Radar contact / Identified
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Age: 31
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar contact / Identified
Hej guys,
I am working as an ATCO in Sweden and have been thinking about why we say "radar contact" alternatively "identified" every single time an aircraft is changed to a different frequency. In my mind this should only be applicable during the first time of identification (e.g. on departure or if an aircraft arrives from a non-radar procedural environment) and not having to say this all the time would reduce frequency occupancy time. I am curious to know how you do it in other EASA-countries and if you know any regulation that would support a different way of doing this? I used to work in the UK and I have a remote memory that we only had to say this during departure and also when an IFR aircraft arrived from outside controlled airspace.
Regards,
theATCO
I am working as an ATCO in Sweden and have been thinking about why we say "radar contact" alternatively "identified" every single time an aircraft is changed to a different frequency. In my mind this should only be applicable during the first time of identification (e.g. on departure or if an aircraft arrives from a non-radar procedural environment) and not having to say this all the time would reduce frequency occupancy time. I am curious to know how you do it in other EASA-countries and if you know any regulation that would support a different way of doing this? I used to work in the UK and I have a remote memory that we only had to say this during departure and also when an IFR aircraft arrived from outside controlled airspace.
Regards,
theATCO
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This seems to depend on countries and how things are agreed.
In Dubai, identification was done on departure by APP and it was stated in LoA that identification is transferred from APP to ACC. Similarly with arrivals identification was transferred from ACC to APP.
In Finland, radar contact is said on each and every reply to an initial call even though every unit uses the same surveillance system. An exception to this is when the transfer is between positions within the same unit.
Transfer of identification can be found in PART-ATS, AMC3 ATS.TR.155(c)(1) ATS surveillance services
This seems to depend on countries and how things are agreed.
In Dubai, identification was done on departure by APP and it was stated in LoA that identification is transferred from APP to ACC. Similarly with arrivals identification was transferred from ACC to APP.
In Finland, radar contact is said on each and every reply to an initial call even though every unit uses the same surveillance system. An exception to this is when the transfer is between positions within the same unit.
Transfer of identification can be found in PART-ATS, AMC3 ATS.TR.155(c)(1) ATS surveillance services
It's a long time since I did this stuff myself so I can only tell you what the theoretical answers, based on a very quick look at the books, might be.
ICAO says (PANS-ATM §8.6.2.1.1) Before providing an ATS surveillance service to an aircraft, identification shall be established and the pilot informed. Thereafter, identification shall be maintained until termination of the ATS surveillance service. I've seen different interpretations placed on this text in different countries but the handy one, for your argument, would be that if a handover and formal transfer of id and control is effected for each frequency then there is no situation when 'Before providing an ATS surveillance service...' applies again because the service continues regardless of whichever controller may be looking after the aircraft. Some national procedure manuals that I have had dealings with simply reproduced the ICAO text but others provide more explicit procedures.
Your recollections of the UK sound familiar to me also and UK the manual currently says 'When providing surveillance services outside controlled airspace, a pilot is to be informed as soon as his aircraft has been identified. When operating inside controlled airspace, the pilot of an aircraft need only be so informed if the identification is achieved by the turn method'. So it seems that if an aircraft is in controlled airspace it is rarely going to be told it's identified (I wonder when an aircraft might be given a turn for id in CAS these days!). There doesn't appear to be anything in the UK AIP to advise pilots that they will not usually be advised that their aircraft is identified, which I would have expected, but the UK RTF manual includes a table that does make this clear.
Don't know if any of that helps or adds to your existing knowledge but I would tend to agree with your thesis that it is not necessary and potentially wastes valuable time to keep on telling aircraft something that they will likely assume to be the case within European airspace.
ICAO says (PANS-ATM §8.6.2.1.1) Before providing an ATS surveillance service to an aircraft, identification shall be established and the pilot informed. Thereafter, identification shall be maintained until termination of the ATS surveillance service. I've seen different interpretations placed on this text in different countries but the handy one, for your argument, would be that if a handover and formal transfer of id and control is effected for each frequency then there is no situation when 'Before providing an ATS surveillance service...' applies again because the service continues regardless of whichever controller may be looking after the aircraft. Some national procedure manuals that I have had dealings with simply reproduced the ICAO text but others provide more explicit procedures.
Your recollections of the UK sound familiar to me also and UK the manual currently says 'When providing surveillance services outside controlled airspace, a pilot is to be informed as soon as his aircraft has been identified. When operating inside controlled airspace, the pilot of an aircraft need only be so informed if the identification is achieved by the turn method'. So it seems that if an aircraft is in controlled airspace it is rarely going to be told it's identified (I wonder when an aircraft might be given a turn for id in CAS these days!). There doesn't appear to be anything in the UK AIP to advise pilots that they will not usually be advised that their aircraft is identified, which I would have expected, but the UK RTF manual includes a table that does make this clear.
Don't know if any of that helps or adds to your existing knowledge but I would tend to agree with your thesis that it is not necessary and potentially wastes valuable time to keep on telling aircraft something that they will likely assume to be the case within European airspace.
