Radar Control Service in Class D VFR
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Russia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easy does it
My experience. I was on a break from flying when Southend added its D airspace. First time I flew there VFR and controller informed me about Radar Control Service I did like the sound, but didn't know if I should say something back. My instructor pointed it out right away and said it was important to read it back. So I was thinking about it later: what kind of an agreement/commitment/troubles I sign for if I acknowledge the RCS? After reading these comments I got tired, my brain overloaded and reduced to basic services. I started goofing with RCS translation:
1. ATC "Rules with Caution Service"
2. "Referee with Camera Service"
3. "Random but Clever Service"
4. "Cessna Repellant Service"
To me all VFR ATC service types come down to one formula: "help me to help you service". The difference between FIS, Basic, Traffic, Decon, Proc, RCS are in two sliders: 'help' and 'equipment'. So, FIS is practically zero on 'help' and 'equipment' required from the both sides, while RCS 'help' and 'equipment' required a lot more from both sides. Now I have to take a break from thinking.
1. ATC "Rules with Caution Service"
2. "Referee with Camera Service"
3. "Random but Clever Service"
4. "Cessna Repellant Service"
To me all VFR ATC service types come down to one formula: "help me to help you service". The difference between FIS, Basic, Traffic, Decon, Proc, RCS are in two sliders: 'help' and 'equipment'. So, FIS is practically zero on 'help' and 'equipment' required from the both sides, while RCS 'help' and 'equipment' required a lot more from both sides. Now I have to take a break from thinking.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, here's a definition for you (again)...
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)
Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)
Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.
A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)
Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)
Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.
A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it really depends on where the comma is
you could think of it as a 'Radar-Control' Service
That is a Service provided by a Radar Controller
As opposed to a Radar 'Control-Service' where some guy with a Radar tells you what to do. (as they might in 'C' and above)
It is not in the spirit of the intent of class D airspace that everyone should be directed (commanded or controlled) as in "you are cleared to x, route this way, hold 1 mile north of the threshold, report when you have y in sight, behind the Kyrgyzstani Cessna 152 at 5 miles cross the date line etc.
It is not the responsibility of ATC to seperate VFR traffic from IFR, and having now routinely done so for so long they have created the danger that pilots will believe this will happen as a matter of course. This and the unfortunate emphasis on the word 'control' leads to confusion.
It is understandable that controllers do this, since they live in terror, and have little faith in pilots.
Yes once a clearance is given and accepted, the VFR pilot must comply with it untill she says that she no longer wishes to.
I often hear PPilots being bullied, sometimes the pilots need to remind ATC that its their ass in the air. Most ATC is superb at this, particularly at bigger airports.
I note a slight difference between 'controllers' Inverted81 and Good Egg, with G'egg slightly more in the I'm going to tell you what to do camp?
you could think of it as a 'Radar-Control' Service
That is a Service provided by a Radar Controller
As opposed to a Radar 'Control-Service' where some guy with a Radar tells you what to do. (as they might in 'C' and above)
It is not in the spirit of the intent of class D airspace that everyone should be directed (commanded or controlled) as in "you are cleared to x, route this way, hold 1 mile north of the threshold, report when you have y in sight, behind the Kyrgyzstani Cessna 152 at 5 miles cross the date line etc.
It is not the responsibility of ATC to seperate VFR traffic from IFR, and having now routinely done so for so long they have created the danger that pilots will believe this will happen as a matter of course. This and the unfortunate emphasis on the word 'control' leads to confusion.
It is understandable that controllers do this, since they live in terror, and have little faith in pilots.
Yes once a clearance is given and accepted, the VFR pilot must comply with it untill she says that she no longer wishes to.
I often hear PPilots being bullied, sometimes the pilots need to remind ATC that its their ass in the air. Most ATC is superb at this, particularly at bigger airports.
I note a slight difference between 'controllers' Inverted81 and Good Egg, with G'egg slightly more in the I'm going to tell you what to do camp?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any pilot wants to discuss the service I provide they are more than welcome to pick up the phone or come and visit. I encourage it, in fact, because there are always things to learn on both sides of the mic.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm puzzled...what extra requirement is there on a VFR pilot when in receipt of a Radar Control Service as opposed to any other service whilst in controlled airspace?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gegg
Yup definately much to learn from both sides, and in general pilots have the highst regard for the way 'our' guys do ATC, and I am sure that includes you !!
Just reading between the lines on your posts, sounds like you are slightly more in the "Radar, Control-Service" camp compared to Inverted81.
We get to hear many controllers, possibly more than you get to hear? (and they are generally amazingly good, with a few nutty exceptions, like the Channel Islands, doh. and Stanstead and Edinburgh sometimes)
Yup definately much to learn from both sides, and in general pilots have the highst regard for the way 'our' guys do ATC, and I am sure that includes you !!
