433
<< but there is no solution to aircraft not following and adhering to restrictions>>
There is in fact - TCAS!
<<My problem is when RA's are given when I have a controlled situation and still nearly 2000' separation>>
The solution here lies with the pilots, and them not using stupid RoD/C close to assigned Level off Altitudes. And if necessary, prescriptive maximum RoC/D need to be introduced as law i.e. as in the USA.
<<suddenly turned into an uncontrolled situation with less than 1000' separation>>
I can see it must be frightning for a controller - if both pilots follow their RA, it is actually "controlled", but by TCAS. And his separation criteria is tight - I have had an RA and with 500' of separation it was "Maintain Vertical Speed" throughout...
<<because a pilot is following company policy and reacting to an RA>>
It is not, or at least should not be "company policy". It MUST be National / ICAO policy. TCAS will only work if we ALL ALWAYS follow its commands, or bin the whole thing...
<<and controllers able to override an RA>>
Disagree - this was what in effect led to the German / Swiss midair. TCAS is a very "close in" tool, and in "reversal" type scenarios it is quite hard work to react to it in its timescales in the FD - there is no time to check, or get overriddden from the ground. All we can do is follow it, as quickly and accurately as possible, and only then inform ATC.
I do come back to the original point. As an ATCO, and providing legal separation minima, aircraft under your control should hardly see a TA, and never an RA. If they do, it is either an error on your part, which is what TCAS is for, or (far more likely) one or both aircrew using inappropriate RoD/C. And as an aside, ATC clearances requiring high RoD/C e.g. outside the 3x table, are in turn more likely to generate TAs/RAs....
Good debate as ever!
NoD