Basic service is all I need, it gives me:

1. When the engine quits or things go to shyte over the highlands I don't have to spend the valuable and limited time I have "introducing" myself as they already know even without radar coverage who I am , where I am coming from and going to, and what my current approximate position is based on the average speed of a spam can which should be enough to vector the cavalry to my approximate position then my fancy ELT that's registered with the emergency services will hopefully pinpoint my position from there and allow them to deliver any emergency resources needed such as first aid or Marlboros.

2. As for advising there is/may be other traffic, it's nice to have but unless I am flying under positive control I am never relieved from devoting 100% of my paranoia to my see and avoid duties.

But in the case quoted you don't need "advice" - you have been given traffic information and decide if and how you want to avoid it.

I would rather be in receipt of a Traffic Service in IMC etc rather than just a Basic.

Seems like common sense to me rather than arbitrarily following "rules".

piperboy84, my sentiments also. Another bonus is that the agency you're talking to might be able to give you rapid bearing and distance information from a suitable landing site within glide range.

piperboy/fireflybob:
This is why when I did Farnborough LARS East, I encouraged people to stay on my frequency when crossing to Le Touquet, especially if they coasted out at SFD, even though it was outside my 'official' area of responsibility.
I had you identified on Basic (then called FIS of course) and I had a single button to press to contact D & D if the worst happened.

Isn't that what a VFR flight plan is for? You file the plan. They have your details. You listen on frequency. You transmit when you have an emergency. They determine your position via radar and triangulating your radio transmission.

Then there's no need to introduce yourself and spend time trying to explain everything.

If every man and his dog calls up trying to give their details just in case they might have an emergency, there will be no radio space left when you really do have an emergency!

Stay on the ground......? I wish we could. Unfortunately it's not possible or practical to fly many of our operations in CAS, so it's not unusual for us to be required to fly IMC outside. At least we have TCAS but obviously it's not the full shilling and there are now some quite significant gaps in the UK's radar LARS coverage, far more than when the system was first introduced. Unfortunately, to get the job done, we have to put up with this unsatisfactory situation.

From an ATC assistance point of view, it's often preferable to fly in poor weather because it keeps a lot of potential conflicts on the ground and those who are airborne are likely to be more experienced pilots in better equipped aircraft. Those who use Farnborough Radar will know how swamped the controllers can become, especially at weekends.

SH650: it doesn't work that way in the UK; en-route ATC units do not get VFR flight plans.

SH650,

In an ideal world, I'd agree. But in UK, the system is different. It's not common to file VFR flight plans in the way that you will be used to doing because it usually isn't a legal requirement unless crossing an international FIR border and there isn't an effective flight following service for VFR unless you also make RT contact with a relevant ATC unit. Not even for IFR flights outside CAS. Our airspace is often very congested so pilots tend to use a LARS service on an "ad hoc" basis instead and are encouraged to do so by the authority.

Sounds like a technology issue then. If someone wrote something that worked then it will cut down a whole load of radio if people wanted to file.

Otherwise you'll have to pay more controllers and open more positions to keep the airwaves clean.

Same over here too. It is optional and so it should be, but it's good to file if going to remote areas for emergency sake.

If we use flight following, handovers are mostly automated and electronic nowadays.

That's the recommendation in the UK too, but there aren't any "remote areas" where most people do most of their flying.

And don't forget in the US you're talking about class E airspace not class G.

It's not about technology, it's about money.

There is all but zero state funding for GA air traffic services. The situation really couldn't be any more different than it is in the US.

I believe the whole of Scotland and the Moors are considered "difficult for search and rescue".

Shy Torque, Yes I do realise that - am not that naive! But nevertheless you are making a choice to fly in those conditions. There may be other ramifications of staying on the ground but that is another matter.

Seems like many commenting are expecting some sort of control service with radar outside CAS - something which is an anathema to some airspace users. As stevelup says it's down to funding. Also it's a question of numbers - if a couple of light aircraft collide in Class G and nobody is hurt on the ground the authorities would just put it down to a random event. On the other hand if one aircraft was a large public transport aircraft and several hundred people came to grief I am sure the authorities would be taking some pretty large steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's all a matter of risk management - at least in Class G airspace there is a certain amount of random separation with a/c flying different tracks and altitudes and as Shy has stated some a/c have TCAS but of course not all users have transponders.

A rule of thumb to consider;
a. Are you out for a fly around on a nice day looking at various points of interest etc? A basic service would be fine as it does not restrict you in any way.
b. Are you going from A-B in nice or marginal wx? Ask for a traffic service. It is restrictive in the fact that you shouldn't change heading or levels without informing the controller as you may be subject to coordination with other aircraft.
c. Are you going from A-B in IMC? Ask for a deconfliction service. You will be passed advice/ instructions to assist you in maintaining standard separation from other seen aircraft. After any avoiding action, you will be released own navigation so you need to be able to navigate yourself from the point that you are released after such action. In all the above the aircraft commander is ultimately responsible for avoiding other aircraft.
1 final point. If your routeing takes you through any controlled airspace/ ATZ's you are responsible to obtain the clearances yourself. it's not the controllers responsibility to guess what you need.
Hope that helps.:)

As someone said once said "how about you give me the service where I don't run into another aircraft and crash and burn?". Can't wait for mandatory ADS-B, so we can get rid of all these ridiculous and useless 'services'.

ADSB will only work if ALL AIRCRAFT are fitted with the equipment. While you have your head inside avoiding the Cessna you can see on your ADSB you could run into the para motor, glider etc which isn't equipped. Any device that draws your attention into the cockpit when you are flying in a 'see and be seen ' environment is unsafe. You will never hit the things you see!

Unfortunately the see and be seen environment has a lot of limitations - fundamentally on the performance of the Mark I eyeball, so having something that alerts you to most traffic is almost surely a net improvement. Of course having the technology cheap, light, and low power enough to be in the vast majority of aircraft would be better.

It will be mandatory on all flying objects eventually. The technology will become so cheap and small it will be even in hobby drones or paragliders. We're no more than a year or two away from a crash and fatality between a real plane and a joyriding drone. When that happens, we will see big change real quick.

which can lure some into a false sense of security - you need to lookout whatever and indeed there is a legal requirement to do so even when flying IFR along an airway.

Yes, indeed. But authorities keep on making it expensive and tiresome, not to say exhausting, to get any bit of avionics certified. As long as they keep to that policy, the equipment will be expensive, and offered only by a few.

Which is my argument against them FLARM thingies, as nice as they look, and I won't deny they can contribute to safety. Under the eyes of a pilot (or team of aviators) who know its limitations.

So, that would be Flarm, then?

Had to put one in the glider to fly in France, the FFVV mandated it and then subsidised it. Paid about 600 euros over three years. Of course, nearly everyone needs to have it before it is really useful.