Please can you ask for a Traffic Service

[John Brady]

Dear All,

Just lately I have been asking for a traffic service wherever I go and I have yet to get a single acceptance. I am fobbed off with a basic service which I regard as slightly better than a chocolate teapot in terms of anti-collision assistance. So I am forming the view that a TS is not generally available to GA. Maybe it is just me. Please would you help me find out if this is general or not by asking for a traffic service as often as you possibly can and posting the result here. Just date, radar unit and yes or no.

This info may be important in our debates with the CAA on the advantages or otherwise of electronic conspicuity.

John

[Jeremy Liber]

Hi John

I asked Brize (119.0MHz) for a Traffic Service at about 1130 local on Saturday 6 July and got 'fed' a Basic Service. It might be that I should have used one of their other frequencies but they did not give that indication in their response.

I think you are on to something here.

Regards and keep up the excellent work

Jeremy

[AlanR]

Hi John,

it is almost impossible to get a 'Traffic Service' anywhere in the UK at weekends. In the week sometimes it is possible occasionally but you cannot rely on getting it.
We need to ditch this absolutely useless 'Basic service' rubbish and go back to realignment with the rest of Europe with FIS/ Radar Info etc.

Regards,

Alan

[mikehallam]

I agree too, Basic is a useless placebo. Even worse when they're busy.

Over the w/end, in a little haze, Farnborough(s) though polite and clear & not apparently excessively run ragged, just didn't mention a helicopter crossing left right not far ahead, nor a twin doing a closer than wished for U turn.

Now as P1 I don't expect much more than rely on the Mk1 eyeball, but one always hopes that at least on that frequency - giving one's position and they knowing your intentions - they might just possibly say something.

Perhaps I should be grateful for anyone at all to be on watch, with QNH & i trust a tip off should I begin to stray into a NOTAM area or worse.

To add to the fun, recently at a professionally operated A/G aerodrome in the south of England I was informed that I should expect no advice from the tower about their non standard approach. This arose after I landed when despite my early radio contact asking for approach details and then informing them of a dead side join intention - and getting a response. Of course I should have realised A/G is not ATC but if it's laissez faire, then why not abandon all towers and use SafetyCom !!


Confused of Tunbridge Wells

[John Dean]

Confused of Tunbridge Wells

Royal Tunbridge Wells, please.

[John Dean]

Confused of Tunbridge Wells

Royal Tunbridge Wells, please.

Usually I don't bother with any service unless crossing controlled airspace, prefering to give all my limited brain power to looking out of the window but will try asking Farnborough East for a traffic service when flying tomorrow.

[James Chan]

So I am forming the view that a TS is not generally available to GA. Maybe it is just me.

John, I always ask for a TS where available as BS has no tactical value for me.
I manage to get a TS about 70% of the time. The other 30% of the time they can only provide a BS.

I'm based in SE England and observe that I'm more likely to be refused over a good sunny weekend when everyone is flying. The strange thing of course is that this is the time when one might want it most to aid with the limitations of see and avoid?

That said I suspect due to the unpredictability of the Class G environment where people can go flying 'whenever/wherever they like' without prior notification, and controlling resources primarily allocated towards the flight planned IFR environment, I'm not sure what the best solution to this problem should be. Maybe one option, if separation or traffic information is deemed vital for your type of flight, is to file and fly IFR and accept the limitations of CFMU and RAD/SRD? Another option might be to install PCAS/ADS-B. A third option that should significantly reduce the risk of collision might just be to fly where fewer people are known to be flying, e.g. higher than 3000ft?

I thought I'd mention too that I've tried on a few random occasions requesting a DS just to see what it was like, yet I have never managed to get one in either VMC due to 'traffic density', or IMC due to 'airspace constraints'. Later someone suggested that deconfliction minimas with other unknown traffic in the area were so huge such that this service was not even worth using.

