FSS traffic advisories

[pelmet]

Aircraft Information:

Registration : C-FFZN Operator : BEARSKIN AIRLINES
Manufacturer : FAIRCHILD Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model : SA-227-AC CARs Info: 703 - AIR TAXI
Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 6 Unknown : 0

Registration : C-FYZS Operator : WASAYA AIRWAYS
Manufacturer : PILATUS Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model : PC-12 CARs Info: 704 - COMMUTER
Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 5 Unknown : 0

Occurrence Summary :

A08C0065: Wasaya 1502, a Pilatus PC-12, C-FYZS, was inbound to Sioux Lookout from Thunder Bay, ON, and Bearskin 362, a Swearingen Metro 4, C-FFZN, were inbound to Sioux Lookout Ontario from Dryden. Both aircraft reported inbound for Sioux Lookout prior to entering the Sioux Lookout MF area, and were passed as traffic to other inbound aircraft, however the pilot of C-FFZN was not advised that C-FYZS was traffic for his time of arrival. The responsible FSS manager (Thunder Bay FIC) was advised, and the responsible FSS specialist was de-briefed.


I remember being told that the FSS technically was not required to give out traffic information if not rquested to do so. Is this correct?

[lilfssister]

That is SO not correct!

Whoops!! Hit "Submit" a lilttle too quickly there.

Traffic is a required part of an airport advisory.

An airport advisory must be issued to all aircraft arriving and departing the MF area.

So no, we don't pass traffic only upon request.

[bigfssguy]

No, we are responsible to give you all the info (wind altimeter etc) as well as pertinent traffic whether you ask for it or not. This is why i always get a chuckle when pilots ask for the winds and altimeter or ask for the advisory when making an initial call. We have to do it regardless, its kinda the same as pilots enroute saying "any conflicting aircraft please advise". It's not like the plane thats about to plow into you isn;t going to say anything if they didn't say it.

[lilfssister]

Sorry bigguy, I must have been editing my 'hit the wrong button earlier" post, when you were replying.

[bigfssguy]

Yours was quicker so yours counts more!!LOL!

[lilfssister]

Here's everything we are required to give you without asking:

A. runway;
B. wind;
C. altimeter setting;
D. aircraft traffic; and
E. ground traffic.
F. wake turbulence cautionary;
G. aerodrome conditions; and
H. weather conditions.
I. Any additional advisory information that
you judge appropriate.
J. Update advisory information, as appropriate.
K.Inform aircraft if aerodrome information
normally provided without request is not
available.

(You can leave out anything available on ATIS or VGM if that info is current(except the altimeter), or if you tell us you have the latest.)

[grimey]

You can leave out anything ... if you tell us you have the latest.

Just a clarification, if you say "have traffic", we can't be sure that you've actually heard all of the pertinent traffic, and must still provide it to you. If you clearly indicate what traffic you have (have the King Air on final for 22, Cherokee taxiing off, etc.), that's different.

[lilfssister]

Yes,I guess that looks like anything on the list above might be included. I meant info such as weather, NOTAM, etc. that would be available from ATIS, VGM, ACARS, the FIC or ACC enroute to the MF area.

grimey is correct.

There might be additional traffic we did not mention, if it was not pertinent to the aircraft whose advisory you just heard.

[yrp]

its kinda the same as pilots enroute saying "any conflicting aircraft please advise".

Well it does give the pilots a reason to say the call sign again: "conflicting please advise <ident>". I'm usually sitting there dumb fat and happy, then partway through the call I realize I'm heading right for him, and geez wouldn't it be nice if he said his ident again so I don't have to announce to the world that I wasn't fully listening.

But I digress...

For the incident above, is the problem that the specialist gave the traffic, but just didn't mention that the other plane would be arriving at the same time? And this made an incident report?

[GilletteNorth]

The occurence summary gives the answer. In the advisory given to FFZN, the conflicting traffic (FYZS) was not included. However it's likely both aircraft were aware of the other due to listenening out on the MF as well as hearing themselves being given as traffic to other aircraft departing. It's being reported because an unsafe condition was created when the ATS person missed including FYZS as conflicting traffic in the advisory to FFZN.

[lilfssister]

If we do something that may compromise safety, we are required to report it. That is why it shows up in CADORs.

[yrp]

The occurence summary gives the answer. In the advisory given to FFZN, the conflicting traffic (FYZS) was not included. However it's likely both aircraft were aware of the other due to listenening out on the MF as well as hearing themselves being given as traffic to other aircraft departing.

Okay, got it now. I misread the summary at first as both aircraft having been passed to "the other" inbound aircraft (ie each other) rather than to other aircraft, implying that he mentioned the traffic just not that the arrival estimate was the same.

[lilfssister]

and geez wouldn't it be nice if he said his ident again so I don't have to announce to the world that I wasn't fully listening.

Hunny WE know you aren't listenin to us half the time on the MANDATORY frequency, so I am sure the traffic on enroute freq knows it too

[yrp]

and geez wouldn't it be nice if he said his ident again so I don't have to announce to the world that I wasn't fully listening.

Hunny WE know you aren't listenin to us half the time on the MANDATORY frequency, so I am sure the traffic on enroute freq knows it too

I'm sorry I didn't catch that... say again.

[pelmet]

Maybe it was about CARS station operators then. Thanks for the clarification. However, if there is no reported traffic, must that be stated in the advisory?

[lilfssister]

No.

[NJ]

Is failing to pass traffic the only thing that can give a FSS an ATSOI?

[bigfssguy]

No anything we do wrong can become an OI. If we feel or know we did something wrong we have to report it to our manager and he decides whether we should report it as an OI. Then it goes to Ottawa to a department there that analyzes it and decides what level OI it should be if any.

There are 3 levels of OI, Level 1 = Investigation is done in Ottawa, only the evidence is looked at (tapes strips, radar etc) and a report is diisemenated from there with findings. Level 2 =The same as level one except it is done at the station where the occurence happened and includes the above plus interviews of all associated parties. Level 3 = this is done when there is considered to be a system wide problem. These are huge undertaking and they generally will facilitate a considerable change in how operations are done (eg: how FSS changed after the cranbrook crash years and years ago)

[NJ]

OK, sounds the same as the ATC side of things.

[looproll]

I think advisories should be done naked

[lilfssister]

Who says they aren't?

[grimey]

No, they shouldn't be. I'd much rather pass up seeing a hot female co-worker naked when I start my shift, than deal with the horror of seeing an old, sweaty 300 lb co-worker in his boxers on a summer day shift. The second case reportedly happened to someone in CYTH, once upon a time, fortunately before I started.

[bigfssguy]

Yup it happened to my OJI in Thompson a year or two before i got there. Not a pretty sight i can imagine!

[lucky37]

However, if there is no reported traffic, must that be stated in the advisory?

I think stating "no reported traffic" is much better than stating no traffic information at all, from a pilot's point of view. It would leave me wondering if there might be traffic that was just not mentioned, accidentally or for whatever other reason. If an advisory ended without any traffic advisory, including "no reported traffic", I would ask if there was traffic, just to leave me without any doubt.

As a pilot, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing the full situation.

[pelmet]

Exactly right.