technical sep loss
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 542
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In an aquarium surrounded by runways
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the point ???
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!!!!
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!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Used to be the Beer Store, now the dépanneur
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runs for cover
As for the temperature, let the 'Winnipeggerites' enjoy it for the day
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Age: 67
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! :-)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why ACC ATCOs are paid higher than APP ATCOs. they need more space
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SINGAPURCANAC
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
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
I know that it is stupid to quote myself but
Quote:
will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.
Exact number is
22.6Nm
Quote:
will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.
Exact number is
22.6Nm
the angle between sides 30 degrees.
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
Last edited by Lon More; 1st Mar 2008 at 17:22.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 542
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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,
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,
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lots of Sand
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!
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 !!!
