Who's working the traffic?

[Toadpool]

I've noticed lately that there seems to be an increase in ORCAM/CCAM squawks being used outside controlled airspace. I am also seeing new controllers being taught that this is normal.
I can understand the use of these codes inside the known traffic environment of controlled airspace, which is desginated to a specific controlling authority. However, in the unknown traffic environment of class G airspace these code do NOT indicate which agency is providing a service to which aircraft.
Take this to it's logical conclusion and it will result with all aircraft on a flight plan being on a squawk which is, in effect, no better than a conspicuity code. When this happens, how do you know who to co-ordinate with?
In my view these codes have no place outside controlled airspace. It seems that SARG have their usual "bury their heads in the sand" attitude to this.

[chevvron]

This practice has been in use for many years. It is usually used when IFR traffic is departing from or inbound to an airfield outside controlled airspace and is intended to keep cockpit workload down by not requiring a change to transponder code and also for ATC to identify an aircraft departing from an airfield outdside controlled airspace earlier. For inbounds it allows terminal control to see when a flight has landed. At Farnborough post 'Londoon LARS', we had code/callsign conversion activated in our SSR PAC (Plot Assigner-Combiner) so we got the callsign displayed on our screens instead of just the 4 digit code.
Additionally in the UK at least, the IFR flight plan is automatically activated when the SSR code for a particular flight is detected on radar.

[landedoutagain]

For coordination, in these cases, the overlying civil sector sounds like the best bet. They will be more likely to know who is controlling it if it isn't them and it's on an orcam squawk.
Most units I transfer to will change to their own codes if it's a lengthy transit from inside cas to landing.
Is there any specific area(s) where this is more prevalent and causing you problems?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It would be nice to know if Toadpool is an aviation professional.

[eglnyt]

It would be nice to know if Toadpool is an aviation professional.

Whilst I suspect he is because 6 years ago we were discussing a very similar topic on this forum I don't see why it matters for this topic.

[good egg]

I'm curious why it matters who's "working" aircraft outside CAS.
If the aircraft wasn't on a code who would you "co-ordinate" with?? And what are you co-ordinating if you're not controlling either flight??

[Plazbot]

"It would be nice to know if Toadpool is an aviation professional."


Are you?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

No, sir, just an elderly spotter.

[Toadpool]

The fundamental question has not yet been answered. How do you quickly and easily identify which unit is providing a service [B]outside[B] CAS to an aircraft that is not on a specific unit code?
There are at least seven other units providing a service in the same airspace as me (yes, HD, I am, as you put it an "aviation professional"). Knowing which unit is providing a service to which aircraft means that, to a certain extent, you can anticipate what the traffic is likely to do and act accordingly. Also, if there is a potential conflict you know who to contact. No guessing or ringing around asking "are you working the 1234"? This is more difficult if the traffic is not on a unit code.
I am aware that this has been in use for years. You will see that my concern is that it seems to be on the increase. I feel that should it continue there will eventually be a form of anarchy where most traffic will be on an ORCAM/CCAM code and it will become increasingly difficult to identify who is working what. It is only the unit that is providing the service to traffic on one of these codes, and possibly the previous unit that handed it over, that knows who is working it. Remember I am only talking about outside CAS.
I am also aware of the argument regarding the reduction of cockpit workload. I don't think that the few seconds it takes to change a squawk should be too onurous to most competent pilots. Most of these aircraft have two crew and I am not suggesting that it's done during a critical phase of flight. Is the slight reduction in cockpit workload sufficient justification for a reduction in situational awareness for all other units in the area?
I do find the assmuption that I'm a "he" rather interesting!

[LostThePicture]

I agree completely. There's no point in a unit having their own set of codes if they do not use them.

It might be worth expressing your concerns to a wider audience, perhaps via CHIRP or a 4114 or equivalent?

LTP

[eglnyt]

I do find the assmuption that I'm a "he" rather interesting!

Apologies that had more to do with brevity of response than anything. Aviation professionals can of course be of any gender.

The answer to your question is you can't. What you are experiencing might be an unforeseen impact of the use of CCAMS where flights are allocated codes for the whole flight and therefore the pressure to release the en-route code as soon as possible so it can be reused isn't as great as it once was. Have you asked the units around you why they aren't using their own codes?

One potential issue is that if the aircraft switches from the CCAMS code the current NATS systems and anybody using code callsign data provided by those systems may lose the code callsign conversion on that flight and revert to the Mode A code display only.

