Label Handoff and Frequency Change Question

[av8boy]

Dave, I read your post that if jurisdiction isnt accepted, then you have to vector around the airspace. So the question was for ANSA. (as an aside, does that ever happen?)

Yes it does happen, ferris. However, it is incredibly rare.

As an approach controller handing-off to the Center, it can happen when an aircraft is approaching the lateral boundary of my airspace* or the vertical boundary (130), and perhaps the vertical is a better example. When the tower issues a clearance it says something to the effect of “…maintain five thousand, expect flight level 310 one-zero minutes after departure…” Assuming that traffic permits, when I get the aircraft and radar identify him, I climb him to 130. Depending on his rate of climb, and again, assuming he’s headed out of my airspace vertically rather than laterally, I may initiate a handoff as he’s out of 8.5 or so. Note that the aircraft is still stopped at 130. When the Center takes the handoff, under a memorandum of understanding, I am to climb him to, say, 210 (and he'll get higher from the Center when the low sector hands-off to the high sector, but because I've got my filters set so as to exclude that, I never see it). So, once the handoff has been accepted by the Center, I issue the climb to 210 and the frequency change. If the handoff is not taken by the Center, the guy is still stopped at 130 until we get it sorted-out on the land line.

Aircraft approaching the lateral boundary of my airspace are treated the same way: if the handoff is not accepted by the Center, then I can’t enter the Center’s airspace with the guy. On this side of the pond it would be inconceivable to do it any other way. Yes, that can mean spinning the guy, but that’s the way it is. However, as I said, that scenario is exceedingly rare. In 26 years I’d bet I’ve seen it no more than a handful of times, and even then, coordination is almost always completed before the aircraft gets established in the turn.

If the handoff is not accepted by the Center and the aircraft is approaching the boundary, either the departure coordinator or I am yelling on the shout line at the Center sector in question. That pretty much does it. But here’s the rub: turning an aircraft to keep him in my airspace (or the Center or another approach sector doing the same to keep an aircraft out of my airspace) happens so rarely because it’s almost always a case of the other controller not noticing the flashing target approaching the boundary. Spinning the aircraft is not a substitute for flow control—if my airspace is saturated I’m not going to just ignore handoffs. That’s stupid and will result in that Center controller having a large flock of aircraft circling at the boundary, my boss asking me what the hell my major malfunction is, and my well-being threatened next time I visit the Center. This being the case, I’m going to solve my problem by having appropriate management employ some sort of flow. Same thing the other way—if the Center is up to its ears in aircraft, it’s not going to ignore my handoff. It’s going to implement some sort of flow.

Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody vector around my airspace, especially on the basis of my not accepting a handoff. That would be absurd. If I’m saturated and the Center has someone who needs to transition my airspace, the Center may climb him above my airspace if possible and solve the problem that way, but vector around and add 100 miles to the trip? No sir. Ain’t gonna happen.

BTW, I'm not implying that this model should be the standard elsewhere. I'm just explaining how my world works over here.

Hope that helps.

Dave


*Which always reminds me of the admonition I received from a pilot one day upon using the “my airspace” term-of-art in casual conversation with him… He said, “it’s not your airspace, it’s our airspace. You just control aircraft in it.” Fair enough—I’m as service-oriented as we come. However, as shorthand among us ATCers, it is unrivaled.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

After two days of reading this topic I have realized finally!

By the way I would like to ask:

“…maintain five thousand, expect flight level 310 one-zero minutes after departure…

this is not the first time to see such type of route clearance. we have a lot of discussion over here regarding route clearances and I would like to know if it is some special FAA rule or wrong interpretation of ICAO rules.
I prefer and I may bet that it is correct to say:
XZW clear to.. follow.. climb to 6000(TWR)
APP: XZW identified clear to.. climb to 140
ACC: XZW identified clear to.. climb to 310
For me it sounds too risky to give clearance on FAA way,because it could happen that a/c wouldn't be able to climb safely to fl310 in ten minutes. It is not big problem if r/t works properly but what happen and how you deal in cases of two way radio communication failure.
I know that this is out of topic absolutely but text inspired me in that direction.
I will appreciate reasonable answers.

[av8boy]

SINGAPURCANAC,

It is not big problem if r/t works properly but what happen and how you deal in cases of two way radio communication failure.

