20170404-CAP774 - UK FIS - Edition 3

Safety and Airspace Regulation Group
UK Flight Information Services

CAP 774
CAP 774
Published by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2017
Civil Aviation Authority,

Aviation House,
Gatwick Airport South,

West Sussex,
RH6 0YR.
All rights reserved. Copies of this publication may be reproduced for personal use, or for use within a company or organisation, but may
not otherwise be reproduced for publication.
To use or reference CAA publications for any other purpose, for example within training material for students, please contact the CAA at
the address below for formal agreement.
First published 12 June 2008 (effective 12 March 2009)
First edition incorporating amendments to 19 November 2009

Second edition 14 November 2013
Second edition incorporating amendments to 24 July 2014
Second edition incorporating amendments to 13 November 2014
Second edition incorporating amendments to 4 February 2015
Second edition incorporating amendments to 18 August 2016
Third Edition 25 May 2017
Enquiries regarding the content of this publication should be addressed to:

Intelligence, Strategy and Policy, Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority, Aviation House, Gatwick
Airport South, West Sussex, RH6 0YR.
The latest version of this document is available in electronic format at www.caa.co.uk, where you may also register for e-mail notification
of amendments.
May 2017 Page 2

CAP 774 List of Effective Pages
List of Effective Pages
Chapter Page Date Chapter Page Date

List of Effective Pages 3 May 2017 Appendix A 42 May 2017
List of Effective Pages 4 May 2017 Appendix A 43 May 2017
Contents 5 May 2017 Appendix A 44 May 2017
Contents 6 May 2017
Contents 7 May 2017
Contents 8 May 2017
Revision History 9 May 2017
Foreword 13 May 2017
Chapter 1 17 May 2017
Appendix A 41 May 2017
May 2017 Page 3

CAP 774 List of Effective Pages
Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 4

CAP 774 Contents
Contents
List of Effective Pages 3

Contents 5
Revision history 9
Foreword 13
Introduction and applicability 13
Purpose and scope 13
Relationship to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 14
Document structure 14
Interpretation of words 14
Gender 14
Duty of care 15
Regulatory oversight 15
Enquiries 15
Chapter 1 17
ATS Principles 17
Introduction 17
Duty of care 17
The ATS 18
ATS provision 18
Compliance requirements 18
Agreements 19
Appropriate type of ATS 19
Standard application of ATS 20
Reduced traffic information/deconfliction advice 20
Alerting service 21
Chapter 2 23
Basic Service 23
Definition 23
May 2017 Page 5

CAP 774 Contents
Provision 23
Flight rules and meteorological conditions 23
Identification 23
Traffic information 24
Deconfliction 25
Terrain 25
Headings 25
Levels 25
Chapter 3 27
Traffic Service 27
Definition 27
Provision 27
Identification 27
Deconfliction 28
Terrain 29
Headings 29
Levels 29
Chapter 4 31
Deconfliction Service 31
Definition 31
Provision 31
Identification 31
Deconfliction 32
Terrain 33
Headings 35
Levels 35
Chapter 5 37
Procedural Service 37
May 2017 Page 6

CAP 774 Contents
Definition 37
Provision 37
Identification 38
Deconfliction 39
Terrain 40
Lateral, longitudinal and time restrictions 40
Levels 40
Approach clearances and holding instructions 40
Appendix A 41
Duty of care 41
Background 41
Common law 41
Establishing whether a duty of care is owed 42
How should the duty of care be discharged? 42
Vicarious liability and indemnity for acts in the course of employment 43
May 2017 Page 7

CAP 774 Contents
Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 8

CAP 774 Revision history
Revision history
Edition 1 12 June 2008

The first edition of CAP 774 was published to promulgate the revised UK Flight Information
Services effective on 12 March 2009.
Revisions included in Amendment 1 to Edition 1 19 November 2009

Amendment 1 incorporated changes formulated as a result of a formal six-month review.
In addition to editorial changes and minor corrections, Amendment 1 comprised:
Section Subject
Traffic Service Amplification regarding pilot controller agreement regarding changes to

route and manoeuvring area.
Additional guidance regarding pilot requests for ‘block’ altitudes.
Deconfliction Service Incorporated ATSIN 148 regarding the applicability of deconfliction

minima.
May 2017 Page 9

Edition 2 14 November 2013

In addition to editorial, formatting and minor corrections, Edition 2 comprised:
Section Subject
General The term ‘service’ was replaced with ‘ATS’ where appropriate.
The RT phraseology Annex was deleted as all now contained in CAP 413.
ATS Principles Guidance added regarding the ability for surveillance systems to detect aircraft.
Appropriate Type of ATS text revised to align with CAP493 requirements on

aircraft leaving controlled airspace.
Added guidance text on reduced traffic information and deconfliction advice for
SSR Alone service.
Basic Service Guidance on when Basic Service may not be appropriate.
Inclusion of generic traffic information RT phraseology examples.
Traffic Service Additional guidance on:
When Traffic Service may not be appropriate.
To controllers on whether traffic information is relevant or not.
Pilot responsibility for collision avoidance when being provided with

headings by ATC.
Deconfliction Service Additional guidance on the provision of a Deconfliction Service in high traffic
density.
Procedural Service Additional guidance on:
Traffic information accuracy.
Potential to encounter conflicting traffic unknown to ATC and need for pilots
to comply with Rules of the Air.
May 2017 Page 10

Revisions included in Amendment 1 to Edition 2 24 July 2014

Section Subject
Abbreviations Added QDM and QTE
ATS principles Added text on Duty of Care.
Amended text relating to ATS availability to support inhibiting Deconfliction

Service to VFR aircraft.
Basic Service Significant change made regarding guidance on the provision of traffic
information.
Traffic Service Guidance on pilot responsibility for collision avoidance when being
provided with levels by ATC.
Amended text to highlight that deconfliction is not provided under a Traffic

Service.
Deconfliction Service Deconfliction Service inhibited to aircraft operating VFR.
Procedural Service Procedural Service inhibited to aircraft operating VFR.
Additional text to highlight that controllers may also provide routes to

achieve deconfliction minima.
Revisions included in Amendment 2 to Edition 2 13 November 2014

Section Subject
Foreword
Glossary
ATS principles
Various amendments to meet Reg (EU) 923/2012 (Standardised
Basic Service
European Rules of the Air) and to implement the replacement of Class F
Traffic Service airspace within the UK by Class E airspace.
Deconfliction Service
Procedural Service
Revisions included in Amendment 3 to Edition 2 4 February 2015

