[defcribed]

During a flight on Sunday, threading one of our notorious south east choke points, I was receiving a really invaluable traffic service from a controller who was doing an absolutely fantastic job on Farnborough LARS north. She was so busy it was unreal, giving constant traffic with frequent updates to a goodly number of aircraft that were on a traffic service.

The trouble was, the frequency was clogged up and her useful work limited by a seemingly unlimited supply of folk requesting a basic service.

Things I noticed:

1. Everyone taking a traffic service had good RT and communication was crisp, clear and brief.

2. Everyone taking a basic service had bad RT, slow, mumbling, umms and errs, irrelevant detail, long calls with much in the way of mistakes and repetition.

3. Everyone taking a traffic service left the frequency proactively as soon as they no longer needed it, obviously showing awareness of ATC capacity.

4. Everyone taking a basic service hung around until the controller kicked them off due leaving area of coverage or arriving at destination.

Why won't people stop requesting a basic service? It gives you nothing, it helps no-one. If you don't want a traffic service, put the FMC in and listen out or turn the radio off. All you're doing is making life harder for everyone else who either does need something from ATC or is trying to provide that something.

In a highly unprofessional and non-CAP413 move, I expended 2 seconds of valuable airtime telling her she was doing an awesome job as I left the frequency. She'd just been calling me multiple close-proximity contacts with numerous updates, somehow getting it all in around half a dozen numpties giving their life story.

[Flyin'Dutch']

In a highly unprofessional and non-CAP413 move, I expended 2 seconds of valuable airtime telling her she was doing an awesome job as I left the frequency. She'd just been calling me multiple close-proximity contacts with numerous updates, somehow getting it all in around half a dozen numpties giving their life story.

Others should stop using a service so the service provider can give you more time?

On clear busy days neither a basic or traffic service are of much value.

[defcribed]

No, others should refrain from pointless RT activity that achieves precisely nothing (a basic service) so that controllers can do something important for those (very occasionally including me) that need their help.

A traffic service is of incredible value on busy days in tight gaps, regardless of weather conditions. The Mk1 eyeball is one step above useless, again regardless of weather conditions. You might think you're keeping a good lookout on a clear day, but if it's busy you're not seeing a significant proportion of what's out there.

[Antjrice]

From my extremely limited perspective as a low hours student, i've found the basic service very useful at doing exact what it says on the tin - information pertinent to safe and efficient flight. For me, this has consisted of:

* Building a general sense (although not complete or exclusive) of other activity in the area
* QNH updates
* During my Solo nav, the controller took it upon herself to give me a relevant traffic update, no doubt conscious of my 'student' prefix on an otherwise quieter day

This also might be a daft student assumption, but wouldn't aircraft identified through a basic service add better detection/decision value to ATC for those receiving the traffic service, even if it is loading up the airwaves?

[PaulSS]

A traffic service is of incredible value on busy days in tight gaps, regardless of weather conditions.

By that logic, all those who requested a Basic Service and flying in the same vicinity as you should be requesting a Traffic Service.

I think the ATC lady would have been swamped.

I agree about the useless nature of a Basic Service and I don't use it. I do use listening squawks (even if I do know they are more for the benefit of ATC than me). However, you cannot criticise people for using a Basic Service when you are taking up more of the controller's time with a Traffic Service on a gin clear day (restricted airspace or not).

[defcribed]

From my extremely limited perspective as a low hours student, i've found the basic service very useful at doing exact what it says on the tin - information pertinent to safe and efficient flight. For me, this has consisted of:

* Building a general sense (although not complete or exclusive) of other activity in the area
* QNH updates
* During my Solo nav, the controller took it upon herself to give me a relevant traffic update, no doubt conscious of my 'student' prefix on an otherwise quieter day

This also might be a daft student assumption, but wouldn't aircraft identified through a basic service add better detection/decision value to ATC for those receiving the traffic service, even if it is loading up the airwaves?

Get your general sense of things by listening out. You don't need to take a service to hear what's going on.

Get your QNH before you launch. You're not going far or for long at this stage, and a change of 1mb will make no difference to anything. Or get updates from an ATIS.

Yes, they'll call traffic if they have literally nothing else to do. But don't expect it.

[TheFarmer]

@defcribed

If all of those blithering buffoons with less than (your) perfect radio skills had all asked for a Traffic Service, you’d not have had such a good service from the lady in question.

A Basic service is the default offering from a controller when nothing else is requested. Perhaps they felt that on a crystal clear VFR day, that asking for a Traffic Service was a bit OTT, and that they’d rely on their good lookout, and take some pressure off the controller?

(I overlapped with @PaulSS ).

[defcribed]

A traffic service is of incredible value on busy days in tight gaps, regardless of weather conditions.

By that logic, all those who requested a Basic Service and flying in the same vicinity as you should be requesting a Traffic Service.

