Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center

Dhruv Kalra

  • ZMP Staff
  • 431
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2015, 11:30:26 AM »
From a CPC/OJTI friend at C90: "ZAU can accept a handoff 10 miles south of ORD, and I can vector the aircraft all over the sky and do whatever I want with him without coordination as long as I ship him IAW the C90/ZAU LOA. The fact that the next controller knows he's coming doesn't mean anything as far as how I work the a/c."

My interpretation of 5-4-5(b) is in line with Wes - the way I read that is subsequent instructions to bring the plane in line with the LOA'd procedure are fine; you just have to coordinate anything that is going to be contrary to the LOA prior to transfer of control/comms.

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2015, 11:58:13 AM »
My interpretation of 5-4-5(b) is in line with Wes - the way I read that is subsequent instructions to bring the plane in line with the LOA'd procedure are fine; you just have to coordinate anything that is going to be contrary to the LOA prior to transfer of control/comms.

Eh.. Wes wasn't limiting to LOA.  His interpretation, from what he's posted, allows him to do whatever with the aircraft inside his airspace after the handoff has been initiated so long as he doesn't touch NAS information.  This differs from my interpretation, which is you cannot change anything EXCEPT what is understood through facility directives intrafacility or LOA interfacility.  Wes posted he can give a 360 to a guy after handoff is initiated as long as it's still in his airspace and he doesn't touch NAS information.

William Lewis

  • Members
  • 160
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2015, 12:00:14 PM »
Same here at RW ZFW. D10 may perform an automated handoff, but will many times continue to alter course and altitude as needed. They just will not comm change the aircraft until the appropriate instruction are given which put them IAW the letter, or otherwise coordinated.

Similar to 6s post the aircraft remain in D10s airspace and NAS information is not altered.

Wesley Miles

  • Members
  • 214
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2015, 12:09:30 PM »
I should specify: as long as the aircraft is flying IAW LOAs/NAS route/altitude by the time comms are transferred, I believe there to be no issue.

Ryan Geckler

  • Mentors
  • 453
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2015, 12:15:15 PM »
I should specify: as long as the aircraft is flying IAW LOAs/NAS route/altitude by the time comms are transferred, I believe there to be no issue.

This is my interpretation as well.

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2015, 12:23:27 PM »
I should specify: as long as the aircraft is flying IAW LOAs/NAS route/altitude by the time comms are transferred, I believe there to be no issue.

This is my interpretation as well.

Which, on VATSIM, there are rarely loas or procedures allowing turns and changes inside of a artcc/ccf airspace. So turns and the like, in theory, couldn't be applied on the VATSIM environment once a handoff has been initiated because there are no loas allowing it. The .65 doesn't define flight path as a nas route, etc. so to me that means it's heading, assigned or otherwise as that is how it's used elsewhere in the .65 in rules like passing and diverging, etc.

Dhruv Kalra

  • ZMP Staff
  • 431
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2015, 12:45:18 PM »
Which, on VATSIM, there are rarely loas or procedures allowing turns and changes inside of a artcc/ccf airspace. So turns and the like, in theory, couldn't be applied on the VATSIM environment once a handoff has been initiated because there are no loas allowing it. The .65 doesn't define flight path as a nas route, etc. so to me that means it's heading, assigned or otherwise as that is how it's used elsewhere in the .65 in rules like passing and diverging, etc.

Yeah, but doesn't the overriding principle of General Control apply? Namely, the plane is your control while under your area of jurisdiction and that the handoff is nothing more than the transfer of radar ID?

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2015, 12:54:35 PM »
Which, on VATSIM, there are rarely loas or procedures allowing turns and changes inside of a artcc/ccf airspace. So turns and the like, in theory, couldn't be applied on the VATSIM environment once a handoff has been initiated because there are no loas allowing it. The .65 doesn't define flight path as a nas route, etc. so to me that means it's heading, assigned or otherwise as that is how it's used elsewhere in the .65 in rules like passing and diverging, etc.

