SSR, RAS, ATSOCAS et al
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Playing with the train set
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSR, RAS, ATSOCAS et al
There might be an airport about to introduce SSR in the near future (yes this is the 21st century) that operates ATSOCAS.
Questions come to mind that I am sure you all have answers for ,if not THE answers.
If you have only been allocated 8 discreet squawks by spectrum thingy at DAP it is therefore almost impossible to allocate every FIS crosser, or local a discreet squawk as others do. So the plan is to have 2 conspicuity codes one for locals, arrivals and departures and another for transits.
As we all know conspicuity must be treated as unvalidated and unverified and as it is not discreet cannot be deemed identified.
The 2 conspicuities are of course however “known traffic” when you can assure yourself that you really do know the intentions.
Without going round the houses on RAS and participating traffic again as that is covered in a local instruction;-
Q1 Can the conspicuity be asked to squawk ident if no inference of radar service is implied to assist in discharging our responsibilities with the PAX, Jet, RAS traffic that this FIS is going to be in conflict with? and an agreed level cap be applied.
Q2 Is it practical, safe, legal, a good idea to change the potential FIS confliction to a discreet code( if you have any left), ensure that no service is implied and then when it is no longer a confliction change it back to the conspicuity.
Q3 How does the LCE team help the troops to ensure that the new data on the displays does not tempt them into taking FRISING to the next level of using modes A and C to expedite the Jet RAS traffic by keeping the pesky FIS’s out the way??? and reducing the willingness to not seek to achieve 5 nm etc.
Questions come to mind that I am sure you all have answers for ,if not THE answers.
If you have only been allocated 8 discreet squawks by spectrum thingy at DAP it is therefore almost impossible to allocate every FIS crosser, or local a discreet squawk as others do. So the plan is to have 2 conspicuity codes one for locals, arrivals and departures and another for transits.
As we all know conspicuity must be treated as unvalidated and unverified and as it is not discreet cannot be deemed identified.
The 2 conspicuities are of course however “known traffic” when you can assure yourself that you really do know the intentions.
Without going round the houses on RAS and participating traffic again as that is covered in a local instruction;-
Q1 Can the conspicuity be asked to squawk ident if no inference of radar service is implied to assist in discharging our responsibilities with the PAX, Jet, RAS traffic that this FIS is going to be in conflict with? and an agreed level cap be applied.
Q2 Is it practical, safe, legal, a good idea to change the potential FIS confliction to a discreet code( if you have any left), ensure that no service is implied and then when it is no longer a confliction change it back to the conspicuity.
Q3 How does the LCE team help the troops to ensure that the new data on the displays does not tempt them into taking FRISING to the next level of using modes A and C to expedite the Jet RAS traffic by keeping the pesky FIS’s out the way??? and reducing the willingness to not seek to achieve 5 nm etc.
Last edited by OCEAN WUN ZERO; 4th May 2008 at 13:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm struggling a bit to get my head round your questions but before that
I don't see any reason why a target that is on a conspicuity code cannot be considered identified - as long as you have it properly identified. Take, for example, an aircraft given to you in a radar handover - you have the ident but don't want to use your limited supply of #s so put it on a conspicuity code. It's still indentified. Taking this one step futher, there's no reason not to apply positive radar control/separation to two targets that you have identified even though they're on conspicuity codes and other units would have to avoid them by a wider margin. It's not an ideal situation but if the CAA won't give you the code blocks you need to put your traffic on discrete codes, what can you do???? (I'm assuming that you will still have PSR and are controlling the primary targets.)
The good book (Section 1, chapter 5, para 4.1 c)) say's you cannot identfy a target with the SPI function if it's on a conspicuity code - whether you offer it a radar service or not is irrelevant. Of course, there's nowt to stop you identifying it with a turn (subject to all the usual cautions) if that will help you to provide a better service to other traffic that you're handling).
