Handoff from Tower to Departure when they're the same person

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Hi, there --

 

I was observing during the below scenario and an interesting discussion ensued over PM. I'm curious as to whether there is unity or dissension regarding the issue at hand. I didn't take this to feedback at the facility in question because I think there's definitely a gray area here; the controller came down on one side of it and I the other, and I wanted to collect some opinions from the forum community to guide my future thought process in similar situations rather than go straight to throwing someone under the bus who clearly thought he was doing as he should.

 

The scenario is thus:

 

A VATSIM GA pilot departs IFR from a US Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C airport. The Tower and Departure positions are not staffed, so both are being handled by the overlying Center controller. The pilot is instructed runway heading off of RWY 9, and based on his flight plan, he expects to turn on course to about a 135 heading to intercept a VOR radial after something like 10 miles.

 

He departs with takeoff clearance, but forgets to activate his Mode C in the process.

 

The pilot levels off at the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned initial altitude. The controller lets him fly on for about 10 miles without a call. Finally the controller asks him to activate his Mode-C. The pilot, unfortunately, is buried in his chart trying to figure out whether he's missed his radial intercept, and does not hear this call from ATC. After about another 5 miles the pilot appears to turn on course on his own.

 

I, as an observer of this flight in the role of an Instructor offering coaching to the pilot, then Private Message the controller to verify that the pilot's turn on course had been uncommanded. The controller responds saying that the student did so on his own -- and furthermore, makes it clear that the reason he ignored the pilot for so long in the first place was that the pilot never called after departure to report airborne.

 

Now, I fully accept that the pilot in this scenario made three fairly substantial errors: (1) forgot to engage Mode C, (2) missed the call asking about his Mode C, and (3) turned on course after [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming, I guess, that he'd been forgotten about (in our post flight debrief I never did get a clear picture of his thought process for doing so). I am however very curious about the controller's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion that it is incomebent upon the pilot to call airborne when departing from a towered airfield in the US.

 

Obviously, if he had departed from a NON-towered field, he would have been instructed after his clearance and release to "report airborne this frequency." However, in departing from a towered field in the US, the normal real-world course would be for the Tower controller to HAND HIM OFF to Departure, at which point he would check in with the Departure controller and get his instructions for joining his filed route. This is not Europe with a "silent handoff" procedure in place -- that handoff occurs VERBALLY over the channel.

 

Now, the situation with the Tower and Departure controllers being the same person is a complete VATSIM-ism -- not applicable to real-world situations. My question is, do VATSIM controllers universally consider it the pilot's responsibility to make that initial call off the runway with the altitude verification in order to radar-identify and start providing services? Or are you of the opinion that the controller, in place of the handoff that's not going to happen, should initiate that call to the pilot for said altitude verification? In my experience on the network, I've mostly experienced the latter, because I've behaved as though it's the controller's "turn" to speak there just as it would be in the real world -- regardless of the fact that he's not handing me off. (Now, in some cases, where I think the controller might have forgotten about me or not noticed that I'm off the ground, especially at a secondary field, yes, I'll take the initiative to report my altitude unprompted just to keep the controller "in the game" as it were.)

 

So -- the question at hand is -- completely irrespective of the other mistakes this pilot made, was the controller justified in ignoring the pilot because he never called airborne? Or do you feel a call from the controller to the pilot for altitude verification, in place of the non-handoff, is appropriate?

[Bradley Grafelman]

When it comes to VATSIMisms, we're inventing our own fantasy worlds and the procedures within them. So, it's not hard to believe that two individuals didn't end up within the same world with the same procedures.

 

In this instance, no, I don't think any sensible/intelligent controller would simply twiddle their thumbs and wait for a radio call from the pilot. If the positions had been split, the departure controller would have started making blind calls on frequency and/or raising the local controller on the intercom in order to recover a pilot who is either off-frequency or experiencing radio problems. He wouldn't think "Oh well, maybe he'll call eventually; I'd better just sit here quietly and wait until then..."

