technical sep loss

[clr4takeoff]

Hi everyone!

Question for collegues around the world:
In a radar environment dou you guys have to consider the concept of technical sep loss, which would be something like that:
AC1 a jet with a ground speed of 280 kts climbing thru 14000' cleared to 17000' heading 270, AC2 a turboprop ground speed of 170kts climbing thru 6000' also cleared to 17000' on a heading of 310. The 2 Aircrafts are already 3.2 NM appart increasing. Is this a sep loss (technical), considering you're working in a typical 5NM / 1000' separation environment??

[wizad]

theres no such thing as a technical loss when youre valid..... :E

[west atc]

In a radar environment dou you guys have to consider the concept of technical sep loss, which would be something like that:
AC1 a jet with a ground speed of 280 kts climbing thru 14000' cleared to 17000' heading 270, AC2 a turboprop ground speed of 170kts climbing thru 6000' also cleared to 17000' on a heading of 310. The 2 Aircrafts are already 3.2 NM appart increasing. Is this a sep loss (technical), considering you're working in a typical 5NM / 1000' separation environment??

In Oz this would be considered a breakdown of separation. We have the situation all the time of aircraft on diverging tracks more than 3NM but less than 5NM which are separated when they on departure frequency but if we accept one of them on the enroute frequency, they are suddenly not separated even though they were separated and are going away from each other.

[Jerricho]

"I was monitoring the vertical rate..........."

[GunkyTom]

From an App Rad point of view, the situation is not a loss of sep at the time you describe as you have not come below your minima of 1000' OR 5nm and they are diverging. It would only become an issue if there was a vertical sep of less than 1000' And less than 5 nm (3nm in our zone)at any time.It is difficult to judge without having been there but if you were training then your mentor is probably correct in making sure standard sep is achieved before you climb/descend/turn towards another a/c. It is a bit like don't do as I do, do as I say. When valid, you can make your own mistakes and take shortcuts as it then on your license

[SINGAPURCANAC]

@clr4takeoff,
If you are my student and ask such question I will give you the last number of local classifieds . In order to find job that more suits to you.

you have one a/c (jet) passing fl140 to fl 170 ( speed is quite irrelevant) and in hdg 210
and another one a/c( turboprop) at 6000 feet at the same moment , with instruction Climb to FL 170,hdg 170.
and at that moment there is 3.2 Nm lateral separation.
For your info minimum separation is 5 nm or 1000'.
and you have at that case 8000'+. at the moment when they reach FL 170 they will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.
But I am in a good mood today and I will give advice.
If you have such question and similar , and you are thinking that my answer is not correct than you should try to join SMATSA at Belgrade.
they have some instructors working such way. But they represent minority.
others use their brain!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<AC1 a jet with a ground speed of 280 kts climbing thru 14000' cleared to 17000' heading 270, AC2 a turboprop ground speed of 170kts climbing thru 6000' also cleared to 17000' on a heading of 310. The 2 Aircrafts are already 3.2 NM appart increasing. Is this a sep loss (technical), considering you're working in a typical 5NM / 1000' separation environment??>>

Forgive me; I'm old and decrepit... but from what I understand, one aircraft is climbing thru' 14000 and another a/c, which is considerably slower, is climbing thru' 6000 and they are on diverging tracks. So, by the time they both reach 17000 they will be many miles apart, with the distance rapidly increasing.

The question of separation surely doesn't arise - they are separated and will remain so. That sort of situation arises in busy terminal areas all day.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

All that anyone cares about surely is what you have when they are 999ft apart (assuming the vertical sep is 1000ft). In the Oz college of knowledge there was the old "Separation assurance" thing they used to get you on, but in the real world that was always a bit of a joke.

So my answer is you either have a sep loss or you don't. There is no such thing as a technical loss of sep. In this case they are 8,000 ft apart so until they are 1000ft apart whether they are .5 NM apart or 25 NM apart is irrelevant. Just my opinion, but maybe I have been working in the Wild West Sandpit too long.

[av8boy]

The US delegation concurs (well, I do anyway...). They're too close when they get too close, not when they're as HD has characterized this situation...

one aircraft is climbing thru' 14000 and another a/c, which is considerably slower, is climbing thru' 6000 and they are on diverging tracks. So, by the time they both reach 17000 they will be many miles apart, with the distance rapidly increasing.

They pay us to use our brains in exactly this manner. To fail to anticipate this sep would trouble me. Of course, stranger problems have developed, but that's why we continue to watch these things...

Dave

[ferris]

The example given is a good demonstration of sep assurance vs. "they'll never hit in a fit".
Also, sometimes if you look hard enogh, you do have a standard.
Does this one appear in your tool bag;

Transiting to airspace with a different standard.
When two aircraft are transiting to an airspace where a larger standard will apply, and their tracks diverge by 30 degrees or more, and the smaller standard will continue to exist until the larger standard is achieved, the aircraft are deemed separated.