I agree with other posters here that we just need one simple service and not four that remains unique to the UK where many don't fully understand. A continental-style surveillance-based FIS / American-style Flight Following keeps things simple. However even such services are, to my knowledge, only available on a workload permitting basis if you're VFR.

[John Dean]

An excellent flying day today with the murk of the weekend in the southeast gone, we went to have a walk along the seafront in Sandown. Passing Royal Tunbridge Wells, I called Farnborough East and requested a Traffic service.

Farnborough came back with a squawk and would give a Basic Service for the present. A couple of minutes later they came back to me and confirmed that I was identified and they would provide a Traffic Service but with a reduced service due to controller workload. Personally, I wouldn't have said the frequency was busy as there were long silences but perhaps they were occupied elsewhere.

[John Brady]

Thanks for the input so far - keep it coming over the week-end please.

To respond to James - there are of course ways to avoid conflicts like flying higher and so on. IFR traffic probably gets a service when VFR does not.

However, the issue I am dealing with is: if we make our aircraft more electronically conspicuous to "the system" on the basis that the safety of "the system" is thereby improved, what do individual airspace users get from it in terms of safety? I hold the view that "system" safety is fairly meaningless but that the safety as observed by individual airspace user groups is the proper measure. It is often said to me that if our group all fit electronic conspicuity devices we benefit because those aircraft that receive a radar service will be able to avoid those of us who don't. But does that stack up if most of us do not have a high quality traffic alert system and are unable to get a radar service?

In the 37 years from 1975 to 2011, 72 powered light aircraft were involved in collisions in the UKFIR as follows:

• 4 collided with military aircraft in the cruise
• 6 collided with gliders
• 62 collided with other powered aircraft as follows:
36 collided with each other in or close to the same airfield or circuit.
26 collided with each other in the cruise

So 85% of the airspace (collision) risk you face is hitting other light aircraft of which 50% is in or near the circuit and 36% in the cruise.

I want to understand how our present ATSOCAS system is able to mitigate those risks. Don't forget that the ICAO FIS that we used to have included a requirement to advise aircraft about conflicting traffic. A Basic Service does not although a controller does have a duty of care not to ignore a risk situation.

Any data you can provide will help to build a picture and help us all understand risk better.

And just so you dont get scared - collision risk is only about 1% of the overall GA accident rate and about 6% of the overall fatal accident rate.

John

[James Chan]

But does that stack up if most of us do not have a high quality traffic alert system and are unable to get a radar service?

John, a most interesting point.

In order to prove if it stacks up I suspect we'll need evidence to show what collisions would have been prevented by the presence of other aircraft being equipped and/or making using of a radar services.

I don't think such statistics exist. There is a mathetical model for prevented collisions by the establishment of an air traffic control tower but that's the closest I could find.

The common assumption is that if you were unable to obtain a radar service (i.e. a TS or DS), it is most likely that it is because others at this facility are already being given a radar service. Therefore the risk of others colliding into you should be reduced.

However I wonder about the limitations:
1) Has there ever been the case that nobody gets any radar service because all the available RT capacity is used by everyone free-calling for a BS? If so, this could be the very reason to stop offering a BS, and if still desired by the pilot, replaced by a listening watch/squawk, or flight plan filing.

2) There appear to be areas of overlap, and multiple aircraft working different units, which may be likely to degrade the service availability and quality of any TS or DS. If so, may someone should look at the feasibility of LARS/FIS sectorisation.

So for the aircraft you've detailed that have collided, it would be interesting to know how many did not have electronic conspicuity (e.g. a xpdr) vs. how many did. I am assuming that for all collisons, traffic information could not be obtained, either via ATC or PCAS, else it could have been prevented.

This may be a way of using historical evidence to think about how more electronically conspicuous we should make our aircraft.

What do you think?

[John Brady]

Here are the week-end results from the RV & LAA forum for the provision of a Traffic Service:

No 55%
Yes 28%
Reduced 11%
Given but terminated 6%

Most of the yes returns were from Farnborough radar or aerodromes in the north of England.

John