[CloudHound]

Well, that's us told.

The CAA is aware that various electronic means are available to access live aircraft surveillance data in the public domain, with programmes and ‘Apps’ developed by a number of organisations. Aircraft surveillance data can be displayed on downloaded programmes; on internet web pages; and on various Apps that can be viewed on smart phones, tablets and laptops or other display equipment.

The CAA is mindful that some airfields in the UK that do not currently have access to assured surveillance data may wish to use these programmes and ‘Apps’ (both henceforth to be described as applications) in the provision of an air traffic service without obtaining the necessary approvals and authorisations associated with a conventional surveillance system.

In the case of ATC units the current recognised system for providing tower surveillance capability is an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (also abbreviated as ATM), which is subject to regulation as described in CAP 670 ‘Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements’. Other airports including those already operating an ATM may be considering using other applications in the tower to supplement situational awareness, or as a back-up to an ATM.

Safety considerations

Currently there are many applications that can display aircraft data including position, time stamp, identification, flight level etc. The data displayed in such applications is supplied from various surveillance sources and include: FLARM receivers, ADS-B receivers (receiving aircraft transmissions from certified or uncertified aircraft equipment), Mode S receivers, and multilateration using multiple sensors. Radio frequencies used by these sources are either allocated for aviation use (subject to Wireless Telegraphy Act Licensing and therefore afforded a degree of protection from interference), or license-exempt. Some applications combine data from multiple sources to produce a single display.

The quality (including integrity, accuracy and latency) of such data may vary depending on the different sources of the data that are fed into the application and cannot therefore be relied upon. There are no means of verifying the quality of such data or filtering out unsuitable data.

Most of the applications are for educational or recreational purposes. They have not been developed for the purpose of providing air traffic services and are unlikely to comply with relevant Safety and Interoperability regulatory requirements.

ANSPs that may be considering the use of surveillance data from these applications, should contact CAA regional office staff to discuss this further. The CAA will be seeking assurances that ANSPs have ensured the quality and integrity of the data is sufficient for the intended purpose. While the surveillance data obtained from these applications may be considered useful as an alternative to conventional and assured surveillance data, care needs to be taken to ensure that data that cannot be assured is not used for safety-related tasks in the delivery of an air traffic service (ATS). Tasks that are not safety-related may include forward planning.

Furthermore the introduction of additional displays such as tablets, laptops or PCs into a live operational environment may itself prove a distraction and therefore human factor safety implications must also be considered.

Regulatory approval

While the CAA understands that in some circumstances, having improved situational awareness using an application that displays aircraft position information may be useful, there are safety implications in the use of such data that must be carefully considered. The introduction of such systems will need to be assessed in accordance with an ANSP’s Safety Management System and evidence of compliance with regulatory requirements for ATS equipment must be demonstrated. In the absence of information from application developers of the capabilities of their applications, it is unlikely that a case for use in a tactical air traffic service environment can be made, other than for tasks assessed as not safety-related.

The CAA reminds ANSPs that the use of any surveillance data to support the provision of an air traffic service with any of the surveillance services described in the MATS Part 1, or for the acquiring of traffic information in an ATC or Aerodrome FISO environment will only be permitted following the submission of safety assurance documentation and with approval by the relevant ATM Regional Office; and that unapproved surveillance systems can only be used for tasks that are not safety-related.

Takes me back to the start of GPS for navigation when we were told not to touch it.

[rikur_]

It's a good job that an AGCS isn't an ATS, so I can still use glidernet to inform pilots of a large number of gliders operating to the east of the airfield

Whilst I sort of see the problem that they are worried about - you probably don't want pseudo traffic services appearing based upon a bloke with FlightRadar24 - but in the context of general situational awareness the risks seem comparable to the various other assumptions made in a non-radar environment (e.g. misidentified VRP, non-radio traffic, etc).

[Irv Lee]

@CloudHound

Takes me back to the start of GPS

You don't think one or two of the alphabet organisations will follow suit and give us 60 minute presentations on it? ,(59 minutes on "how it works internally" and 1 minute on the cockpit end of how it looks, and zero on its practical use and value to aviators. )

[Genghis the Engineer]

Plus a small overpriced booklet "how to use FlightRadar 24".

G

[Balliol]

Thankfully, the military ATC units where I fly use this kind of data to enhance the traffic service we get - it’s delivered with appropriate caveats and terminology, and it’s most welcome!

[tomshep]

So it is good for me to have situational awareness in the cockpit but not for the chap in the tower monitoring the circuit.
Right, own up, which one of you thought it was a good idea to swap the CAA's medication for Smarties?

[EGLL]

Do the CAA really believe that small airfields are using these unapproved systems to provide a type of virtual traffic service?

