Label Handoff and Frequency Change Question

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

In Oz we would always initiate a label/jurisdiction handoff to another sector, wait for it to be accepted, and then transfer the aircraft to that frequency.

I have to admit I thought everyone did it that way.

We are about to introduce a system here that has Handoff/Accept functionality and I am surprised to find that some parts of the world switch the aircraft frequency and then initiate the label handoff.

Is this really the case and if so where?

Secondly, why would you do this? Isn't the whole point of a handoff function to allow the recieving the sector to decide if they are in a position to take someone else on there frequency (eg. Open mic, emergency, on the line to someone else, too many aircraft calling etc etc.). Doesn't that allow him the chance to let the label flash for 10 or 20 seconds, sort out his stuff and then accept the label so that shortly after the aircraft will call?

Anyway I would be interested to know how and why everyone does it, to try and understand a different perspective.

Thanks.

[westausatc]

On this, one thing that I hate and happens frequently, is people start the handoff, I accept, they tell the aircraft to call and THEN hit the hotline to do coord..... while the aircraft they just transferred is calling in on my freq! - ARGH!!! Why can't they do the coord just after I have accepted - there is (probably) noone about to call me and my eyes have been drawn to that area by accepting the aircraft...... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BlueSkye]

A feasible idea on paper but less so in reality. Reasons:

1. Hand over label and wait for acceptance. Phone rings or attention is diverted to something else on screen. Acceptance of label not noticed. Call from receiving sector, "Got the label, can I have the comms?"; "Oh sorry, Ok."

2. Hand over label and wait for acceptance. Flashing label is outside of (very quiet) accepting sector's screen view. (Range settings). Call to receiving sector, "You doing nothing, take the damn label."; "Oh sorry, Ok."

3. Sector is very busy. Traffic from adjoining FIR/APP (no label handover function) checks in. Self explanatory.

Solution: Get rid of the label and voice at same time, if receiving unit is busy he/she will do one of two things. Ignore or "Standby". Pretty much what happens during point 3 above.

The actual reason for the label handoff denotes transfer of control. In the absence of a fixed 'transfer of control' point, the handoff and acceptance of the radar label indicates a relinquishing and acceptance of control over the traffic. So, if the pilot calls you and no label was received it will indicate an erroneous call and should not be viewed as a handoff before establishing the intentions of the previous sector.

Caveat: ATC101. Clean handoffs. No exeptions.

On a side note ref. procedures. Never write a procedure to protect the weakest link. Otherwise, great job dude:ok:.

[TrafficTraffic]

WestAtc...

Heres an Idea!

Turn the AHO function back on and stop requiring the rest of the world to be working like it is 1988 with the gear we have now.

Why we have to coord with Melbourne on traffic you know is coming - you can see is coming and have all the same information on I will never know - just another way to get stood down .....

TT

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ok there have been a lot of viewing but not much writing.

I am really interested in how this is handled the world over. As I said in Oz and the how it is planned to be done in the UAE is,

1. Handoff Label.
2. Label Accepted by other sector.
3. Transfer Aircraft onto next frequency.

It seems that Sth Africa do it a different way,

1. Handoff Label and transfer frequency at the same time.
2. Other sector accepts label at a time of their choosing after that.

I personally think that means that the handoff of label is irrellevant as my understanding of the use of handoff of label is to propose a handoff and if that is clean with other traffic and I am in a position frequency or workload wise to accept the aircraft, I accept it, and as such expect the frequency transfer to follow.

Reality is BlueSkye the transfer of frequency and the forgetting to do it, is no different to remembering to transfer the aircraft now. I mean you still have a strip, the only difference now is you have a flashing accepted label to remind you to do the transfer which you don't have now.

On the handing off of a label outside the screen range of the receiving sector. I think transfers of frequency are done way too early by a lot of ATCOs here and if the receiving sector can't see it on their screen yet it is too early.

I would like to know from other units around the world if they do it the first way, as in Oz, or the second way as in SA, or in some other way.

Thanks for all your help in working through this issue.:ok:

[BlueSkye]

I personally think that means that the handoff of label is irrellevant as my understanding of the use of handoff of label is to propose a handoff and if that is clean with other traffic and I am in a position frequency or workload wise to accept the aircraft, I accept it, and as such expect the frequency transfer to follow

No, it's not a proposition, it's a handoff in the full sense. Transfer of comms and jurisdiction, which means turn, climb or descend. And it's not a case of "if it's clean with other traffic," it will be clean with other traffic. The responsibility lies with the transferring sector, not the receiving sector. How long must I wait if you don't accept the handoff? 10, 20, 30 seconds? Or must I call and ask if you can accept after the third attempt, which renders the whole procedure moot. What about transfers from APP or adjacent FIRs?

I also think the the discussion should include what happens after the handoff. If you want to introduce some radical new ideas, introduce the complete release idea, as is the case in SA for the last 25 years.

