Garbling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Spanistan
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garbling
A question for you guys,
Do you normally take any action to avoid garbling?
As far as i can remember iīve only heard a couple of my colleagues using the phraseology "for radar discerning", and i can assure you it is not due to a lack of traffic. I was wondering if itīs so uncommon in your countries/units too.
Thanks
Do you normally take any action to avoid garbling?
As far as i can remember iīve only heard a couple of my colleagues using the phraseology "for radar discerning", and i can assure you it is not due to a lack of traffic. I was wondering if itīs so uncommon in your countries/units too.
Thanks
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garbling is nothing else than a pain in the bottom.
I don't do anything against it. For the time being, I still have the strips to know what's happening.
I only ask the pilots to confirm their actual levels when traffic seems to go up and down : STCA triggers with any other traffic in the vicinity. When the computer loses corelation between FPL and target, we have to force it manually, but the mouse's often confused when traffics are too close to each other, so that's a loss of time.
Computer considers the traffic with no corelation is not RVSM....
Usually, I rely on my strips, trust the pilots when they say they are still RVSM and wait for these annoying, useless orange warnings to stop flashing.
Wonder if it will be worse with CPDLC, enhenced ModeS, and all the things they intend to add on the radar/squawk communications.
I don't do anything against it. For the time being, I still have the strips to know what's happening.
I only ask the pilots to confirm their actual levels when traffic seems to go up and down : STCA triggers with any other traffic in the vicinity. When the computer loses corelation between FPL and target, we have to force it manually, but the mouse's often confused when traffics are too close to each other, so that's a loss of time.
Computer considers the traffic with no corelation is not RVSM....
Usually, I rely on my strips, trust the pilots when they say they are still RVSM and wait for these annoying, useless orange warnings to stop flashing.
Wonder if it will be worse with CPDLC, enhenced ModeS, and all the things they intend to add on the radar/squawk communications.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Moon
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On first contact If I have a pair of overflights transiting through the ( large ) UIR , and the time, I will sometimes "split" the traffic by 5 degrees so that there is a clear picture of the returns on the display.Of course I only do this if I like the person on the next sector
)
Rgds
AyrTC
)Rgds
AyrTC
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that garbling died with monopulse SSR. Now label overlay - that's another thing
[pedantic mode off]
RS
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Mode S is mandatory equipment at least on the airborne side of things for the last few years already. Don't you guys on the ground use it? It did cost a lot of money to retrofit to the required enhanced surveillance level (Mode S was mandatory before, but with less transmitted data, TCAS requires Mode S). Same actually for CPDLC, datalink is required equipment for any new delivered plane since 01.01.2011 in europe, however i do know ATC has still until 2013 for full operational use.
) in the UK. I believe Maastricht UACC are using datalink and others will follow.
