English R/T procedures.

[AdamFrisch]

Right, so one thing I've noticed is there doesn't seem to be a need for an aircrafts intentions in English R/T. You basically just ask anyone (regardless of they have a radar or not) for basic service and that covers you for everything, it seems.

Not once have I heard anyone call up and after initial contact to Lydd and finish with "...for landing". Or "for taxi".

The other day I came in via Rye and called in and finished with the non standard UK "...for landing", but forgot to say basic service. This was immediately picked up on the response was "..report 4NM and basic service". I could have done chandelles sideways and still be under basic service or my intentions could have been to just cross the control zone on my merry way to somewhere else. I'd imagine my intentions would be more important, no?

Or have I misunderstood the meaning of basic service? Doesn't it mean the equivalent to Flight Following in the US, basically that they have you on radar and will aid you in separation to other aircrafts if they can. What's even more puzzling is that, as far as I know, Lydd has no radar so why we have to ask for basic (as in radar) service eludes me.

[ab33t]

No it was not picked up on , it is a standard ops call .

[Duchess_Driver]

Adam,

Google ATSOCAS (Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace) for a full version of what I'm about to say, but...

Basic Service is fundamentally the pressure, runway in use, possible servicability or system outages, but that is it. No radar needed to provide a basic service. If the unit has a radar, they MAY provide infringement avoidance heading/heights for you.

Traffic Service can only be provided by a radar unit. It will provide a basic service level with additional information about possible conflicting traffic. It will not provide any avoiding action from conflicting traffic.

Deconfliction service provides a traffic service with resolution vector which you should follow. Obviously, this can only be provided by a radar unit.

A procedural service, the foutrth option for ATSOCAS, is based on procedures and reports from participating aircraft and also does not require a radar unit but does require published procedures.

When you call inbound the controller would normally inform you that they were providing only a basic service, regardless of whether you asked for one or not, so that there was no possibility of you thinking they were providing you with any other form of service. If your joining somewhere with a radar unit you could ask for an upgrade to a traffic/deconfliction service if you wish for that extra level of comfort.

The fact that you do sideways chandelles, lazy eights, cubans or whatever on final will have no effect on the provision of a basic service, but would effct a traffic or deconfliction service as you're changing heading/level would need to be co-ordinated with ATC.

HTH

Duchess

[smithgd]

The best (and only legal) source of info is CAP413 from the CAA:

CAP 413: Radiotelephony Manual | Publications | CAA

or the GA pilot's supplement doc:

CAP 413 Supplement 3: A Reference Guide to UK Phraseology for General Aviation Pilots | Publications | CAA

HTH
smithgd

[Whopity]

The best (and only legal) source of info is CAP413 from the CAA

There is nothing legal about it!

1 Document Description
1.1.1 The aim of the United Kingdom Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) is to provide pilots and Air Traffic Services personnel with a compendium of clear, concise, standardised phraseology and associated guidance, for radiotelephony communication in United Kingdom airspace.

1.2.4 Candidates for JAA pilot and instrument rating examinations should note that the syllabus for the communications examination is drawn directly from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 10 Volume 2 and ICAO Doc 9432-AN/925 and not CAP 413.

1.3 Document Source
1.3.1 The UK RTF Manual is based on ICAO Annex 10 Volume 2 (Communications Procedures) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.

[Captain Stable]

Adam, you are right. You have completely misunderstood what a Basic Service is.

I suggest you go to the CAA's website and check up what services are available. Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace | Air Traffic Standards | Safety Regulation

The CAA went to a lot of expense and trouble informing people of the changes ot ATC services outside controlled airspace (ATSOCAS). It all appears to have passed you by. You can get an interactive guide at Air Space Safety: ATSOCAS 917

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks for those.

Still, it's a bit strange with a basic service ("pilots should not expect any traffic information from a controller/FISO, as they are under no obligation to do so outside ATZ") from a radar service. Then what's the point with the radar?

From now on I'll ask for traffic service if I know it's a busy piece of G/F airspace.

[IO540]

IMHO a more basic point is that a Basic Service is virtually worthless to the pilot.

Even if they have radar and can see you on it, they are not allowed to say anything suggesting that.

One may as well fly with a listening watch, for emergency use, and have more peace.

[bjornhall]

Is "Basic Service" the same thing as "Flight Information Service" in ICAO language?

The Flight Information Service is most certainly not worthless IMHO. Just as an example, I was once called up by an ATS unit for which I constituted "known traffic" with a TAF AMD report for BKN008 over my destination, i.e., a report for "forecast or observed IMC along the intended route, if known" (I was VFR, and the previous TAF said CAVOK).

[IO540]

Is "Basic Service" the same thing as "Flight Information Service" in ICAO language?

I think that's the intention.

But you won't get this kind of service in the UK. You can call up e.g. London Info for weather for some airport, for an airways join (if e.g. departing from a grass strip on an airways flight) and such. But I am hard pushed to think of a reason why one would want to be voluntarily in contact with a Basic Service otherwise.

[AliB]

Still, it's a bit strange with a basic service ... from a radar service. Then what's the point with the radar?

Allows the operator to keep their workload down and focus better on those who do want or need traffic information.