Practical? It's a matter of time usually. If you know you've got a conflict coming up and identing an aircraft on a FIS will help sorting out the big picture then I would probably do it - otherwise I don't get any benefit for the effort. The bit about ensuring that the pilot understands that he/she is not now getting a radar service might take up some of that valuable time too!
Safe? Don't see why not.
legal? Can't think of any rules that say no.
Good idea? If it helps with the big picture and the work involved is not disproportionate, why not?
Easy one. Good knowledge and understanding of the rules - and professionalism all round.
As we all know conspicuity must be treated as unvalidated and unverified and as it is not discreet cannot be deemed identified.
Q1 Can the conspicuity be asked to squawk ident if no inference of radar service is implied to assist in discharging our responsibilities with the PAX, Jet, RAS traffic that this FIS is going to be in conflict with? and an agreed level cap be applied.
Q2 Is it practical, safe, legal, a good idea to change the potential FIS confliction to a discreet code( if you have any left), ensure that no service is implied and then when it is no longer a confliction change it back to the conspicuity.
Safe? Don't see why not.
legal? Can't think of any rules that say no.
Good idea? If it helps with the big picture and the work involved is not disproportionate, why not?
Q3 How does the LCE team help the troops to ensure that the new data on the displays does not tempt them into taking FRISING to the next level of using modes A and C to expedite the Jet RAS traffic by keeping the pesky FIS’s out the way??? and reducing the willingness to not seek to achieve 5 nm etc.
A slight correction to the above post. Referring to use of the ident feature for identification, the Good Book says that "Aircraft displaying the conspicuity code are not to be identified by this method" (my italics). One would infer that this only refers to aircraft squawking A7000 - for obvious reasons.
2 s
2 s
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: at home
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OWZ
The 2 conspicuities are of course however “known traffic” when you can assure yourself that you really do know the intentions.
The 2 conspicuities are of course however “known traffic” when you can assure yourself that you really do know the intentions.
Known, but not identified = unknown
OWZ I would say
Q1- No
Q1- No
Spitoon --Of course, there's nowt to stop you identifying it with a turn (subject to all the usual cautions)
I refer my honourable gentleman to Mats Pt 1
Section 1 Chapter 5 Page 6 4.1 Controllers should use Mode A to identify aircraft whenever suitable equipment is available. One of the following methods is to be employed
etc etc
etc etc
OWZ
Q2 Mats pt1 sect 1 ch 5 page 1
Q2 Mats pt1 sect 1 ch 5 page 1
The act of identifying an aircraft does not imply that a service is being given.
Q3 I concur with Spitoon
How sad is this
just had a look at the AIP some examples of SSR allocations outside CAS GP 7+1
BE 6+2
NR 7
MH 15
TE 24
CN 14
NH 14
(Not checked too much for accuracy)
Does vary why not ask for more if you feel you can justify the need?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
Referring to use of the ident feature for identification, the Good Book says that "Aircraft displaying the conspicuity code are not to be identified by this method" (my italics). One would infer that this only refers to aircraft squawking A7000 - for obvious reasons.
(a) ...
(b) when circumstances require the use of one of the Special Purpose Mode A codes or one of the other specific Mode A conspicuity codes assigned in accordance with the UK SSR Code Assignment Plan as detailed in the table at ENR 1-6-2-4 to ENR 1-6-2-8
(c)....'
which seems to lump all the conspicuity use codes together (although, admittedly, it's not talking about identing traffic). And I guess being able to quote that makes me as sad as leuven! On the whole, though, I'd be disinclined to ident any target wearing a conspicuity code with any of the SSR methods - but as 2 s points out, I think there's plenty of room for interpretation if you want use SPI on one of your local conspicuity codes.
leuven, I think, is suggesting that MATS Pt 1 is saying that if you have SSR then you must use it to ident traffic rather than PSR methods. I hadn't thought about it like that before but it does seem to be what the good book says! Personally, I'll use whatever techniques suit the situation .
Having gone through the introduction of SSR at a unit I worked at - although some years ago - I think you'll find that you quickly discover ways of working within the rules that make life easier for you.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
