[condor17]

Guys , with tongue slightly in cheek ..
How come ATC can still call it a Flight Information Service ?

EGHI
Q) EGTT/QSELT/IV/B/AE/000/055/5050N00132W023
B) FROM: 18/06/23 12:30C) TO: 18/06/23 19:00

E) DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE AT SOLENT RADAR FIS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE.
MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH AND SQUAWK 7011

But us mere pilots cannot ; it has to be Basic etc.
'' Shurely Mr Bond , that is discrimination '' .
Never mind Brexit , bring back a Flight Information Service .

rgds condor.

[johnm]

NOTAM aimed at non-UK pilots too so, unlike UK, has to use international standard terminology. "Everybody out of step except our Jimmy " you see.....

[matspart3]

ICAO requires that all States provide an Air Traffic Control Service, Flight Information Service and Alerting Service. For many years in the UK, we quite happily had 3 straightforward options for the FIS bit but military controllers did it a bit differently to their civilian counterparts. A very small number of pilots got confused by this and an even smaller number of people at the AIRPROX Board and at the CAA decided we were all doing it wrong.

It was then decided that, for the FIS bit, and just to make it really complex, we’d come up with a dog’s dinner of options that no one would really understand that would be unique to the UK. They’re still known as the UK Flight Information Services and published in CAP774 and, today, because they’re short staffed and don’t want to listen to a load of confused GA pilots asking for the wrong thing, Solent Radar aren’t going to play.

[Irv Lee]

Best way to think of it is imagine an icao audit:
"Do you have a FIS outside controlled airspace?"
"Yes and if you are intetested, it is made up of 4 sub components"
"I just need the YES" (tick box)

[Lockhaven]

CAA again, a bit like the dogs dinner called licenses.

[chevvron]

ICAO requires that all States provide an Air Traffic Control Service, Flight Information Service and Alerting Service. For many years in the UK, we quite happily had 3 straightforward options for the FIS bit but military controllers did it a bit differently to their civilian counterparts. A very small number of pilots got confused by this and an even smaller number of people at the AIRPROX Board and at the CAA decided we were all doing it wrong.

ICAO Doc 4444 para 8.11 'The use of Radar in the Flight Information Service' is (so I am told) complied with in many European countries except thte UK.

[CloudHound]

And GPS approaches.

[TimmyP]

Guys , with tongue slightly in cheek ..
How come ATC can still call it a Flight Information Service ?

EGHI
Q) EGTT/QSELT/IV/B/AE/000/055/5050N00132W023
B) FROM: 18/06/23 12:30C) TO: 18/06/23 19:00

E) DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE AT SOLENT RADAR FIS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE.
MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH AND SQUAWK 7011

But us mere pilots cannot ; it has to be Basic etc.
'' Shurely Mr Bond , that is discrimination '' .
Never mind Brexit , bring back a Flight Information Service .

rgds condor.

Flight information service is now the term used in MATS1 to encapsulate basic, traffic, deconfliction (and procedural, I guess) services.

The collective term used to be Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace (ATSOCAS). Until someone decided that VFR traffic participating in Class E should be given a Basic or Traffic service and not a Radar Control Service, so the 'outside controlled airspace' was no longer suitable.

Wouldn't the world be much easier if a spade was called a spade, regardless of what you were digging

In answer to your question about why you can't ask for an FIS...the answer is, you can, but the response would be: "what type?"

[GonzoEGLL]

If you think it's a dogs dinner, just wait for the currently-proposed EASA Part.ATS, which appears to legally prevent ATC from giving a vector to any aircraft in Class G

But then maybe an easy way out would be to give any airport with an approach radar unit a CTR/CTA overnight and blame EASA!

[chevvron]

And GPS approaches.

[Lockhaven]

If you think it's a dogs dinner, just wait for the currently-proposed EASA Part.ATS, which appears to legally prevent ATC from giving a vector to any aircraft in Class G

But then maybe an easy way out would be to give any airport with an approach radar unit a CTR/CTA overnight and blame EASA!

Be careful what you wish for, that will be coming to an area near you soon.

[James Chan]

legally prevent ATC from giving a vector to any aircraft in Class G

Good! So it should be.

give any airport with an approach radar unit a CTR/CTA overnight

Good again! ATC in uncontrolled airspace makes a mess of everything.

[chevvron]

If you think it's a dogs dinner, just wait for the currently-proposed EASA Part.ATS, which appears to legally prevent ATC from giving a vector to any aircraft in Class G

But then maybe an easy way out would be to give any airport with an approach radar unit a CTR/CTA overnight and blame EASA!

Simply introduce blanket Class E airspace so that all IFR traffic above (say) 1000ft QNH has to file a flight plan, request clearance etc.
Oh hang on, there's a serious shortage of AIr Traffic Controllers so ther'd be no-one to 'control' this airspace.

[chevvron]

legally prevent ATC from giving a vector to any aircraft in Class G

Good! So it should be.

give any airport with an approach radar unit a CTR/CTA overnight

Good again! ATC in uncontrolled airspace makes a mess of everything.

It would probably mean IFR in Class G would be banned too; do you seriously advocate that?

[James Chan]

probably mean IFR in Class G would be banned too;

I can’t see anything to suggest that would happen but I have no opinion on this as yet.

If it has to be converted to Class E then fair do.

I would however want to see the filed UK ICAO difference of “continuous two way communication in IFR is not required” is removed.