many GA PPLs. However, the problem remains the same - coordinating GA and commercial traffic for their mutual benefit, without the imposition of unnecessary constraints or procedures on the otherwise free and unrestricted use of the "Open FIR" by GA.


JD
:)

I have recently retired after thirty years in ATC and I have been flying for a similar amount of time. I fly VFR in CAVOK conditions and I plan my route and met carefully to avoid CAS, however if I need access to CAS I call up the appropriate unit and request that. I am not intimidated by ATC and consider it to be a neccesary service for commercial air transport at large airports. I would say however that I would be very much against any further establishment of CAS due to the fact that in the last few years the atc service has become less "friendly" to GA and its pilots. In the case of NATS I think that it is because the atco training course does not include any GA flying experience whereas at one time it was included to PPL standard, many younger atcos freely admit to having no interest in aviation and aeroplanes and therefore cannot empathise with pilots particularly of the GA variety and the result that any request for access to CAS or radar service is met with a blanket "Remain outside CAS" irrespective of traffic, workload, too difficult or "cant be a***d!!

There are many parts of the UK that would benefit from having class E controlled airspace established.

There would be far fewer objections to proposals for class E airspace at Norwich and in several other places.

Having a "procedural" service inbound to somewhere like Oxford is meaningless because while in IMC holding at the beacon you can be taken out by an aircraft that quite legally is flying IFR enroute at the same level as you and not talking to anyone or operating any form of transponder.

There can't be an instrument approach procedure published unless there is ATC. What is the point in the CAA having that requirement alone. Having ATC with no radar service in class G airspace is no better than FIS.

For somenone who operates VFR safely like DC10RealMan (which would include more than half the PPL operators out there), having every bit of class G replaced by class E would have little or no real effect.

Therefore having class E established at places like Farnborough, Oxford and Norwich as well as some others would vastly improve safety for the IFR operators - PPL, GA, CAT, Military while retaining the ability of the VFR pilot to fly as and when they please (in VMC) with no restriction.

------------

Mister Geezer,

Your points about not having the time to read the AIP do not make much ground. For the Airline operator, their part C (Route Manual) will have an explanation of the various services available. Many non-UK airlines received the CD and other information about the changes and they provided this information where relevant to their crews.

Therefore I have no sympathy for people who do not know about Flight Information Service in the UK. However, those that do not fully understand the FIS are a separate issue and it is clear that many UK operators and pilots did not understand fully the old system or the new system so it is not an issue limited to Foreign operators.

Don't forget that there are many Foreign operators who are members of the UK Flight Safety Committee. Through that and other forums the foreign operator is often better briefed on things like ATSOCAS than the average UK GA pilot.

Regards,

DFC

Also providing lots of ATSOCAS daily, on asking an offshore heli mid morning i got "An offshore Bacon service please" .... with that sound of a pilot with his mouthfull being caught off guard :D

I would be amazed if all the regular users of ATSOCAS have an extract in their Part C which covers the available services. Even if an operator fails to add an extract on ATSOCAS, the second line of defence is the national authority of the state of the operator, spotting the omission when the manual is checked for EU OPS compliance. How many other regulators in Europe know their Deconfliction Services from their Toilet Service? I doubt that many will. The holes in the cheese line up far too easily for my liking.

The quality of Part C manuals do vary quite significantly and a Part C means nothing outside the realm of EU OPS anyway. Some states outside this area do not even have a requirement to publish a route manual of any kind. The responsibility then falls on the crew concerned to self brief, in a limited time frame, prior to departure.

In an ideal world, a Part C should have all the details that the crew need. However the onus should be on the CAA to ensure that this information is easy to access and not on the operator, some of whom will have no idea of what this discussion is about anyway!

I view that as being similar to (for example) an airport implementing a new procedure and only telling some of the operators that use that airport and the others are not informed and remain none the wiser. Not helped when the information is not easy to hand too. Interesting to note that one major user of Class G airspace (national carrier too!) is not even a member of the UK Flight Safety Committee. A number of the smaller IT operators that are frequent visitors in the summer are in the same category with having no representation, despite happily transiting Class G.

I am afraid to say that it is (and always has been) a piecemeal effort when it comes to ATSOCAS education and awareness from the CAA. They could make it far easier.

I've heard a few daft responses to this question, most of them cause a bit of a chuckle. The most disappointing so far has been the reply from a british pilot flying for a british airline who wanted to route direct through class G despite being flight planned on a class A airway,his disinterested reply was "Oh I don't know, I'll read back whatever you tell me"
He got a radar control service and no direct route.:ugh: