RT Question(s)

[PompeyPaul]

I'm not so sure

If your making a call to get some info, listen out on channel for someone else to ask and nick the bits that are general, like QNH.

I'm not so sure I'd go along with that. Simply because if you are nicking from somebody else you don't get what you thought confirmed by a readback, i.e.

Station: "G-ABCD QFE998mb runway 26, report down wind, wind 24 10kts"
G-ABCD: "runway 26, QFE998mb, wilco report downwind"
You: 'hmm, QNH is 998 better set that'

If you see what I mean....

[digital.poet]

Hello folks,

Once again, thanks for the helpful advice.

I was at the airfield this morning (first time out of the circuit solo, so still buzzing!! ). I spoke to the RT examiner and we have agreed that for reasons of my preparation and also his diary commitments that we would have a session tomorrow afternoon to clear up any further questions and to discover the areas where I am lacking and have rescheduled the actual test for next Monday.

Funny thing happened today, as I was heading away from the circuit I heard someone call up the airfield a/g for a FIS. Comforting to know I am not the only one that gets confused (and that includes the CAA from what I am reading here!)

[Spitoon]

digital, sorry to hijack your thread a bit but I'm puzzled by some of the comments. Like I said upfront, the subtleties are complex - they need not worry you for the RT test, as others have said you're asking pertinent questions and with the guidance of instructors I'm sure you'll have no trouble but....

homeguard, what is the basis for your statement?

An Aerodrome Flight Information Service may not provide a service to aircraft other than those operating or who intend to operate within an ATZ.

I believe the area of responsibility is a bit greater.

Again, I would ask the basis of your statement

An Air Ground station must not provide a service and the station is not always required to be manned. It is simply a communication device. They are not empowered to provide traffic whereabouts.

I'm puzzled by your assertion that the station must not provide a service - what is it doing then? Why do you say that it is not always required to be manned? What do they communicate? And I'm afraid that there's plenty of evidence that AGCS stations are passing information about other traffic - just listen.

The reality for AGCS is that it is an all but undefined service in legislation and rules. Although I would take issue with the statement, the CAA clearly indicates that AGCS is an air traffic service although there are very limited rules about what the service can do and don't waste your time looking for references to it in the legislation - I think it's mentioned once, and then only in passing.


bookworm, you say

Actually, the CAA realised some time ago that they didn't really know exactly what a "Flight Information Service" means, hence many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a review of air traffic services outside controlled airspace. ;-)

Now I'm not going to argue with your fundamental premise but I think the biggest problem that the CAA has made in this latest review - and that you seem to have fallen for - is that FIS equates to outside CAS. I'll explain why in a moment.

Gertrude, following our earlier you offer

"London Information, G-ABCD, request danger area activity information for delta 207"

"G-ABCD, delta 207 is cold"

"G-ABCD thank you and good day"

Then you go back to talking to nobody (possibly with London Information tuned in and the volume turned down, if you like). No flight information service established.

When we talk about all these services I think we need to start with the international definitive documents which essentially are ICAO Annex 11, Circular 211 and PANS-ATM (admittedly with bits of one or two others thrown in). In ICAO the concept of having to request a level of service doesn't really exist because there is no choice - the level of service is determined by the circumstances and, primarily, that comes down to the airspace class. In controlled airspace an ATC service (which includes FIS and ALR) is provided, outside controlled airspace FIS and ALR are provided in the relevant FIR. The concept of an aerodrome FIS has not been incorporated into the Standards and Reccomended Practices (yet?) and is covered by the Circular I mentioned - but it is very much an information service...no instructions at all. Just information and ALR.

So the starting point is that a FIS (and ALR) is provided everywhere in an FIR - not just outside controlled airspace like the CAA seems to suggest these days. Inside controlled airspace you also get ATC. At some aerodromes you can get an aerodrome FIS.

And then in the UK we start to deviate from these international standards - we do ATC outside controlled airspace, we allow aerodrome FIS to issue instructions in some circumstances, we create strange beasts like AGCS. And then because the international rules don't work so well any more we need to invent other services like RIS and RAS (or at least to modify the ICAO services that they are based on...which can create further problems down the line), and because there are so many options we have to get pilots to ask for the service that they want, which the controller then has to agree to provide.

But the CAA also talks about the 'duty of care' that controllers, particularly, have so that even if the pilot didn't ask for a service the controller may still be expected to do something in he or she thinks it's going to prevent an accident or somesuch.

And still pilots will call up a controller and ask for some information that the international rules clearly call flight information which forms part of the FIS - be given that info - and claim that they have not received a FIS.

And come next March lots of stuff changes and we are going to have to call an ATC service a FIS if it is provided outside controlled airspace!

Messy is not the word.

OK, rant over.

[digital.poet]

digital, sorry to hijack your thread

*Squawking 7500*

No problem! It's actually why I like to ask these questions on forums like this (and I have been using them or equiviliants since the old dial-up BBS days). Often it promotes some discussion, which is interesting, informative, and not something you get from just looking up the answer in the docs.

I don't pretend to understand every word of your most recent post, but I get the general idea. It seems that the whole system of RT services outside of CAS is a little bit messy. It also seems the CAA has recognised this and is reviewing.

I suspect the real problem is going to be that there are a lot of legacy systems in place so a complete overhaul might not be realistic, evolution not revolution as they say.

Has anything been published yet regarding the coming changes? Its probably best that I don't read it now because I don't want to let it muddy the waters with respect to my up coming exam, but it would be nice to get ahead of the game with the time is appropriate.

[whitehorse]

digital.poet

4 new sevices to replace FIS, RIS and RAS, to be called basic,traffic, deconfliction and procedural, I think. Went to www.airspacesafety.com to check it out out, but the info is not there yet. However all UK licence holders should be getting an interactive CD this winter before the new service comes into force on 12/3 2009. Looking forward to this.

WH

[bookworm]

CAP 774. Don't read it until after your exam, or you'll get confused!

[Droopystop]

I had a quick look at the CD-ROM the other day and it is not bad for the CAA. Certainly explains it reasonably well. At first glance it seems pretty much a change of names with a more explicit definition of each service. The new one on the block is the procedural service but that only applies to IFR traffic.

I'm not looking forward to having to say "Modified Deconfliction Service, SSR only" at regular intervals though. Modified RAS is so much easier to say. (Don't worry D-P this isn't thread creep, this is thread leap!)

[digital.poet]

G-EMMA,

Thanks, it is also good to hear from someone who have recently been in this position. I knew that we were at similar stages in our training, with you slightly ahead of me (you must have your GST coming up soon, if so, best of luck with it!).

I had heard about the fixed requirement of getting the MAYDAY/PAN calls spot on so I have spent a good chunk of time really drilling those.

I spent some time with the RT examiner today and we went through some of the example route he gave me. I did get flustered a few times, especially when he deviated from what I was expecting (which he later told me that he did on purpose as he could tell that I was up to speed on most of it and wanted to test my limits) but he seemed suitably impressed with my prep and said that I shouldn't have a great deal of problems getting through the test, which was a nice confidence boost.

I still have a bit more studying to do, but I am now confident that I can get through it

[IO540]

There is an alternative practical point of view on all this which is: don't call up any ATC unit unless they can offer you something you need.

In Class G (uncontrolled airspace) you can fly non-radio. If you are qualified to fly in IMC then you can do that non-radio too. And you have nice peace and quiet in the cockpit!

Personally, I don't call up anybody unless they can offer a radar service.

And London Information can't (even if the man had a radar screen in front of him he would not be allowed, due to ATC job demarcation, to use it to help you).

I find that most experienced pilots do exactly this - fly with a listening watch only, tuned in so they can always make a mayday call should they need to. The people who call up London Info tend to be PPL students (who have been trained to call up every Tom Dick and Harry and pass on their inside leg measurement), or people after some specific services (e.g. opening flight plans, checking danger area status, weather for some remote airport...)

Of course one cannot tell this to the RT examiner

Radar Information is a UK only concept. Outside the UK you get just FIS (which is a basic ICAO requirement) but some countries are more pragmatic and if the controller has a radar screen (which most of them seem to have, especially France) then he lets it be known (with perhaps the informal words "radar contact") that he can see where you are, may pass you details of conflicting traffic, and because he can see where you are he doesn't have to waste his and your time asking you for position reports with estimates to XYZ; something which London Info will do and which can keep you quite busy enough! Unless you have the route programmed in a GPS and can see the ETA to each waypoint, of course

As regards which unit can offer you an FIS, this isn't so complicated in practice. The FIS frequencies (together with the name of the unit) are marked on all ICAO compliant VFR charts. Very often, probably nearly always, this station name is not related to any airport. It is just somebody sitting in some room hundreds of miles away.

One can get an FIS from airports but the more usual thing is to call up the regional FIS shown on the map.

In the UK, a lot of people call up an airport (rather than London Info) for FIS, in the hope that they get better information on traffic flying in the vicinity of that airport, but that is IMHO a waste of time unless the said airport can offer a radar service. Otherwise you get "five aircraft known in the area" which is as much use as a chocolate teapot

Unfortunately, I don't think one can make use of the European slant when doing a UK RT exam. Which is no doubt why one gets so many Brits venturing into France and asking for a Radar Information Service...

[PompeyPaul]

Hmm

Personally, I don't call up anybody unless they can offer a radar service.

......

I find that most experienced pilots do exactly this - fly with a listening watch only

You are certainly a braver man than me. I guess when I get that experience I may do that, but the numbers of times that Farnborough have warned me of conflicting traffic that's helped me spot it

I'm also incredibly paranoid of infringing and in Farnborough's area (with heathrow and gatwick so close) it's nice to know there's somebody else watching what I'm doing.

