radarman, it surely would not be sensible for a ground facility to employ different callsigns on the same frequency, according to the service being provided ...

In the circumstances you describe, I would have thought you should call yourself "XXX Radar", as that would indicate capabilities for the other two services (i.e. procedural approach & flight information) that you may be called upon to provide.

If you announce yourself as "XXX Approach", that would normally suggest to me that you were an Approach facility, and probably not equipped to provide a radar-based service.

"XXX Information" would clearly not be able to provide either of the other two services.


JD
:)

JD
I agree entirely with your para 2, but I got rapped over the knuckles by the SATCO a couple of years ago for doing that. He said that as I was providing an Approach Control Service I should call myself 'Approach'.

The main problem in the Approach/Radar controversy is that there is no guidance as to whether the unit's callsign should reflect it's function (Approach), or the equipment used to provide the function (Radar). So a controller identifying himself as 'XXX Approach' may be using radar. But then again he might not. Similarly, if a controller identifies himself as 'XXX Radar' he may be providing an approach control service. But he might not. As usual, the traditional remedy of looking it up in the MATS 1 only muddies the water. What exactly are 'ATS Surveillance Services (in general)? And isn't Area Control an ATS Surveillance Service? If so, why is its callsign 'Control' and not 'Radar'? :confused: :confused:

In many other states, it is 'Radar'. Germany and the NL both use Radar for their area control services (Langen Radar, Amsterdam Radar).