So if you are going from a terminal standard of 3nm to an enroute standard of 5 nm, I would claim that one (if you have it where you are).

Technical loss of sep: I have used this phrase to inform pilots that we don't have the required standard, but they are not going to crash. (received a handoff in procedural airspace coming into radar where there was 18nm longitudinal, same level- loss of sep, but they weren't going to die). Don't think it's an official term, but useful.

[clr4takeoff]

My dear SINGAPURCANAC (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=161800) you have absolutly no idea of what made me ask this question, but i'm also in a good mood today and I will tell you:
I was working departure (teminal) where we use 3nm/1000, and I was perfectly confortable with the situation when I handed off the 2 ac to the enroute. But on there side, the enroute was not confortable with that. They just asked me to make sure the lower one was clrd 1000' below the higher or 5 nm appart before handing them off. That's about it!
Thank you anyway for taking a little of your time to give precious advices!:mad:
Acoording to the answers I can assume that everybody understood my question...Maybe I didn't give enough details to fully get the situation. ;)
So I was just asking if this concept of sep loss with ac always separated exists somewhere else than in Canada (which, bye the way, I just can't find in our AIP...:E)

[SINGAPURCANAC]

sorry for misunderstanding,
but then your colleagues from ACC are ready for move,because,
turboprop will reach Fl 170 in 6 minutes(minimum),
and then triangle is :jet will be around 30 Nm away from the position at given moment.
at the same time turboprop would pass 18 miles.
it gives us triangle where one side is 33.2 Nm and another side is 18Nm with the angle between sides 30 degrees.
It is not necessary to be Maths PhD to realize that there will be enough miles.
but differences and out of any logic rules are part of this world. :{
Best regards,

[SINGAPURCANAC]

In meanwhile I called an expert( she is not PhD but cleverer than many ACC ATCOS). she need a little time to give an exact distance, but at first glimpse she gave me one rule:
for such triangle rule is that third side in such triangle must have distance between 33.2-18 and 33.2+18.
So minimum distance is 15.2 Nm
3 times more than minimum.
according to this example it is now clear to me why ACC ATCOs are paid higher than APP ATCOs. they need more space:)

[Brian81]

I'm as clever as any PHD, if not more so :}

And we didn't get all the information that your PHD friend seemed to get. Headings, speed, passing FLs and distance didnt give us relative position to each other.

And I imagine your PHD friend has more more time to scribble on paper and stuff, us lot are watching radar screens and pointy flying things out the window.

No offence Singaporecanc.

:ok:

Traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

I know that it is stupid to quote myself but
will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.

Exact number is
22.6Nm
good night

[Ppdude]

I have no input or interest in the original question, but I feel compelled to tell everyone that I am cleverer than all of you. Especially the singapore dudes doctor mate.

By the way if it didnt set the snitch off why discuss it eh?

[Jerricho]

Canada you say?

Care to share where?

Hey, that rhymes! Stick that in your PHD and smoke it. I am so smrt!

[clr4takeoff]

It just makes me feel good: common sense does work!
Thank you guys for your answers!

[Hold West]

No problem in the US - not only is there common sense, but there can be a procedure in place to cover it formally, per the 7110.65:

4. When transitioning from terminal to en route control, 3 miles increasing to 5 miles or greater, provided:
(a) The aircraft are on diverging routes/courses, and/or
(b) The leading aircraft is and will remain faster than the following aircraft; and
(c) Separation constantly increasing and the first center controller will establish 5 NM or other appropriate form of separation prior to the aircraft departing the first center sector; and
(d) The procedure is covered by a letter of agreement between the facilities involved and limited to specified routes and/or sectors/positions.

[Jerricho]

Nav Canada ManOps has the same "standard" however, the last sentence is the clincher.

[sodukonerd]

You Are An Idiot!

[SINGAPURCANAC]

@sodukonerd,
your post tells me more about you than about me.

I will accept any comment or correction based on facts, laws, rules,documents etc from pprune members.

Reading your sentence I must confirm that you are expert. really, you must read a lot before you wrote such sentence.

[clr4takeoff]

Hi soduk,
I really don't get your point...
You just pop up and start insulting people!
Anyways...

To jerricoh, I knew this part of the manops but, for some reason, we don't have any agreement that permit us to use it. In my mind, in a radar environment, there's a sep loss or there's no sep loss. I mean: were the 2 ac always separated by either 1000' or 5 NM? If the answer is yes therefor there is no sep loss!
I guess the rule "hold west" and You were talking about, applies more if the 2 are winthin 1000' with a 3NM increasing ?
So the temperature is higher in YWG than YUL? how can this happen!!!!

[anotherthing]

clr4takeoff

Are you actually asking about a technical loss of separation, or are you really asking about a 'potentially' unsafe clearance?

