Approach Procedural vs Approach Radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach Procedural vs Approach Radar
Is a procedural approach position more challenging than a radar approach position as the controller needs to visualize the position of traffic without having access to a radar display?
Are all radar approach controllers also procedural rated - in case radar derived data suddenly disappears (such as when a screen breaks down, for example)?
Are all radar approach controllers also procedural rated - in case radar derived data suddenly disappears (such as when a screen breaks down, for example)?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Is a procedural approach position more challenging than a radar approach position as the controller needs to visualize the position of traffic without having access to a radar display?>>
Absoluutely not as they have Flight Progress Strip displays which carry all the information needed. Approach procedural controllers work mainly with vertical separation
<<Are all radar approach controllers also procedural rated - in case radar derived data suddenly disappears (such as when a screen breaks down, for example)? >>
I don't know the current rules, but when I did it, yes, they were separate validations. However, Approach radar controllers are more than capable of carrying on if there is a radar problem.
Absoluutely not as they have Flight Progress Strip displays which carry all the information needed. Approach procedural controllers work mainly with vertical separation
<<Are all radar approach controllers also procedural rated - in case radar derived data suddenly disappears (such as when a screen breaks down, for example)? >>
I don't know the current rules, but when I did it, yes, they were separate validations. However, Approach radar controllers are more than capable of carrying on if there is a radar problem.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For more than a decade now, NATS ATCOs haven't done the Approach Procedural course. Instead (as I understand it), they are trained to maintain/achieve separation in the event of a radar failure, but not to provide an on-going approach service procedurally, and the airport ceases IFR movements in the event of radar failure. In the case of the busier airports, this is mitigated by having several radar sources and standby radar displays available. Some non-NATS radar units are also going down that road, although non-NATS ATCOs still generally have the procedural ticket in addition to radar. This means that some airports are able to continue operating procedurally, for instance at night in the event of staff shortage.
As for which is more difficult, it's probably a personal thing. However, if an aerodrome becomes busy enough with IFR traffic that procedural control is causing delays then it will generally install radar. Therefore the procedural units tend to be the ones that have fewer IFR movements - although there are busy procedural airfields and 'one-an-hour' radar units that are exceptions to this.
As for which is more difficult, it's probably a personal thing. However, if an aerodrome becomes busy enough with IFR traffic that procedural control is causing delays then it will generally install radar. Therefore the procedural units tend to be the ones that have fewer IFR movements - although there are busy procedural airfields and 'one-an-hour' radar units that are exceptions to this.
Procedural Approach controllers in Australia use far more than vertical standards.
Ok, I would not want to be working Capital city trafic with procedural standards but over here in many small towers we use vertical, longitudinal[time and distance] and lateral sep standards as well as visual based sep standards.
The service is very efficient with low traffic levels.
Yes you need to have a mental "picture" of where your traffic is but it is/was the most rewarding and fun controlling that I have done.
Radar approach controllers had our procedural ratings removed years ago but yes we could provide a very limited service when the TV goes on the blink.
AA
Ok, I would not want to be working Capital city trafic with procedural standards but over here in many small towers we use vertical, longitudinal[time and distance] and lateral sep standards as well as visual based sep standards.
The service is very efficient with low traffic levels.
Yes you need to have a mental "picture" of where your traffic is but it is/was the most rewarding and fun controlling that I have done.
Radar approach controllers had our procedural ratings removed years ago but yes we could provide a very limited service when the TV goes on the blink.
AA
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the top of me head:
Dundee
Kirkwall
Stornoway
Wick
Benbecula
Carlisle
Eglinton
Oxford (installing radar at the moment?)
Cranfield
Shoreham
Lydd
Plymouth
Scilly Isles
I'm probably missing somewhere really obvious.
Dundee
Kirkwall
Stornoway
Wick
Benbecula
Carlisle
Eglinton
Oxford (installing radar at the moment?)
Cranfield
Shoreham
Lydd
Plymouth
Scilly Isles
I'm probably missing somewhere really obvious.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the top of me head:
Oxford (installing radar at the moment?)
Oxford (installing radar at the moment?)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames Radar provides the approach radar service for Biggin and London City, but the Biggin controllers are qualified to provide an approach procedural service. Thames are based at Swanwick.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames Radar normally provide approach radar services to Biggin Hill in addition to London City. All the controllers at Biggin are Approach Procedural rated in the unlikely event of equipment failures or Thames have to evacuate for whatever reason.
