Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

separation between procedure control and radar control

Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

separation between procedure control and radar control

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 15:00
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: BeiJing ,China
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
separation between procedure control and radar control

Today an aircraft had both transponders failure and radar lost the target even if the primary radar target ,and we are using the radar control ,I just wonder what is the lateral separation between aircraft that is gonna to be controlled with procedure control and radar control ?
caucatc is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 18:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,820
Received 98 Likes on 71 Posts
Lateral would be extremely difficult unless all aircraft were on VOR radials, much safer to separate vertically in the short term (unless the aircraft is VMC of course).
chevvron is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To separate procedurally (in horizontal terms), you would have to request position reports from the a/c you have under radar control, as you can't use info derived from radar to separate procedurally, and this would be a bit awkward. So the best solution, as mentioned, would be to use vertical separation.
criss is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the yellow submarine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tough one...safe lateral separation depends on so many factors. Some answers could be found in ICAO Annex 11 ,Attachment A -Material related to a method of establishing ATS routes defined by VOR ,and Attachment B- Method of establishing ATS routes for use by RNAV equipped aircraft...also try to find ICAO Doc. 9869 -Manual on Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of Separation Minima...
camisa10 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:44
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But trying to establish lateral could be awkward - radio workload (reports from other a/c), and also confusing for pilots under radar control.
criss is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:55
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The application of procedural control in what normally is a radar environment is extremely difficult. Where there are multiple level changes involved and converging/diverging traffic; radar (separated) segregated routes involved getting all the elements correct can be extremely problematic. Some sectorisation is designed around 'radar routes' co-ordination may need be conducted to other sectors if you can't see them... Because they may not be where they should be if you can't see them etc.

Having ground based navaids to use for the establishment of radials etc is an advantage. However, getting controllers who received little more than basic procedural control (if any) to recall what the learnt in training is still very difficult.

To separate procedurally (in horizontal terms), you would have to request position reports from the a/c you have under radar control, as you can't use info derived from radar to separate procedurally, and this would be a bit awkward. So the best solution, as mentioned, would be to use vertical separation.
I would suggest that you can use radar derived information to achieve procedural standards as long as you apply the appropriate radar tolerance against the procedural tolerances. ie achieving a 30RNAV standard can be done with radar without asking the 'radar identified their distance' ie you can see one 10NM from X and the other is 60NM from X, therefore you must have 30RNAV.... Laterally you certainly can use radar to establish an aircraft clear of anothers (procedural tolerances included) route.
Blockla is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 22:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Practically yes, but theoretically rules specify that the info should be from reports, not radar. Granted rules were not meant for this kind of situation though.
criss is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 23:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi cauatc,

If you have a procedural separation (longitudinal or lateral) already established when the transponder fails, even though you may be using radar, then there is no problem. If you don't have longitudinal or lateral, then your only option is vertical separation. You may even have to use emergency separation of 500' as an interim measure until you can safely provide 1,000' separation. Have a look at your China AIP and especially the procedures used by Sanya to provide separation when aircraft deviate off-track during typhoons. It may give you some ideas on how they cope with providing lateral separation between radar identified traffic and procedurally controlled traffic.

On the beach
On the beach is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.