Although, of course, you can't rely on FIS to keep you safe and in the right place. It's still down to you as PIC to maintain a good look out, and navigate accurately enough to avoid tea and biccies with the CAA people sans tea and biccies. It's just good to know it's an extra fail safe in place

[homeguard]

Semantics

Spitoon

You are arguing over semantics and not the services provided.

For instance a Flight Information Service (noun) is a service facility from whom you may receive a service (the verb). You may, of course, simply ask for an answer to a question even when a service is not intended to be ongoing.

To answer your question of me. An Air/Ground Service (noun) is a facility which may often or never be manned, so could not therefore offer a service (verb) to the pilot. Those permitted to operate the ground station if and when it is manned are only required to meet a minimum level of competence. They are permitted to provide specific information which is known such as the runway currently in use together with the circuit pattern and the altimeter settings currently in use at the airfield. Nothing else! They should be able to answer questions such as the fueling and parking arrangements and other elements of the aerodrome manual, on which they are assessed.

An Aerodrome Flight Information Officer (AFISO) is trained and tested to a higher level and is permitted to control aircraft on the ground but in the air even within the ATZ they may only give information. They have demonstrated their competence to keep a log of movements and therefore they may pass that info to the pilot. i.e. " G-ABCD you are number three, report final". They may NOT clear aircraft to land. AFISO are also tested on the use of all tower equipment available such as approved wind and altimeter setting machines etc.

You asked me for the source. The source is CAP 413. Other sources are those publications for the training and testing of Air/Ground Operators, AFISO and ATC Officers.

I agree the current version of CAP 413 is appaling and is not helpful. Earlier versions were much clearer in explaining the different services within one publication.

The new document CAP 774 is very helpful in explaining the services in detail. There is in my opinion very little that changes from today (within the UK) other than in names such as; BASIC (FIS), TRAFFIC (RIS) and DECONFLICTION (RAS), the letters in brackets are mine . The UK has provided all this for years although much of it will be new to the rest of europe.

Reading about the individual services within CAP 774 will give everyone today a very clear understanding the present system in the UK as well as from next year.

The biggest weakness that candidates for the RT Test demonstrate, to me, when undertaking their RT test is that they do not understand the system. The RT test is about the use of the system as much as it is about RT phraseology.

[IO540]

I guess when I get that experience I may do that, but the numbers of times that Farnborough have warned me of conflicting traffic that's helped me spot it

Farnborough have radar.

[PompeyPaul]

Farnborough have radar.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. You still use FIS as long as it's backed by radar rather than rejecting anything lower than RIS\RAS ?

Yeah, I agree, your post makes total sense

[IO540]

You still use FIS as long as it's backed by radar rather than rejecting anything lower than RIS\RAS ?

Not as such - the options are limited. In the UK, FIS cannot be backed by radar in a manner which is in any way useful. And abroad, one doesn't normally get a choice of service when VFR - it's only FIS.

Let me explain it hopefully more clearly.

In the UK, a controller doing FIS for you is not permitted to pass you anything based on any radar info which he may have access to. So even if he can see you head-on with another aircraft he is not permitted to warn you. (I am sure ATCOs here will correct this if wrong but I am pretty damn sure it is the procedure operated). So you cannot ask for a radar service with an FIS.

In the UK, you can ask for an RIS and (if you get it - it is subject to controller workload) then the controller is permitted to pass you other traffic info (bearing, and level if known). He is not allowed to suggest which way you should turn to avoid it, though they sometimes volunteer this info if you say which way you are turning and it happens to be the obviously wrong way...

Abroad, there is no formal "RIS" or "radar service" (that I know of) and they just call it FIS. They usually do have radar and usually they let you know they can see you on it. They will then pass conflicting traffic info in an informal manner, but Europe generally has so little GA traffic that this is a bit moot. You can fly 200nm in the UK and see 20 planes; 200nm across France or Germany you might see two; 200nm across Italy etc you are unlikely to see even one. (Admittedly this may be because abroad one can easily fly a bit higher, say 8000ft, whereas UK airspace keeps one lower where most GA pilots fly anyway). So, abroad, you just sit there on autopilot in relative peace, eating up the miles while taking pictures and making movies

The UK system where FIS does not provide radar based info is to do with the watertight separation between the IFR enroute sector control (London Control etc) which does airways traffic, and all the "VFR dross" below. If you are VFR and call up London Control for a service they will politely tell you where to go. Abroad, they don't have this separation and you can fly e.g. across Belgium at FL80 VFR while getting a radar service, possibly with vectors which is really nice and easy, from say Brussels Approach. Much more pragmatic.