I have always thought that much of this is so unnecessary and RTF-time wasting in the scenario of controlled airspace (other than the turn method - transponders or SSR can fail!). The appropriate service (separation and/or traffic information) is provided regardless of whether it is based on surveillance identification. The only other factor is the potential for unknown traffic infringing the airspace, but in this case, perhaps the UK has it right?
2 s
2 s
Hej guys,
I am working as an ATCO in Sweden and have been thinking about why we say "radar contact" alternatively "identified" every single time an aircraft is changed to a different frequency. In my mind this should only be applicable during the first time of identification (e.g. on departure or if an aircraft arrives from a non-radar procedural environment) and not having to say this all the time would reduce frequency occupancy time. I am curious to know how you do it in other EASA-countries and if you know any regulation that would support a different way of doing this? I used to work in the UK and I have a remote memory that we only had to say this during departure and also when an IFR aircraft arrived from outside controlled airspace.
Regards,
theATCO
I am working as an ATCO in Sweden and have been thinking about why we say "radar contact" alternatively "identified" every single time an aircraft is changed to a different frequency. In my mind this should only be applicable during the first time of identification (e.g. on departure or if an aircraft arrives from a non-radar procedural environment) and not having to say this all the time would reduce frequency occupancy time. I am curious to know how you do it in other EASA-countries and if you know any regulation that would support a different way of doing this? I used to work in the UK and I have a remote memory that we only had to say this during departure and also when an IFR aircraft arrived from outside controlled airspace.
Regards,
theATCO
First, once a flight is informed that it is identified (using the phraseology IDENTIFIED, not the very anachronistic 'radar contact'), it remains so until it is told that it is not (phraseology is SURVEILLANCE SERVICES TERMINATED) - typically when departing surveillance coverage (less likely these days) or control is transferred to an ATS unit that does not have surveillance capability, e.g. a procedural APP/TWR.
Second, the term RADAR is obsolete, replaced by SURVEILLANCE, as both the pilot and the controller are largely agnostic to the method of surveillance - it does not matter whether it is radar, ADS-B, MLAT or whatever.
Originally Posted by parishiltons
You wouldn't/shouldn't
You might take a moment to recognise that the rules in your country may not reflect those that other controllers work within.
both the pilot and the controller are largely agnostic to the method of surveillance
2 s
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
...or current ICAO procedures/phraseology.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the ICAO text would seem to be open to interpretation (and is interpreted in different ways in different states), or do you have another ICAO reference that applies?
2 s
Regarding my post, it is consistent with Doc 4444 Ch 8 ATS Surveillance Services. Note: ICAO changed the references from Radar to Surveillance some years ago.
Identification - 8.6 Surveillance System procedures -> 8.6.2.1.1 "Before providing an ATS surveillance service to an aircraft, identification shall be established and the pilot informed." So that means "ABC123 IDENTIFIED". A pilot will assume the flight remains identified until told that surveillance is interrupted or terminated. Repeating that a flight is identified on every frequency change is completely superfluous and a waste of valuable A/G time. Do you do it when a flight goes from voice to datalink? I hope not!
Interruption or termination of identification - 8.6.7.1 "An aircraft which has been informed that it is provided with ATS surveillance service should be informed immediately when, for any reason, the service is interrupted or terminated". Hence SURVEILLANCE SERVICE TERMINATED.
It's all consistent with ICAO - they are not specific rules in my country. And I reiterate, why would anyone still be using 'radar contact' when that concept is not even mentioned in ICAO? World War II is over, for anyone who hasn't noticed.
I know that aviation is a conservative industry, but that does not mean that outdated hangovers from a much earlier generation of surveillance technology and other procedures that predate by decades interconnected ATM systems should still be used.
Regarding my post, it is consistent with Doc 4444 Ch 8 ATS Surveillance Services. Note: ICAO changed the references from Radar to Surveillance some years ago.
Identification - 8.6 Surveillance System procedures -> 8.6.2.1.1 "Before providing an ATS surveillance service to an aircraft, identification shall be established and the pilot informed." So that means "ABC123 IDENTIFIED".
Identification - 8.6 Surveillance System procedures -> 8.6.2.1.1 "Before providing an ATS surveillance service to an aircraft, identification shall be established and the pilot informed." So that means "ABC123 IDENTIFIED".
2 s
Also, I can't read into Doc 4444 that termination of service has an ADS-B implication - it is all about termination of surveillance service, regardless of what form that surveillance takes. Note that a flight can continue to remain identified as it transitions from one form of surveillance to another, which happens many thousands of times daily throughout the world, and often dozens of times for an individual flight, particularly longer transcontinentals.
At the risk of perpetuating this thread,...
d) RADAR CONTACT [position];
e) IDENTIFIED [position];
e) IDENTIFIED [position];
2 s
My God, you're correct, Radar Contact is STILL in phraseologies, along with turns for identification. Clearly World War II is not yet over. The ICAO panels must need another few decades of meetings to review it. Next they'll bring back NDBs.
Last edited by parishiltons; 20th Apr 2022 at 11:43.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what are you talking about? Identified means, ATCO has positive identification of aircraft and has nothing to do with NDB, VOR or anything else. Even in days of CPDLC, initial contact is still verbal, IDENTIFIED included. All further communication done via CPDLC.