I think the ATC lady would have been swamped.

I agree about the useless nature of a Basic Service and I don't use it. I do use listening squawks (even if I do know they are more for the benefit of ATC than me). However, you cannot criticise people for using a Basic Service when you are taking up more of the controller's time with a Traffic Service on a gin clear day (restricted airspace or not).

That's up to them whether they ask for traffic, and depends what you mean by vicinity. Farnborough LARS covers a relatively large area and two of them are often combined on the same frequency. Those threading a gap are much more likely to want a traffic service than those in a less restricted piece of sky. Once away from the 2,500 shelf the best traffic avoidance tool is to get above 4,000 where there is virtually no traffic.

I'm certainly not taking up more time requesting a traffic service than those requesting a basic service. Their initial exchanges take three or four times as long - wrong squawk, wrong QNH, failure to read back something that must be read back, etc. And of course they get absolutely nothing for it, that's the point.

Once again, 'gin clear' is irrelevant. The Mk1 eyeball is pretty useless and when there's a lot of traffic around you won't see most of it, regardless of how good you think your look out is. You only see things when either luck gives excellent contrast against the background, when it gets very close, or (sometimes) if a controller or EC device is telling you exactly where to look.

[G-JWTP]

And we are back to my old chestnut!

Why ask for a basic service from a LARS controller?

G-JWTP

[TheFarmer]

The Mk1 eyeball is pretty useless

Are you saying that a Traffic Service is more effective at notifying you of traffic than looking out of the window?

[TheFarmer]

Their initial exchanges take three or four times as long - wrong squawk, wrong QNH, failure to read back something that must be read back, etc

I’m sorry @defcribed , but you really are sounding rather arrogant to suggest that people flying with a Basic Service* (when often that’s what they’ve been given just so they can get a Sqk code) are that incompetent, and that Basic Service recipients take up to four times longer on the radio.

* yes, we all know it’s a useless service, but if it’s what needed to be accepted to get a transit or a sqk code, does it really matter? They’ll be looking out for you while you’re flying blissfully through the middle of them with your lady on the ground telling you where the traffic is around you.

[defcribed]

@defcribed

If all of those blithering buffoons with less than (your) perfect radio skills had all asked for a Traffic Service, you’d not have had such a good service from the lady in question.

A Basic service is the default offering from a controller when nothing else is requested. Perhaps they felt that on a crystal clear VFR day, that asking for a Traffic Service was a bit OTT, and that they’d rely on their good lookout, and take some pressure off the controller?

(I overlapped with @PaulSS ).

I'd agree with you if either (a) those requesting a basic service were actually chewing up less airtime, or (b) it being a nice day means that see-and-avoid becomes really effective.

It's big sky theory that keeps you safe most of the time, not see-and-avoid. You think you're seeing and avoiding, but in reality you're just co-existing with stuff you've not seen and not hitting it because the sky is big and you are small.

What would be more useful? If all the basic service people kept quiet and Farnborough could give a traffic service to even more people, or if no-one requested a traffic service and even more people could be on a basic service? A LARS controller having nothing but (e.g.) 20 aircraft on a basic service would almost be the very definition of make-work: a huge amount of activity achieving precisely nothing.

[defcribed]

Are you saying that a Traffic Service is more effective at notifying you of traffic than looking out of the window?

Yes, I absolutely am.

You don't see most of the traffic out there. Some of it gets quite close, and you don't see it.

[Loco parentis]

What is at stake here is the soothing and comforting presence of Nanny and its handover of responsibility.

[defcribed]

Their initial exchanges take three or four times as long - wrong squawk, wrong QNH, failure to read back something that must be read back, etc

I’m sorry @defcribed , but you really are sounding rather arrogant to suggest that people flying with a Basic Service* (when often that’s what they’ve been given just so they can get a Sqk code) are that incompetent, and that Basic Service recipients take up to four times longer on the radio.

* yes, we all know it’s a useless service, but if it’s what needed to be accepted to get a transit or a sqk code, does it really matter? They’ll be looking out for you while you’re flying blissfully through the middle of them with your lady on the ground telling you where the traffic is around you.

What?

Come on, you're a smart guy.

Why are they calling 'just to get a squawk code'? You don't call to get a squawk code, you call to get a service and an individual squawk code is a byproduct of that. You can squawk 7000 or 2000 if you don't need a service.

If they're calling to get a transit they call Farnborough Zone, not LARS.

Believe me, they do take four times longer. Their initial exchanges can easily exceed a minute, usually with more than one read back being necessary to satisfy the controller.

And believe me, I'm looking out, I'm not 'flying blissfully through them'. I'm looking out with assistance, both onboard EC and from ATC. They might be looking out, but they have no idea where to look. Who's more likely to spot who?