Yeah, but doesn't the overriding principle of General Control apply? Namely, the plane is your control while under your area of jurisdiction and that the handoff is nothing more than the transfer of radar ID?

No because the responsibilities of the transferring controller (5-4-5) now applies.

James McMannamy

  • Members
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2015, 08:51:28 AM »
Which, on VATSIM, there are rarely loas or procedures allowing turns and changes inside of a artcc/ccf airspace. So turns and the like, in theory, couldn't be applied on the VATSIM environment once a handoff has been initiated because there are no loas allowing it. The .65 doesn't define flight path as a nas route, etc. so to me that means it's heading, assigned or otherwise as that is how it's used elsewhere in the .65 in rules like passing and diverging, etc.

Yeah, but doesn't the overriding principle of General Control apply? Namely, the plane is your control while under your area of jurisdiction and that the handoff is nothing more than the transfer of radar ID?

No because the responsibilities of the transferring controller (5-4-5) now applies.

I want to throw in my two cents.  My background is 8 years in the FAA, 7 of them being at two different terminal radar facilities.  One has probably the most complex LOAs in the world between the TRACON and overlying center, and the other has probably one of the simplest (two different overlying ARTCCs).

5-4-5 b. simply means that once an aircraft is in automated handoff status, changes to the aircraft's flight plan information can't be made without verbal coordination.  Consequently, they have made it impossible to do this by not allowing FDIO changes once an aircraft is in handoff status (speaking TRACON/TRACON and TRACON/ARTCC...I don't know what capabilities exist in the enroute world).  Before ERAM, we had a requirement (in an LOA) to verbally coordinate all FDIO changes made within 15 minutes on initiating the handoff to ensure the receiving controller had the most up-to-date information.

The intent of that paragraph is not to forbid the initiating controller from working the aircraft in his airspace after an automated hand-off has been initiated.  In fact, in many places, it would be impossibly to comply with that interpretation because aircraft go into automated handoff status without input from the controller.

LOA's don't have anything to do with how a controller may work an aircraft up to the transfer of control point.  A lack of an LOA doesn't have anything to do with how a controller may work an aircraft up to the transfer of control point; they're totally unrelated. 

Why then does 5-4-5 b. say "unless otherwise specified by a LOA or a facility directive."

Because some LOA's/Facility Directives require aircraft to be delivered at specific speeds/headings/altitudes, etc... regardless of requested speed/altitude/routing and FDIO changes after the handoff has been initiated would not change how the receiving controller would receive the aircraft.  Some facilities have the ability to change data block information on other controller's aircraft (requested altitudes, assigned speeds, route information, etc....).

Another way to look at it is from the point of view of the receiving controller.  If I take a handoff on an aircraft, where I don't have any LOA with the initiating controller's facility on how this aircraft shall be delivered, I expect that the aircraft will be at its requested altitude and on the route in the FDIO.  If, 10 miles from the boundary, the aircraft turns 40 degrees for some reason, what do I care?  As long as he's pointed back toward his routing before he is shipped to me, it doesn't affect me in the least.  When I'm working ORD arrivals, I don't care if ZAU has airliners zig-zagging all over their sector before coming to me.  The fact that there's an LOA specifying how those planes will be delivered eventually doesn't make a difference to me; once the aircraft is switched to me and enters my airspace, then I can worry about it.

Now, if somebody has decided that their interpretation is that once the handoff has been initiated, they can no longer give any control instructions without verbal coordination, that doesn't really affect me either, so have at it.  That's clearly not the intent, but it doesn't affect my operation, and I wouldn't even know that was the case because I'm not listening to how the initiating controller is working his airplanes.

