Tower Airspace responsibility.

[Scott DeWoody]

Because I am not that familiar with Europe and their airspace responsibilities, I have a question.

 

What is the airspace responsibility of a controller manning the TWR position?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Martin Loxbo]

In general, the responsibility is the Control Zone (CTR), which extends from the ground up to about 1500-2500 ft AGL (check the charts to see what applies at each airport).

 

At some small/sleepy airports the TWR controller may also provide APP service, which means he would be responsible for the TMA (Terminal Control Area), or a sector of a larger TMA, as well.

[Scott DeWoody]

OK, thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind, because it's something I'm not that used to!

[Michael Pike]

But a controller can only provide services that they are rated for (real world or VATSIM). So if TWR and APP services are combined on one frequency, the controller must be rated for APP.

[Todor Atanasov 878664]

Don't forget there are many real life airports where there is no APP position, so the approach phase is split between CTR and TWR. The Approach position is just a delegated function to a specific unit to do approach.

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

The issue of tower providing some procedural and indeed in some cases radar services to pilots at smaller airport/regions is true.

 

An example is in Ireland, regional towers such as Kerry (EIKY) and Sligo (EISG) etc. where there is an absence of Radar position; if Shannon Control (EISN) is online then an aircraft would be descended to FL80 (or the next available stack level), told to contact tower on 'X' freq. the tower controller will then issue an instruction to the aircraft to descend to alt. 3000' on the local pressure setting and report established on the procedure, whether it be an ILS approach, NDB/DME approach or a VOR radial approach and then the usual landing clearance.

 

I think in cases such as these smaller regional airports the general "rule" of only specific rating can provide a service, can be waivered as all the tower controller is telling the aircraft to do is to descend to an alt. (in Ireland's regional airports case) and report inbound on a procedure as per charts. Not a great deal of technicality as there is no vectoring. As I understand it, tower controllers are not to vector aircraft. Granted, giving an aircraft a descent and to instruct a pilot to report inbound on a procedure is technically a vector as the aircraft has a magnitude (in this case the descent) and a direction to a radial/Beacon etc. But I wouldn't have thought it be a "serious" act of misconduct as all the controller is doing is more or less reading off a chart to a pilot to follow, both real world and on VATSIM.

 

EDIT: And also in the case of VATEIR, and I suspect other vACCs, Students are trained to perform these kind of actions anyway, and in some cases it's necessary for the student to be enabled to control, and provide a fullfilled service whilst online to pilots when staffing this kind of tower position. So technically they are rated to do so under local restrictions which I would have thought have the "go ahead" from a regional director. Alas, all areas cannot be simply "black", and "white".

 

The "range" for tower controllers is up to 50NM.

[Martin Loxbo]

In Sweden, we have the same situation that you describe, and after having discussed this in VATEUD, the conclusion is that a TWR controller providing an APP service needs an S3 rating. In our case, most of these TWRs do have radar though, and regularly vector in aircraft for approach.

 

This really has nothing to do with the original question here though...

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

The issue of tower providing some procedural and indeed in some cases radar services to pilots at smaller airport/regions is true.

 

An example is in Ireland, regional towers such as Kerry (EIKY) and Sligo (EISG) etc. where there is an absence of Radar position; if Shannon Control (EISN) is online then an aircraft would be descended to FL80 (or the next available stack level), told to contact tower on 'X' freq. the tower controller will then issue an instruction to the aircraft to descend to alt. 3000' on the local pressure setting and report established on the procedure, whether it be an ILS approach, NDB/DME approach or a VOR radial approach and then the usual landing clearance.

 

I think in cases such as these smaller regional airports the general "rule" of only specific rating can provide a service, can be waivered as all the tower controller is telling the aircraft to do is to descend to an alt. (in Ireland's regional airports case) and report inbound on a procedure as per charts. Not a great deal of technicality as there is no vectoring. As I understand it, tower controllers are not to vector aircraft. Granted, giving an aircraft a descent and to instruct a pilot to report inbound on a procedure is technically a vector as the aircraft has a magnitude (in this case the descent) and a direction to a radial/Beacon etc. But I wouldn't have thought it be a "serious" act of misconduct as all the controller is doing is more or less reading off a chart to a pilot to follow, both real world and on VATSIM.

