Procedural control
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: downwind
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural control
I am quite interested in procedural control, how to improve procedural control skills? And where can I get some training materials on procedural control? I would really appreaciate it!
Ah, the forgotten and mysterious dark arts of the ATC world.
Superb.
This is an area you really need hands on training with someone who knows, and practice on either a real sector under training, or a properly set up simulator.
For each sector using primarily procedural control, there is what we used to refer to as a "book of spells". This contained a large number of charts of the airspace, with separation distances referenced to one or more dme stations along the routes, to give a graphical display of where routes were considered separated from other intersecting routes. In the sector I worked on, there were something like 25 charts, of which 10 would be frequently used. (When the radar dies, that is.)
The skill requires a good ability to visualize, based on looking at a display of flight progress strips with times (ETA's) over reporting points along their respective routes, in 3D, in your mind, what is pretty much displayed now on a radar display, plus an ability to rapidly use a circular sliderule to calculate estimated times of passing of two a/c (or more) each on a reciprocal track, and normally flying at different speeds.
This is something that can not really be learned away from the job, or an appropriate training facility, but you can gain a bit of an appreciation for it.
It was very challenging when busy, especially when important navaids were removed, required constant attention and a lot of looking ahead, good and rapid execution of a plan "b" when required, impeccable teamwork, and, when done well, is one of the most satisfying of the ATC jobs I've ever done.
(When done poorly, you go home feeling utterly frazzled and tense. Or so I've heard.)
Superb.
This is an area you really need hands on training with someone who knows, and practice on either a real sector under training, or a properly set up simulator.
For each sector using primarily procedural control, there is what we used to refer to as a "book of spells". This contained a large number of charts of the airspace, with separation distances referenced to one or more dme stations along the routes, to give a graphical display of where routes were considered separated from other intersecting routes. In the sector I worked on, there were something like 25 charts, of which 10 would be frequently used. (When the radar dies, that is.)
The skill requires a good ability to visualize, based on looking at a display of flight progress strips with times (ETA's) over reporting points along their respective routes, in 3D, in your mind, what is pretty much displayed now on a radar display, plus an ability to rapidly use a circular sliderule to calculate estimated times of passing of two a/c (or more) each on a reciprocal track, and normally flying at different speeds.
This is something that can not really be learned away from the job, or an appropriate training facility, but you can gain a bit of an appreciation for it.
It was very challenging when busy, especially when important navaids were removed, required constant attention and a lot of looking ahead, good and rapid execution of a plan "b" when required, impeccable teamwork, and, when done well, is one of the most satisfying of the ATC jobs I've ever done.
(When done poorly, you go home feeling utterly frazzled and tense. Or so I've heard.)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started in ATC I worked in a procedural area unit, with radar back-up from an adjacent unit when really needed. It was a seriously Black Art and it took a lot of time to learn all the "Rules of Thumb" which had nothing to do with the "book". Heaven help any trainee who requested help from the radar controller!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fife.UK.married,2 kids
Age: 75
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too. When I joined there was a huge influx of ATCAs, 75 on my course alone. Some of us progressed fairly rapidly, by the time I had been 8 months in the job I was one of the first bunches of assistants who were trained to do the A side of procedural area control. This involved preparing all of the flight progress strips with live estimates for the D controller who in control of each sector. It was a pretty hectic job at times but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It stood me in good stead as I got promotion to ATCO Cadet after about 18 months. Strangely enough my subsequent career included a number of procedural only aerodrome postings some of which were rather challenging. I actually found that I got more job satisfaction in busy procedural than I did in radar, although half mile SRAs in wx on limits were very satisfying as well.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell you what, Hyperborean, you'll always know a procedural man from his strip marking... I loved it too, but always found my brain was like a rice pudding after a busy morning!
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 14th Feb 2009 at 06:44.
Procedural control has its lighter side. My old mentor at Lindholme told me of a good one; two aircraft (DC3 followed by DC4) estimate POL 10 min apart ie separated; at DCS the DC4 was 7 min ahead of the DC3; once again separated; course the D man was a bit surprised when the the DC4 asked if it was OK to overtake on the right!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: roundabout Milton Keynes
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A side" assistant and "radar monitor" ah! those were the days! Nearly as good as retirement.
Story - D to Radar " Radar, can you get the one at 110 down to 70 through the one at 90 for me?"
Radar to D " Sorry D, it'll take a few minutes to split them 'cos they're only a couple of miles apart"
D to Radar " Don't bother then - I'll do it; I've got 5 minutes between them!"
Black art indeed!