Section Subject
Basic Service Amendment to provision of collision warnings to meet provisions of Reg

(EU) 923/2012(SERA.9005(b)(2))
May 2017 Page 11

Revisions included in Amendment 4 to Edition 2 18 August 2016

In addition to editorial, formatting and minor corrections, Amendment 4 comprises:
Section Subject
Glossary Amendment to meet provisions of Reg (EU) 923/2012 (Standardised

European Rules of the Air)
Revisions included in Edition 3 27 April 2017

In addition to editorial, formatting and minor corrections, Edition 3 comprises:
Section Subject
Glossary Removal of content following publication of CAP 1430 the UK Air Traffic
Management Vocabulary.
May 2017 Page 12

CAP 774 Foreword
Foreword
Introduction and applicability
1. In the UK, Air Traffic Services (ATS) are provided by many civilian and military
ATS providers to a variety of airspace users including Commercial Air Transport
(CAT) operators, General Aviation (GA) and military pilots. The suite of ATS
detailed in this document together form the UK Flight Information Services
(FIS). These ATS (excluding aerodrome ATS) are the only ATS provided
outside controlled airspace within the UK Flight Information Region (FIR).
Therefore this document is equally applicable to all civilian and military pilots,
who operate in Class G airspace, and to all controllers/Flight Information
Service Officers (FISOs) who provide an ATS to them. Where notified, elements
of the UK FIS are also provided to aircraft operating in Class E airspace and in
airspace where the background airspace classification may be other than Class
G, e.g. active Managed Danger Areas (MDA) and Temporary Reserved Areas
(TRA).
Purpose and scope
2. The overall purpose and scope of this document is to:
 provide a single set of clearly defined procedures for use by all controllers/
FISOs and pilots;
 provide guidance material to support the procedures to enable common

and consistent application of the ATS;
 ensure that the responsibilities of the controller/FISO and the pilot are
clearly defined, particularly with regard to duty of care, collision avoidance
and terrain clearance; and
 ensure that UK FIS regulations are published in one single policy

document to prevent divergence of procedures.
May 2017 Page 13

CAP 774 Foreword
Relationship to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
3. ICAO defines FIS as ‘a service provided for the purpose of giving advice and
information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights’. Within the UK,
the scope of FIS, as defined in ICAO Annex 11, and transposed into European
Law through Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 923/2012, is met through the
application of any of the UK FIS. However, additional information and/or advice
to airspace users are provided to meet their specific requirements in UK Class
G airspace, and ICAO/SERA requirements for the provision of traffic information
as far as practical to VFR flights in Class E airspace. The suite of ATS together
form the UK FIS as detailed in this document.
Document structure
4. Within this document, regulations are paragraph numbered. Associated

guidance material is provided in italics below a regulation where appropriate.
Interpretation of words
5. To avoid any misunderstanding within this document, certain words are to be

interpreted as having specific meanings when they are the operative words in
an instruction.
‘shall’ and ‘must’ mean that the instruction is mandatory
‘should’ means that it is strongly advisable that an instruction is carried out; it is

recommended or discretionary. It is applied where the more positive ‘shall’ is
unreasonable but nevertheless a controller/FISO/pilot would have to have
good reason for not doing so.
‘may’ means that the instruction is permissive, optional or alternative, e.g. ‘a

controller may seek assistance…’ but would not if he did not need it.
‘will’ is used for informative or descriptive writing, e.g. ‘pilots will file…’, is not an
instruction to the controller.
6. Definitions and abbreviations used in this document are defined within CAP
1430 the UK Air Traffic Management (ATM) Vocabulary.
Gender
7. In the interests of simplicity, any reference to the masculine gender can be

taken to mean either male or female.
May 2017 Page 14

CAP 774 Foreword
Duty of care
8. In association with the development of the procedures within this document, a

formal review of liability, negligence and duty of care in ATS provision was
jointly conducted by CAA, MOD, Airport Operators’ Association (AOA) and
NATS legal experts. This process generated guidance for controllers/FISOs as
detailed at Appendix A. The procedures in this document have been produced
with this guidance in mind.
Regulatory oversight
9. Regulatory oversight of CAP 774 is the joint responsibility of the CAA and MAA
and any amendment to these procedures is subject to joint agreement being
reached.
Enquiries
Any enquiries about the content of CAP 774 should be addressed to:
Civilian enquiries: The Editor - CAP 774, Intelligence, Strategy and Policy, Safety &
Airspace Regulation Group, Aviation House 2W, Gatwick Airport South, West Sussex,
RH6 0YR
E-mail: [email protected]
Military enquiries:
MAA, Regulatory Publications Team, #5102 Level 1, Juniper Building, MOD Abbey Wood
(North), Bristol, BS34 8QW
e-mail: [email protected]
May 2017 Page 15

CAP 774 Foreword
Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 16

CAP 774 Chapter 1: ATS Principles
Chapter 1
ATS Principles
Introduction
1.1 It is essential that the ATS Principles are read in conjunction with the specific
ATS as they underpin and apply equally across the suite of UK FIS.
1.2 Regardless of the ATS being provided, pilots are ultimately responsible for
collision avoidance and terrain clearance. ATS provision is constrained by the
nature of the airspace environment in which the flight takes place. It is not
mandatory for a pilot to be in receipt of an ATS in Class E/G airspace and this
generates an unknown traffic environment in which controller/FISO workload
cannot be predicted and where pilots may make sudden manoeuvres, even
when in receipt of an ATS.
A FISO cannot provide an ATS to an aircraft inside controlled airspace; the

aircraft should be transferred to the appropriate ATSU’s frequency before the
aircraft enters controlled airspace.
Duty of care
1.3 Nothing in this CAP prevents controllers from using their own discretion,
initiative and professional judgement in response to unusual circumstances,
which may not be covered by the procedures herein. In dealing with any such
situations, controllers/FISO shall take account of the duty of care requirements
at Appendix A.
The nature of the ATS task in providing the UK FIS means that it is not possible
to be totally prescriptive about all actions to be taken, particularly with regard to
unknown traffic and the passing of advice and warnings on high risk conflictions
to pilots who have requested Basic Service and Traffic Service. Consequently,
there is a need for controllers/ FISOs to remain free to use their professional
judgement to determine the best course of action for them to take for any
specific situation.
May 2017 Page 17

