Radar Services Terminated

E

epsalant

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
Evan
Let's say you are flying along VFR with flight following squawking 3456 and ATC says
"November1234...Radar service terminated." or
"November1234 resume own navigation. Radar service terminated. Frequency change approved".

Should you change your squawk to 1200 in either or both of these cases? Does it matter if you are in E or G airspace ? Can you provide a reference ?

Thanks,
Evan
icon12.gif
 
epsalant said:
"November1234 resume own navigation. Radar service terminated. Frequency change approved".
Click to expand...

I typically get this line, without the "own navigation" part, and I switch the transponder to 1200 and if need the COM to a local CTAF or another frequency for the direction I am heading.
 
The change to 1200 should really be proceeded by "squawk VFR". That's the only part of the typical transmission that deals with the transponder. It's usually in there somewhere. They sometimes just say it so fast that it's easy to miss.
 
Around here, when being switched off FF, you do not squawk 1200 unless told to, as you might still be in the SFRA. If you're not sure, ask, as there's no real harm in not switching to 1200, but switching to 1200 in the SFRA would be bad -- very bad.
 
yeah, definitely a no-no in the SFRA, but then again, I've never heard them say "Radar service terminated" in the SFRA.

What I am really looking for is a specific reference in the AIM or elsewhere which specifies when you should switch to squawking 1200. While VFR in Class E airspace I had a controller say "Radar services terminated" and I switched to 1200, the CFI said not to do that unless explicitly told to do so, but I couldn't find any reference for this.
 
epsalant said:
yeah, definitely a no-no in the SFRA, but then again, I've never heard them say "Radar service terminated" in the SFRA.

What I am really looking for is a specific reference in the AIM or elsewhere which specifies when you should switch to squawking 1200. While VFR in Class E airspace I had a controller say "Radar services terminated" and I switched to 1200, the CFI said not to do that unless explicitly told to do so, but I couldn't find any reference for this.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that he's right. AIM 4-1-20(g)(11) has the phraseology for "squawk VFR". Just terminating radar services is not an instruction to reset the transponder.
 
On my way to Wings this year I had a controller say something to the effect of "Due to your altitude I'm going to lose radar contact. Radar services terminated, for further advisories contact XXX approach on 123.45, they're expecting you."

Hearing "radar services terminated," I squawked VFR as I changed frequencies. When I called the new approach control, I reminded the controller he was expecting me. He asked me to ident, then told me I should keep the code I had been assigned previously.
 
epsalant said:
yeah, definitely a no-no in the SFRA, but then again, I've never heard them say "Radar service terminated" in the SFRA.
Click to expand...
Happens all the time, like when going into Gaithersburg (GAI) and they cut you loose over to CTAF -- even IFR. Since they're no longer communicating with you, and so can't provide traffic advisories, they must tell you "radar service terminated," but they also say "remain on present squawk until on the ground."

What I am really looking for is a specific reference in the AIM or elsewhere which specifies when you should switch to squawking 1200. While VFR in Class E airspace I had a controller say "Radar services terminated" and I switched to 1200, the CFI said not to do that unless explicitly told to do so, but I couldn't find any reference for this.
Click to expand...
Neither can I. Per 7110.65 (5-2-9b), controllers are supposed to tell VFR aircraft to "squawk VFR" or "squawk 1200" upon termination of radar service (unless otherwise required, like in the SFRA), so if they don't tell me to do that, I assume they want me to stay on my code. Of course, where I am, you need to be spring-loaded to the "leave the code alone" position, so that may be a factor in the way I do it.
 
epsalant said:
Let's say you are flying along VFR with flight following squawking 3456 and ATC says
"November1234...Radar service terminated." or
"November1234 resume own navigation. Radar service terminated. Frequency change approved".

Should you change your squawk to 1200 in either or both of these cases? Does it matter if you are in E or G airspace ? Can you provide a reference ?
Click to expand...

"Squawk 1200" or "squawk VFR" should be part of the transmission. "Resume own navigation" shouldn't be part of it as you are already on your own navigation.
 