 

EDIT: And also in the case of VATEIR, and I suspect other vACCs, Students are trained to perform these kind of actions anyway, and in some cases it's necessary for the student to be enabled to control, and provide a fullfilled service whilst online to pilots when staffing this kind of tower position. So technically they are rated to do so under local restrictions which I would have thought have the "go ahead" from a regional director. Alas, all areas cannot be simply "black", and "white".

 

The "range" for tower controllers is up to 50NM.

 

That is only true if you have a single a/c. What if you'd like to make a departure? Procedural approach is not that easy as you make it sound.

 

But, GRP is regulating what position you can log on, not what function you can perform. If procedural approach is performed by TWR (and in many cases is), then S1 can do that.

[Martin Loxbo]

But, GRP is regulating what position you can log on, not what function you can perform. If procedural approach is performed by TWR (and in many cases is), then S1 can do that.

 

VATEUD seems to be of a different opinion, i.e. that to perform an approach function you need an S3 rating.

[James O Grady 904153]

The issue of tower providing some procedural and indeed in some cases radar services to pilots at smaller airport/regions is true.

 

An example is in Ireland, regional towers such as Kerry (EIKY) and Sligo (EISG) etc. where there is an absence of Radar position; if Shannon Control (EISN) is online then an aircraft would be descended to FL80 (or the next available stack level), told to contact tower on 'X' freq. the tower controller will then issue an instruction to the aircraft to descend to alt. 3000' on the local pressure setting and report established on the procedure, whether it be an ILS approach, NDB/DME approach or a VOR radial approach and then the usual landing clearance.

 

I think in cases such as these smaller regional airports the general "rule" of only specific rating can provide a service, can be waivered as all the tower controller is telling the aircraft to do is to descend to an alt. (in Ireland's regional airports case) and report inbound on a procedure as per charts. Not a great deal of technicality as there is no vectoring. As I understand it, tower controllers are not to vector aircraft. Granted, giving an aircraft a descent and to instruct a pilot to report inbound on a procedure is technically a vector as the aircraft has a magnitude (in this case the descent) and a direction to a radial/Beacon etc. But I wouldn't have thought it be a "serious" act of misconduct as all the controller is doing is more or less reading off a chart to a pilot to follow, both real world and on VATSIM.

 

EDIT: And also in the case of VATEIR, and I suspect other vACCs, Students are trained to perform these kind of actions anyway, and in some cases it's necessary for the student to be enabled to control, and provide a fullfilled service whilst online to pilots when staffing this kind of tower position. So technically they are rated to do so under local restrictions which I would have thought have the "go ahead" from a regional director. Alas, all areas cannot be simply "black", and "white".

 

The "range" for tower controllers is up to 50NM.

 

That is only true if you have a single a/c. What if you'd like to make a departure? Procedural approach is not that easy as you make it sound.

 

Not true, if you have other aircraft inbound you can instruct 1 aircraft as Daniel described, and the second aircraft to enter the hold over the desginated point at 5000ft, and FL70 if you have a third aircraft arriving in succession, and instruct each to self-establish on ILS when there is the required separation. This allows the Tower controller manoeuvring room to get arrivals in and allow other aircraft to depart.

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

The issue of tower providing some procedural and indeed in some cases radar services to pilots at smaller airport/regions is true.

 

An example is in Ireland, regional towers such as Kerry (EIKY) and Sligo (EISG) etc. where there is an absence of Radar position; if Shannon Control (EISN) is online then an aircraft would be descended to FL80 (or the next available stack level), told to contact tower on 'X' freq. the tower controller will then issue an instruction to the aircraft to descend to alt. 3000' on the local pressure setting and report established on the procedure, whether it be an ILS approach, NDB/DME approach or a VOR radial approach and then the usual landing clearance.

 

I think in cases such as these smaller regional airports the general "rule" of only specific rating can provide a service, can be waivered as all the tower controller is telling the aircraft to do is to descend to an alt. (in Ireland's regional airports case) and report inbound on a procedure as per charts. Not a great deal of technicality as there is no vectoring. As I understand it, tower controllers are not to vector aircraft. Granted, giving an aircraft a descent and to instruct a pilot to report inbound on a procedure is technically a vector as the aircraft has a magnitude (in this case the descent) and a direction to a radial/Beacon etc. But I wouldn't have thought it be a "serious" act of misconduct as all the controller is doing is more or less reading off a chart to a pilot to follow, both real world and on VATSIM.