The ATS
1.4 The specific ATS (Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service,
Procedural Service) are designed to cater for a wide variety of airspace users
and tasks and shall be consistently applied by controllers/FISOs and complied
with by pilots.
The UK FIS specify the varying degrees of traffic information and deconfliction
instructions or advice that controllers/FISOs pass to assist the pilot in
discharging his responsibility for collision avoidance. The ATS definitions also
include terrain clearance requirements in order for specific ATS to be provided
and the occasions when controller/FISOs shall not provide headings or levels.
The conditions for the provision of deconfliction in Class G airspace and ATS in
Class E airspace are predicated on flight rules. Deconfliction Service and
Procedural Service are only available to flights in Class G airspace operating
under IFR. Basic Service and Traffic Service are available to flights in Class G
airspace operating under both IFR and VFR and in Class E airspace operating
under VFR.
ATS provision
1.5 Controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to provide the ATS that a pilot
requests. However, due to finite ATS provider resources or controller workload,
tactical priorities may influence ATS availability or its continued provision.
Therefore, a reduction in traffic information and/or deconfliction advice may
have to be applied, and in some circumstances an alternative ATS may have to
be provided in order to balance overall ATS requirements. FISOs are not
licensed to provide Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service, or Procedural Service.
Therefore, pilots are not to request any of these ATS from a FISO unit.
FISO units are established to provide ATS at notified aerodromes and Area
Control Centres (ACC), and can be identified by the RTF suffix ‘Information’,
e.g. ‘London Information’.
Compliance requirements
1.6 The ATS definitions and conditions described in this document are inherently
agreed as part of the request for, and provision of, that ATS. Instructions issued
by controllers/FISOs to pilots operating outside controlled airspace are not
mandatory; however, the ATS rely upon pilot compliance with the specified
terms and conditions so as to promote a safer operating environment for all
airspace users.
May 2017 Page 18

Agreements
1.7 Agreements can be established between a controller (not a FISO due to limits
of the licence) and a pilot on a short-term tactical basis, such that the operation
of an aircraft is laterally or vertically restricted beyond the core terms of the
Basic Service or Traffic Service. This is for the purposes of co-ordination and to
facilitate the safe use of airspace, particularly those airspace users with more
stringent deconfliction requirements. In agreeing to a course of action, pilots
must take into account their responsibilities as defined under the Rules of the
Air, including that for terrain clearance. Unless safety is likely to be
compromised, a pilot shall not deviate from an agreement without first advising
and obtaining a response from the controller. Controllers shall remove
restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.
Agreements may be made which restrict aircraft to a specific level, level band,
heading, route, or operating area.
Controllers should be aware that not all requests for an agreement will be
accepted and they should try to take account of the pilot’s operating
requirements whenever possible. Consequently, controllers should avoid
excessive or unnecessary use of agreements and be prepared to act
accordingly if an agreement is not met.
Appropriate type of ATS
1.8 A pilot shall determine the appropriate ATS for the various phases and
conditions of flight and request that ATS from the controller/FISO. If a pilot fails
to request an ATS, the controller/FISO should normally ask the pilot to specify
the ATS required, apart from the following circumstances:
 FISOs will only provide a Basic Service;
 Controllers at approved ATC Units that do not have surveillance

equipment available will routinely apply a Procedural Service to aircraft
carrying out IFR holding, approach and/or departure procedures;
 Where ATC are unable to provide the full range of UK FIS to aircraft about
to leave controlled airspace, a controller should specify the ATS that are
available.
May 2017 Page 19

Standard application of ATS
1.9 Fundamental to the provision of the UK FIS is the standard application of the
ATS to prevent the boundaries between the ATS becoming confused.
Agreement to provide an ATS and acknowledgement of that level of ATS by a
controller/FISO and pilot respectively, establishes an accord whereby both
parties will abide with the definitions of that ATS as stated herein. Once an
accord has been reached the controller/FISO shall apply that ATS as defined. If
a pilot subsequently requires elements of a different ATS, a new accord shall be
negotiated. Where there is a need for local procedures to be promulgated that
are at variance to CAP 774, these will be subject to regulatory approval.
By incorporating elements of another ATS to that agreed, there is a danger that

pilots will come to routinely expect those elements as a part of that ATS. This
could lead to pilots requesting an inappropriate ATS for the flight profile or flight
conditions in the future. Therefore, pilots should not expect, nor ask, controllers/
FISOs to provide any element of another ATS; likewise, controllers/FISOs
should not offer nor provide elements of any other ATS.
Reduced traffic information/deconfliction advice
1.10 There may be circumstances that prevent controllers/FISOs from passing timely
traffic information and/or deconfliction advice, e.g. high workload, areas of high
traffic density, unknown aircraft conducting high energy manoeuvres, or when
traffic is not displayed to the controller or is obscured by surveillance clutter.
Controllers/FISOs shall inform the pilot of reductions in traffic information along
with the reason and the probable duration; however, it may not always be
possible to provide these warnings in a timely fashion.
In high workload situations, which may not always be apparent from RTF
loading, controllers/FISOs may not always be able to provide timely traffic
information and/or deconfliction advice. High workload situations may not
necessarily be linked to high traffic density.
High traffic density can cause difficulty interpreting ATS surveillance system
data and may affect RTF loading or controller/FISO workload to the extent that
the controller/FISO is unable to pass timely traffic information and/or
deconfliction advice on all traffic.
Where aircraft are operating close to the lateral and/or vertical limits of solid
ATS surveillance system cover, or close to a radar overhead, there is the
potential for conflicting traffic to be detected late. Similarly, there is potential for
aircraft to be undetected or detected late in known areas of poor surveillance
May 2017 Page 20

performance, permanent echoes, weather clutter or when the controller

suspects the performance of the ATS surveillance system is degraded.
Surveillance clutter may be generated by: weather, anomalous propagation,

ground/sea returns, birds, wind turbine effects, and radar countermeasures
such as chaff. In areas of clutter, the ability to detect conflicting aircraft is
reduced.
Where primary radar is unavailable, and SSR alone is used to provide an ATS,
non- transponding aircraft will not be detected; therefore ATC will not be able to
warn pilots of their proximity.
Alerting service
1.11 An Alerting Service shall be provided in association with all UK FIS.
May 2017 Page 21

Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 22

CAP 774 Chapter 2: Basic Service
Chapter 2
Basic Service
Definition
2.1 A Basic Service is an ATS provided for the purpose of giving 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.
Basic Service relies on the pilot avoiding other traffic, unaided by controllers/
FISOs. It is essential that a pilot receiving this ATS remains alert to the fact that,
unlike a Traffic Service and a Deconfliction Service, the provider of a Basic
Service is not required to monitor the flight.
Provision
2.2 Controllers and FISOs may provide a Basic Service. Controllers may utilise ATS
surveillance system derived information in the provision of a Basic Service. A
FISO shall not utilise surveillance-derived data to provide traffic information
when providing a Basic Service. The use of surveillance equipment by FISOs
for other specific tasks is subject to regulatory approval.
Flight rules and meteorological conditions
2.3 Basic Service is available under IFR outside controlled airspace in any
meteorological conditions, or under VFR.
Pilots should be aware that Basic Service might not be appropriate for flight in
IMC or where lookout is constrained by other factors, when other ATS are
available.
Identification
2.4 A controller may identify an aircraft to facilitate co-ordination or to assist in the

provision of generic navigational assistance, but is not required to inform the
pilot that identification has taken place.
May 2017 Page 23

Identification of an aircraft in receipt of a Basic Service does not imply that an

increased level of ATS is being provided or that any subsequent monitoring will
take place.
Controllers may allocate SSR codes to aircraft in receipt of a Basic Service. The
issuance of such a code does not constitute the provision of a surveillance ATS.
Traffic information
2.5 Given that the provider of a Basic Service is not required to monitor the flight,
pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller/FISO. A
pilot who considers that he requires a regular flow of specific traffic information
shall request a Traffic Service.
2.6 However, where a controller/FISO has information that indicates that there is
aerial activity in a particular location that may affect a flight, in so far as it is
practical, they should provide traffic information in general terms to assist with
the pilot’s situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the
controller/FISO unless the situation has changed markedly, or the pilot requests
an update.
Traffic information in general terms could include warnings of aerial activity in a

particular location:
 Intense gliding activity over Smallville
 multiple aircraft known to be operating 15 miles north of Smallville
 PA28 estimating CPT at 25, altitude 2000 feet
 fast jet reported routing from Smallville to Midtown below altitude 500 feet
 helicopter conducting power line inspection 5 miles north of Borton below

altitude 500 feet
2.7 A controller with access to surveillance-derived information shall avoid the

routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft but may use that
information to provide a more detailed warning to the pilot.
2.8 If a controller/ FISO considers that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning
shall be issued to the pilot (SERA.9005(b)(2) and GM1 SERA.9005(b)(2)).
2.9 Whether traffic information has been provided or not, the pilot remains
responsible for collision avoidance without assistance from the controller.
May 2017 Page 24

Deconfliction
2.10 Deconfliction is not provided under a Basic Service. If a pilot requires

deconfliction advice outside controlled airspace, Deconfliction Service shall be
requested. A controller shall make all reasonable endeavours to accommodate
this request as soon as practicable
Terrain
2.11 Basic Service is available at all levels and the pilot remains responsible for
terrain clearance at all times. Agreements may be made with pilots to fly at any
level, without the requirement for a reminder of terrain clearance responsibility
to be passed to the pilot.
Headings
2.12 Unless the pilot has entered into an agreement with a controller to maintain a
specific course of action, a pilot may change heading or routeing without
advising the controller. Other than for the purposes of identification, a controller
shall not issue specific heading instructions; however, generic navigational
assistance may be provided on request. The controller is not obliged to provide
such assistance and the pilot must not rely on its provision as part of a Basic
Service.
Generic navigational assistance may include information relative to the position

of significant navigational features and information on routeings as requested by
the pilot. If the controller has access to an ATS surveillance system and has the
capacity, he may facilitate the provision of generic navigational assistance by
identifying the aircraft and providing suggested track information. Additionally,
bearings utilising direction finding equipment, i.e. QDM/QTE, may be provided
subject to ATC equipment capability. Alternative routeings may be suggested to
assist the pilot in remaining clear of notified airspace reservations, e.g. “Suggest
re-route to the west to remain clear of active danger area”.
Levels
2.13 Unless the pilot has entered into an agreement with a controller to maintain a
specific level or level band, a pilot may change level without advising the
controller/FISO.
May 2017 Page 25

Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 26

CAP 774 Chapter 3: Traffic Service
Chapter 3
Traffic Service
Definition
3.1 A Traffic Service is a surveillance based ATS, where in addition to the

provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance-
derived traffic information to assist the pilot in avoiding other traffic. Controllers
may provide headings and/or levels for the purposes of positioning and/or
sequencing; however, the controller is not required to achieve deconfliction
minima, and the pilot remains responsible for collision avoidance.
Provision
3.2 A Traffic Service shall only be provided by a controller with access to an ATS
surveillance system.
3.3 Traffic Service is available under IFR outside controlled airspace in any
meteorological conditions, or under VFR. If a controller issues a heading and/or
level that would require flight in IMC, a pilot who is not suitably qualified to fly in
IMC shall inform the controller and request alternative instructions.
Pilots should be aware that a Traffic Service might not be appropriate for flight
in IMC or where lookout is significantly constrained by other factors, when other
ATSs are available.
Identification
3.4 The controller shall identify the aircraft, inform the pilot that he is identified, and
maintain identity. If identity is lost the pilot shall be informed and the controller
shall attempt to re-establish identity as soon as practicable.
May 2017 Page 27

Traffic information
3.5 The controller shall pass traffic information on relevant traffic, and shall update
the traffic information if it continues to constitute a definite hazard, or if
requested by the pilot. However, high controller workload and RTF loading may
reduce the ability of the controller to pass traffic information, and the timeliness
of such information.
Traffic is normally considered to be relevant when, in the judgement of the

controller, the conflicting aircraft’s observed flight profile indicates that it will
pass within 3 NM and, where level information is available, 3,000 ft of the
aircraft in receipt of the Traffic Service or its level-band if manoeuvring within a
level block. However, controllers may also use their judgment to decide on
occasions when such traffic is not relevant, e.g. passing behind or within the
parameters but diverging. Controllers shall aim to pass information on relevant
traffic before the conflicting aircraft is within 5 NM, in order to give the pilot
sufficient time to meet his collision avoidance responsibilities and to allow for an
update in traffic information if considered necessary.
Controller judgement is essential to ensure that traffic information is relevant

and timely. Controllers should take account of the aircraft’s relative speeds,
lateral and vertical closure rates, and track histories.
Distances displayed on ATS surveillance systems can be at variance to the

actual distances between aircraft due to the limitations in accuracy of
surveillance systems. Furthermore, some aircraft may not be displayed at all by
ATS surveillance systems.
Deconfliction
3.6 Deconfliction is not provided under a Traffic Service. If a pilot requires

deconfliction advice outside controlled airspace, Deconfliction Service shall be
requested. The controller shall make all reasonable endeavours to
accommodate this request as soon as practicable.
When providing headings/levels for the purpose of positioning and/or

sequencing or as navigational assistance, the controller should take into
account traffic in the immediate vicinity based on the aircraft’s relative speeds
and closure rates, so that a risk of collision is not knowingly introduced by the
instructions passed. However, the controller is not required to achieve defined
deconfliction minima and pilots remain responsible for collision avoidance even
when being provided with headings/levels by ATC.
May 2017 Page 28

