It's interesting that all of the examples given are to do with radar displays. If I may I will give a couple of other issues from back in my day:
1. The ten minute longitudinal standard - the controller could not know it had been infringed until the following aircraft reported it's position only 9 minutes behind, the controller then took action to provide another standard - however to provide SA then 10 minutes between aircraft should never have been applied - work that one out!
2. Aircraft departing SYD 16R and turning right on the departures frequency are supposed to outclimb traffic inbound from the south on the approach frequency. The departures controller has to tactically monitor the departure climb rates - there is no design separation assurance, or controller separation assurance
3. Virtually all Tower separation. It depends on constant visual assesment of taxi and flight paths with built-in escape manouvres in the controller's head. E.G Final approach with an aircraft cleared for take-off ahead, the standard is that the departure must be airborne and at least 1800 metres down-runway before the lander crosses the runway threshold. Each one is a punt for the Tower controller based on experience, knowledge of aircraft preformance, prevailing weather conditions, flight paths after go-around. There is no "separation assurance"; if there was then Towers would not need windows!
I always viewed it as a training technique that had suddenly become a separation standard
Last edited by Mr Approach; 23rd Jan 2021 at 08:18.
Reason: spelling