One last thought.  There are facility managers and district managers and OMs and supervisors who have ridiculous interpretations on different things in the 7110.65 that are not FAA-wide.  It could very well be a directive in Fairbanks that once a handoff has been initiated, you aren't allowed to give any other control instructions without verbal coordination.  For a while at ARR ATCT, if the ATIS advertised runway 27, aircraft couldn't operate on runway 15, even if there were no other aircraft within 100 miles of the airport, because of the managers unfounded interpretation of a new opposite direction procedure.  Meanwhile, the other 4 FAA towers in the area actually followed the intent of the directive and ran similar operations without an issue.  Even ORD ATCT can't roll a 22L departure if a heavy lands on 28C because of wake turbulence because someone somewhere has interpreted the wake turbulence rules to mean that an aircraft just beginning its takeoff roll is considered to be flying through the heavy's flight path.

Particularly since it is VATSIM, it is not wrong for a controller to not give control instructions after initiating a handoff, but it's absolutely not wrong for a controller TO give control instructions after a handoff has been initiated.

I would love to see the "reject handoff" feature to be eliminated from VATSIM.  That's one of the most unrealistic features on the ATC side of the network.  If someone is flashing and I, for some reason, don't want to take the handoff (or the handoff should be going somewhere else -- it happens sometimes), then I'll ignore it or verbally coordinate, "hey, I think you meant to flash him at the low sector, not me."  I take handoffs 20 miles outside of my airspace all day long (only because usually that's the edge of my scope).  It wouldn't bother me to take one 100 miles away because I know the initiating controller is going to ship me a clean airplane.

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2015, 09:24:20 AM »
Which, on VATSIM, there are rarely loas or procedures allowing turns and changes inside of a artcc/ccf airspace. So turns and the like, in theory, couldn't be applied on the VATSIM environment once a handoff has been initiated because there are no loas allowing it. The .65 doesn't define flight path as a nas route, etc. so to me that means it's heading, assigned or otherwise as that is how it's used elsewhere in the .65 in rules like passing and diverging, etc.

Yeah, but doesn't the overriding principle of General Control apply? Namely, the plane is your control while under your area of jurisdiction and that the handoff is nothing more than the transfer of radar ID?

No because the responsibilities of the transferring controller (5-4-5) now applies.

Now, if somebody has decided that their interpretation is that once the handoff has been initiated, they can no longer give any control instructions without verbal coordination, that doesn't really affect me either, so have at it.  That's clearly not the intent, but it doesn't affect my operation, and I wouldn't even know that was the case because I'm not listening to how the initiating controller is working his airplanes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "that's clearly not the intent", as clearly the intent is not obvious.  The wording describe matches similar in other procedures in the order to include heading assignments and not just NAS information.  To me, if it was restricted to NAS information, they would've chosen wording to indicate such.

Quote
If, 10 miles from the boundary, the aircraft turns 40 degrees for some reason, what do I care?  As long as he's pointed back toward his routing before he is shipped to me, it doesn't affect me in the least.

I would say you definitely should care.  If the aircraft turns after the handoff has been initiated in a way that doesn't comply with SOP/LOA/filed routing and wasn't coordinated, it could limit your ability to comply with 5-4-6(b) "Issue restrictions that are needed for the aircraft to enter your sector safely before accepting the handoff" and that 5-4-5(b) ensures that you do not do something so as to change the aircraft's path that no longer allows the aircraft to enter the sector safely.  Note that this isn't just lateral, but vertical as well.  Having worked with what the military has to offer controller wise, I never assume that an aircraft will get turned back toward the gate before comm transfer as I've seen it happen countless times which to me implies the wording is meant to try and alleviate that and allow me to follow 5-4-6(b).

Quote
One last thought.  There are facility managers and district managers and OMs and supervisors who have ridiculous interpretations on different things in the 7110.65 that are not FAA-wide.  It could very well be a directive in Fairbanks that once a handoff has been initiated, you aren't allowed to give any other control instructions without verbal coordination.  For a while at ARR ATCT, if the ATIS advertised runway 27, aircraft couldn't operate on runway 15, even if there were no other aircraft within 100 miles of the airport, because of the managers unfounded interpretation of a new opposite direction procedure.  Meanwhile, the other 4 FAA towers in the area actually followed the intent of the directive and ran similar operations without an issue.  Even ORD ATCT can't roll a 22L departure if a heavy lands on 28C because of wake turbulence because someone somewhere has interpreted the wake turbulence rules to mean that an aircraft just beginning its takeoff roll is considered to be flying through the heavy's flight path.

