Are we permitted not to IDENTIFY an a/c in a radar sector?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iran-Tehran
Age: 43
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we permitted not to IDENTIFY an a/c in a radar sector?
hi all,
According to PANS_ATM 8.6.2.3.1 ( 22/11/2007):
Where SSR is used for identification, aircraft may be identified by one or more of the following procedures...
so can we infer that we are not obliged to identify all a/c in our sector?
for example in IRAN we have 7 sectors in our FIR, each one as vast as whole 7 sectors of UAE! when I'm busy vectorin 2 a/c in east of my sector, can I provide procedural control to one a/c in west of my sector?
According to PANS_ATM 8.6.2.3.1 ( 22/11/2007):
Where SSR is used for identification, aircraft may be identified by one or more of the following procedures...
so can we infer that we are not obliged to identify all a/c in our sector?
for example in IRAN we have 7 sectors in our FIR, each one as vast as whole 7 sectors of UAE! when I'm busy vectorin 2 a/c in east of my sector, can I provide procedural control to one a/c in west of my sector?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In a cave in the Highlands
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
It sounds like a rhetorical question, does your local operating procedures allow you to give an aircraft a procedural control service when it has been identified and I assume, still in solid radar cover, just because you are vectoring 2 a/c on an adjoining radar? Do you have a planner at all times or only when required? 3 aircraft on 2 radar screens is not exactly a high workload...........
It sounds like a rhetorical question, does your local operating procedures allow you to give an aircraft a procedural control service when it has been identified and I assume, still in solid radar cover, just because you are vectoring 2 a/c on an adjoining radar? Do you have a planner at all times or only when required? 3 aircraft on 2 radar screens is not exactly a high workload...........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iran-Tehran
Age: 43
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi,
it was just an example, 4 fifth of Tehran FIR is under radar coverage and at the same time there is a controller and an assisstant working in each of 7 sectors, the capacity of which is usually near the limit. but the structure of the airspace is so that in some sectors 4 fifth of traffic is combined in one side of the sector and only 1 fifth is on the other side. my question is that "is it possible to provide radar service in one part of a sector and procedural service in other part?"
it was just an example, 4 fifth of Tehran FIR is under radar coverage and at the same time there is a controller and an assisstant working in each of 7 sectors, the capacity of which is usually near the limit. but the structure of the airspace is so that in some sectors 4 fifth of traffic is combined in one side of the sector and only 1 fifth is on the other side. my question is that "is it possible to provide radar service in one part of a sector and procedural service in other part?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would read this as meaning that if you id an aircraft these are the methods that can be used. Not that you have to id the aircraft, or to do so using SSR.
You could, for example, id the primary target (if you have one).
But as to your original question, unless you have rules to the contrary where you work, the controllers job is to separate the aerpoplanes using any suitable and valid separation standard. Imagine if you only have one aircraft, why do you need to use radar to provide separation? Or two aircraft that are vertically separated?
However, separation is only part of the controller's job and having surveillance and accurate positional information is always better than nothing more than an estimate.
You could, for example, id the primary target (if you have one).
But as to your original question, unless you have rules to the contrary where you work, the controllers job is to separate the aerpoplanes using any suitable and valid separation standard. Imagine if you only have one aircraft, why do you need to use radar to provide separation? Or two aircraft that are vertically separated?
However, separation is only part of the controller's job and having surveillance and accurate positional information is always better than nothing more than an estimate.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon just beat me to it, but to reiterate I think you're misreading it.
Imagine the sentence as "when you are using SSR to identify traffic, these are the methods which can be used."
Imagine the sentence as "when you are using SSR to identify traffic, these are the methods which can be used."
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In a cave in the Highlands
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, has the a/c been previously identified and is still in solid radar cover? If the answer is yes and it is in controlled airspace, how can you downgrade the service, or do you have rules in Tehran that allow you to do this?
Part of the problem with this is not knowing the structure or size of the airspace or the rules you work to, it is a hypothetical comment to your post based on my own experience.
Cheers
Part of the problem with this is not knowing the structure or size of the airspace or the rules you work to, it is a hypothetical comment to your post based on my own experience.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 49
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
khashyatc, I'm with Scooby, you can/should use one of the procedures in case you have radar coverage (PSR and/or SSR).
Regarding the other question about giving radar service and procedural service in one same sector, is all about the coverage. In the Canary Is. we use to have a sector with 1/3 radar coverage (hence giving radar service), and the rest without it, providing separation and spacing between aircrafts with different FL's or time estimates (mach num. technique). Now we have a full procedural sector by itself after changing the configuration of the FIR/UIR sectors.
Hope it helps!
khashyatc, I'm with Scooby, you can/should use one of the procedures in case you have radar coverage (PSR and/or SSR).
Regarding the other question about giving radar service and procedural service in one same sector, is all about the coverage. In the Canary Is. we use to have a sector with 1/3 radar coverage (hence giving radar service), and the rest without it, providing separation and spacing between aircrafts with different FL's or time estimates (mach num. technique). Now we have a full procedural sector by itself after changing the configuration of the FIR/UIR sectors.
Hope it helps!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The service you are providing is Air Traffic Control.
The Classification of the Airspace governs the separation you are required to provide between flights.
If you can separate those flights that you are required to separate proceduraly then there is no requirement for you to use radar.
As someone said earlier if every thing you are working will remain vertically separated then you don't have to look at the radar or if all the traffic at the same level will be procedurally separated then the same applies.
I believe that having SSR only available does not preclude the ATCO from utilising the methods of identification that one would use when using primary radar i.e. turn method etc.
Therefore when SSR returns are displayed, in addition to the methods of identification used for primary radar the ATCO may use the methods specific to SSR.