Just reading between the lines on your posts, sounds like you are slightly more in the "Radar, Control-Service" camp compared to Inverted81.
We get to hear many controllers, possibly more than you get to hear? (and they are generally amazingly good, with a few nutty exceptions, like the Channel Islands, doh. and Stanstead and Edinburgh sometimes)
Thread Starter
Well, here's a definition for you (again)...
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)
Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)
Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.
A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.
"Radar control is the term used to indicate that radar-derived information is employed directly in the provision of air traffic control service." (ICAO Doc 4444: PANS-ATM)
Furthermore...
"Radar control is employed where available within controlled airspace for traffic identification, control and separation in all phases of flight."
(I do, of course, agree that separation is not required for VFR in class D but radar derived info can be used to identify and control VFR flights. And I do mean "control" as VFR flights must comply with ATC instructions in Class D - or state that they cannot.)
Same definition is used by EASA.
As I understand it the UK AIP hasn't filed an amendment to the definition so it still stands.
A cursory glance at AIP, Section 1.2 of link below, describes the ATC service provided.
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
There is nothing sinister in the term "Radar Control Service"...in fact it should provide VFR flights with some assurance that radar is available to provide a better service to your flight. No additional obligations to VFR flights.
The middle part of your post is the crux of the problem. In class D, ATC doesn't have to provide seperation for VFR. But ATC can control VFR, ie make them do something. Without regard to whether it's going to cause them to crash into someone else. So as in my case, my clearance says I must fly over the threshold of the runway at the specified altitude. A specific point in space. When I am very close to the overhead that severely constrains my ability to change my flight path at all, and still comply with my clearance. But then another aircraft at substantially different speed gets the same clearance. So that we will be in the same point in space at the same time but with a big speed differential. All on the whim of ATC who is not worried about whether we might crash, and all when there is a massive amount of sky that we could be flying in to increase our separation were it not for ATC's desire to funnel us into the same point.
If you can't see that the system is fundamentally flawed, then you are part of the problem.
The last part of your post, link doesn't work but I'll have a look at the AIP.
Thread Starter
Had a look at AIP 1.6 para 1.2. Nope, it doesn't tell me what radar control service is, it just talks about a situation where there is unknown /lost traffic. In my case both lots of traffic were known and not lost, but put into a collision scenario by ATC, which apparently is fine.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the thing though...in Class D you can expect traffic information on IFR & VFR...that is your service. Under radar control service you could expect more updates on traffic - doesn't sound like you did though...did you call "visual" with the traffic? (In which case I doubt you'd get further updates as the point of traffic info is to "see and avoid")
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.
The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.
The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC quite right
Gegg:
"The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights."
maybe "should not try to" is an alternative.
Brize also will not allow VFR traffic to self separate from it's IFR traffic.
I guess the service being provided in Class D should be a 'Traffic Service' ?
The fact that VFR pilots have become used to being directed ('controlled') will cause a problem in the future.
Gegg:
"The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights."
maybe "should not try to" is an alternative.
Brize also will not allow VFR traffic to self separate from it's IFR traffic.
I guess the service being provided in Class D should be a 'Traffic Service' ?
The fact that VFR pilots have become used to being directed ('controlled') will cause a problem in the future.
Brize also will not allow VFR traffic to self separate from it's IFR traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace
Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."
That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.
Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace
Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."
That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.
Thread Starter
Here's the thing though...in Class D you can expect traffic information on IFR & VFR...that is your service. Under radar control service you could expect more updates on traffic - doesn't sound like you did though...did you call "visual" with the traffic? (In which case I doubt you'd get further updates as the point of traffic info is to "see and avoid")
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.
The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.
It's really difficult to tell what the traffic situation was from your post...was it just you and the other VFR flight? Was there IFR around? Other VFR?
What was the limit of the control zone vertically? Could the controller have given you higher without co-ordination with another controller/unit? Did he/she actually clear you at an altitude or was it "not above" an altitude? Have to say the other VFR pilot showed good practice in one respect if he/she did call to say he/she was at 2,300ft.
The whole point of Class D is that ATC don't need to separate VFR from other flights. ATC relies on VFR being able to "see and avoid" other traffic which is why traffic information is passed.
You are right, in Class D ATC dont have to seperate VFR on VFR, however can you not see the folly of deliberately putting VFR traffic on a collision course such that if they obey the clearance, they will crash? They only didn't crash because I deviated from my clearance at the last minute. There is nothing wrong with this - by the book. But by any measure of common sense and a desire for flight safety, it is barking. That is my thrust. The controller didn't do anything wrong. But that means it is the system that is wrong.
Thread Starter
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2016-03-31.pdf
Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace
Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."
That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.
Section 2.4 Class D Controlled Airspace
Excerpt as follows...