Agreed, there are some times when ridiculous interpretations put a damper on operations.  It happens everywhere.  However, this isn't a FAI directive but rather an interpretation by various controllers from each place I've been.  There are an odd couple that believe it's NAS but they've mostly been in VATUSA and not the agency.  Had 1 new E7 at one of my Navy facilities (some years ago) remove a procedure we had used for half a decade called "turn on reset".  Basically our VISCOMs for GCA to tower would stay lit until someone hit the reset (after the approach terminated).  It was generally the local controller after the aircraft was observed executing climb outs.  Sometimes they would want the aircraft turned away from the airport sooner than 2 miles so as to launch an IFR departure so they would coordinate a "turn on reset" and when they hit the reset radar would give the climb outs, tower would observe it being executed and then launch their departure.  The procedure was eliminated because "there was no way to ensure radar issued the climb outs" and he had it removed from our SOPs.

James McMannamy

  • Members
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2015, 02:49:27 PM »
Quote
Quote
If, 10 miles from the boundary, the aircraft turns 40 degrees for some reason, what do I care?  As long as he's pointed back toward his routing before he is shipped to me, it doesn't affect me in the least.

I would say you definitely should care.  If the aircraft turns after the handoff has been initiated in a way that doesn't comply with SOP/LOA/filed routing and wasn't coordinated, it could limit your ability to comply with 5-4-6(b) "Issue restrictions that are needed for the aircraft to enter your sector safely before accepting the handoff" and that 5-4-5(b) ensures that you do not do something so as to change the aircraft's path that no longer allows the aircraft to enter the sector safely.  Note that this isn't just lateral, but vertical as well.  Having worked with what the military has to offer controller wise, I never assume that an aircraft will get turned back toward the gate before comm transfer as I've seen it happen countless times which to me implies the wording is meant to try and alleviate that and allow me to follow 5-4-6(b).

No, really, I don't care.  It's the controller who is transferring radar and communication to me that is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is clear of conflicts until it reaches the airspace boundary (laterally or vertically).  If the first controller turns an aircraft away after you took radar, then ships him to you on a heading away from your airspace, then he screwed up not because he gave a control instruction prior to initiating an automated handoff, but because the aircraft didn't come to you on its assigned routing.

Seriously, this is the way it works at every other FAA radar facility in the country.  I work the airplanes in my airspace and you work the airplanes in your airspace.  I don't care if you give the airplane three 360's five miles from the boundary after I take the handoff as long as he enters my airspace on his assigned routing.  You shouldn't care in the least what I do with an airplane before I transfer communication to you as long as the aircraft is on his assigned routing.  If I took a handoff, and then you were able to get an amendment into the FDIO and didn't coordinate with me verbally, THEN 5-4-5 b applies.

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2015, 04:51:08 PM »
Quote
Quote
If, 10 miles from the boundary, the aircraft turns 40 degrees for some reason, what do I care?  As long as he's pointed back toward his routing before he is shipped to me, it doesn't affect me in the least.

I would say you definitely should care.  If the aircraft turns after the handoff has been initiated in a way that doesn't comply with SOP/LOA/filed routing and wasn't coordinated, it could limit your ability to comply with 5-4-6(b) "Issue restrictions that are needed for the aircraft to enter your sector safely before accepting the handoff" and that 5-4-5(b) ensures that you do not do something so as to change the aircraft's path that no longer allows the aircraft to enter the sector safely.  Note that this isn't just lateral, but vertical as well.  Having worked with what the military has to offer controller wise, I never assume that an aircraft will get turned back toward the gate before comm transfer as I've seen it happen countless times which to me implies the wording is meant to try and alleviate that and allow me to follow 5-4-6(b).

