separation between procedure control and radar control

[caucatc]

Today an aircraft had both transponders failure and radar lost the target even if the primary radar target ,and we are using the radar control ,I just wonder what is the lateral separation between aircraft that is gonna to be controlled with procedure control and radar control ?

[chevvron]

Lateral would be extremely difficult unless all aircraft were on VOR radials, much safer to separate vertically in the short term (unless the aircraft is VMC of course).

[criss]

To separate procedurally (in horizontal terms), you would have to request position reports from the a/c you have under radar control, as you can't use info derived from radar to separate procedurally, and this would be a bit awkward. So the best solution, as mentioned, would be to use vertical separation.

[camisa10]

Tough one...safe lateral separation depends on so many factors. Some answers could be found in ICAO Annex 11 ,Attachment A -Material related to a method of establishing ATS routes defined by VOR ,and Attachment B- Method of establishing ATS routes for use by RNAV equipped aircraft...also try to find ICAO Doc. 9869 -Manual on Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of Separation Minima...

[criss]

But trying to establish lateral could be awkward - radio workload (reports from other a/c), and also confusing for pilots under radar control.

[Blockla]

The application of procedural control in what normally is a radar environment is extremely difficult. Where there are multiple level changes involved and converging/diverging traffic; radar (separated) segregated routes involved getting all the elements correct can be extremely problematic. Some sectorisation is designed around 'radar routes' co-ordination may need be conducted to other sectors if you can't see them... Because they may not be where they should be if you can't see them etc.

Having ground based navaids to use for the establishment of radials etc is an advantage. However, getting controllers who received little more than basic procedural control (if any) to recall what the learnt in training is still very difficult.

To separate procedurally (in horizontal terms), you would have to request position reports from the a/c you have under radar control, as you can't use info derived from radar to separate procedurally, and this would be a bit awkward. So the best solution, as mentioned, would be to use vertical separation. I would suggest that you can use radar derived information to achieve procedural standards as long as you apply the appropriate radar tolerance against the procedural tolerances. ie achieving a 30RNAV standard can be done with radar without asking the 'radar identified their distance' ie you can see one 10NM from X and the other is 60NM from X, therefore you must have 30RNAV.... Laterally you certainly can use radar to establish an aircraft clear of anothers (procedural tolerances included) route.

[criss]

Practically yes, but theoretically rules specify that the info should be from reports, not radar. Granted rules were not meant for this kind of situation though.

[On the beach]

Hi cauatc,

If you have a procedural separation (longitudinal or lateral) already established when the transponder fails, even though you may be using radar, then there is no problem. If you don't have longitudinal or lateral, then your only option is vertical separation. You may even have to use emergency separation of 500' as an interim measure until you can safely provide 1,000' separation. Have a look at your China AIP and especially the procedures used by Sanya to provide separation when aircraft deviate off-track during typhoons. It may give you some ideas on how they cope with providing lateral separation between radar identified traffic and procedurally controlled traffic.

On the beach