[trafficnotsighted]

Our unit which is situated OCAS in an area where a lot of test flying takes place with a LARS unit near by has various codes for our company aircraft. We have different codes for A/c conducting Instrument approaches and a generic code for transit A/C. And the feedback from adjacent radar units is that it they find it really useful.

[YouSaidBolt]

HD,kind Sir
Why do you attack me and others in that 'do you know who I am'view of the world????it is unfair when people like me or others askk questions and you immediately attack.Carryon with your job of talking to planes and stop being anti

[Hotel Tango]

Carryon with your job of talking to planes

:= If you check his profile you may discover he's long retired.

[good egg]

Although, occasionally, has some salient points wrg to current procedures...

[Toadpool]

One potential issue is that if the aircraft switches from the CCAMS code the current NATS systems and anybody using code callsign data provided by those systems may lose the code callsign conversion on that flight and revert to the Mode A code display only.

Which is more useful, 1 or 2 units having code/callsign ability, or all units knowing who is working what?

[rolaaand]

Toadpool. Where I work we have traffic outside CAS all the time on ORCAM/CCAM squawks. Although the unit itself has a specific block of conspicuity codes there are only enough to assign two to each sector. In general we reserve these for freecallers who want a radar service outside CAS. On some sectors it wouldn't be uncommon to have quite a few outside CAS on the ORCAM squawks. Also,as has been mentioned,we lose our code callsign conversion if we take it off the ORCAM code. Hope this helps.

[zonoma]

One potential issue is that if the aircraft switches from the CCAMS code the current NATS systems and anybody using code callsign data provided by those systems may lose the code callsign conversion on that flight and revert to the Mode A code display only.
If the aircraft is known to the Swanwick AC system then pairings are maintained even if the SSR code is subsequently changed.

[ATCO91]

Working at a procedural airfield in class G, I was always taught to keep them on their allocated squawk, (that is providing london have not dropped them out, put them on 7000 and told them to free call :rolleyes:) because in the event of a divert im told its easier to gain an airways clearance if london can see the squawk (albeit with Callsign conversion). Though I'd be happy if someone corrects me on that.

[ATCO Fred]

We have the luxury of mode S operating outside CAS with many other aircraft leaving CAS to route to other ATC or NON ATC units. Looking at callsigns, track, levels it's easy to work out where the aircraft is going to and whom it is likely to be working.

Really is a no-brainer and a non-issue IMHO.

Fred

[ATCO Fred]

Working at a procedural airfield in class G, I was always taught to keep them on their allocated squawk, (that is providing london have not dropped them out, put them on 7000 and told them to free call :rolleyes:) .

If you are procedural how do you know or care what squawk it's on; you can't see :E

Fred

[jmmoric]

We work both radar mode A+C and procedurel, with all surrounding unit sectors with no radar coverage.

Usually the "radarservice terminated" should make pilots squawk standard IFR/VFR, more often than not it doesn't.

We rarely have problems with two aircrafts on the same squawk, one within and one outside our airspace, and when we do, we simply change the squawk of "our" flight....

But we're so far from everything/nearest radar unit we can use all codes, and the system we have is not interconnected with others sharing codes and so..

[ATCO91]

If you are procedural how do you know or care what squawk it's on; you can't see :E

Fred

Our conspicuity Squawks are allocated so that other RADAR units including the local LARs can see who is working a particular aircraft. We have one for IFR and one for VFR. I believe its common practice for the few remaining procedural units.

[Toadpool]

Conspicuity squawks for non-radar units are far more useful than ORCAM/CCAMS in an unknown traffic environment.
The attitude of ATCO Fred and others does worry me. It may be possible to guess which unit is providing the aircraft with a service if there is only 1 or 2 units using these codes in class G. But that is not the same as knowing and if this practice spreads.....
Is it really such a "no brainer" to work traffic on what is no better than a 7000 squawk?

[ATCO Fred]

I suggest you read my post properly. With mode S we see callsign and registrations and part of the skill of a Class G radar controller is knowing the dynamic of the local airspace and it's users. That is a skill that takes time and thus why most units have radar pay scales that reward that greater experience. I don't remember stating guess work on a mode A of 7000 just informed deduction based on unit codes and callsign. Now that is a no brainer and the ethos I train and examine controllers on. Happy to host a visit and show you how this is done in practice - just pm me. Regds Fred

[Toadpool]

Fred, you have just proved one of the points that I have been trying to make, that ATCOs are now being trained to use non-unit codes in an unknown traffic environment. They will then accept that this is the norm and my fear is that this practice will spread further.
I am fully aware of what information is provided by mode S, but one thing it does not provide is which unit is providing the aircraft with a service. A code allocated to a specific unit does this and does away with the need for "informed deduction". You know exactly who to contact if necessary. You will also retain all of the mode S information. Is it really so difficult to say "squawk xxxx"?
When I was undergoing OJT any traffic leaving controlled airspace was given a unit code before exiting so that other units were made aware of its intentions.. You had to have a very good reason for not doing so.
As I have said before I can forsee the time when any aircraft on a flight plan will be left on an ORCAM/CCAMS code whether it is inside controlled airspace or not. If every unit adopts this practice situational awareness for all units will be reduced.
You will also see that I said that ORCAM/CCAMS codes are "no better" than a 7000 squawk. This is because a 7000 code tells you that there is an aircraft there and it's level (if selected by the pilot). If you are unable to co-ordinate you need to try to avoid by 5nm/3000ft.
To a unit that is not working the traffic on an ORCAM/CCAMS code you may get more information via mode S, but it still does not tell you which unit is providing the service. Again, if you are unable to co-ordinate you need to try to avoid by 5nm/3000ft.
There are still some radar units that do not have access to mode S.

[ATCO Fred]

Toadpool - what's the point of having the advantages of Mode S if you are not going to use the data to provide a better ATS or reduce controller workload.

If I see an ORCAN squawk north of Malby descending and I see from mode S its callsign is RRR2201 I know it's going to be working Brize. If I see an ORCAM Squawk north of Malby callsign N750GF (Gloucester resident) then I know Brize Lars are working it initially and then Gloucester if clear of brize traffic as it routes toward NERMO. If I see N843TE (Eclipse Jet Kemble maintain the UK Eclipse aircraft) on a ORGAM squawk north of Kemble climbing then I know that's climbing FL80 out of Kemble working Brize joining at Malby and if I see the selected level mode S indicate higher than FL80 then it's already talking to Sector 23 and been given a higher level to join CAS. Really. . . all of this is a no brainer and i'm struggling to see what your point is. All of this is deduced info and allows the controller to decide if co-ordination is needed or if it is better to just turn away.

When I was undergoing OJT any traffic leaving controlled airspace was given a unit code before exiting so that other units were made aware of its intentions.. You had to have a very good reason for not doing so.

This doesn't happen anymore. ORCAM squawks appear from all types of minor aerodromes with traffic flying VFR but looking to join CAS. Our arrivals remain on ORCAM squawks and our departures get airborne on this so the Squawk is picked up on the radars at Swanwick, processed and the flight-plan is auto DM'd

As I have said before I can forsee the time when any aircraft on a flight plan will be left on an ORCAM/CCAMS code whether it is inside controlled airspace or not. If every unit adopts this practice situational awareness for all units will be reduced.

As above - this happens now and it massively aids situational awareness as I know not to try and route above something that will climbing higher and probably just under a BS outside CAS until it enters.

You will also see that I said that ORCAM/CCAMS codes are "no better" than a 7000 squawk. This is because a 7000 code tells you that there is an aircraft there and it's level (if selected by the pilot). If you are unable to co-ordinate you need to try to avoid by 5nm/3000ft.
To a unit that is not working the traffic on an ORCAM/CCAMS code you may get more information via mode S, but it still does not tell you which unit is providing the service. Again, if you are unable to co-ordinate you need to try to avoid by 5nm/3000ft.
There are still some radar units that do not have access to mode S.

I'm afraid you are wrong here. A 7000 squawk is unvalidated and unverified and requires greater separation standards than an ORCAM squawk which is validated and verified. CAVEAT - not for one climbing out from a non radar equipped aerodrome.

But this is not about separation standards and co-ordination its about using all of the information available to make informed judgement on how the dynamic traffic situation is going to evolve. The you know when co-ordination is worth-while and when to do so would sap capacity and it is easier to just steer the traffic around.

As a said; happy to show this in use; it really is second nature when you can process all of the information at your fingertips.
Regards Fred

[callum91]

Yes Fred, but as already stated by the OP he does not have Mode S data and is well aware of how it can be deduced what an aircraft may be doing and who it might be working but that's not the point. I think you'll find dynamics of the airspace the OP works are more complex with around 7 radar units working in the same area and many military jets of various types.