Besides ANSA, expect some fierce resistance from down the passage when it comes to approval time. Regardless of the proposal.

[ayrprox]

In the uk we use the system where the a/c is deemed to have been accepted if an estimate has been passed(either electronically in most cases, or verbally) and no objection is raised ,so the a/c can be transferred without a handover, unless its at an ODL or doing something non standard. Its a good system and seems to work. I cant imagine what would happen if we had to do a phone call for every plane.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ayrprox, maybe it's a misunderstanding due to the use of the term handoff. There is no phone call involved. It is a system handoff, ie. designate the aircraft on your radar, press the HND key select the sector from the drop down menu and it will flash on the receiving sector screen, he presses ACC to accept the aircraft, it then flashes on the handing off sectors screen to say that the handoff has been accepted, and you then transfer the aircraft.

There were a lot of things in the new system I expected to have to fight about, funnily enough this one wasn't one of them. To me it makes perfect sense but I am going on here expecting to be told I am wrong and that's fine but I need to know what the usual practice is around the world.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

BluSkye as I said to you previously, I can see the point about handoff of label equalling hand off of control but that needs to be worked on for each sector to make sure the route structure between routes accomodates that, and what sort of release of control that entails, eg. all turns left or right, turns left and right up to 20 degrees, 45 degrees, just vertical release etc.

We have to walk before we can run. We have been barely crawling all these years with the Watchkeeper system remember. Cheers.:ok:

[ferris]

Are you intending to run with auto-handoffs, or are you talking about controller-initiated handoff (lots of {additional} mouse clicks)?

edit: I also think you need to look at whether you are setting this up for single-man ops, or will there always be a co-ord (if so, then receiving a/c on freq is not a problem, and changes whether you need to manually accept)

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Hey Ferris,

As you know the inter-sector boundaries and the related route structure is not exactly conducive to auto-handoff, that is too many crossing routes to muddy the water of where is a god place to hand-off. So no auto-handoff, so 2 mouseclicks per handoff.

We can't man the single man per position roster so no chance of dual manning anytime in the next decade here. Therefore as a guy on your own controlling when an aircraft calls you relating to sector loading and frequency congestion is important.

Thanks.

[bekolblockage]

ANSA

HK uses Raytheon AutoTrac II system
According to the book, HND is proposed and causes label to flash on receiving Sector
Receiving Sector ACCepts the handoff which causes label to flash on hand-off screen
Aircraft is instructed to change freq.


Attempting to handoff when label is outside the viewing area of receiving Sector causes error mesage "off-screen at receiver", however this can be overridden by forced handoff function.

Unfortunately many controllers use the forced hand-off as the default way of operating and hand-off way too early (up to 80 miles!) . The frequency transfer may or may not follow immediately. This often causes some controllers to think "hey, what did I just accept?" when they are legitimatley trying to accept another label that is visible - and nothing appears to happen.

Many controllers from other parts of the world here just shug this off as "big-deal, its just the label", but in my opinion handing off the label too early not only negates what I consider is the important connection between thought process and mechanics but causes some ambiguity about when the aircraft will call. The concept of Sarwatch on frequency transfer is not well understood nor challenged here.

Hope that makes some sense to you.

BB

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Thanks Bekol,

I appreciate the info. It makes sense and I agree with you, but unfortunately as you said there are a lot of places that say "it's just a label".

It is just a label if the transfer of frequency happens whenever the handing off sector feels like transferring it, or in a regimented way at the defined sector boundary. It is a whole lot more than just a label if it is the silent agreement between two controllers that one is happy to give you the aircraft and the other is happy to recieve it.

It works like clockwork when everyone knows what to do and how, and I do think it is the safest way of handling things but I am yet to convince many here.

[bekolblockage]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to include that the handoff Sector's label then dims to Quicklook colour/brightness which has caused the inevitable " out of sight, out of mind" type incident when people have forgotten about the aircraft after they have handed off too early.

[av8boy]

The actual reason for the label handoff denotes transfer of control.

This is what I find particularly interesting about this discussion. In the US, unless there is an agreement between the facilities that allows for the receiving controller to control the aircraft upon which he or she has just accepted the handoff, or the transferring controller says “your control,” accepting a handoff does not give the receiving controller the right to alter heading, route, speed, altitude, or beacon code until that aircraft is in the receiving controller’s airspace. In fact, I can’t turn the aircraft until it’s 1.5 miles inside my airspace because I have to protect the boundary between my airspace that of the adjacent controller (1.5 miles if the target is less than 40 miles from my antenna, or 2.5 miles when it’s 40 or more miles from my antenna. Your mileage may vary depending upon automation, radar/nonradar, and inter-facility agreements/coordination.).

