So Long R.A.S (and thanks for the F.I.S)

[PH-UKU]

Wonder who's getting the last ever R.A.S ....... ?

<sigh>

:sad:

[moonym20]

From a plank driver to the kind folks of ATC who help us on our way

Good Luck with new R/T procedures tomorrow :D


I hope you dont loose too much hair correcting folks on the new catch phrases :ok:

[classicwings]

And who's getting the very first BASIC Service!:rolleyes:

[eyeinthesky]

London FIS offered a basic service at 0006.

[anotherthing]

BS was provided by either Luton or SS app at 0001 this morning.

The whole thing is a ball of chalk and does not solve the root problem which is aircrew not understanding what services are available, when they can have them, and in what airspace they are applicable.

One of the TC airports GS's was telling me just this morning that a local flying club in the vicinity of Stansted had telephoned the SS Sup a few days ago asking (paraphrased)

"I understand that the services outside controlled airspace are changing on the twelfth - but can we still get a RIS or RAS INCAS?" :eek::ugh:

[JonathanB]

the root problem which is aircrew not understanding what services are available, when they can have them, and in what airspace they are applicable.

Often caused in some cases by LARS providers giving extra service over and above the service requested!

[anotherthing]

JonathanB

I'd defy any controller worth their salt not to pass radar derived traffic info to an aircraft under a FIS (old money)/BS if they had identified that aircraft and they thought there was a chance of safety being compromised. It can even be given to aircraft not formally identified, but that the ATCO believes he/she knows with a high degree of confidence through other information sources is the aircraft in question (The phrase used being "Traffic believed to be you...").

In fact, the duty of care paragraph included in the new rules means that you could be found culpable if you just sit back and watch with the attitude of "I was only providing a BS".

The problem stemmed in part from the fact that pilots could not get it into their head that even under a FIS, they could be identified using radar for the benefit of the controller... it quite specifically stated that this did not imply that a radar service was being provided.

Simple stuff IMHO having flown professionally, and controlled.

[JonathanB]

anotherthing,
I do agree, but sometimes the amount of traffic information given was (is?) a little bit over and above that really necessary as part of the duty of care thing. This confused some people into thinking they would get the same level of info on a FIS from any unit, particularly if given a squawk (even if that was with a non-radar unit like London Info).

Duty of care is one thing, but refusing a RIS and then almost providing one after a FIS has been agreed is what blurs the edges, also I guess some people don't want the Traffic info if they're teaching but got it anyway before. It will be interesting to see how Basic is provided and if a Traffic service might be more readily available than a RIS was.

[anotherthing]

Jonathan

:ok::ok:I have witnessed controllers in the past providing FIS at LARS units and calling every bit of trafficm most likely because they were underworked at the time. You are totally correct in those circumstances, it would tend to make a mockery of FIS against RIS/RAS.

Hopefully these new services will make things clearer, but I have a niggling feeling that in 10 or 15 years time, we will be at the same position as we were with FIS/RIS/RAS until recently...

[NorthSouth]

anotherthing:I'd defy any controller worth their salt not to pass radar derived traffic info to an aircraft under a FIS (old money)/BS if they had identified that aircraft and they thought there was a chance of safety being compromised. [SNIP]Simple stuff IMHO having flown professionally, and controlled.Absolutely, says it all. I do wish more people would just use common sense (the most important bit of controller professionalism, dare I suggest) about the new services. And in an environment where a lot of the customers are either (1) PPLs who might only fly a few times a year or (2) foreign pilots with limited knowledge of UK peculiarities, while all of the ATCOs are full-time professionals, it's no surprise that controllers have to put up with a lot of poor knowledge and understanding. But they always have done and I'm quite sure they always will. Some of them even do it with good grace ;)
NS

[Widger]

The problem was caused by certain units refusing to provide a RAS to aircraft who needed it which then flew into conflict, with the subsequent AIRPROX. The review was supposed to address this issue....unfortunately..................

[anotherthing]

Widger -

That sounds awfully like changing procedures instead of getting to the real root of the problem - i.e. the unit in question you allude to.

Unfortunately this seems to be happening more and more in ATC nowadays. Someone cocks up or does a bad job and instead of retraining them/addressing the real problem, procedures get changed. Papering over cracks which is an easy way out and a good CYA exercise for mamagement, but it does not really solve anything.

Aviation is dumbing down by the day, most times in a detrimental way...

[ATCO Fred]

Quote:
the root problem which is aircrew not understanding what services are available, when they can have them, and in what airspace they are applicable.

Often caused in some cases by LARS providers giving extra service over and above the service requested!

Jonathon B - you've missed the point that another thing was making and one that I have been vociferous in stating in the past...

How to you provide a service to an aircraft (i.e. the contact for Deconfliction service...(Deconfliction Service read back by pilot) when one side of the equation is blissfully unaware of the conditions to which they must adhere within the contract. Was the same under RAS, RIS FIS and will be the same with new ATSOCAS...

Or will it....only time will tell.

Now….over controlling FIS traffic on LARS is another story….