 

Having said that, it sounds like the controller did eventually try to communicate with the departure... only to receive no response (via transponder or radio). So now you've got a compounding VATSIMism of how to deal with an apparent radio failure despite the fact that there wasn't a frequency change and the other controller to coordinate with is yourself. Pretty soon, you're going to be watching Leo's next hit movie, VATSIMception.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Haha... thanks, Brad... that was pretty much my take on it, more-or-less start-to-finish (minus the Christopher Nolan reference, that is -- maybe mine was finish-to-start, like VATSIMento). I'm still curious to see some other responses but you've affirmed my opinion so far.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

ive not tried some of the newer ATC clients so i dont know if they have some feature that could provide erroneous limited data, but one can also [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume the controller wants to make sure the data matches.

 

if im handling top down and i havent issued multiple departure clearances at the same time, its fairly easy to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that target now departing the airport, even though i have no data on it, is in fact the one i just cleared out. simply handle it like they would in the real world "N1234, right turn to the southwest approved, check transponder" or similar, which ive had happen at least twice doing full stop taxi backs at the field and simply forget to flip it back on. id hold off on giving the aircraft anything specific like an altitude until i start getting that data unless the pilot comes back and tells me its failed or something (not likely online but if a controller is in the mood, theyll roll with it and handle you accordingly)

 

also part of the differences between a tower radar and enroute radar for example is going to be how that target is shown, towers display is going to show the info, something like an enroute radar though is going to show nada, just a target if the transponder is on standby.

 

i wouldnt have let the target travel far without reminding them to check that, but then again you probably had one that was being really really patient or just wanted to wait until the pilot figured it out lol

 

should also be noted there is more then one option when tracking a target to get that "radar contact" established. a lot of online controllers tend to rely solely on that data to do it. but theres more then that if it comes to it. turns etc.. can be used to do it. all radar contact means is ive identified you on the radar, various things can be done to establish that.

 

also additional note for students and novices alike, a transponder failure does not mean you cannot continue your IFR flight, whether it happens enroute or prior to departure. if it happens prior to departure include the info in the remarks "IE: unserviceable transponder" and call ahead to get it coordinated. not something youd encounter online, but a pilot can ask the controller if they can simulate a failed/no transponder flight which kinda is what you would do anyway

[Dace Nicmane]

I've behaved as though it's the controller's "turn" to speak there just as it would be in the real world -- regardless of the fact that he's not handing me off.

While I haven't consciously thought about it, I've always behaved as if the handoff which will never happen has already happened (i.e., this step is simply skipped), so I try to report my altitude. In many cases I don't get to doing it simply because of the workload (no co-pilot, again, unlike real world) and/or busy frequency. I have a feeling that most controllers wait for a while before calling the pilot themselves, so they're actually expecting it.

[1275389]

Can't expand at the moment, but I expect pilots to call with their altitude. If the frequency is too busy for them to call on their own, or they don't call in a reasonable time, I'll call them.

[David Zhong]

I can't speak for US procedure, but I would have thought that it was common practice to make a "departure report" regardless of whether you are remaining or switching frequencies (in Australia at least, this report is mandatory in many instances). This procedure is necessary for a few reasons, one of which, in a radar environment, to allow the controller to verify the Mode C level.

Edited April 30, 2017 at 12:16 PM by Guest

[Ryan Savara 1369362]

In the US, it's on the controller to identify the aircraft if they are top down, unless another method is stated in charts. Regardless of Mode-C reporting, the controller (depending on client and radar mode) will see at least the squawk code and an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated blip. No altitude will be reported, but the blip will be there.

 

Working top down its easy to "forget" or give late calls to departures at a field that isn't considered trolled by someone else. Regardless, the pilot is in controlled airspace, and should request the turn or altitudes with the controller. The worst thing that will happen is he's told to standby.

 

As an S3, I've forgotten about departures. Either zommed in giving taxi instructions, or tabbed out looking up a route for another guy, I've forgotten. But eventually I catch it, and get the pilot on their way.

[Ross Carlson]

Robert, I tend to agree with you in terms of it being reasonable to expect the controller to contact the departure and ask for an altitude verification, since the controller (if covering tower) would be contacting the departure at that point anyway to transfer comms to the departure frequency. That action prompts the pilot to check in with departure. In this "VATSIMism" situation where the same person is handling tower and departure, we still need something to prompt the pilot to contact departure.