However, in short, here’s how it works (and note that this is plain-vanilla—this can generally be altered by agreement or coordination):

1. The transferring controller initiates an automated handoff to me.
2. I see the data block of that aircraft flashing as the target approaches the airspace boundary. If there is an inter-facility agreement to do so, the aircraft will be on a particular routing, altitude, speed, etc.
3. I have to accept the target prior to it reaching a point 1.5 miles from my airspace boundary. If it starts to get close and I haven’t accepted the handoff, the transferring controller will give me a shout on the coordination line. If I don’t answer or I don’t take the handoff or at least verbally approve the aircraft entering my airspace, then the transferring controller has to vector the aircraft away from my airspace, respecting the prescribed distance from the airspace boundary.
4. I accept the handoff using automation (varies, but generally I would mouse over to the target and click on the target symbol. The data block stops flashing and the target symbol changes to my symbol. The data block then flashes on the transferring controller’s display, letting him know that I’ve accepted the handoff and that he can now transfer coms.
5. Only after I accept the handoff does the transferring controller advise the aircraft to change to my frequency.
6. As I accept the handoff, I may call the transferring controller and “request control” of the aircraft. If approved, I may fully control the aircraft before it reaches my airspace.
7. If I have not requested control, I may turn/descend/etc the aircraft after it is 1.5 miles inside of my airspace.

Note that it’s never “just the label.” When I accept the handoff I expect to be talking to that aircraft very soon thereafter. I would never accept a handoff on an aircraft 80 miles from my airspace boundary because I can’t control him out there anyway (hell, I can't even see him out there, so the point is moot), and I know of no facilities in the US that would try to hand off an aircraft at that distance because the aircraft would still be in their airspace and be their responsibility , but would be talking to me. Very uncool.

I would guess that better than 99% of the handoffs that I initiate or receive are done through automation and do not include any voice contact between the sectors.

Hope that makes sense.

Dave

[Fox3snapshot]

Interesting you mentioned that last point, for that very reason we were not allowed to use the QL function on our AutoTrac II system at my previous unit for the same results.

[ferris]

I can understand you wanting to define the point at which you can "move" the a/c, but given how tight the UAE airspace is, what is the point in not accepting jurisdiction? If you have a loading problem, not accepting one approaching the boundary is going to help how? He wont be on freq, and in a few moments he will be in your patch. Thats gotta be worse. How will you deal with non-acceptance of jurisdiction? Orbit them?

[av8boy]

Ferris,

To whom is that question directed?

Dave

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ferris there are many cases here where people are transferring frequency way before the boundary and this alllows the receiving controller to control up to a degree when they are ready for the aircraft. Also the aircraft will flash for 40 seconds before it times out, so if I am on a coord line and don't want a call right in the middle of it, I might wait 10 seconds, finish the call and then accept. Ferris I hope you realise that in a lot of cases the States have smaller sectors than we do here and with a more congested route structure than we do. On the traffic loading it may be as simple as I have the limit of aircraft without calling a planner, I see an aircraft flash at my Eastern boundary and I have an aircraft approaching my Western boundary so I switch him to Bahrain (no handoff facility with them yet) and then accept the other aircraft.

This practice also will help on West where the whole convoluted West Max procedure can be simplified or even removed as the reason it went in was the West controller had no non-verbal way of controlling his traffic numbers. Now if he still has his max number in the stack he doesn't accept the handing off aircraft until he transfers one to Dubai, and until then the aircraft holds with North sector.

If used properly and with the correct discipline it can work just as well as it did in Oz, and by the sounds of it in the US. Thanks heaps for all the info Av8boy.

[ferris]

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?)
Yeah, I can see what you want to happen, but I just dont see how it will work in practice. IMHO, the acceptance of jurisdiction was primarily designed for freq management, and you appear to want to use it for capacity management. I dont see, in practical terms, how non-acceptance would work (even from North to west, as you describe- unless all aircraft are held by north, and only released after acceptance by west). If adopting the US model as described below, not accepting a handoff proposal just leads to co-ordination (and then vectoring {how would that work???}). Do you want that if you are at capacity? I dont believe you can look at parts of another system in isolation. You need the whole picture.
On your other point about freq management, with one flashing on your eastern boundary- what if there isnt one on the western boundary for you to pitch? I think a re-think of the Great Dane ruleset (which are stupid and ill-conceived arse-covering) is required before you try and make your new system fit the old rules. If thats not in your remit- then I guess you'll just have to make do, so it doesnt matter which way you do it. IMHO.
With the future in mind, capacity management really needs a re-think (and yes, everyone who has ever worked there has said the same thing).

And yes, this idea that you should try and get the aircraft off your frq asap, even if halfway across your patch, is interesting.

[ferris]

Just chatting to a Canuck, and he agrees that internal handoffs are as you desire, but that handoffs across the border to the states are done as we do them now in the ME.
Makes you wonder of there is a difference. Maybe access to hotlines is the key?

[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 (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-121-FAR.shtml)(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; or2) the time the transponder is set to Code 7600; or3) 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?