No, really, I don't care.  It's the controller who is transferring radar and communication to me that is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is clear of conflicts until it reaches the airspace boundary (laterally or vertically).  If the first controller turns an aircraft away after you took radar, then ships him to you on a heading away from your airspace, then he screwed up not because he gave a control instruction prior to initiating an automated handoff, but because the aircraft didn't come to you on its assigned routing.

Seriously, this is the way it works at every other FAA radar facility in the country.  I work the airplanes in my airspace and you work the airplanes in your airspace.  I don't care if you give the airplane three 360's five miles from the boundary after I take the handoff as long as he enters my airspace on his assigned routing.  You shouldn't care in the least what I do with an airplane before I transfer communication to you as long as the aircraft is on his assigned routing.  If I took a handoff, and then you were able to get an amendment into the FDIO and didn't coordinate with me verbally, THEN 5-4-5 b applies.

Maybe that's how they do it at your facility, but that's not how it's done at "every other facility".  Sorry my interpretation differs from yours, but it's solid and valid when reading the words as written as used elsewhere in the .65.  You initiate a hand off, and I start applying 5-4-6 to ensure his path can safely enter my airspace before I accept. If it doesn't, I'm calling. If his path differs and there isn't anything in the loa for it, I'm calling. It's my job as the receiving controller to ensure that aircraft can enter my airspace safely BEFORE it accepting the handoff. If you turn it after initiating or acceptance without it in the loa or coordinated, you are preventing me from doing my job.

And yes, you should care. 5-4-6 requires you to ensure the aircraft will enter your airspace safely. If the other controller is turning him without the loa allowing it, facility directives, etc how do you know the aircraft will enter safely?  You don't. You have to assume the other controller will put him back on his routing, and you know what everyone says about assuming.  Now with an loa, by all means. Most loas in the FAA are likely to direct it by specifying correct procedures for departures out of the airspace. On VATSIM, many of those are missing.  For instance, all ifr departures from FAI not on a sid going south must be vectored so as to exit the nenana gate heading 220. This allows me to vector without coordination IFR aircraft going south not on a sid.

James McMannamy

  • Members
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2015, 03:42:57 PM »
This is becoming kind of a pedantic argument over a very simple paragraph in the .65.  I certainly have no issue with a controller at a neighboring facility waiting to initiate a handoff until it doesn't have to give any other control instructions.  But, it would be impossible for me to comply with that interpretation at my facility (as it would at probably every other level 10 and above radar facility in the FAA).  As C90 gets regular compliance audits (internally and externally) and this has never come up, despite this scenario happening over 1000 times per day, I am confident that my interpretation is correct and that the FAA does not expect me to withhold automated transfer of radar ID of airplanes simply because I have to make a turn or climb close to the airspace boundary.

Re: Radar Technique: Handoffs from TRACON to Center
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2015, 05:45:07 PM »
This is becoming kind of a pedantic argument over a very simple paragraph in the .65.  I certainly have no issue with a controller at a neighboring facility waiting to initiate a handoff until it doesn't have to give any other control instructions.  But, it would be impossible for me to comply with that interpretation at my facility (as it would at probably every other level 10 and above radar facility in the FAA).  As C90 gets regular compliance audits (internally and externally) and this has never come up, despite this scenario happening over 1000 times per day, I am confident that my interpretation is correct and that the FAA does not expect me to withhold automated transfer of radar ID of airplanes simply because I have to make a turn or climb close to the airspace boundary.

John, I agree.  However, at C90, you very likely have LOAs to specify what you need to do with aircraft being handed off to neighboring facilities.  I have been at facilities where we would ocassionaly hand off to facilities where we didn't have an LOA, and as such, we had to apply that paragraph as written (ie, once the handoff has been initiated, you cannot touch its path and route without coordination).  In FAA world, very rarely do you have neighboring radar facilities without some kind of LOA that specifies what to do with routing and allowing vectors to said route.  In DoD land (and many places in VATUSA), this isn't always so and that's when the main part of that paragraph comes in to play.  Note the end states unless otherwise specified by LOA.