Terrain
3.7 Subject to ATS surveillance system coverage, Traffic Service may be provided
below ATC unit terrain safe levels; however, pilots remain responsible for terrain
clearance at all times. Other than when following a notified instrument flight
procedure, a pilot intending to descend below the ATC unit terrain safe level
shall be reminded that he remains responsible for terrain clearance.
Headings
3.8 A pilot may operate under his own navigation or a controller may provide
headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing, or as navigational
assistance.
3.9 When operating under their own navigation, pilots may alter course as required;
however, unless safety is likely to be compromised, pilots shall not change their
general route or manoeuvring area without first advising and obtaining a
response from the controller.
3.10 When following an ATC heading, unless safety is likely to be compromised, a

pilot shall not change heading without first advising and obtaining a response
from the controller, as the aircraft may be coordinated against other airspace
users without recourse to the pilot. If an ATC heading is unacceptable to the
pilot he shall advise the controller immediately. Pilots remain responsible for
collision avoidance even when in receipt of ATC headings and shall advise the
controller in the event that they need to deviate from a heading in order to
comply with Rules of the Air with regard to collision avoidance. Controllers shall
only instigate heading allocations when the aircraft is at or above an ATC unit’s
terrain safe level. However, if pilots request a heading from the controller whilst
operating below the ATC unit terrain safe level, this may be provided as long as
the controller reminds the pilot that he remains responsible for terrain clearance.
Levels
3.11 Pilots may select their own operating levels or may be provided with level
allocations by the controller for the positioning and/or sequencing of traffic or for
navigational assistance. If a level is unacceptable to the pilot he shall advise the
controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall
not change level or level band without first advising and obtaining a response
from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace
users without recourse to the pilot. Pilots remain responsible for collision
avoidance, even when flying at a level allocated by ATC and shall advise the
May 2017 Page 29

controller in the event that they need to deviate from a level in order to comply
with the Rules of the Air with regard to collision avoidance. Levels allocated by
controllers shall be terrain safe in accordance with the ATC unit terrain safe
levels, unless an agreement is reached with the pilot, or such levels form part of
VFR clearance for aerodrome arrival or to enter controlled airspace that by
necessity require flight below the unit terrain safe levels; in such circumstances,
the instruction shall be accompanied by a reminder that the pilot remains
responsible for terrain clearance.
In order to reduce RT loading and increase flexibility, pilots who require to

frequently change level whilst receiving a Traffic Service should request a level
‘block’ to operate within.
May 2017 Page 30

CAP 774 Chapter 4: Deconfliction Service
Chapter 4
Deconfliction Service
Definition
4.1 A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the

provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance-
derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving
planned deconfliction minima, or for positioning and/ or sequencing. However,
the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility.
Provision
4.2 A Deconfliction Service shall only be provided by a controller with access to an

ATS surveillance system.
4.3 A Deconfliction Service shall only be provided to flights under IFR outside
controlled airspace, irrespective of meteorological conditions. The controller will
expect the pilot to accept headings and/or levels that may require flight in IMC.
A pilot who is not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a Deconfliction
Service unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.
Pilots that do not require ATC deconfliction advice or deconfliction minima to be

applied should not request a Deconfliction Service.
4.4 Pilots operating VFR and requiring an ATS shall request a Basic Service or a
Traffic Service as appropriate to the phase or conditions of flight.
Identification
4.5 The controller shall identify the aircraft, inform the pilot that he is identified, and
maintain identity. If identity is lost, the pilot shall be informed and the controller
shall attempt to re-establish identity as soon as practicable.
May 2017 Page 31

Traffic information
4.6 The controller may, subject to workload, pass traffic information on deconflicted
traffic in order to improve the pilot’s situational awareness.
Deconfliction
4.7 A controller shall provide traffic information, accompanied with a heading and/or
level aimed at achieving a planned deconfliction minima against all observed
aircraft in:
 Class G airspace;
 active Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA);
 active Military Training Areas (MTA).
4.8 Controllers are not required to provide deconfliction advice on aircraft within
adjacent controlled airspace (excepting active TRA/MTA) unless surveillance-
derived or other information indicates that such aircraft are leaving controlled
airspace; however, controllers may pass traffic information.
4.9 Military controllers providing radar to visual recoveries are not required to apply
deconfliction minima against aircraft conducting instrument approaches when
within a MATZ, subject to the conditions specified in the Manual of Military ATM.
Although active TRA and MTA are controlled airspace, autonomous flight is
permitted and UK FIS are provided.
4.10 The deconfliction minima against unco-ordinated traffic are:
 5 NM laterally (subject to surveillance capability and regulatory approval);

or
 3,000 ft vertically and, unless the SSR code indicates that the Mode C
data has been verified, the surveillance returns, however presented,
should not merge. (Note: Mode C can be assumed to have been verified if
it is associated with a deemed validated Mode A code. The Mode C data
of aircraft transponding code 0000 is not to be utilised in assessing
deconfliction minima).
May 2017 Page 32