Story - D to Radar " Radar, can you get the one at 110 down to 70 through the one at 90 for me?"
Radar to D " Sorry D, it'll take a few minutes to split them 'cos they're only a couple of miles apart"
D to Radar " Don't bother then - I'll do it; I've got 5 minutes between them!"
Black art indeed!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Under the Long White Cloud
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, those good old dark days (prior to 1991 for me). 
Area and approach control using lateral separation charts, time and DME longitudinal separation. It's all just a faded memory now. I can still remember the satisfaction, after using 'rule of thumb' (could never find the circular sliderule 
) to calculate ETP's, hearing pilots reporting "Visual Passing" at my calculated time. 
Used to go home after a day's work feeling very satisfied.
Area and approach control using lateral separation charts, time and DME longitudinal separation. It's all just a faded memory now. I can still remember the satisfaction, after using 'rule of thumb' (could never find the circular sliderule ) to calculate ETP's, hearing pilots reporting "Visual Passing" at my calculated time. Used to go home after a day's work feeling very satisfied.
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
OJT at ScATCC in 1970 during a night duty, no radar, either Gailes or Prestwick available. DC3 RFL070 departing via NGY followed by a 707 RFL330. DC3 cleared on course, 707 on course SKZ /80 dct NGY. Got stick from my coach (Jock Ellis) but never any explanation of how to do it properly. Still annoys me
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are loads but only truly with procedural control. Just simple ways to work out crossing points, etc. I suspect that it would be impossible to list them all especially as procedural control is dying out. I don't know of any on radar, although a few of my colleagues had clever ideas for calculating when to turn aircraft to achieve the correct spacing, few of which worked!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's nice to see the interest. Here in the States we call it non-radar (which I think is silly but there you have it.) I think it is what separates the men fom the boys in ATC.
You might be interested in this article I wrote a few years ago.
Non-Radar Daze
As far as learning it, that's a tall order. On the other hand, the basics are quite simple. Get an airway map. Plot a route of flight on an airway. Calculate the "fix/time" for every fix along the airway -- the time the aircraft will be over each navaid and each intersection along the airway. Write a strip for each one (intersection or navaid.)
N12345 C172 110kts BZM (fix) E1234Z (estimated time over BZM) 70 (altitude 7,000) AVL..SUG.V20..V310.GSO (Route of flight).
Flight Progress Strip (See Fig 2-3-2)
Repeat that process for 4 or 5 different flights (or a dozen) and turn the clock on. "Move" the airplanes through time.
You might be interested in the Divergance Distance Charts from the FAA. Chapeter 6 is the Non Radar chapter in the FAA's Air Traffic Control order (7110.65).
ATC Humor:
Q: What did they call non-radar before we had radar ?
A: Air Traffic Control
Don Brown
You might be interested in this article I wrote a few years ago.
Non-Radar Daze
As far as learning it, that's a tall order. On the other hand, the basics are quite simple. Get an airway map. Plot a route of flight on an airway. Calculate the "fix/time" for every fix along the airway -- the time the aircraft will be over each navaid and each intersection along the airway. Write a strip for each one (intersection or navaid.)
N12345 C172 110kts BZM (fix) E1234Z (estimated time over BZM) 70 (altitude 7,000) AVL..SUG.V20..V310.GSO (Route of flight).
Flight Progress Strip (See Fig 2-3-2)
Repeat that process for 4 or 5 different flights (or a dozen) and turn the clock on. "Move" the airplanes through time.
You might be interested in the Divergance Distance Charts from the FAA. Chapeter 6 is the Non Radar chapter in the FAA's Air Traffic Control order (7110.65).
ATC Humor:
Q: What did they call non-radar before we had radar ?
A: Air Traffic Control
Don Brown
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural is still alive...
Here in Iceland we still hava bit of procedural control. Of course the Oceanic sector is all procedural over Greenland. We only have radars in Iceland (and soon Faroye island). Often the radars in Iceland go under because of maintainance and then we have to use procedural for the domestic flights (and of course all Oceanic flights not under radar control). That is very fun controlling, very special.
The fact is our whole area is Oceanic with procedural control but over Iceland we can use radars to go below oceanic seporation standards. We train in procedural before we train in radar and we have refreshers on the procedural control quite often.
The fact is our whole area is Oceanic with procedural control but over Iceland we can use radars to go below oceanic seporation standards. We train in procedural before we train in radar and we have refreshers on the procedural control quite often.
An Australian Perspective
Here are a few recollections from Down Under. I think it was basically ICAO.