 

EDIT: And also in the case of VATEIR, and I suspect other vACCs, Students are trained to perform these kind of actions anyway, and in some cases it's necessary for the student to be enabled to control, and provide a fullfilled service whilst online to pilots when staffing this kind of tower position. So technically they are rated to do so under local restrictions which I would have thought have the "go ahead" from a regional director. Alas, all areas cannot be simply "black", and "white".

 

The "range" for tower controllers is up to 50NM.

 

That is only true if you have a single a/c. What if you'd like to make a departure? Procedural approach is not that easy as you make it sound.

 

But, GRP is regulating what position you can log on, not what function you can perform. If procedural approach is performed by TWR (and in many cases is), then S1 can do that.

 

EDIT:

 

If you think there is not going to be adequate spacing when an aircraft reports established, a tower controller may ask the aircraft to reduce to "minimum approach speed"...

 

I'm failing to understand how instructing an aircraft to establish inbound on a procedure, whether it be an ILS/DME, NDB/DME or a VOR/DME or even a visual approach, is difficult?

 

As James quite rightly said you can instruct the next to hold at 5000' and the next at another separated level and to then report established inbound on what ever procedure.

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

And how many procedural separations do you actually know?

 

@Martin - I'm not sure where you get it from. I remember discussions about that, and it was established that GRP regulates what can you log with, here's a reference to Norman's and Roland's views on it - viewtopic.php?t=33694

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

And how many procedural separations do you actually know?

 

That sort of information and knowledge is not needed for Tower controllers on VATSIM Krzysztof. Simply all that is needed in most, if not all cases if to be told to report inbound on a procedure ILS/DME etc. etc. be given any relevant and known traffic information and any further information if required. Nothing particularly diffcult for either party there as i'm sure you can see.

 

 

Items I can think of for procedural separation:

 

Use of info. derived from ATS surveillance system i.e an approach track monitor,

Information p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed from each pilot and place on a flight strip, monitor each of these to ensure no a/c are at a converging level of flight.

 

Longitudinal separation, if 2 a/c following tracks within 45 degrees of each other (if memory serves me correctly), and are not separated Laterally by means of a level or 1000', use of a DME can be used to ensure procedural separation is ensured. Keeping at least minimum separation as prescribed for the flight types in conjunction with the Airspace regulations and category. OR use of time for separation in conjuction with a position report which can be verified with an ATS system. Again, if memory serves me correctly the time separation between 2 a/c reporting overhead a beacon or DME for instance should be no less than 15 minutes, I think this is reduced in some areas however.

To ensure this is kept, speed restrictions and time restrictions may be placed on an aircraft.

 

Lateral Separation: Established by position reports from a previous waypoint or fix if you wanna be posh , INSs or beacons where if beacons are the source, time limits/restrictions are placed by using a DME (if available) and the two a/c must be on diverging tracks and must not turn onto a converging track. For example, oceanic track routings springs to mind.

 

Tower controllers can impose "minimum approach speed" and have access to windows and a pair of binoculars so he/she can "alter" separation as to ensure a collision is avoided.

 

If there's other things, please do let me, and us all know so we can enrich our knowledge and provide better services

Back on track though, nothing difficult about telling someone to report established on the ILS though...

[Martin Loxbo]

@Martin - I'm not sure where you get it from. I remember discussions about that, and it was established that GRP regulates what can you log with, here's a reference to Norman's and Roland's views on it - viewtopic.php?t=33694

You're right, the discussion I had with VATEUD concerned approach control in general. Apparently procedural approach control is allowed with a TWR rating but radar approach requires an APP rating...

[Wycliffe Barrett]

Hi

 

This looks like a question that has somehow moved towards real world answers. My understanding of a twr controllers responsibilities, certainly here in the UK on VATSIM is,

 

"A twr controller is responsibile for all traffic on the apron, Taxiway's and Runway's"

 

A twr controller can offer no control to inbound tarffic other than to clear a pilot on the ILS to land, under the correct circomestances.

 

A twr controller will hand off an outbound aircraft to radar/approach, if online as soon as the aircraft has left the runway threshold or to UNIcom if no radar/approach controller is online.

 

A twr controller is responsible for VFR traffic in the circuit and can issue VFR departure clearances. Once the VFR traffic is clear of the CTR if no radar/approach controller on, will be p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed to Unicom.