"Service: Air Traffic Control Service
VFR: ATC separation not provided.
Traffic information provided on IFR flights and other VFR flights; traffic avoidance advice on request."
That is the service provided by ATC in Class D for VFR flights. The fact that radar-derived information is available does not change the service provided. All it means is that ATC has radar information available.
Of course the book is much the same in the other countries I have flown in, like France. But there, they seem genuinely concerned with your safety and not just interested in following the book because that will keep their arses covered.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That is because it has to provide protection for its IFR traffic and it can't do that if VFR traffic isn't doing what it is told. You don't know what the clearance of the IFR traffic is and where it is going but ATC does - that is why they will control you to ensure safe separation.
It is damn rude and condescending to presume VFR traffic cannot separate itself from IFR traffic especially in good VMC. Even though sometimes there are grounds for worryiing.
The phrase "I have your Galaxy downwind in sight" is all the controller needs to know regardless of how indespensible they feel. ( own navigation, report when you have the xyz trafic in sight etc). Advise turn left 30 degrees to avoid conflict with Kyrgzstani Cessna 152 on 3 mile final. Please arrange your flight to pass behind that traffic. Advise when East of RW 13.
The problems with being non standard in this matter are potentially serious.
1 IFR aircraft in the downwind does not a busy airfield make.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).
Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.
Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.
Did you consider calling the unit involved?
I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).
Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.
Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.
Did you consider calling the unit involved?
Thread Starter
HC
I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).
Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.
Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.
Did you consider calling the unit involved?
I'm glad you've clarified that you know what service you're supposed to get (only you seemed unsure earlier).
Thanks also for adding clarity to your incident. If the situation was as simplistic as you have stated then no I don't think you received a good service.
Given your information I can't think why ATC prescribed you a specific altitude instead of "not above". That would've allowed both of you to adjust altitude as req'd to avoid each other. As for your routing did you request a threshold crossing? Was there departing traffic? Etc, etc. I.e. Did ATC give you the routing you requested? And the same with the other flight? Did you request traffic avoidance? - Simply requesting higher may not have alerted the controller to the fact that you were unhappy with the situation.
Those are just a few of the questions that popped into my head, not knowing local geography, runway alignments, etc, etc.
Did you consider calling the unit involved?
It might be easier if you dug out the Airprox report and I think I've said this before (bearing in mind it was all ~5 years ago) the other traffic had the same transit point (runway threshold) as me. But he got it wrong and was going for the other threshold. ATC noticed this and pointed out his error, which is why he ended up flying at nearly 90 degrees to the otherwise expected track. It was at this point that I became uncomfortable since I couldn't see him and clearly there was some confusion as to where he was. My earlier mental picture was shattered by discovering that he wasn't going where he was supposed to be going. No I didn't ask for further traffic info. Probably should have done - although expressing my concern and requesting an altitude change is a pretty good hint.
I phoned a mate at another ATC unit (supervisor) who explained to me what RCS meant but was generally disapproving of the controlling whilst having to point out that it was "legal".
I then phoned the unit but was fobbed off. That is when I decided to file an Airprox.
You are getting a bit bogged down in the detail, but it is the principle that I think is wrong:
With an RCS a controller can "legally" force two aircraft into a collision scenario, expect the pilots to sort it out by breaching their clearances, and if they don't, tough, not my fault mate. With the added fact that only controllers understand the full implication of an RCS, namely power without responsibility. That is wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best practice to have you limited to maintain 2,500ft whilst other aircraft is on not above 2500ft? No. That leaves only the other aircraft open to altering vertical profile.
Were you actually forced to the same point in space, at the same time? Not really, both aircraft could adjust route towards the 07 threshold to transit at different times. (Sounds like there were potential departures from RW07 at the time, hence the necessary adjustment to the other aircraft routing.)
Was traffic info passed? Yes. Although the report acknowledges this was late.
Report doesn't make clear if the inbound had already been cleared to 3000ft but that's possibly why your request for 3000ft was not approved and an orbit offered instead.
I guess it's interesting in that ATC gets lambasted for over-controlling VFR in Class D at times and then for not separating VFR at other times. It's about responsibilities, ATC's and yours.
Were you actually forced to the same point in space, at the same time? Not really, both aircraft could adjust route towards the 07 threshold to transit at different times. (Sounds like there were potential departures from RW07 at the time, hence the necessary adjustment to the other aircraft routing.)
Was traffic info passed? Yes. Although the report acknowledges this was late.
Report doesn't make clear if the inbound had already been cleared to 3000ft but that's possibly why your request for 3000ft was not approved and an orbit offered instead.
I guess it's interesting in that ATC gets lambasted for over-controlling VFR in Class D at times and then for not separating VFR at other times. It's about responsibilities, ATC's and yours.