'Flight Information Service' radio call
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli
I don’t agree.
As you said this is the service the controller is presumably required to provide:
Provision of the service includes information about weather, changes of
serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes and any other information
pertinent to safety.
and I would agree the controller doesn’t really need to know where you are to do that.
As you also said this is the service that the controller may also be providing:
The controller MAY attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only.
In addition to the above, controllers WILL, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards to aircraft operating in Class C, D, E, F or G airspace when self evident information from any source indicates that a risk of collision may exist.
Note the use of the words may and will but the caveat "subject to workload".
So my point was, how do you know what bits of the service you are getting. I appreciate you should assume you are getting none of the optional bits.
You can't "Limit" a FIS - that would be nothing at all.
.. .. .. but is that strictly true. With a FIS it seems to me at the very least you have established two way communication, and you can expect to receive information you might request that is relevant to safety and as you set out.
Thus with a FIS just established followed by an engine failure you know you are on a station where presumably the controller is going to be ready to take some details and provide what ever help might be possible.
On the other hand, what has not been established is whether, due to controller work load, he is going to have time to tell you as I mentioned before that two aircraft are likely to arrive at the same point in space at the same time. You simply don’t know - he might, he might not, so you assume even if he knows he wont
.
I am not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with the protocol, just pointing out that unless I have misunderstood that is the way it is and that unless the controllers knows where you are and where you are going it is very unlikely he is providing the optional bits!
I don’t agree.
As you said this is the service the controller is presumably required to provide:
Provision of the service includes information about weather, changes of
serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes and any other information
pertinent to safety.
and I would agree the controller doesn’t really need to know where you are to do that.
As you also said this is the service that the controller may also be providing:
The controller MAY attempt to identify the flight for monitoring and co-ordination purposes only.
In addition to the above, controllers WILL, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards to aircraft operating in Class C, D, E, F or G airspace when self evident information from any source indicates that a risk of collision may exist.
Note the use of the words may and will but the caveat "subject to workload".
So my point was, how do you know what bits of the service you are getting. I appreciate you should assume you are getting none of the optional bits.
You can't "Limit" a FIS - that would be nothing at all.
.. .. .. but is that strictly true. With a FIS it seems to me at the very least you have established two way communication, and you can expect to receive information you might request that is relevant to safety and as you set out.
Thus with a FIS just established followed by an engine failure you know you are on a station where presumably the controller is going to be ready to take some details and provide what ever help might be possible.
On the other hand, what has not been established is whether, due to controller work load, he is going to have time to tell you as I mentioned before that two aircraft are likely to arrive at the same point in space at the same time. You simply don’t know - he might, he might not, so you assume even if he knows he wont
.I am not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with the protocol, just pointing out that unless I have misunderstood that is the way it is and that unless the controllers knows where you are and where you are going it is very unlikely he is providing the optional bits!
I know of at least two approach units north of London who used to 'limit' FIS with the full knowledge of CAA; one is now closed, the other is now tower only.
