Radar contact and Identified
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamburg
Age: 46
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germany has a rather pragmatic answer to the question. From their AIP (GEN 1.7-13):
As the difference in meaning of the phrases IDENTIFIED
and radar contact is irrelevant, both phrases are equally
entitled to be used, without a difference.
and radar contact is irrelevant, both phrases are equally
entitled to be used, without a difference.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@not long now, As above. ADS-B or Multilateration and I'm sure there are other types of surveillance too... Radar is not the only way to get a blip on a screen.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South of Brittany
Age: 75
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I have learned, and learn to trainees :
Identified means that you have performed an ICAO identification procedure (DOC4444) to get the correlation between a position on a surveillance display and the ID of that position
radar contact means that someone else have performed the identification process and with the help of an automated approved system,the link between position and ID is maintained on your display.You do'nt need to do again another identification process but saying "radar contact" inform the pilot that after the hand over the ATC radar service is still the same.
Identified means that you have performed an ICAO identification procedure (DOC4444) to get the correlation between a position on a surveillance display and the ID of that position
radar contact means that someone else have performed the identification process and with the help of an automated approved system,the link between position and ID is maintained on your display.You do'nt need to do again another identification process but saying "radar contact" inform the pilot that after the hand over the ATC radar service is still the same.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Go on then, I'll bite. How can you be identified, other than by looking out the window, but not be in "radar contact"?>>
I was working Heathrow SVFR waaaay back and a light aircraft called me. I immediately recognised the pilot as a work colleague so I said "You are identified, Ray"!! Oh well, it got a laugh at the time.
I was working Heathrow SVFR waaaay back and a light aircraft called me. I immediately recognised the pilot as a work colleague so I said "You are identified, Ray"!! Oh well, it got a laugh at the time.
A7700 et al
I suspect that you might be attributing a subtlety to the use of the two terms that does not actually exist in any ICAO procedures - unless you can quote a reference?
HD
You what?
2s
I suspect that you might be attributing a subtlety to the use of the two terms that does not actually exist in any ICAO procedures - unless you can quote a reference?
HD
You what?
2s
After an initial call and receipt of the 'xxxxx radar contact/identified' from ATC, is it appropriate or necessary or merely good manners for the aircraft to acknowledge? Or does such a reply clutter the airwaves?
Just trying to keep you nice people happy!
Just trying to keep you nice people happy!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South of Brittany
Age: 75
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xyz identification :
First of all, ICAO in DOC4444 , chapter 12 gives two phraseology "options"
d) RADAR CONTACT [position];
e) IDENTIFIED [position];
Which means that somewhere there is a difference even tactful...?
Then there is 2 different definitions (DOC4444) :
Radar contact. The situation which exists when the radar position of a particular aircraft is seen and identified on a situation display.
Identification. The situation which exists when the position indication of a particular aircraft is seen on a situation display and positively identified.
Without to go into details in the subtile understanding of english language ( this is not my mother tongue !) those two definitions are different : in the second case there is a trend to think that the "positive" aspect is due to the "positive identification" performed by the ATCO for its own present need only on the traffic he is controlling
In the first case everything is already done, it 's just a confirmation of ATC service for the pilot understanding
And finally the ICAO DOC 4444 "radar service" chapter title has been changed some years ago into "ATS surveillance service"..Its' time to change "radar contact" phraseology in " ATS Surveillance Service contact"and reduce capacity by 10% to avoid frequency load.....
d) RADAR CONTACT [position];
e) IDENTIFIED [position];
Which means that somewhere there is a difference even tactful...?
Then there is 2 different definitions (DOC4444) :
Radar contact. The situation which exists when the radar position of a particular aircraft is seen and identified on a situation display.
Identification. The situation which exists when the position indication of a particular aircraft is seen on a situation display and positively identified.
Without to go into details in the subtile understanding of english language ( this is not my mother tongue !) those two definitions are different : in the second case there is a trend to think that the "positive" aspect is due to the "positive identification" performed by the ATCO for its own present need only on the traffic he is controlling
In the first case everything is already done, it 's just a confirmation of ATC service for the pilot understanding
And finally the ICAO DOC 4444 "radar service" chapter title has been changed some years ago into "ATS surveillance service"..Its' time to change "radar contact" phraseology in " ATS Surveillance Service contact"and reduce capacity by 10% to avoid frequency load.....
Unless there are also procedures specified for the application of these different terms, I suspect that we might be reading too much into those definitions. In each case, the definition can be interpreted as either "observed for what it is" or "as a result of the identification procedure just applied."
Bottom line - what practical difference does it make, especially to the pilots' understanding?
2 s
Bottom line - what practical difference does it make, especially to the pilots' understanding?
2 s
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Emerald Isle
Age: 64
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7700 use of Definitions
Have a look at the the Identification Procedures in paragraphs 8.6.2.2, 8.6.2.3 and 8.6.2.4
I can't see mention of "postive identification" - this may well be a translation from another language into English (just look at how this is causing problems with the JAA/EASA question banks)
All three paragraphs have an option, "transfer of identifcation (see 8.6.3)". If these paragraphs do tell us how to establish "positive identification", then the transfer of identification is one of the options and therefore disproves your your explanation of the difference between the two phrases.
Additionally, once identified an aircraft doesn't need to be told he is identified again until the radar service has been terminated and the idetification process have been repeated.
If you want to reduce RTF traffic, stop telling someone who has been identified when they got airborne out of Central Europe that they are identifed every time they change frequency, until they have the radar service terminated on entering Oceanic airspace.
I can't see mention of "postive identification" - this may well be a translation from another language into English (just look at how this is causing problems with the JAA/EASA question banks)
All three paragraphs have an option, "transfer of identifcation (see 8.6.3)". If these paragraphs do tell us how to establish "positive identification", then the transfer of identification is one of the options and therefore disproves your your explanation of the difference between the two phrases.
Additionally, once identified an aircraft doesn't need to be told he is identified again until the radar service has been terminated and the idetification process have been repeated.
If you want to reduce RTF traffic, stop telling someone who has been identified when they got airborne out of Central Europe that they are identifed every time they change frequency, until they have the radar service terminated on entering Oceanic airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South of Brittany
Age: 75
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the use of "positive" in my reply to the thread it was just a semantic usage of what is written in the doc, not representing my opinion.
I have never understood what was the difference between an identification, processed with the official approved procedures and another one which is supposed to be "positive". And as the official doc is worked and published in english it could not come from another language ( Positively is used, translated with the same meaning,in the french ICAO version of DOC4444, but not transcripted in the official french OPS document)
And also I have never used this concept in ops phraseology as ICAO has not introduce "positive" in the DOC4444 phraseology.
I suppose that in english, when there is a risk to have a positive and/or a negative situation, the one which is used shall be stated.(Positively is used many time by ICAO and not only for the identification).
From what I hear, EASA ( Whoare the experts ?) like to found problem when there is none..so when there is some concerns it becomes quickly a huge mountain....
I have never understood what was the difference between an identification, processed with the official approved procedures and another one which is supposed to be "positive". And as the official doc is worked and published in english it could not come from another language ( Positively is used, translated with the same meaning,in the french ICAO version of DOC4444, but not transcripted in the official french OPS document)
And also I have never used this concept in ops phraseology as ICAO has not introduce "positive" in the DOC4444 phraseology.
I suppose that in english, when there is a risk to have a positive and/or a negative situation, the one which is used shall be stated.(Positively is used many time by ICAO and not only for the identification).
From what I hear, EASA ( Whoare the experts ?) like to found problem when there is none..so when there is some concerns it becomes quickly a huge mountain....