4.11 The deconfliction minima against aircraft that are being provided with an ATS by
the same controller, or that have been subject to co-ordination, are:
 3 NM laterally (subject to surveillance capability and regulatory approval);

or
 1,000 ft vertically; (2,000 ft within active MDA/MTA above FL410, and

above FL290 where both aircraft are not RVSM approved); or
 500 ft vertically (subject to regulatory approval).
4.12 High controller workload or RTF loading may reduce the ability of the controller
to pass deconfliction advice and the timeliness of such information.
Furthermore, unknown aircraft may make unpredictable or high-energy
manoeuvres. Consequently, it is recognised that controllers cannot guarantee to
achieve these deconfliction minima; however, they shall apply all reasonable
endeavours.
In areas of high traffic density, a Deconfliction Service may still be provided,

despite the controller considering it unlikely that deconfliction minima will be
able to be achieved. In such circumstances controllers should provide an
associated notification to the pilot of reduced traffic information and
deconfliction advice should be given.
4.13 The pilot shall inform the controller if he elects not to act on the controller’s
deconfliction advice. The pilot then accepts responsibility for initiating any
subsequent collision avoidance against that particular conflicting aircraft.
However, the controller is not prevented from passing further information in
relation to the conflicting traffic, if in his opinion it continues to constitute a
definite hazard.
Distances displayed on ATS surveillance systems can be at variance to the

actual distances between aircraft due to the limitations in accuracy of
surveillance systems. Consequently, lateral deconfliction minimum may have to
be greater than those specified above, as detailed in a unit’s regulatory
approval. Furthermore, some aircraft may not be displayed at all by ATS
surveillance systems.
Terrain
4.14 A Deconfliction Service shall only be provided to aircraft operating at or above

the ATC unit’s terrain safe level, other than when a controller at an Approach
Control unit provides an ATS to aircraft on departure from an aerodrome and
climbing to the ATC unit’s terrain safe level, or to aircraft following notified
instrument approach procedures. In all other circumstances, if a pilot requests
descent below ATC unit terrain safe levels, controllers shall no longer provide a
May 2017 Page 33

Deconfliction Service but should instead, subject to surveillance and RTF

coverage, apply a Traffic Service and inform the pilot. If an approach controller
detects a confliction when an aircraft is below the ATC unit terrain safe level
whilst departing from an aerodrome and climbing to the ATC unit terrain safe
level, or when following notified instrument approach procedures, traffic
information without deconfliction advice shall be passed. However, if the pilot
requests deconfliction advice, or the controller considers that a definite risk of
collision exists, the controller shall immediately offer such advice as follows:
 For aircraft on departure, controllers shall provide avoiding action advice

and a terrain warning.
 For aircraft conducting pilot interpreted instrument approaches, controllers

shall provide avoiding action advice and an associated terrain safe level to
climb to or fly at. It is assumed that conformity with such advice will
necessitate repositioning.
 For aircraft being provided with Ground Controlled and Surveillance Radar
Approaches:
 If the terrain safe area for the procedure is known to the controller or
indicated on the surveillance display, avoiding action may be passed
without an associated climb instruction, as long as the controller
ensures that the aircraft remains within the terrain safe area, and the
turn instruction is such that the controller considers that the approach
can be continued without the need for repositioning.
 If the controller anticipates that the avoiding action turn will result in
flight outside the terrain safe area or the approach not being able to
be completed, a terrain safe level to fly at will also be provided, and
repositioning will be necessary.
When aircraft are in the initial stages of departure or on final approach, due to
limited aircraft manoeuvrability, controllers need to balance the safety impact of
passing deconfliction advice at these critical stages of flight against the risk of
collision presented by conflicting aircraft. Consequently, deconfliction minima do
not apply in these constrained circumstances and avoiding action is instead
aimed at preventing collision. Furthermore, controllers need to be aware of the
high flight deck workload that is likely to be present in the event of avoiding
action which is at variance to the published missed approach procedure being
followed.
The procedures regarding deconfliction advice to aircraft on initial departure and

final approach are designed to cater for ‘pop up’ conflictions over which the
controller has no advance warning due to the uncontrolled nature of Class G
airspace. Controllers should attempt to co-ordinate and deconflict observed
traffic prior to allowing either the departure of an aircraft that is expected to
May 2017 Page 34

require Deconfliction Service, or the final approach of an aircraft that is already

receiving a Deconfliction Service.
Where aircraft are transferred to the Aerodrome Controller once established on

final instrument approach, ATC units should use internal ATC liaison processes
to ensure that warnings of conflicting traffic are passed in a timely fashion to the
pilot.
Headings
4.15 A pilot may operate under his own navigation or a controller may provide
headings for the purpose of positioning, sequencing, navigational assistance, or
to achieve deconfliction minima. If a heading is unacceptable to the pilot he
shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be
compromised, a pilot shall not alter course without first obtaining approval from
the controller, as the flight profile may have been co-ordinated against other
airspace users without recourse to the pilot.
Levels
4.16 Controllers will normally provide level allocations for positioning, sequencing,
navigational assistance, or to achieve deconfliction minima. If a level is
unacceptable to the pilot, he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless
safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level without first
obtaining approval from the controller, as an aircraft’s flight profile may be co-
ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.
May 2017 Page 35

Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 36

CAP 774 Chapter 5: Procedural Service
Chapter 5
Procedural Service
Definition
5.1 A Procedural Service is an ATS where, in addition to the provisions of a Basic

Service, the controller provides restrictions, instructions, and approach
clearances, which if complied with, shall achieve deconfliction minima against
other aircraft participating in the Procedural Service. Neither traffic information
nor deconfliction advice can be passed with respect to unknown traffic.
A Procedural Service does not require information derived from an ATS

surveillance system. Therefore, due to the ability for autonomous flight in Class
G airspace, pilots in receipt of a Procedural Service should be aware of the high
likelihood of encountering conflicting traffic without warnings being provided by
ATC.
Pilots flying in the vicinity of aerodromes, ATS routes, or navigational aids

where it is known that a Procedural Service is provided, are strongly
encouraged to attempt to establish RTF contact with the notified ATS provider.
Provision
5.2 A Procedural Service shall only be provided by controllers at ATC units with
Regulatory approval to provide such an ATS. Controllers at ATC units that do
not have surveillance information available may routinely apply Procedural
Service to pilots of aircraft carrying out IFR holding, approach and/or departure
procedures without the need to first elicit the pilots’ requirements.
Not all ATC units are able to provide a Procedural Service. However,
Procedural Service is most commonly available from ATC units without
surveillance equipment that also have notified IFR arrival, departure or en-route
procedures. At such units, Procedural Service offers the greatest protection to
pilots.
Subject to Regulatory approval, controllers at ATC units that are equipped with
surveillance equipment may also provide a Procedural Service. This is most
frequently applied to aircraft previously in receipt of a surveillance ATS where
track identity may not be maintained, or when surveillance equipment is not
available.
May 2017 Page 37