 

There are essentially two ways that prompt could occur:

 

1) The controller could simulate the handoff by saying "N1234 contact departure 133.0"

2) The controller could contact the departure and ask for the altitude.

 

Option #1 could be awkward or even confusing given that the controller would be telling the pilot to switch to a frequency that the pilot is already on, so I would say that option #2 is the way to go, and that's what I always do when I'm controlling top down.

 

That being said, as a pilot, I will often call the controller after I'm airborne because I think that's more realistic for both of us.

 

Perhaps we need an option #3 to cover this VATSIMism ... perhaps when issuing the takeoff clearance, the controller could add "report airborne".

[Dhruv Kalra]

Perhaps we need an option #3 to cover this VATSIMism ... perhaps when issuing the takeoff clearance, the controller could add "report airborne".

My #3 is usually to just reach out to the aircraft using the phraseology "N1234, radar contact, say altitude." Since I issued the takeoff clearance myself, I'm effectively simulating that I gave myself a rolling call, and therefore as long as I observe the target within 1nm of the departure end of the runway, he's considered radar ID'd via a primary method and I just need to verify his Mode-C.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Very interesting discussion; thanks, everyone! As I suspected, there seems to be a split on whose "job" it is to make that contact after wheels-up; my informal conclusion in this scenario was that there was "plenty of blame to go around" (as I like to say when the snafu was not just one person's fault). I appreciate the insights.

[Ross Carlson]

My #3 is usually to just reach out to the aircraft using the phraseology "N1234, radar contact, say altitude."

 

Yup, that's what I meant by #2 ... the controller initiates the communication once the aircraft is airborne.

[Wygene Chong 1089621]

My practice, and this is a European perspective, is to say "Identified p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing [altitude]" if the pilot does not call after p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing around 2000ft, depending on airport, traffic situation etc. I was taught that it is the pilot's responsibility to call airport with p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing altitude, but that we have to be proactive as APP controllers if they do not. I find on average about 50% of pilots in Iceland will call airborne before 2000ft, while 50% will not.

[Andreas Fuchs]

"N1234, radar contact, say altitude."

And the reply will be "altitude", because you just asked the pilot say the work "altitude" If you'd like a pilot to state his current altitude or level, then you better use the term "report".

 

Back to topic, I go with Ross there. If you want a pilot to report when airborne or when p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a certain altitude, ask him to do it when you handle his flight on the ground already. Easy!

And if a pilot does not call me, I innocently ask him "confirm you are airborne?"

[Bradley Grafelman]

"N1234, radar contact, say altitude."

And the reply will be "altitude", because you just asked the pilot say the work "altitude"

Nah, pilots on this side of the pond are smarter than that. It's why we let them pick their own SIDs and STARs, too!

[Daniel Hawton]

"N1234, radar contact, say altitude."

And the reply will be "altitude", because you just asked the pilot say the work "altitude" If you'd like a pilot to state his current altitude or level, then you better use the term "report".

 

Back to topic, I go with Ross there. If you want a pilot to report when airborne or when p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a certain altitude, ask him to do it when you handle his flight on the ground already. Easy!

And if a pilot does not call me, I innocently ask him "confirm you are airborne?"

 

In FAA-land, when you want a pilot to say their altitude, speed, etc. the phraseology is "say ____".

[Tomas Hansson]

"N1234, radar contact, say altitude."

And the reply will be "altitude", because you just asked the pilot say the work "altitude" If you'd like a pilot to state his current altitude or level, then you better use the term "report".

 

Back to topic, I go with Ross there. If you want a pilot to report when airborne or when p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a certain altitude, ask him to do it when you handle his flight on the ground already. Easy!

And if a pilot does not call me, I innocently ask him "confirm you are airborne?"

 

In FAA-land, when you want a pilot to say their altitude, speed, etc. the phraseology is "say ____".

 

Reminds me of an old joke:

 

ATC: Say altitude p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing

Pilot: "Altitude p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing"

ATC: Say "IFR cancellation received"

Pilot: P[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing 3,000 feet!

 

On-topic: In Canada we need to do an altitude verification on departure in order to radar identify aircraft that just took off. On our departure charts it is usually indicated to "Contact Departure Control after p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing xx feet unless instructed otherwise by ATC." Pilots often miss that part in the SID narrative and it would then be ATC's responsibility to contact them. It would be frowned upon in our FIR if ATC never took control of a departure just because the pilot didn't call in. Doesn't matter if it is the same person or not.