In the UK, to provide some kind of radar service to VFR pilots, the LARS system exists though the main purpose of it is to support the military (who historically did not have decent nav capability and used the map/stopwatch method and were frequently getting lost, and anyway have awful fuel endurance), and also you can get a radar service from airports e.g. Southampton or Thames Radar but they don't really like doing it.

[Pianorak]

. . . However, don't call up any ATC unit unless they can offer you something you need . . .

But by calling up an ATC unit you will be offering them something they might really appreciate and even need.

[gasax]

Well Gemma this is supposedly part of the reason why the changes are being brought in.

I think most of us have had this 'higher level' of service. I for one certainly appreciate it. But if you look at the new services you will see a much more legalistic interpretation of the services.

None of this has been helped by past changes and 'advice'. RAS is no longer recommended for VFR flight - but interestingly Deconfliction will be available to VFR. It will be interesting to see if it is actually available.

To be honest I cannot see any ATC person seeing a potential collision deciding to not communicate that fact to the traffic - even though his operating instructions actually prohibit it.

Our local tower has a radar repeater - but their operating instructions prohibit its use for traffic information. They have devised some interesting approaches to work around this!!!

[Crash one]

I have always comunicated with the nearest for a FIS or in the case of an A/G "Flight infomation" without the service. I would feel a bit exposed not in touch with anyone.
FIS with Leuchars last week "G-XXXX be advised, low level traffic approaching your area" I was at 1100ft QNH over 400ft terrain on the way home, very nice view of a Tornado, dead centre 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock 300ft below.

[IO540]

The massive misunderstanding is all this "traffic info" stuff is that the known traffic they tell you about is only the tiny fraction of the actual traffic which happens to be talking to that unit.

There is traffic potentially anywhere, and the UK is fairly busy GA-wise. This is why I find it bizzare issuing notams on military traffic in such and such area - they can be anywhere anyway! And they can and do look after themselves. There is no meaningful avoidance which a GA plane can do against a 500kt jet - especially as a target on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in the sky and will not be seen until too late. The jet has his own radar.

Only a radar ATC unit is able to provide a meaningful service. All that London Info can give you is "13 aircraft known in your area" with no real time aspect to it. And those will be mostly PPL students, mostly flying at ~ 2000ft or below. The other 200 they don't know about.

And if everybody called up London Info, the service would immediately collapse. They can sometimes barely cope as it is, on nice days.

UK mid-airs over the last 10 years average 1 per year, and all but the last one were below 1000ft AGL. The last one was alleged to have happened at 1800ft. These are very low levels which nobody should be flying at (outside the circuit) unless taking photos etc, and suprisingly don't at all correlate to well known airspace bottlenecks such as the 2400ft under the LTMA.

Last UK IMC mid-air was in WW2. No doubt, this is due to the far lower traffic density in IMC.

Technically it would be trivial to deliver a radar feed to any airfield, over the internet. But the job demarcation in ATC (higher salaries for radar qualified operators, etc) means this cannot happen in the UK. It is done abroad. It is already easy to get this info with a sub-£1000 ADS-B receiver box but a) this picks up only targets emitting their position on the 1090ES channel (which are all Enhanced Mode S installations i.e. 250kt+ turboprops and jets and above) and b) the airfield would not be allowed to provide a service based on the info. Let's hope that Eurocontrol don't get the idea of mandating Enhanced Mode S for GA as this will be impossible! But they are gunning for mandatory ADS-B which is bad enough.

[homeguard]

FIS etc

IO540

You appear to have an immensely cynical attitude toward the FIS and appear to see the only value to any service being in RADAR awareness. Most pilots do have a personal radar, it is called the eyeball, which should be used extensively.

A FIS does much more than that only achieved by RADAR. As the CFI of a large club i'm, unfortunately occasionally involved in unraveling why controlled airspace has been infringed by a member or others. In virtually all cases the infringements would have been avoided should the pilot have been receiving a FIS. The incidents over the years have ranged from simple airspace incursions to flying through Red Arrows restricted airspace.

Various FIS units, including London, are brilliant at maintaining a very good situation awareness with those aircraft in touch with them and they are applauded by me if not you. The FIS provides much more than the simple use of RADAR as many have already outlined and should be used by all on every occasion.

[IO540]

As the CFI of a large club i'm, unfortunately occasionally involved in unraveling why controlled airspace has been infringed by a member or others. In virtually all cases the infringements would have been avoided should the pilot have been receiving a FIS

Surely you are kidding, Homeguard.

The way to avoid a CAS bust is to navigate accurately, not by talking to London Info who have no idea where you are.

There is an attitude in the PPL training circuit that you must talk to everybody enroute. I am not saying this is wrong but I am saying it is largely pointless.

Abroad, VFR, one talks to the regional FIS frequencies (unless instructed otherwise) and that is normal and expected, but they usually do have radar so the interaction is different.