No rolling calls

[SharkBait]

Just saw something at my facility and I was taught otherwise. A tower/Tracon combo facility have an IFR aircraft doing a touch and go and remaining in the radar pattern, the touch and go is complete and no verbal or digital rolling or off the deck coordination is done in the facility.

If the tower has agreed via SOP or verbally to tell the radar facility if the aircraft has tagged up wrong and otherwise say and do nothing, does that count as coordination?

or

Are they supposed to call "N1234 on the go" or some thing else?

 

[Termine]

No clue if it's legal but what you described is how we do it as well. The .65 is very limited on reasoning so trying to say "it's this way because then this will happen" might be a fool's errand, but—

In my understanding the rolling notification, however accomplished, is to make the departure controller aware of the fact that an a/c with a specific code will be departing a specific runway imminently. Then when the radar controller sees a target with that same code tag up within one mile of the runway they can assume the target corresponds to that a/c and consider the a/c to be radar identified with no additional verification.

In this situation the radar controller is the one who shipped the a/c to the tower and they are expecting to see that code come up again after the touch-and-go, so they can again assume the target corresponds with the correct a/c.

This explanation might be hard to justify if you're running separate approach and departure positions.

 

[SharkBait]

No clue if it's legal but what you described is how we do it as well. The .65 is very limited on reasoning so trying to say "it's this way because then this will happen" might be a fool's errand, but—

In my understanding the rolling notification, however accomplished, is to make the departure controller aware of the fact that an a/c with a specific code will be departing a specific runway imminently. Then when the radar controller sees a target with that same code tag up within one mile of the runway they can assume the target corresponds to that a/c and consider the a/c to be radar identified with no additional verification.

In this situation the radar controller is the one who shipped the a/c to the tower and they are expecting to see that code come up again after the touch-and-go, so they can again assume the target corresponds with the correct a/c.

This explanation might be hard to justify if you're running separate approach and departure positions.

Our pattern is ran by one controller so in some ways that makes sense. We also do it off satellite airports which also seemed odd, just seems unsafe to me if another aircraft was launched from ours or a sat airport and it was assigned a wrong tag.

 

[Atcbrownie]

No clue if it's legal but what you described is how we do it as well. The .65 is very limited on reasoning so trying to say "it's this way because then this will happen" might be a fool's errand, but—

In my understanding the rolling notification, however accomplished, is to make the departure controller aware of the fact that an a/c with a specific code will be departing a specific runway imminently. Then when the radar controller sees a target with that same code tag up within one mile of the runway they can assume the target corresponds to that a/c and consider the a/c to be radar identified with no additional verification.

In this situation the radar controller is the one who shipped the a/c to the tower and they are expecting to see that code come up again after the touch-and-go, so they can again assume the target corresponds with the correct a/c.

This explanation might be hard to justify if you're running separate approach and departure positions.

Incorrect. A rolling call has nothing to do with observing and aircrafts beacon code. It has to do with observing the primary target. People confuse this all the time. If an aircraft comes off in the wrong beacon code you can still radar identify the aircraft because the primary target was observed within 1 mile.

AW

 

[Termine]

Incorrect. A rolling call has nothing to do with observing and aircrafts beacon code. It has to do with observing the primary target.

Touché, but my logic still works: the radar controller sent the target to the local controller, so absent getting a rolling notification on a second aircraft it's assumed the target coming off the runway is the one sent in for a touch-and-go. Of course we all know about the FAA and logic...

 

[Atcbrownie]

In this scenario the correct method would be to re-radar identify the aircraft using any method. There was no rolling call so you have to use another method.

 

[Stinger]

In this scenario the correct method would be to re-radar identify the aircraft using any method. There was no rolling call so you have to use another method.

I've never seen it done that way while working at different tracons that coordinate with a mix of military/FAA/contract towers. None of the towers provide a rolling/boundary call for an aircraft that my facilities have sent them. Doesn't matter if I was working all positions, or the one clearing them for the approach was different than the one talking to them on departure.
I know the aircraft is rolling; I'm expecting a TG; I saw it drop off radar; I saw a primary target; I saw it reacquire.

Possible that we've all been wrong? Maybe.
Has any ICV/ECV/QA/etc said it's wrong? No.

 

[Super Salt]

I've never seen it done that way while working at different tracons that coordinate with a mix of military/FAA/contract towers. None of the towers provide a rolling/boundary call for an aircraft that my facilities have sent them. Doesn't matter if I was working all positions, or the one clearing them for the approach was different than the one talking to them on departure.
I know the aircraft is rolling; I'm expecting a TG; I saw it drop off radar; I saw a primary target; I saw it reacquire.

Possible that we've all been wrong? Maybe.
Has any ICV/ECV/QA/etc said it's wrong? No.

Been there, done that, and never had to file an AT-SAP. You know the climb-out instructions, you know the aircraft is coming back to you airborne (unless the “option” resulted in a full-stop, of which tower would notify the TRACON controller), so it’s a no-brainer.

If you’re worried about it, have them IDENT and go from there.

 

[Atcbrownie]

It's pretty simple. If you lose radar identification then you have to re-establish radar identification. The .65 explains radar identification methods. Either follow those rules or choose not to. I understand we all (myself included) cheat. But, the correct way is to re-establish radar identification using the .65 methods.

 

[Saltier]

Has any ICV/ECV/QA/etc said it's wrong? No.

Should we ask Kennedy Steve if his garbage phraseology or his coworkers berating of pilots was in the .65? How about all those YouTube videos of N90 and their precious phraseology? Doubt QA ever said boo about that either, doesn't make it right.

 

[Stinger]

Doubt QA ever said boo about that either

They did.

 

[Saltier]

They did.

oooooooo juicy

 

[Stinger]

oooooooo juicy

Not often. N90 is a special case, because everyone involved with it decides/thinks it is.

 

[MikeDelta]

There is one rule with QA at N90, there is no QA at N90.