Procedural Control was the only ATC method available to the many non-radar sectors across Australia in the seventies and eighties. Radar was only available around the capital cities. Even the towers were procedural with Radar Services available only when the going got too tough or too restrictive. I think we did a pretty reasonable job with a mixture of aircraft types from DC3 to B747. The system was/is quite logical and easy enough to apply, however it is extremely restrictive and inefficient compared with modern systems.
The basic longitudinal standard for two aircraft to be at the same level (travelling in the same direction) was 10 minutes. This equated to huge differences in actual distance depending on the groundspeeds of aircraft. DME could reduce the longitudinal standard to 20 miles (15 miles for a change of level). Radar standard was 5 miles (this reduced to 3 miles in terminal airspace with different equipment)
“Step Climb” and “Step Descent” were standard procedures for processing aircraft on departure or arrival. These procedures required a lot of level reports from aircraft.
Strangely enough I remember the basic lateral separation standard was “One mile between the calculated possible positions of two aircraft”. When taking all tolerances into account this point actually put the aircraft many miles apart. Diversion tracks solved most lateral problems by about 10 miles from the airfield.
It was generally considered good training to send young controllers to procedural sectors and towers for a few years before getting them onto Radar Approach.
Jungmeister
Procedural Control was the only ATC method available to the many non-radar sectors across Australia in the seventies and eighties. Radar was only available around the capital cities. Even the towers were procedural with Radar Services available only when the going got too tough or too restrictive. I think we did a pretty reasonable job with a mixture of aircraft types from DC3 to B747. The system was/is quite logical and easy enough to apply, however it is extremely restrictive and inefficient compared with modern systems.
The basic longitudinal standard for two aircraft to be at the same level (travelling in the same direction) was 10 minutes. This equated to huge differences in actual distance depending on the groundspeeds of aircraft. DME could reduce the longitudinal standard to 20 miles (15 miles for a change of level). Radar standard was 5 miles (this reduced to 3 miles in terminal airspace with different equipment)
“Step Climb” and “Step Descent” were standard procedures for processing aircraft on departure or arrival. These procedures required a lot of level reports from aircraft.
Strangely enough I remember the basic lateral separation standard was “One mile between the calculated possible positions of two aircraft”. When taking all tolerances into account this point actually put the aircraft many miles apart. Diversion tracks solved most lateral problems by about 10 miles from the airfield.
It was generally considered good training to send young controllers to procedural sectors and towers for a few years before getting them onto Radar Approach.
Jungmeister
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fife.UK.married,2 kids
Age: 75
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone remember the "Standard Hyde Park Pigeon."? One of the old worthies at the college of knowledge used to liken oceanic control to Hyde Park, using standard separation only one pigeon could be allowed over Hyde Park at the same time and level. On a more recent note I used to find that I as a procedural approach controller could sometimes provide a more expeditious service to the traffic than the area man could with radar.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hyperborean
Only most of the area men with radar
Try telling the kids today about vor radials and they dont believe you.When you get them to try it out the look on their face is either one of complete awe or one of a questioning nature the question being who is this old sad git .Of course in my day we did not have this new ILS thingy at the airfield either, just a keen mind , a biro and a large packet of chocolate biscuits!!!
Rgds
AyrTC
ps
Hope you are enjoying your retirement
Only most of the area men with radar
Try telling the kids today about vor radials and they dont believe you.When you get them to try it out the look on their face is either one of complete awe or one of a questioning nature the question being who is this old sad git .Of course in my day we did not have this new ILS thingy at the airfield either, just a keen mind , a biro and a large packet of chocolate biscuits!!!Rgds
AyrTC
ps
Hope you are enjoying your retirement
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bedlam
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want a laugh try telling a college-fresh student about QGH approaches., the noblest of procedural techniques. Their responses usually range from disbelief to derision. Luckily I kept the old pages out of a long out-of-date Mats Pt1 to shove under their nose. I used to love wheeling the traffic around the sky with nothing more than a DF, stopwatch and whizz wheel. Can't be many places left where civil controllers get to do it. Do the military still teach it at Shawbury?
Last edited by bottom rung; 15th Feb 2009 at 07:35. Reason: old age
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yea.. Did QGHs during my time at Kidlington. Very exciting at time of lowish cloud when we would be talking stuff down at right angles to a circuit full of Cherokees!!
One very senior company pilot based at Kidlington would not entertain flying his Navajo if QGH was not available; such was the trust he had in the procedure.
One very senior company pilot based at Kidlington would not entertain flying his Navajo if QGH was not available; such was the trust he had in the procedure.