In reality, I'm sure most pilots would feel safer if they know that they can be seen on a screen, whoever they are talking to.

The latest systems are getting very accurate and provide some useful functions, but are the CAA actually going to approve a basic Mode-S/FLARM system in a tower with an AFISO service? Maybe after there is a midair and the AFISO had one aircraft on frequency and saw on his screen another aircraft approaching head on at the same level but was not permitted to give any information on traffic from an unapproved surveillance system?

I know that at some airfields they are used by instructors to keep track of their students on cross county flights and for identifying and tracing aircraft that enter ATZs with no call. They can also be used to help prevent aircraft busting local airspace and gliding sites. Also, they identify pilots joining for the wrong circuit pattern, giving incorrect position reports and even using the wrong callsign.

I don't see any problem with using the 'unapproved' data if the aircraft has been identified visually from the tower before any info or suggestions are passed to the pilot

These systems are cheap to install and are getting more and more accurate and I believe that in the future they will be of great assistance at small AFISO type airfields

[NorthSouth]

Thankfully, the military ATC units where I fly use this kind of data to enhance the traffic service we get - it’s delivered with appropriate caveats and terminology, and it’s most welcome!

I'd love to know what terminology the Military Aviation Authority has approved for this - and what traffic these units' radars can't see. Or are you talking non-UK?
NS

[ThePipster]

What would be useful from the CAA would be a strategic plan, preferably accompanied by funding, on how the introduction of such technologies could be implemented to the benefit of all users rather than a negatively toned missive......

I wonder what happens in FAA land and even across the channel with our near neighbours?

If we are to flourish post Brexit we need better than this from our authorities.

Pipster

[rikur_]

Thankfully, the military ATC units where I fly use this kind of data to enhance the traffic service we get - it’s delivered with appropriate caveats and terminology, and it’s most welcome!

I'd love to know what terminology the Military Aviation Authority has approved for this - and what traffic these units' radars can't see. Or are you talking non-UK?
NS

I was told that Linton have a FLARM display due to the proximity of Sutton Bank ..... haven't seen it first hand, so might be a rural myth.

[Marvin]

You have to put this in context with the fact that there are some GA sites who have taken the time to investigate and write a safety case, identifying boundaries, to be able to use the AdS-B technology, in real time from and onsite receiver.

So it is not all doom and gloom but in my view a reminder that the CAA would appear to have caught on to other means of of doing this and perhaps haven’t thought through the issues.

[NorthSouth]

I was told that Linton have a FLARM display due to the proximity of Sutton Bank ..... haven't seen it first hand, so might be a rural myth.

Well if that's the case, full marks to the Linton SATCO. But my advice to her/him would be, get yourself a new job pronto with Aquila so you can benefit from the multi-million pound contract MAA will have to place with them to develop a safety case for integrating FLARM et al with the Project Marshall radars now being installed at Linton and elsewhere.
NS

[Flying_john]

I must say you have to give the CAA 10/10 for stating the blindingly obvious - I cant believe any ATC would use FR24 for providing air traffic service, but would quite understand a small GA airfield using ADSB receiver or OGN or such like to give additional situational awareness, much like the London Info position at Swanwick has a radar screen that they are not allowed to use !

[johnm]

I do worry about the attitudes we get from the regulators which are driven by our ambulance chasing liability culture.

Roads now get closed for a whole day after an accident purely so that blame can be apportioned whereas 30 years ago we'd have seen Mr Plod get wreckage out of the way as quickly as possible so that everyone could get on their way.

It is perfectly sensible that these tools are used responsibly after a risk assessment and clear understanding of the quality and reliability of their data. AIUI FR 24 is delayed 2 mins in the USA as a precaution against its use by miscreants, so that would clearly have an impact on its use for situational awareness.

I'm sure that it would be helpful to those of us flying into aerodromes to get a warning of possible traffic that might be relevant. Even with a traffic service we don't get reliable data on primary returns anyway.

[ls8pilot]

I was really disappointed to see this statement from the CAA. On one hand they are trying to promote conspicuity devices, but now they seem to be putting obstacles in the way of anyone on the ground who wants to actually use the information they provide.

Surely looking at my track, height & position on an ADSB or FLARM display is better than me saying vaguely "I'm 3 miles NW of Northleach at 4000ft". Yes the display data can be out of date, but then my snap judgement of 3 nm from a visual reference at 4000ft while busy aviating is not going to be that accurate either!

As others have commented what's needed is a clear integrated strategy. Technology means it is now feasible to have situational awareness easily and cheaply available to every ATC unit. Yes they need to understand it's limitations & it needs to be integrated, but for VFR flight information it's got to be better than the current situation!