Radar Identification vs Radar Contact

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

It is my contention that these are 2 distinct and entirely different things.

Let me explain, Radar identification methods are defined in section 5-3. I say that you can radar intentify an aircraft without providing radar services.

The whole reason for this meanial discussion is this.

Now let me explain, the National Capitol area has what is called a a "Special Flight Rules Area" where all aircraft must be in direct communication with ATC and display a valid Mode C transponder reply. There are some exceptions but for this argument lets assume that the concerned aircraft are complying with these two requirements.

We have designated positions manned by ATCS's who's sole responspibility falls under these 2 definitions. Now it is my contention that I can radar ID an aircraft without saying the magic words "radar contact", therefore being able to provide proper traffic advisory services without a legal obligation to do so.

For example N342SR calls for SFRA entrance: "Potomac Approach Cirrus 3-4-2-S-R over Westminster at 2500 requesting SFRA entry to Gaithersburg" I see a target over EMI(westminster) at 2500 and reply "Cirrus 3-4-2-S-R squawk 5-2-3-6 remain outside the SFRA until advised"

I observe said target change from 1200 to 5236 and say "Cirrus 2-S-R transponder observed, proceed on course, remain outside of Washington Class Bravo airspace, Baltimore altimeter 2-9-9-2"

Now in my opinion because of established rules and the posted definition this aircraft is radar identified but I have exactly zero LEGAL obligation to provide flight following/traffic advisories(Moral obligation is a different story I do want to sleep at night)


What do the rest of you think. Is my interpretation flawed?

Matty13 Senior Member

If you identify an aircraft, you have radar contact and are obligated to say so.
5-3-7. IDENTIFICATION STATUS
a. Inform an aircraft of radar contact when:
1. Initial radar identification in the ATC system
is established.

Unless there are some additional instructions somewhere in your FOP (or better some FAA pub telling pilots that no services are provided in the SFRA), management is kinda hanging you out to dry. What happens when a couple guys you gave codes to collide, Hudson Helo style? In a court of law you'll get grilled mercilessly. "Yes I issued a beacon code, yes that is an approved method of radar identification, yes my primary purpose as a controller is to prevent a collision between aircraft, no I did not provide traffic advisory services."

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

Yes we do have a SOP which states that NO ATC services are provided to SFRA aircraft. (Believe me this is the reason I bring this up). Also read the definition of "ATC security services position", Potomac is the ONLY ATC facility in the country with permanently established postitions whose sole responsibilty is "security tracking" by qualified ATCS's. Many students are taught not only that traffic advisories are not mandatory on these positions but NOT to do them because by issuing one traffic call you obligate yourself to do others. Keep in mind this SFRA forces every VFR aircraft in it to be talking to ATC. There are times where literally I could place a dime over 10 or more VFR aircraft all below bravo airspace within a 1000 feet vertically of each other and on my frequency. That is 10+ aircraft all within 1000 ft vertically and 1 or 2 miles laterally.

I bring this up because I want opinions of people outside this security aparatus. Believe me I would almost place money on a bet that there will be a day when it hits the news that 2 planes smacked into each other a la Hudson River but here in the DC area and the aircraft were both talking to the same controller. The controller will be hung out to dry and these two definitons will be their only defense.

My personal policy is I make as many traffic calls as I can because and only because if two do join up I want to be able to sleep at night knowing I did my best. There have been no less than 50 times I have made this or a similar call with the following response. "N123 traffic 12 o'clock, less than a mile, opposite direction and converging, skyhawk, same altitude" : response: "looking"

.......targets merge....."N123 has traffic, no factor" Then I breath.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

Matty13 Senior Member

"Yes we do have a SOP which states that NO ATC services are provided to SFRA aircraft."

Well that's a little bit of cover, but has the FAA published anything that tells the weekend pilot that even though you're talking to ATC and have a code, no services are provided? When you're on the witness stand, saying "the FAA told me not to make traffic calls," will be pretty flimsy. Whoever created the position and wrote the rules for it was lackadaisical in considering their effects. Whistleblower material here.

Anyhow, I think that unless a NOTAM or VFR sectional or terminal area chart explicitly states that VFR aircraft will be given a code, talking to ATC, AND provided no traffic advisory services in the SFRA, then any controller on that position has an obligation to at least provide traffic advisories to as many as he or she can, with the more dangerous appearing situations taking priority.

The SFRA forces every plane to talk to ATC, but in a schmuck pilot's mind class B airspace forces a plane to talk to ATC and could be considered to be the same thing. But in class B, they get separation services. It could easily confuse the part-time pilot.

You've got more than a year in the FAA, yes? if so, you might want to talk to somebody (not FAA management) about whistleblower protection. And then write your Representative, NTSB, GAO, IG or Senator. It would help to make a note of times and dates when you considered the situation to be unsafe.

As for your original question, once you identify an aircraft you inform it that it's radar contact. Whether you provide radar services or not will be a matter of SOPs and FAA pubs.

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

It is such a cluster f... but scattered thoughout the countless NOTAMS it does state ATC services will not be provided.

This is a document that shows a change in the upcoming .65T will alleviate most of this.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...503.9-2-10.pdf

this paragraph is key IMO

Matty13 Senior Member

Well, I guess that's a little more C for YA. I hope it will be in the AIM, too. But why have an air traffic controller (who is supposed to prevent collisions) do this job? Can't an airman or soldier get detailed to this? It's all being done in the name of security, why use a detective where a security guard will do?

Where can I find that NOTAM? I'd like to see how it's worded.

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

ATSAP it. it's the exact type of thing the ATSAP program was created for.

oh wait...u easties are still not using ATSAP huh.

otterstrom Trusted Member of NATCA

.

no.

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

From here

DC SFRA Final Rule
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29711.pdf
Section IV-B-1