Two-way radio failure is exactly why this rule exists. If your radio doesn't fail, DON'T USE THIS PROCEDURE! You can find the full story in 14 CFR 91.185 (AKA FAR 91.185).

Sec. 91.185 - IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the rules of this section.
(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following:

(1) Route. (i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;

(iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or

(iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight plan.

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in §91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or

(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance. [All bold lines are my emphasis]

Thus, if your coms go away, you wait 10 minutes after departure and climb to your "expect" altitude. That's what the controller is "expecting" you to do! If your coms are not lost, you simply follow the controller's instructions. If I'm not mistaken, the ICAO methodolgy is similar:

From ICAO Annex 2:

...3.6.5.2 Communication failure...

3.6.5.2.2 If in instrument meteorological conditions or
when the pilot of an IFR flight considers it inadvisable to complete
the flight in accordance with 3.6.5.2.1 a), the aircraft
shall:

a) unless otherwise prescribed on the basis of regional air navigation agreement, in airspace where radar is not used in the provision of air traffic control, maintain the last assigned speed and level, or minimum flight altitude if higher, for a period of 20 minutes following the aircraft’s failure to report its position over a compulsory reporting point and thereafter adjust level and speed in accordance with the filed flight plan;

b) in airspace where radar is used in the provision of air traffic control, maintain the last assigned speed and level, or minimum flight altitude if higher, for a period of 7 minutes following:

1) the time the last assigned level or minimum flight altitude is reached; or

2) the time the transponder is set to Code 7600; or

3) the aircraft’s failure to report its position over a compulsory reporting point; whichever is later, and thereafter adjust level and speed in accordance with the filed flight plan;

[snip]

Hope that clears that up a little bit.

Dave

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Hi Dave,
I appreciate your quick and correct answer. I truly understand your position and rules that you apply, but isn't it more logic(and correct as well):
In case of radio comm/failure,
1. maintain last assigned level by ATC,
2. Climb to minimum sector altitude or any other minimum level applicable to current position of a/c
3. Comply with ICAO annex 2( as you mentioned) i.e. climb in accordance with your requested level.
it gives us an additional protection because we will be sure when a/c will start to climb/descent.(more applicable in radar environment)
From my point of view use "in ten minutes" phrase is not so strict or safe like standard ICAO procedures.
And why tower ATCOs "forced" to give level, that originally is under ACC jurisdiction?
Again,It sounds to me more risky than usual job requires.
Thanks for correct answers. Really, we have a lot of discussion in that direction.

[av8boy]

SINGAPURCANAC,

The "10 minutes after departure" thing is a good question. I've honestly never thought about the origin of it (and that seems important here!), but I'll do some reading and see what I can come up with.

With regard to

ATCOs "forced" to give level, that originally is under ACC jurisdiction?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking...

Dave

[BlueSkye]

Av8boy, a bit off topic but is Laurel Land(sp) still at LAX TWR. I know Calif is a big place, just wondering.

[av8boy]

Sorry Blue, dunno. I know a handful or two of folks up there but Laurel's not among them. If Mike Foote is still the NATCA rep up there he might be willing to tell you if you ID yourself to his satisfaction. You should be able to find him on the NATCA website. He's a great guy but busy, so if he sounds short with you it's not a slam.

Dave

[Skyjuggler]

Okay, my two cents about the "FL310 in 10 minutes" thing... The way I read it is "EXPECT FL310 in 10 minutes..." It's not a clearance. I just see it as keeping the pilot in the picture... Maybe I'm missing something

Back on the topic though AirNoService, You're completely right about the way things are done in S Africa. We (at least all the controllers I know and work with) execute a similtaneous handover of the label and the acft. Having read through the forum I think there are certainly strong arguments for both ways of doing it... I personally like the idea of clicking and doing the action while I speak, otherwise I fear I may be distracted and as said, once that label changes colour... You tend not to see it.

But, I'll do some probing around here with the other guys and see if they have any interesting thoughts. If they do, I'll be sure to post.

[john_null]

BEKOL, Hong Kong is using AutoTrac I not II.

[bekolblockage]

Streuth! Thanks for spotting the typo 7 years later! Yes, Autotrac I it should have said.
Now we have the wonderful AutoTrac III system to look forward to.

Soon to be the only mugs in the World it would appear.

[globglo]

Hey, an Autotrac III user here! How is the experience being? Day-to-day ops with the system are turning into a nightmare in the Middle East. Heard you've had stability issues, true?