There is a big difference, though in the example you give, neither is relevant.

[Smurfjet]

...In my mind, in a radar environment, there's a sep loss or there's no sep loss. I mean: were the 2 ac always separated by either 1000' or 5 NM? If the answer is yes therefor there is no sep loss!

What if the radar fails? :}

Runs for cover

As for the temperature, let the 'Winnipeggerites' enjoy it for the day :cool:

[Hold West]

Yes, of course, the application would be where 1000' veertical does not exist. If you have 1000' vertical, and no possible chance of losing it, no worries! 5nm OR 1000', not both! :-)

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Smurfjet, no need to run for cover.

If the radar fails, you do what I am sure you have been trained in your extensive Emergency training. You establish a procedural standard as best you can and as soon as you can, and follow the laid down procedures in your unit to get the aircraft onto a frequency that has radar. In this case you would level the bottom one off 1,000 ft below and initiate a step climb until procedural lateral separation can be established.

[Roger Standby]

No common sense then downunder. A few Melbourne TMA controllers have worn it for doing the same thing. They're expected to not hand off the a/c until 5nm is achieved or assign the lower a/c f130.:ugh:

[eastern wiseguy]

why ACC ATCOs are paid higher than APP ATCOs. they need more space

Surely it should be reversed. 3nms versus loads and lashings of nms......surgeons versus butchers....:}

[Standard Noise]

And therein lies the rub, surgeons are salaried whereas butchers charge what they want.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Roger Standby, don't come to the UAE then cos the handoff explained is pure luxury compared to some of the hand offs we get.

Helmet on :ouch:

[Lon More]

SINGAPURCANAC

I know that it is stupid to quote myself but

Quote:
will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.

Exact number is
22.6Nm


If your maths had been correct, maybe ( I can't be bothered to work it out). However you have made a mistake right at the beginning of your calculations

the angle between sides 30 degrees.

When I went to school 210° - 170° = 40°

I would, in more than 35 years, never have considered it a loss of separation, It is a reasonable assumption, Something you have to do hundreds of times a day both at home and at work



edited for spelling

[Roger Standby]

ANSA,

How quickly you forget. Surely that was the same when you took a/c from Ad TMA? I like what was explained, just that they won't let us do it here.:{

[DangleOfAttack]

For most of us, the correct answer to the original question should be, "I have no Idea".

We all use slightly different rules, based on both International, National and local criteria. Even in a highly standardised environment each one of us can apply the same rule slightly differently.

The requirement to "prove" separation also varies from state to state.

Secondly, failure of application of the appropriate rules TO THE LETTER is generally accepted as a technical loss of separation. They may not get closer than 100 miles, but if you havn't obeyed ALL the rules, you still have a technical loss of separation. I would imagine all of us use, "they'll never get close" separation, and, "common sense separation" all the time. I certainly do. But if you cannot prove you have applied all the appropriate rules as required, you have a technical loss.

I am, of course, ignoring the, "can you do the maths in your head" side of this topic. That's just totally inane.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

@Lon More,
No. for final result I took 40 degrees.
The point of precise calculation is that I prove my "fast" calculation which was 20/25 Nm.
Of course I rely on experience and eyes during the work. And my experience instantaneously lead me to correct answer. Nothing less or more than logic.
But it seems that some people felt very "nervous" because they don't use logic or they don't have anyone to call.
Best regards,

[RustyNail]

clr4takeoff

I was trained in NavCanada and my OJT clearly stated that he was instructed in a national refresher course that the above situation was a loss of separation as both A/C were cleared to the same altitude without any lateral separation (5NM Radar).

I thought the whole thing was bollocks of course, and asked for the Manops reference, the paragraph quoted was from Chapter 4, Non-radar Separation !!

With procedural separation (non-radar) there is a huge possibility for a "Technical Loss" as it is all based on quick calculations and one incorrect DME report, or bad maths can result in a loss, fair enough.

For Radar, as someone previously stated, you either have sep or you dont.

My radar shows me Mode C, it also shows rates of climb/descent, even if it didnt I have been trained to calculate ROC or ROD from the Mode C updates and the known speed of the radar head. I also have extensive training in A/C performance.

So in the example given at the beginning of this thread, even if a turbo-prop could sprout an extra engine it aint ever going to get near a jet with an 8000' head start.

Thats what the radar is for, you monitor the situation until you achieve the 5NM divergence, then who cares. If the radar fails then you get a level passing from the jet and stop the TP 1000' feet below it.

Head Office clearly stated that they will consider this a loss of separation.

I have seen some guys and girls apply it in my sector and it annoys the crap out of me. I, and the vast majority of my collegues tend to use the radar for what it was designed for along with a bit of common sence !!! :ok:

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

I reckon you have separated them, even without having acquired some unflinching sand-pit skills.