[Andreas Fuchs]

In FAA-land, when you want a pilot to say their altitude, speed, etc. the phraseology is "say ____".

In Europe it is not as we stick to ICAO-phraseology and here it is just French ATCOs who ignore it and keep on transmitting "say mach number", "say heading", "say speed", "say level p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing" etc.. It is a major annoyance and almost every time that I am on a French ATC frequency, pilots have to ask "say again", because they did not get what ATC wanted from them. "Report" is sooooo easy and unambiguous...

[Bradley Grafelman]

pilots have to ask "say again", because they did not get what ATC wanted from them.

You mean, they want the controller to speak the word "again" ? Why would they want that?

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

kinda funny how they know what "say again" means but seemingly cant wrap their heads around "say altitude", "say heading" etc..

[Daniel Hawton]

In FAA-land, when you want a pilot to say their altitude, speed, etc. the phraseology is "say ____".

In Europe it is not as we stick to ICAO-phraseology and here it is just French ATCOs who ignore it and keep on transmitting "say mach number", "say heading", "say speed", "say level p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing" etc.. It is a major annoyance and almost every time that I am on a French ATC frequency, pilots have to ask "say again", because they did not get what ATC wanted from them. "Report" is sooooo easy and unambiguous...

 

FAA regs have us use say.. so it's not that we're not standard... Just different. We use "report" to have the pilot indicate something usually in the future... "Report airborne" "report leaving flight level 330" "report p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing 5000" etc

[Andreas Fuchs]

When I wrote "say again" I knew exactly that you guys would come back to it

 

But seriously, "say" is really annoying the hell out of me and lots of my colleagues. It is like "aircrafts", just wrong.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Interesting discussion.

 

Quite early on in my VATSIM experience, I actually had this happen to me. As occasionally occurs, I was cleared IFR by CTR with the "Cleared to... Departure is with me on frequency xxx.xx" phraseology.

 

When he also cleared me a few moments later for takeoff, in addition to the earlier IFR clearance, I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed he knew the guy taking off right after that was me, so I didn't check in with him when airborne. So, I'm happily flying the SID out of the airport area, when several (4 or 5) minutes later, the controller chided me for not checking in with him. Being quite new at the time, I just apologized, mentioning that I didn't call because I figured he knew it was me after giving the clearances (my Mode C was fine - no factor there), and we proceeded fine from there.

 

Interestingly, it was during one of my first Canadian flights, so perhaps Tomas' point is the explanation in that case, but I was definitely thinking along the same lines as Robert regarding the need to check in (again) with the same controller who cleared me in the first place.

 

That said, these days, I'll just do it anyway, but I really like Ross' idea for the situation by having the top-down controller add "report airborne" to the take-off clearance when he's also acting as the departure controller. To me, those two additional words would remove all doubt about what is expected and how it is to be handled.

 

 

Regards,

Jim

[Andrew Ogden]

That said, these days, I'll just do it anyway, but I really like Ross' idea for the situation by having the top-down controller add "report airborne" to the take-off clearance when he's also acting as the departure controller. To me, those two additional words would remove all doubt about what is expected and how it is to be handled.

New Zealand phraseology already facilitates that. We cannot identify an aircraft (radar contact) if he does not state his altutude within 200' of the altitude displayed on the tag. If you are the tower controller, and there is a CTR or APP controller above you, then you say: "ANZxxx, airborne contact 1xx.xxx, runway x cleared for takeoff". If you are an APP or CTR controller doing a top down service, then you say "ANZxxx report airborne, runway x cleared for takeoff". The pilot will (usually) state his altitude when airborne, and we can say "ANZxxx, identified, track via the SID, climb FLxxx".

[Wygene Chong 1089621]

Interesting, I didn't know that about NZ Andrew In Iceland we do say "After departure report p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing xxxx ft" if they're departing an AFIS airport ('uncontrolled', although there is still mandatory radio contact with the information officer). But we don't specifically say 'report airborne' for controlled airports - it's just expected of the pilot.