[David Wood]

As part of some work I've been doing on the whole issue of Infringements I've made it my business to talk with some pilots on the subject, including some have recently infringed. One issue has emerged that has a cross-over with the whole Listening Squawk debate. I'd be interested in your views.

So the question is: 1) who thinks that being on a Basic Service offers any protection against you committing an airpace infringement? And for those who think that it does, 2) who thinks that it offers you more protection than wearing an appropriate Listening Squawk (FMC) and listening?

Answers on a postcard please...

[Paul_Sengupta]

1) who thinks that being on a Basic Service offers any protection against you committing an airpace infringement?

Not against committing, but if given a squawk, it does show that the pilot is contactable should the pilot infringe.

2) who thinks that it offers you more protection than wearing an appropriate Listening Squawk (FMC) and listening?

No.

[James Chan]

1) who thinks that being on a Basic Service offers any protection against you committing an airpace infringement?

None. I understand nobody is really "watching" me, but given I am now known traffic with known intentions, I understand my risk to other traffic MAY be reduced.

[James Chan]

I bet the vast majority out there still believes that being on a Basic Service from a radar facility means that ATC will continuously watch them and stop them colliding into traffic, terrain and, dare I say, lines on a chart (airspace boundaries!) ......

[VRB_20kt]

I've heard people on a basic service being warned off when approaching controlled airspace (as in "You are approaching controlled airspace. What are your intentions?").

Personally, I've frequently received traffic information when on a basic service. So a qualified yes inasmuch as I might just get an extra prompt when on a basic service. Would I depend on it? No. Would I expect it? No. I guess it depends how busy the airspace is and whether the controller has time on his/her hands.

[Bathman]

1. No
2.No

But making GPS part of the skills test would help as would having a revalidation/renewal system that works.

[jamespearce]

No and No. There is obviously some fuzzy thinking around this subject but, as a regular user of the basic service offered by Solent and Bournemouth, I would be surprised if I didn't receive a warning of straying a little too close and, on one occasion offered entry to the controlled airspace. That is not to say I expect this additional hand holding but some controllers seem keen to be as helpful as possible. I often receive Traffic warnings with a basic service and it would be bloody minded for a controller not to offer warnings to prevent an Airprox.
To be clear though, I do understand that I am responsible for my own navigation and separation when receiving a Basic Service.

[Marvin]

ENR 1.1 Sub Section 2.3 defines Basic Service as:

2.3.1 Basic Service provides advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights. This may include weather information, changes of serviceability of facilities, conditions at aerodromes, general airspace activity information, and any other information likely to affect safety. The avoidance of other traffic is solely the pilot's responsibility.

While it makes clear that the pilot remains responsible for conflicting and ground clearance it is inferred, my opinion, that the pilot is responsible for "own Navigation" and therefore IMHO remaining clear of Controlled Airspace and therefore any infringement.

While ENR 1.6 Section 2.2 defines Listening squawks
Frequency Monitoring Codes
2.2.5.1 In order to both prevent and mitigate the consequences of airspace infringements, pilots operating close to the peripheries of certain controlled airspace and monitoring the relevant frequency (but not requiring an Air Traffic Service) should select a local SSR conspicuity code and the Mode C pressure-altitude mode (if available) as specified to indicate they are monitoring the promulgated ATC frequency. This facility also exists for aircraft routing close to certain airfields outside controlled airspace to advise ATC that pilots are monitoring their frequency.

Therefore on a Basic Service infringement warning is a bonus while if you are on a Listening squawk it would appear that is the intention and therefore better protection from an infringement.

However ENR 1.6 section 2.2 also makes clear that:

Use of monitoring codes does not imply that any form of Air Traffic Service is being provided. The code and any associated Mode C pressure-altitude reporting data is considered to be unvalidated and unverified. Pilots remain responsible for their own navigation and in particular for obtaining permission to enter controlled airspace and Aerodrome Traffic Zones from the appropriate agency.

[Gertie]

So the theory is that I'm flying just outside Luton (say) CAS, and if I set a listening squawk and don't talk to them they're more likely to tell me about an impending infringement than if I call them up, negotiate a basic service, and set the squawk they give me?

Ie, the same controller, watching two squawks heading straight at his airspace from half a mile away, will call up the one with a listening squawk and just sit there and watch the one he's agreed a basic service with?

[seanjd]

In my limited knowledge from reading on forums such as this one, there appears to be different levels of basic service.
For instance, basic service from Blackpool which doesn't have any radar facilities, so they can't see you anyway.
Interesting that in different areas some are getting traffic information and may even get a friendly prompt if they ventured close to some airspace.
I wonder if that leads to an almost false sense of security? I am not suggesting it does, but its an interesting thought.

[flyingjohno]

I rather agree with Gertie, if I'm understanding correctly. If a controller can see that I'm about to infringe and cause chaos, and has a way of contacting me directly (whether because of a Basic Service already established or having my callsign on a Mode S listening squawk) then I would have thought it highly likely they'd do so.

So in terms of ultimate protection against infringing I'd expect little difference.

However, I'd not expect them to be chuffed and I do wonder if I'd end up on the much-discussed CAA flow-chart..... .... so I'd not be relying on them......

[MercianMarcus]

Would I rely on a basic service to stop me infringing? No absolutely not. But you use the word "any" in your question and as "any" includes even a very small chance, so:

1) Yes
2)No

I can't see how this helps you. The fact that I believe there is a small chance I might get helped while taking a basic service, but accept it is unlikely so will thus take full responsibility for my own nav is sure irrelevant.

[Pilot H]

We already know that 90% of infringers don't use a moving map.

What percentage of infringers were in receipt of a basic service?

[Ben K]

1) who thinks that being on a Basic Service offers any protection against you committing an airpace infringement? ?

Not in any 'official' sense, but in my experience on a Basic Service, controllers will sometimes supply hints (in the form of, for example, 'are you requesting a zone transit at that altitude?') or provide a warning that airspace is ahead. I would assume if they have spare capacity, then they would like to avoid infringements wherever possible. So no formal protection, but they'll help if they can.

And for those who think that it does, 2) who thinks that it offers you more protection than wearing an appropriate Listening Squawk (FMC) and listening?

2) Same applies for a listening squawk; no guarantee, but (I'm guessing) if the controller has spare capacity, he or she will try to help.

[MarkOlding]

Hi there,
Newly qualified PPL here so go easy, my understanding is that basic service won't protect you from infringing as its all down to you and gives you the maximum autononmy, however, just looked at the airspace safety website and this is the wording:

Listening squawks

NEW listening squawks will be available from 14 September 2017.

The updated card is available here: SQUAWKandLARS(14SEPT2017)

A listening squawk enables an air traffic controller to alert a pilot if their aircraft looks likely to infringe.

So you could argue that a listening squawk will help stop you infringe.

Cheers