Yes, but which of these have radar which was the original point I thought, which followed from Peter’s point that there are very few, and Timothy mentioning Biggin as an exception?
Timothy wrote:
Very difficult to have a discussion when people mean different things to what they write.
Good point, just like your .762 bullets. 
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Yes, but which of these have radar which was the original point I thought, which followed from Peter’s point that there are very few, and Timothy mentioning Biggin as an exception?
I think a fair few them do.
I’m not as familiar as Timothy is with all the far flung stuff, but certainly Oxford, Newquay, Exeter, Gloucester (sometimes), Farnborough, Biggin Hill….
Newquay, Exeter, Farnborough have their own radar. Oxford I don’t know (not been there for ages; @jasonc will know). Biggin doesn’t but pays Thames £loads for an approach service.
I don’t know of any case of non radar qualified personnel (whether ATCOs or FISOs or A/G) having a radar terminal, which is what the earlier stuff was about.
BTW, CAP774 is good reading re ATC procedures and responsibilities. It’s quite well written.
Oxford does have radar, I was there a couple of weeks ago.
I still think the point stands originally made by Peter, that there arent many, and as I said, pretty much all there are, also have either heavy GA and / or a combination of heavy GA and commercial. This is certainly true of Newquay, Farnborough, Oxford, Biggin, Exeter and Gloucester, of which all except Farnborough, Oxford and Biggin have a commercial service as far as I am aware. (Gloucester services the I of M). Many of these also have their own radar head, and dont take a feed from NATS as far as I am aware.
In contrast Calais has its own radar feed and an appraoch service was provided by the tower for some while but then was remotely taken over by Lille as was L2K. It seems to me these remote services can work very well, I have watched them in operation on a few occasions.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I dont follow?Position reports dont result in giving avoiding action for obvious reasons, whereas radar information does, or potentially does.
Surely, the point with radar information is you can see in real time with great accuracy if an aircraft is about to infringe (this discussion) or about to collide or potentially collide with another aircraft. What do you do with this information?
You tell the pilot what’s going to happen. You don’t issue any avoidance instructions. It is up to the pilot to figure out what to do. That’s the whole point of FIS and that’s exactly what a FIS unit on the continent would do. Otherwise you’d provide an advisory service which is something else.
I don’t know if you’re based in the UK or not, but from a UK perspective this may sound strange as — AFAIK — all “radar-based” FIS in the UK, such as LARS, are provided by ATC units.
Airborne_Again wrote:
You tell the pilot what’s going to happen. You don’t issue any avoidance instructions. It is up to the pilot to figure out what to do. That’s the whole point of FIS and that’s exactly what a FIS unit on the continent would do. Otherwise you’d provide an advisory service which is something else.
Thank you.
Yes, I did mention that was an alternative in my post if you constructed the correct terminology so there could be no misunderstanding.
“You tell the pilot what’s going to happen”
How, exactly does this work? For example, say there are two aircraft on a course that will likely result in a collision or critical loss of seperation. What phraseology is used, so it is clear an instruction is not being given, and if a particular action on the pilots part would result in another immedaite conflict (for example another aircraft which would result in a conflict if the pilot turned one way rather than the other) how is that covered? Yes, I am in the UK. Where is this type of service provided?
France and Germany, for starters. Phraseology is similar to traffic service in UK. And if you are heading towards airspace where you should’t they might let you know.
It is not guaranteed they will, this advice is a bit on a “best effort” basis and France has been known to let people trundle into ZITs so best not to rely on it, but quite a bit better than the “man in a room with no windows and only a pencil and a sheet of paper” type of FIS in the UK.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
How, exactly does this work? For example, say there are two aircraft on a course that will likely result in a collision or critical loss of seperation. What phraseology is used, so it is clear an instruction is not being given, and if a particular action on the pilots part would result in another immedaite conflict (for example another aircraft which would result in a conflict if the pilot turned one way rather than the other) how is that covered?
It has never happened to me, but I guess the FISO will repeat the traffic information with increasing urgency. The closest I got was at one time in Germany when I was warned about traffic with unknown altitude (without mode C, I guess, or possibly a primary return) which essentially merged with my radar return. The information was along the lines of “traffic at 2 o’clock, 3 miles, converging, unknown altitude”, “traffic at 2 o’clock, 2 miles, converging, unknown altitude”, “traffic at 2 o’clock, 1 mile, converging, unknown altitude”, “traffic has passed”. I was even IFR in class E in contact with ATC at the time, so in theory they could have given me avoidance vectors, but they didn’t. Given that I was at FL90, in and out of clouds, and the other traffic must have been VFR below clouds, I was not particularly worried.
Where is this type of service provided?
Most countries in continental Europe provide a dedicated FIS service. I know Denmark, Germany, Austria, Italy, Slovenia and the Czech republic do.
Sweden is a bit different in that ATC also provides FIS for uncontrolled flights, but the service is the same.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Gloucester, of which all except Farnborough, Oxford and Biggin have a commercial service as far as I am aware. (Gloucester services the I of M).
Not since Citywing went bust about 3 years ago after the CAA revoked their airline’s AOC after the last in a long line of dangerous operations. Gloucestershire is now pure GA.