[Toadpool]

I am not suggesting that mode S data should not be used to improve situational awareness at all. In fact I am saying that the information missing from mode S, e.g. the unit providing the service, should and could be added by simply using a unit specific code. You will still retain the mode S data and all other units will be aware of who is providing the aircraft with a service. You may have the luxury of mode S, but is this true of all of your neighbouring units? I know that we do not have mode S, nor do several other adjacent units. All we see is the squawk, level and, if required, speed of the aircraft.

As for the examples in your second para, I'm sorry but you do not "know" which unit is providing the service. You may be able to make a fairly accurate assumption based upon previous knowledge and experience, but this is not the same as knowing.

ORCAM squawks appear from all types of minor aerodromes with traffic flying VFR but looking to join CAS

In this case how do you know if/when the squawk has been validated and verified?

I'm afraid you are wrong here. A 7000 squawk is unvalidated and unverified and requires greater separation standards than an ORCAM squawk which is validated and verified.
Really? As stated above, can it be guaranteed that the ORCAM code has been validated and verified? With a discrete unit code this is a requirement.

Also;

MATS Pt1 Para 10A.5
Aircraft Under Deconfliction Service
. If the intentions of the Mode C transponding aircraft are not known, the vertical deconfliction minima must be increased to 3000 ft, and unless the SSR Mode 3A indicates that the Mode C data has been verified, the surveillance returns, however presented, should not merge.

Are these not the same minima that are applied to aircraft on a 7000 squawk? Which is why I say that in class G airspace an ORCAM code is no better than a 7000 squawk.

Although we do not have mode S at work, I can see it can be a very useful tool, with all the extra information available. But I also feel that being able to identify, without any ambiguity, which unit is providing a service quickly and easily is important. ORCAM/CCAMS codes do not provide this, mode S or not.

[ATCO Fred]

Already stated in my previous post which you conveniently missed when quoting !

I'm afraid you are wrong here. A 7000 squawk is unvalidated and unverified and requires greater separation standards than an ORCAM squawk which is validated and verified. CAVEAT - not for one climbing out from a non radar equipped aerodrome.


Thus the caveat. I think we are in almost in agreement here of sorts. . . . just I'm not that bothered if it's ORCAM or not . . . that's my problem not yours.

you'll find dynamics of the airspace the OP works are more complex with around 7 radar units working in the same area and many military jets of various types.

Cheers Callum 91 but when you degenerate into my airspace is bigger / busier than yours then that's not a particularly helpfully to the debate but I appreciate your condescending input. Ohh BTW - we have 9 adjacent radar units I hand traffic to and an AIAA . . .. .just saying :-)

[ATCO Fred]

Are these not the same minima that are applied to aircraft on a 7000 squawk? Which is why I say that in class G airspace an ORCAM code is no better than a 7000 squawk.


Yes and no . . . . . 3000ft and returns not to merge on a 7000 and 3000 ft and returns can merge on a validated code. Now the finer point of when an ORCAM squawk can be considered validated and verified. . . . . well if it's seen to leave CAS then that's good enough for me. Which sort of fits into the wider debate; when I started nearly 30 years ago separation standards were 5 nm (I guess because at range the returns were massive and several miles across) but can now be co-ordinated to 3 in some circumstances. I believe the same level of enhancement could be applied to SSR. Transponders and technology today is far more accurate and robust than 30 years ago and I believe the rules for verified / unverified could be dropped as the altitude errors are few and far between. The main issue is educating the GA to turn the switch past the 'On' selection to 'Alt' so we get the mode C as well. This i see many many times a day as the little dash next to the Mode A code indicates that the transponder is Mode S and therefore has mode C. Error code 404 operator error !

Good debate thanks all Fred.

[scifi]

Just to add something to this Flat Earther's, 'Who's working the traffic' debate...


I was on a flight over N.Wales working and Squawking Valley Radar. I turned onto 120deg and dropped behind the Snowdonian range, and continued for another 40nm, still tuned into Valley. I was then within range of Shawbury AIAA, but could get no reply from them as well, because they had packed in for the day.


So I was in an area where I could have worked up to 4 different agencies, and squawking one that was 60nm away, and most likely gone home as well.
Fortunately Shawbury area is not really an AIAA at that time of day.