From now on I'll ask for traffic service if I know it's a busy piece of G/F airspace.

But of course keeping in mind that they may be too busy to give you that service and downgrade you to Basic anyway?

Ali

[AliB]

But I am hard pushed to think of a reason why one would want to be voluntarily in contact with a Basic Service otherwise.

When transiting through or near a MATZ? I don't like to hassle RAF controllers with traffic service requests when I am happy to keep my own lookout, but I would not like to get close without talking to them. In these cases they have occasionally passed traffic information as well.

Ali

[liam548]

I've had traffic info passed to me on a basic service on several occasions.

It all depends on the controllers workload at the time. I cannot see them just ignoring two aircraft who are heading right for each other just because both are on a basic.
But as a pilot you should know what is and is not included when asking for a particular type of service.

[IO540]

It all depends on the controllers workload at the time. I cannot see them just ignoring two aircraft who are heading right for each other just because both are on a basic.

I can.

It's not due to malice - it's just the way the system works.

[homeguard]

LARS

Each year I will have at least three or four pilots come to me for advice having been reported for infringing Controlled Airspace or a Tempory Restricted Zone such as for air displays, including the Red Arrows airspace on more than one occasion.

In most cases the pilot was not in reception of at least a basic service but if they had of been they would most likely have been warned by ATC before things went pear shape.

The London FIS is an excellent service even though without RADAR. I would recommend all to be in touch with a local LARS unit but if it is not possible then use the London or Scottish FIS and receive a Basic service, you will at least have a first class and professional extra brain working with you.

The best way of avoiding other traffic is looking out of the window, whatever the level of service!

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by AdamFrisch

From now on I'll ask for traffic service if I know it's a busy piece of G/F airspace.

Adam, don't overlook the requirements of the Controller even when in receipt of a Trafffic Service:

'Controllers may provide headings and/or levels for the purposes of positioning and/or sequencing; however, the controller is not required to achieve deconfliction minima, and the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility'.

[IO540]

In most cases the pilot was not in reception of at least a basic service but if they had of been they would most likely have been warned by ATC before things went pear shape.

Only if

- the controller's unit had radar, and
- he was permitted to see the screen (non radar qualified ATCOs are on a lower pay scale and are not allowed to see the screen - CAA/union rules)
- he had issued a squawk (possible but unlikely if not officially a radar unit)

I think what you are really getting at is that many pilots cannot navigate (they are probably flying as trained, without a GPS ) and many (most?) don't get notams, so being visible to ATC does have a value in that ATC has a better chance of pulling someone's chestnuts out of the fire. But it isn't meant to work that way... navigation is not ATC's job, and pilots not getting notams is just a reflection of a generally non-IT-aware pilot community

The London FIS is an excellent service even though without RADAR.

They do actually have radar but it is filtered to not show most traffic (I believe it is set up to show only their listening squawk) and they aren't allowed to say anything on the radio suggesting they can see you. They certainly won't offer traffic info even in a head-on situation. The facility has been provided to enable London Info to contact planes showing the listening squawk, in case they are busting, etc. It is really major progress but it has a long way to go.

I am generally in favour of speaking to ATC (most definitely so outside the UK, but there they nearly all have radar anyway, and they use it overtly) but I think the general drift in PPL training (call up every unit along the track and give them your inside leg measurement) is simply wrong and creates false expectations of some kind of "traffic notification" or "traffic separation" service.

The other day I got a BS from Solent Radar; they gave me a squawk and it was "obvious" that they were watching me on radar, but this is for their convenience and it would be wrong to expect a separation service.

This has all been done to death here but what is the use of talking to a unit which tells you of "seven aircraft known in your area" ? Firstly, that kind of info is useless for traffic avoidance, and secondly there will be many more who are not talking to that unit. And if everybody did talk to that unit (e.g. London Info) that service would collapse instantly. As it is, with London Info, on a nice day one can hardly get a word in edgeways.

[homeguard]

Lars & Fis

The FIS controller dosn't need to see a screen to give good general advice relevant to the position, altitude and routing passed to them and they do the job well.

As for traffic avoidance - LOOK OUT - its that simple.

[AdamFrisch]

I've had traffic info passed to me on a basic service on several occasions

.

So have I. That's why I was under the illusion that I was actually provided a radar service and routed around potential conflicts. I know to not relax now.

[homeguard]

Lars & Fis

Following the introduction of ATSOCAS a controller shouldn't in ordinary circumstances provide detailed advice on other traffic when providing a BASIC service. The new term 'Basic' Service was intended to make that clear i.e. the service will be basic.

It was decided by the CAA that to give traffic warnings on occasion during a FIS, as was the case, but not on others, caused complacency by pilots and confusion and may have been a contributor to some near misses.

When a Pilot requires detail on other traffic they should request a 'Traffic Service' or if addtionally requiring vectors to avoid other traffic then they should request a 'Deconfliction' service.

However, no one asked controllers, yet alone pilots, for their input. Virtually all controllers that I know feel that they have a duty of care and so continue to provide traffic detail during a basic service but differently others will not.

At any time a controller is busy with other things, maybe providing another user with a Traffic or Deconfliction service then expect to hear nothing when receiving a basic service, so we still have confusion and no doubt more near misses will arise!.