technical sep loss
 

Hi everyone!

Question for collegues around the world:
In a radar environment dou you guys have to consider the concept of technical sep loss, which would be something like that:
AC1 a jet with a ground speed of 280 kts climbing thru 14000' cleared to 17000' heading 270, AC2 a turboprop ground speed of 170kts climbing thru 6000' also cleared to 17000' on a heading of 310. The 2 Aircrafts are already 3.2 NM appart increasing. Is this a sep loss (technical), considering you're working in a typical 5NM / 1000' separation environment??

theres no such thing as a technical loss when youre valid..... :E

In Oz this would be considered a breakdown of separation. We have the situation all the time of aircraft on diverging tracks more than 3NM but less than 5NM which are separated when they on departure frequency but if we accept one of them on the enroute frequency, they are suddenly not separated even though they were separated and are going away from each other.

"I was monitoring the vertical rate..........."

From an App Rad point of view, the situation is not a loss of sep at the time you describe as you have not come below your minima of 1000' OR 5nm and they are diverging. It would only become an issue if there was a vertical sep of less than 1000' And less than 5 nm (3nm in our zone)at any time.It is difficult to judge without having been there but if you were training then your mentor is probably correct in making sure standard sep is achieved before you climb/descend/turn towards another a/c. It is a bit like don't do as I do, do as I say. When valid, you can make your own mistakes and take shortcuts as it then on your license

@clr4takeoff,
If you are my student and ask such question I will give you the last number of local classifieds . In order to find job that more suits to you.

you have one a/c (jet) passing fl140 to fl 170 ( speed is quite irrelevant) and in hdg 210
and another one a/c( turboprop) at 6000 feet at the same moment , with instruction Climb to FL 170,hdg 170.
and at that moment there is 3.2 Nm lateral separation.
For your info minimum separation is 5 nm or 1000'.
and you have at that case 8000'+. at the moment when they reach FL 170 they will be separated 20/25 Nm at least.
But I am in a good mood today and I will give advice.
If you have such question and similar , and you are thinking that my answer is not correct than you should try to join SMATSA at Belgrade.
they have some instructors working such way. But they represent minority.
others use their brain!

<<AC1 a jet with a ground speed of 280 kts climbing thru 14000' cleared to 17000' heading 270, AC2 a turboprop ground speed of 170kts climbing thru 6000' also cleared to 17000' on a heading of 310. The 2 Aircrafts are already 3.2 NM appart increasing. Is this a sep loss (technical), considering you're working in a typical 5NM / 1000' separation environment??>>

Forgive me; I'm old and decrepit... but from what I understand, one aircraft is climbing thru' 14000 and another a/c, which is considerably slower, is climbing thru' 6000 and they are on diverging tracks. So, by the time they both reach 17000 they will be many miles apart, with the distance rapidly increasing.

The question of separation surely doesn't arise - they are separated and will remain so. That sort of situation arises in busy terminal areas all day.

All that anyone cares about surely is what you have when they are 999ft apart (assuming the vertical sep is 1000ft). In the Oz college of knowledge there was the old "Separation assurance" thing they used to get you on, but in the real world that was always a bit of a joke.

So my answer is you either have a sep loss or you don't. There is no such thing as a technical loss of sep. In this case they are 8,000 ft apart so until they are 1000ft apart whether they are .5 NM apart or 25 NM apart is irrelevant. Just my opinion, but maybe I have been working in the Wild West Sandpit too long.

The US delegation concurs (well, I do anyway...). They're too close when they get too close, not when they're as HD has characterized this situation...

They pay us to use our brains in exactly this manner. To fail to anticipate this sep would trouble me. Of course, stranger problems have developed, but that's why we continue to watch these things...

Dave

The example given is a good demonstration of sep assurance vs. "they'll never hit in a fit".
Also, sometimes if you look hard enogh, you do have a standard.
Does this one appear in your tool bag;

Transiting to airspace with a different standard.
When two aircraft are transiting to an airspace where a larger standard will apply, and their tracks diverge by 30 degrees or more, and the smaller standard will continue to exist until the larger standard is achieved, the aircraft are deemed separated.

So if you are going from a terminal standard of 3nm to an enroute standard of 5 nm, I would claim that one (if you have it where you are).

Technical loss of sep: I have used this phrase to inform pilots that we don't have the required standard, but they are not going to crash. (received a handoff in procedural airspace coming into radar where there was 18nm longitudinal, same level- loss of sep, but they weren't going to die). Don't think it's an official term, but useful.

Singapurcanac
 

My dear SINGAPURCANAC you have absolutly no idea of what made me ask this question, but i'm also in a good mood today and I will tell you:
I was working departure (teminal) where we use 3nm/1000, and I was perfectly confortable with the situation when I handed off the 2 ac to the enroute. But on there side, the enroute was not confortable with that. They just asked me to make sure the lower one was clrd 1000' below the higher or 5 nm appart before handing them off. That's about it!
Thank you anyway for taking a little of your time to give precious advices!:mad:
Acoording to the answers I can assume that everybody understood my question...Maybe I didn't give enough details to fully get the situation. ;)
So I was just asking if this concept of sep loss with ac always separated exists somewhere else than in Canada (which, bye the way, I just can't find in our AIP...:E)

sorry for misunderstanding,
but then your colleagues from ACC are ready for move,because,
turboprop will reach Fl 170 in 6 minutes(minimum),
and then triangle is :jet will be around 30 Nm away from the position at given moment.
at the same time turboprop would pass 18 miles.
it gives us triangle where one side is 33.2 Nm and another side is 18Nm with the angle between sides 30 degrees.
It is not necessary to be Maths PhD to realize that there will be enough miles.
but differences and out of any logic rules are part of this world. :{
Best regards,

In meanwhile I called an expert( she is not PhD but cleverer than many ACC ATCOS). she need a little time to give an exact distance, but at first glimpse she gave me one rule:
for such triangle rule is that third side in such triangle must have distance between 33.2-18 and 33.2+18.
So minimum distance is 15.2 Nm
3 times more than minimum.
according to this example it is now clear to me why ACC ATCOs are paid higher than APP ATCOs. they need more space:)

I'm as clever as any PHD, if not more so :}

And we didn't get all the information that your PHD friend seemed to get. Headings, speed, passing FLs and distance didnt give us relative position to each other.

And I imagine your PHD friend has more more time to scribble on paper and stuff, us lot are watching radar screens and pointy flying things out the window.

No offence Singaporecanc.

:ok:

Traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

I know that it is stupid to quote myself but
Exact number is
22.6Nm
good night

I have no input or interest in the original question, but I feel compelled to tell everyone that I am cleverer than all of you. Especially the singapore dudes doctor mate.

By the way if it didnt set the snitch off why discuss it eh?

Canada you say?

Care to share where?

Hey, that rhymes! Stick that in your PHD and smoke it. I am so smrt!

Thanks all
 

It just makes me feel good: common sense does work!
Thank you guys for your answers!

No problem in the US - not only is there common sense, but there can be a procedure in place to cover it formally, per the 7110.65:

Nav Canada ManOps has the same "standard" however, the last sentence is the clincher.