Sqwak Ident

[AuxBatOn]

What about :

"Callsign, off runway XX, on XXX Departure, passing XXXX climbing XXXX"

Can you ident if you see the radar return withing 300 ft?

[x-wind]

I always always give a heading vice the SID.

[AuxBatOn]

If you say you're on the SID, it implies you're flying a heading or a track, depending on what's on the plate. Not all SID have you fly headings.

[x-wind]

Good point, that does indeed make sense.

[NJ]

In ATC world we can radar identify an aircraft if we can verify it's position visually out the window. Is this true for FSS?

[kevenv]

The squawk ident after takeoff can be avoided by applying another identification rule that says if you can see the aircraft visually and it's where the radar symbol is, then it is identified. Of course that is dependant on weather and distance from the airport and whether you CAN actually see the aircraft when it shows up on the radar display.

This has nothing to do with the center. When I say squawk ident I have no windows to look out. Why would a tower need to squawk someone on departure?

[lilfssister]

The squawk ident after takeoff can be avoided by applying another identification rule that says if you can see the aircraft visually and it's where the radar symbol is, then it is identified. Of course that is dependant on weather and distance from the airport and whether you CAN actually see the aircraft when it shows up on the radar display.

This has nothing to do with the center. When I say squawk ident I have no windows to look out. Why would a tower need to squawk someone on departure?

You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with the center, and was in reply to Old Spice's question about FSS requirements to identify aircraft.

[kevenv]

You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with the center, and was in reply to Old Spice's question about FSS requirements to identify aircraft.

I missed that, sorry. Do you squawk IFR a/c on departure? I have never seen it done by FSS in the Moncton FIR nor would I want to.

While I have you, a quick question. From what I gather, your FSS Manops (an old copy granted) says:
455.1
Radar identify an aircraft when deemed useful
for the provision of an effective AAS. (N)(R)

with this " deemed useful" in mind why would FSS squawk an arriving IFR a/c when the wx is solid IFR and they are not talking to any other a/c on the MF. Just curious, not pointing any arrows at anyone, but when I have asked the reply was "we have to". Could this be a local thing and why? We get IFR traffic between YGR and YGP that I never identify if there is no reason to (ie: separation issues). Thanks.

[lilfssister]

IFR departures, no, I don't think I have ever asked for a "squawk ident".

Arrivals in solid IFR? Might, if I have one on the ground ready to start taxiing. Would be pretty rare, though.

Recent changes to FS MANOPS allow us to get a pointout type of thing from the ACC and use a previously ATC identified data tag, provided we have an agreement with the ACC. Not sure if many have done that yet, though.

[W0XOF]

with this " deemed useful" in mind why would FSS squawk an arriving IFR a/c when the wx is solid IFR and they are not talking to any other a/c on the MF. Just curious, not pointing any arrows at anyone, but when I have asked the reply was "we have to". Could this be a local thing and why? We get IFR traffic between YGR and YGP that I never identify if there is no reason to (ie: separation issues). Thanks.

Just one newer reason (fairly recent change) that we have to consider when to squawk an IFR a/c when the wx is IFR, is our new provisions for SVFR. That being, that the reported ceiling no longer applies. VIS 3SM CIG 800 overcast no longer requires SVFR authorisation.

But you're right, for the most part, there really wouldn't be any other need to if it was one in, one out.

[lilfssister]

Good point WOXOF. I didn't think of that, since I have not had that situation arise since the change.

[kevenv]

That being, that the reported ceiling no longer applies. VIS 3SM CIG 800 overcast no longer requires SVFR authorisation.

The limits for VFR and SVFR have changed? When did this happen? I would have thought that the company would have told us this as it does impact our job LOL.

[lilfssister]

Supposedly it brings us in line with what ATC MANOPS has said for years, if I recall the ad nauseum memos, blue page reasons, and briefings, corrected briefings, etc. that SVFR is based only on visibility (vis less than 3 miles. It is the pilot's responsibility to remain the appropriate distance from cloud and ground, so their decision if SVFR is required based on ceiling).

[kevenv]

OK I misunderstood what was being explained. Though your interpretation confuses me. 3 SM vis and OVC 008 is still IFR and an a/c cannot depart or enter the zone VFR. It still requires SVFR approval from the ACC. You are correct that we never worried about a ceiling so long as flight vis and when reported, ground vis was 1SM or more.

[lilfssister]

As of the last MANOPS amendment (January sometime?)that is not what our MANOPS says. CARS says:

Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Controlled Airspace

602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless

(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;

(b) flight visibility is not less than three miles;

(c) the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally; and

(d) where the aircraft is operated within a control zone,

(i) when reported, ground visibility is not less than three miles, and

(ii) except when taking off or landing, the distance of the aircraft from the surface is not less than 500 feet.


As of January, the onus is on the pilot to comply with the the distance from cloud and ground. They can request SVFR if they are unable to comply, but may operate in the control zone with ceiling below 1000' and visibility 3 or more, without SVFR. In fact you can have SVFR and VFR in the zone at the same time, or IFR and VFR if SVFR has not been requested.

[kevenv]

it would be impossible with a ceiling of 800 OVC to comply with the requirement of 500AGL and 500 from cloud. I don't believe an a/c can fly VFR in controlled airspace under the scenario you state. SVFR on the other hand has no requirement vis-a-vis altitude from cloud. I'll have to bring this up at work to someone who is way better at the rules than I (plus he's a pilot). In the meantime, I'd really love to hear what some pilots views are on this.

[lilfssister]

I am sure, until now, no pilot had idea of a change in the way we do this. There has been no change to CARs, or any notification I am aware of to the pilot community (Unless they had the above weather scenario in the past 55 days and noticed they had not been given the "SVFR or IFR is required" speech).

You could remain well clear of cloud in a 5/8 ceiling environment if you are approaching from/departing to the 3/8 that is not covered in cloud below 1000 feet, and climbed very slowly or descended well before the runway.

[W0XOF]

Just a correction on one of lilfssister's post. I believe that the change in our MANOPS was to bring us in line with CAR's, not ATC procedures. I think FSS and ATC have been applying the same procedures.

You make a good point in a BKN ceiling situation. Also, CAR's states that the requirement to maintain the 500' above ground does not apply in the landing, departing phase.

Can someone post that section in FS MANOPS (days of rest right now)?????

I'd be interested in how VFR towers are applying this???? Other FSS???

[ahramin]

Hey Lil. We were informed about the new FSS procedures with regards to SVFR but I have not seen anything generally disseminated. An AIC might be a good idea.