 

having said that, there was a thread on VATSIM UK that continued for several pages with this subject being debated back and forth, it's one of the reasons we have the GRP.

 

Wycliffe

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

Hi

 

This looks like a question that has somehow moved towards real world answers. My understanding of a twr controllers responsibilities, certainly here in the UK on VATSIM is,

 

"A twr controller is responsibile for all traffic on the apron, Taxiway's and Runway's"

 

A twr controller can offer no control to inbound tarffic other than to clear a pilot on the ILS to land, under the correct circomestances.

 

A twr controller will hand off an outbound aircraft to radar/approach, if online as soon as the aircraft has left the runway threshold or to UNIcom if no radar/approach controller is online.

 

A twr controller is responsible for VFR traffic in the circuit and can issue VFR departure clearances. Once the VFR traffic is clear of the CTR if no radar/approach controller on, will be p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed to Unicom.

 

having said that, there was a thread on VATSIM UK that continued for several pages with this subject being debated back and forth, it's one of the reasons we have the GRP.

 

Wycliffe

 

Hi Wycliffe et al, I think it's fair to say that individual regions and vACCs have their own individual policies, especially where smaller aerodromes are manned to provide a fulfilled service to pilots.

 

In short, check your local restrictions, and of course, have fun.

[Oliver Gruetzmann]

If we have this topic... Well, how about the xyz_I_TWR positions (seen especially in Germany)?

 

They are "INFO controllers" which are not doing any air traffic control, only traffic information (exactly like in real life). Do they need S2 because they are I_TWR but do less than a _DEL controller? Yes, they do less! They are not allowed to give any clearance....

[Martin Loxbo]

According to VATEUD, yes, anyone logging with the TWR suffix will need an S2 rating. For AFIS positions you could work around this by making them use the GND suffix instead.

[Oliver Gruetzmann]

ROFL.... sure(ly not)...

 

What a great system, we need to be proud of the BoG for the really great AND (inter)national Ideas...

[Todor Atanasov 878664]

ROFL.... sure(ly not)...

 

What a great system, we need to be proud of the BoG for the really great AND (inter)national Ideas...

ROLF again ?

[Oliver Gruetzmann]

I don't know Rolf, but he might be nice

 

But it seems that some people need to realize that america is not the world and that not everything that fits to america fits to the rest of the world...

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Well if it makes you feel better most American ARTCCs grumbled and moaned when global ratings were thrust on us, so I'm not sure how the 'silly american' stuff applies.

[Oliver Gruetzmann]

I don't argue about GRP! I got used to it and I can even say: I think it is okay the way it WAS.

 

What I don't like is the S2 rating. It makes no sense at all for the German situation.

 

EDIT: And the 'silly american' stuff applies because it seems to me (personal feeling) that the GRP was based upon American system (and that it seems S2 is as well just suitable for America... just a feeling

[Colm Fitzgerald 1037650]

I don't argue about GRP! I got used to it and I can even say: I think it is okay the way it WAS.

 

What I don't like is the S2 rating. It makes no sense at all for the German situation.

 

EDIT: And the 'silly american' stuff applies because it seems to me (personal feeling) that the GRP was based upon American system (and that it seems S2 is as well just suitable for America... just a feeling

 

 

I agree!

 

I always remember seeing poor STU's stuck on JFK_DEL for a long time, but have never seen similar situations in Europe at all!

[Jason Baxter 920557]

EDIT: And the 'silly american' stuff applies because it seems to me (personal feeling) that the GRP was based upon American system (and that it seems S2 is as well just suitable for America... just a feeling

What makes you feel that way? 95% of our airports can be handled by S1s just fine until the implementation of S2. Just because the people who wrote the policy happen to be American doesn't mean that it was an 'american idea'.

 

Also ZNY is stands pretty much alone in the regard of having people on delivery for an arbitrary amount of hours almost all other ARTCCs have no such restriction for any position.

 

What of those students who are on a low in Europe? It was only a few months ago that when I saw EGLL it was always followed by GND.

 

As for procedural Tower I don't see how an approach rating applies as it is a function of the Tower facility which is all that matters, otherwise if non-radar separation applied by a tower requires an approach rating radar separation would require one as well. The bottom line is the only thing that matters is the controller should be trained to apply all separations relevant to their position and if the callsign happens to end in _TWR then that rating will apply and so be it. After all the GRP was created to allow more controllers to practice their skills before moving up (the success of which is still under debate).