5.3 A Procedural Service shall only be provided to flights under IFR, irrespective of
meteorological conditions. The controller will expect the pilot to accept levels,
radials, tracks, routes and time allocations that may require flight in IMC. A pilot
who is not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a Procedural Service
unless compliance permits the flight to be continued in VMC.
Pilots should be aware that under a Procedural Service, high reliance is placed
on the pilot’s ability to accurately follow radial, track, route and time allocations
to achieve planned deconfliction minima. Therefore, pilots who are not able to
accept such allocations should not request a Procedural Service.
Identification
5.4 Aircraft do not need to be identified in order for a Procedural Service to be

provided.
Controllers may allocate a notified SSR conspicuity code to assist adjacent

surveillance equipped ATC units in ascertaining that the aircraft is in receipt of a
ATS from the particular ATS provider. In such circumstances, the issuance of
such a code does not constitute the provision of a surveillance ATS.
Traffic information
5.5 The controller shall provide traffic information, if it is considered that a

confliction may exist, on aircraft being provided with a Basic Service and those
where traffic information has been passed by another ATS unit; however, there
is no requirement for deconfliction advice to be passed, and the pilot is wholly
responsible for collision avoidance. The controller may, subject to workload,
also provide traffic information on other aircraft participating in the Procedural
Service, in order to improve the pilot’s situational awareness.
Under a Procedural Service, the controller has no ability to pass traffic

information on any aircraft that he is not in communication with, unless he has
been passed traffic information by another ATS unit.
Traffic information provided under a Procedural Service is unlikely to be as

accurate as that provided by controllers using surveillance equipment.
Therefore, pilots should be alert to the potential to incorrectly correlate the traffic
information to other aircraft that they have in sight that are actually unknown to
the controller.
May 2017 Page 38

Deconfliction
5.6 A controller shall provide deconfliction instructions by allocating levels, radials,

tracks, routes and time restrictions, or use pilot position reports, aimed at
achieving a planned deconfliction minima from other aircraft to which the
controller is providing a Procedural Service in Class G airspace.
5.7 The deconfliction minima are:
 1,000 ft vertically; or
 500 ft vertically (subject to regulatory approval); or
 those lateral and longitudinal criteria listed in CAP 493 as lateral and
longitudinal separation standards.
5.8 High controller workload or RTF loading may reduce the ability of the controller
to pass deconfliction advice, and the timeliness of such information.
5.9 In the event that an aircraft that requires a Procedural Service makes contact
with the controller whilst already within the deconfliction minima, controllers
shall pass traffic information to all affected aircraft. In such circumstances, it is
recognised that controllers cannot guarantee to achieve deconfliction minima;
however, they shall apply all reasonable endeavours to do so as soon as
practical.
5.10 Deconfliction advice cannot be provided against unknown aircraft.
5.11 The pilot shall inform the controller if he elects not to act on the controller’s
deconfliction advice, and the pilot then accepts responsibility for initiating any
subsequent collision avoidance against the aircraft in question and any other
aircraft affected. However, the controller is not prevented from passing further
information in relation to the conflicting traffic if in his opinion it continues to
constitute a definite hazard.
Pilots must remain alert to the fact that whilst in receipt of a Procedural Service,
they may encounter conflicting aircraft for which neither traffic information nor
deconfliction advice has been provided. Pilots must still comply with Rules of
the Air with regard to the avoidance of aerial collisions and advise ATC of any
deviation from their clearance in order to do so. Additionally, the adequacy of
ATC deconfliction advice relies on compliance by pilots and, in the non-
surveillance environment, ATC are unable to recognise when pilot position
reports are inaccurate or incorrect.
5.12 Controllers may, subject to workload, initiate agreements (as defined in ATS
Principles) with pilots of aircraft under a Basic Service to restrict their flight
profile in order to co-ordinate them with aircraft in receipt of a Procedural
Service. However, controllers shall limit the occasions on which they make such
May 2017 Page 39

agreements to those where it is clear that a confliction exists, and only when
controller workload permits.
Terrain
5.13 A Procedural Service is available at all levels and the pilot remains wholly
responsible for terrain clearance at all times. However, if a pilot wishes to
operate below ATC unit terrain safe levels, unless on departure from an
aerodrome when climbing to the ATC unit’s terrain safe level, or when following
notified instrument approach procedures, controllers shall advise the pilot of the
terrain safe level and remind him of his terrain responsibilities.
Lateral, longitudinal and time restrictions
5.14 A controller may provide radials, tracks, routes or time restrictions, for the
purpose of positioning, sequencing, navigational assistance, or to achieve
deconfliction minima. If a radial, track, route or time restriction is unacceptable
to the pilot, he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to
be compromised, a pilot shall not change radial, track, route or time restriction
without first obtaining approval from the controller, as the flight profile may have
been co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.
Where a controller uses geographical or airspace reporting points to determine
and provide lateral deconfliction between flights, the pilot shall ensure, to the
best of his ability, that requested or required position reports are accurate.
Levels
5.15 Controllers will normally provide level allocations for positioning, sequencing,
navigational assistance, or to achieve deconfliction minima. If a level is
unacceptable, the pilot shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is
likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level without first obtaining
approval from the controller, as an aircraft’s flight profile may be co-ordinated
against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.
Approach clearances and holding instructions
5.16 Controllers shall provide approach clearances and holding instructions to

aircraft conducting IFR arrival procedures for the purposes of sequencing
and/or to achieve deconfliction minima.
May 2017 Page 40

CAP 774 Appendix A: Duty of care
APPENDIX A
Duty of care
Background
A1 In association with the development of the procedures within this document, a

formal review of liability, negligence and duty of care in air traffic ATS provision
was jointly conducted by CAA, MOD, AOA and NATS legal experts. This
process has generated guidance for ATS providers, and their personnel, as
detailed below. The procedures in this document have been produced with this
guidance in mind.
Common law
A2 ‘Common law’ is a judge-made law, which has built up through the courts over
the centuries; it is distinct and separate from laws made by statute (i.e. Acts of
Parliament). Under common law a person is under a general obligation to take
reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that he can reasonably foresee as
being likely to damage something or injure someone to whom he owes a duty of
care. If there is a breach of this general obligation and damage or “loss” results,
the person who has been injured or suffered property damage will be able to
make a “negligence claim” for compensation. For a negligence claim to be
viable, a claimant must prove that:
 a person has been negligent (i.e. has failed to take reasonable care); and
 loss or injury is suffered by some other person as a result; and
 the negligent person owed a duty of care to the claimant who has suffered
loss or injury.
Common law is applicable to ATS personnel in the delivery of their core work
task, in the same way that it is applicable to all other professions and members
of the public in their general conduct and day-to-day activities.
In interpreting common law in relation to the provision of ATS, it would be

unwise to rely on specific examples, as each case has to be taken on its own
unique merit and circumstances.
May 2017 Page 41