However, a big word of caution. If you only have two flights and they happen to be opposite direction one at FL350 and the other at FL360 and you decide not to identify them or validate the mode C (because you have procedural separation), if they have an airprox because pilot A was at the wrong level for thr last 100nm and you did not check, then you will have to answer some hard questions.
If your radar coverage is not complete, ICAO covers this situation with respect to separation standards applied close to the limit of radar cover and against aircraft about to enter radar cover etc etc etc.
In a slightly different way, mixing procedural and radar control is an every day happening even in the London TMA (and every other biusy terminal airspace in the world). The place could not cope with the large amount of traffic unless they used it.
The Classification of the Airspace governs the separation you are required to provide between flights.
If you can separate those flights that you are required to separate proceduraly then there is no requirement for you to use radar.
As someone said earlier if every thing you are working will remain vertically separated then you don't have to look at the radar or if all the traffic at the same level will be procedurally separated then the same applies.
I believe that having SSR only available does not preclude the ATCO from utilising the methods of identification that one would use when using primary radar i.e. turn method etc.
Therefore when SSR returns are displayed, in addition to the methods of identification used for primary radar the ATCO may use the methods specific to SSR.
However, a big word of caution. If you only have two flights and they happen to be opposite direction one at FL350 and the other at FL360 and you decide not to identify them or validate the mode C (because you have procedural separation), if they have an airprox because pilot A was at the wrong level for thr last 100nm and you did not check, then you will have to answer some hard questions.
If your radar coverage is not complete, ICAO covers this situation with respect to separation standards applied close to the limit of radar cover and against aircraft about to enter radar cover etc etc etc.
In a slightly different way, mixing procedural and radar control is an every day happening even in the London TMA (and every other biusy terminal airspace in the world). The place could not cope with the large amount of traffic unless they used it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iran-Tehran
Age: 43
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi all,
I think I got my answer,
in fact we have no problem with radar coverage, but the problem is "RESPONSIBILITY".
I don't want to ID all aircraft at a rush hour, because I want to focus on the crowded part of my sector and I want to pay less attention to the other part on which the a/c are folowing their transit route at different FLs.
Unfortunately it is not written in our RADAR PROCEDURE wheather we are permited to provide PROCEDURAL SERVICE in one part of a fully-under-radar-coverage sector or not, but I think we can because in the top sentence (written in red and blue) the verb is "may be" not "shall be".
by the way we DON'T have PSR!
I think I got my answer,
in fact we have no problem with radar coverage, but the problem is "RESPONSIBILITY".
I don't want to ID all aircraft at a rush hour, because I want to focus on the crowded part of my sector and I want to pay less attention to the other part on which the a/c are folowing their transit route at different FLs.
Unfortunately it is not written in our RADAR PROCEDURE wheather we are permited to provide PROCEDURAL SERVICE in one part of a fully-under-radar-coverage sector or not, but I think we can because in the top sentence (written in red and blue) the verb is "may be" not "shall be".
by the way we DON'T have PSR!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should be clarified in local procedures - not good if individual controllers use different techniques and procedures on the same sector.
One problem with it - most crews may still assume they are under radar control, even though you haven't stated it - because they normally are in this sector. Also, if someone calls for wx diversion or anything similar, it might be easier doing it, having him under radar control.
I'm not sure if doing part of the sector procedurally really helps to relieve workload, but I'm not an area guy.
One problem with it - most crews may still assume they are under radar control, even though you haven't stated it - because they normally are in this sector. Also, if someone calls for wx diversion or anything similar, it might be easier doing it, having him under radar control.
I'm not sure if doing part of the sector procedurally really helps to relieve workload, but I'm not an area guy.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC : "The service you are providing is Air Traffic Control.
The Classification of the Airspace governs the separation you are required to provide between flights.
If you can separate those flights that you are required to separate proceduraly then there is no requirement for you to use radar."
I disagree.
An Air Traffic Control service also includes an alerting service. By DFC's logic, if I have only one aircraft under my control in my sector, then separation is achieved without further ado.
However, I'm not relieved of my responsbility to provide an alerting service, and in the en-route IFR environment, failing to positively identify the aircraft reduces the quality of this service.
If you have radar, and time, identify.
The Classification of the Airspace governs the separation you are required to provide between flights.
If you can separate those flights that you are required to separate proceduraly then there is no requirement for you to use radar."
I disagree.
An Air Traffic Control service also includes an alerting service. By DFC's logic, if I have only one aircraft under my control in my sector, then separation is achieved without further ado.
However, I'm not relieved of my responsbility to provide an alerting service, and in the en-route IFR environment, failing to positively identify the aircraft reduces the quality of this service.
If you have radar, and time, identify.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By DFC's logic, if I have only one aircraft under my control in my sector, then separation is achieved without further ado.
However, I'm not relieved of my responsbility to provide an alerting service, and in the en-route IFR environment, failing to positively identify the aircraft reduces the quality of this service.
If every aircraft visible on radar that a controller was providing an alerting service to had to be identified there would be chaos.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Galaxy, far far away...
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tehran and radar!!!? Hmmm, well, not where I'm sitting at (to the south of it, that is). We have to provide ten minutes longitudinal separation for same level and, occasionally, to descend traffic within our three minutes of the airspace, 'cause they can't do in next 40 minutes, based on "controller's judgment" (as I was told the other day).
Anyway, you don't have to identify traffic, but, in that case, you cannot provide radar service. You can still use it for radar monitoring and, if the route structure is done properly, it may be enough.
Anyway, you don't have to identify traffic, but, in that case, you cannot provide radar service. You can still use it for radar monitoring and, if the route structure is done properly, it may be enough.