Establishing whether a duty of care is owed
A3 To decide if a duty of care is owed by one person to another, the courts will
consider the three criteria which were set out in the 1990 case of Caparo
Industries v Dickman:
 First the loss suffered must have been “reasonably foreseeable”;
 Second, there must be “proximity” between the claimant and the person
who has been negligent. This means that the person who is alleged to
have been negligent was in a position to exercise some control over the
events that have led to the claimant’s loss.
 Third, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Controllers/FISOs clearly owe duty of care to flight crew, passengers, and the
general public on the ground, in the delivery of an ATS. However, the depth and
boundaries of this duty of care cannot be defined in advance for each specific
scenario and situation, as they will vary depending on the exact circumstances
at the time, including: the type of airspace, type of ATS, dynamics of the
situation (i.e. how ‘foreseeable’ was the event?). The only time that these
factors will ultimately be decided upon is in court when examining the specifics
of the situation under scrutiny.
How should the duty of care be discharged?
A4 Establishing whether or not there is a duty of care is however only the first step.
The next question is how to discharge that duty of care (i.e., how careful do you
have to be?). Although every case depends upon its particular facts, there is
one key question that normally arises: is there any relevant set of standards or
procedures? If there is, the issue of whether or not a person has discharged his
duty of care is likely to be heavily influenced by whether or not he has complied
with those relevant standards and procedures. If there are no relevant
standards or procedures, it may be more difficult to establish whether or not a
person has acted appropriately.
Duty of care requirements have been a primary consideration in the production

of the procedures in this document and, where possible, specific actions have
been published that are considered to meet these requirements. However, the
nature of the ATS task in providing the UK FIS means that it is not possible to
be totally prescriptive about all actions to be taken, particularly with regard to
unknown traffic and the passing of advice and warnings on high risk conflictions
to pilots who have requested lower level ATS (i.e. Basic Service and Traffic
Service). Consequently, there is a need for controllers/FISOs to remain free to
May 2017 Page 42

use their professional judgement to determine the best course of action for them
to take for any specific situation.
A crucial element of duty of care is achieved through controllers/FISOs making

all reasonable endeavours to provide the level of ATS that a pilot requests. Due
to the nature of the unknown traffic environment, it is inevitable that there will be
occasions when controllers are unable to meet in full the ATS definitions that a
pilot expects, (i.e. due to limited surveillance capability, workload, or traffic
density). In these situations, any reductions should be made clear to the pilot,
and this ability is catered for in the ATS Principles for these air traffic
procedures. However, these actions, taken either tactically by a controller or as
a strategic measure by an ATS provider, should be in response to justifiable
limitations.
Vicarious liability and indemnity for acts in the course of

employment
A5 An employee will be indemnified by their employer if they are sued under a civil
claim of negligence for anything they do (or fail to do) as part of the proper
fulfilment of their duties as an employee. In addition, the employer is in any
event generally liable for the acts and omissions of its employees (known as
“vicarious liability”). However, an individual employee remains personally
responsible so far as any criminal, regulatory or employment consequences are
concerned. What this means is that anyone who thinks they have suffered
damage as a result of something done by an employee in the course of their
employment has choices: they can sue that employee as an individual; they can
sue the employer; or sue both the individual and the employer. If the individual
is sued, either alone or jointly with the employer, for anything they do (or fail to
do) as part of the proper fulfilment of their duties as an employee, that
employee is entitled to look to the employer to indemnify him.
ATS providers need to have an ongoing process to provide assurance that they
have taken all reasonable steps to ensure their staff are meeting their duty of
care requirements. The effective implementation and use of Quality and Safety
Management Systems are means of generating such assurance.
In addition to ATS providers, the CAA/MOD also discharge a Duty of Care in the
way it exercises its regulatory duties, which include establishing and monitoring
ATS standards.
May 2017 Page 43

Intentionally blank
May 2017 Page 44

20170404-CAP774 - UK FIS - Edition 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170404-CAP774 - UK FIS - Edition 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170404-CAP774 - UK FIS - Edition 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety and Airspace Regulation Group

UK Flight Information Services

Published by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2017

Civil Aviation Authority,

Gatwick Airport South,

First published 12 June 2008 (effective 12 March 2009)

First edition incorporating amendments to 19 November 2009

Enquiries regarding the content of this publication should be addressed to:

May 2017 Page 2

List of Effective Pages

Chapter Page Date Chapter Page Date

May 2017 Page 3

May 2017 Page 4

List of Effective Pages 3

May 2017 Page 5

May 2017 Page 6

May 2017 Page 7

May 2017 Page 8

Edition 1 12 June 2008

Revisions included in Amendment 1 to Edition 1 19 November 2009

Traffic Service Amplification regarding pilot controller agreement regarding changes to

Additional guidance regarding pilot requests for ‘block’ altitudes.

Deconfliction Service Incorporated ATSIN 148 regarding the applicability of deconfliction

May 2017 Page 9

Edition 2 14 November 2013

Appropriate Type of ATS text revised to align with CAP493 requirements on

Basic Service Guidance on when Basic Service may not be appropriate.

Inclusion of generic traffic information RT phraseology examples.

Traffic Service Additional guidance on:

When Traffic Service may not be appropriate.

To controllers on whether traffic information is relevant or not.

Pilot responsibility for collision avoidance when being provided with

Procedural Service Additional guidance on:

Traffic information accuracy.

May 2017 Page 10

Revisions included in Amendment 1 to Edition 2 24 July 2014

Abbreviations Added QDM and QTE

ATS principles Added text on Duty of Care.

Amended text relating to ATS availability to support inhibiting Deconfliction

Amended text to highlight that deconfliction is not provided under a Traffic

Deconfliction Service Deconfliction Service inhibited to aircraft operating VFR.

Procedural Service Procedural Service inhibited to aircraft operating VFR.

Additional text to highlight that controllers may also provide routes to

Revisions included in Amendment 2 to Edition 2 13 November 2014

Revisions included in Amendment 3 to Edition 2 4 February 2015

Basic Service Amendment to provision of collision warnings to meet provisions of Reg

May 2017 Page 11

Revisions included in Amendment 4 to Edition 2 18 August 2016

Glossary Amendment to meet provisions of Reg (EU) 923/2012 (Standardised

Revisions included in Edition 3 27 April 2017

May 2017 Page 12

Introduction and applicability

Purpose and scope

2. The overall purpose and scope of this document is to:

 provide guidance material to support the procedures to enable common

 ensure that UK FIS regulations are published in one single policy

May 2017 Page 13

Relationship to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices

4. Within this document, regulations are paragraph numbered. Associated