Radar services terminated doesn't mean squawk 1200. If they mean it they are supposed to say it.

When leaving controlled airspace in Canada (or in some cases going between controllers in controlled airspace), you hear "Radar services terminated" and who the next frequency to contact is, and when to contact them. It just means that controller/center/whatever isn't providing you radar services anymore. Nobody else may, either. This can happen while you're still on an IFR flight plan (which is still open and valid). You can also be on an IFR flight plan with no clearance and squawking 1200 (once again - uncontrolled airspace).
 
bluesky74656 said:
On my way to Wings this year I had a controller say something to the effect of "Due to your altitude I'm going to lose radar contact. Radar services terminated, for further advisories contact XXX approach on 123.45, they're expecting you."

Hearing "radar services terminated," I squawked VFR as I changed frequencies. When I called the new approach control, I reminded the controller he was expecting me. He asked me to ident, then told me I should keep the code I had been assigned previously.
Click to expand...

The first controller said too much. If XXX approach was expecting you a handoff must have been completed. Instead of, "Due to your altitude I'm going to lose radar contact. Radar services terminated, for further advisories contact XXX approach on 123.45, they're expecting you"; he should have said, "Contact XXX approach on 123.45."
 
Not being in one of the insane SFRA areas like DCA I am not spring loaded to maintain squawk code... Tell me I am turned loose and the first thing that happens is the 1200 button gets smacked on my hand's way to the radio...

If he terminated because he can no longer see you on the scope - what code you squawk is irrelevant because he cannot see it..

If he terminated you because you have left his sector, AND WITHOUT his transferring you to a new controller frequency, then he is no longer controlling so he has nothing to say about what you squawk... (SFRA excepted)

If he is handing you to another sector and expects another controller to pick you up within minutes he needs to give you that frequency and advise how many miles before they can hear you... I would automatically keep the code without being told because it is a transfer, and I am not being returned to uncontrolled VFR flight ...

Am I right or wrong <shrug>, dunno but it has worked for me for a long time...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
Not being in one of the insane SFRA areas like DCA I am not spring loaded to maintain squawk code... Tell me I am turned loose and the first thing that happens is the 1200 button gets smacked on my hand's way to the radio...
Click to expand...
You're free to do that, but occasionally, you will be shooting yourself in the foot by hitting the VFR button just because you hear "radar service terminated" without hearing "squawk 1200/VFR."

If he terminated because he can no longer see you on the scope - what code you squawk is irrelevant because he cannot see it..
Click to expand...
Not so. The termination may be because you're leaving the freq (e.g., going to CTAF), but not the scope, and by staying on code, you may help the controller tell other traffic about you. In addition, when you're being sent to another freq without a handoff being fully effected, the last controller must tell you "RST," but the next controller may still have the data block without having accepted the handoff, and being on code keeps that in view for your cold-call. That makes it easier for the next controller to take you even if a full handoff wasn't completed. Also, when switching to tower, there are a lot of towers with radar repeaters but not radar authorization, and staying on code helps them maintain situational awareness even if they can't provide "radar service."

If he terminated you because you have left his sector, AND WITHOUT his transferring you to a new controller frequency, then he is no longer controlling so he has nothing to say about what you squawk... (SFRA excepted)
Click to expand...
No, but staying on code may still make life easier for the controller and other aircraft.

Am I right or wrong <shrug>, dunno but it has worked for me for a long time...
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it's not just about you.
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
If he terminated because he can no longer see you on the scope - what code you squawk is irrelevant because he cannot see it..
Click to expand...

If he can no longer see you on the scope the phraseology is "radar contact lost."

If he terminated you because you have left his sector, AND WITHOUT his transferring you to a new controller frequency, then he is no longer controlling so he has nothing to say about what you squawk... (SFRA excepted)
Click to expand...
He was never controlling. JO 7110.65 requires him to state "Squawk VFR" or "Squawk 1200" when terminating radar advisory service to VFR aircraft.

If he is handing you to another sector and expects another controller to pick you up within minutes he needs to give you that frequency and advise how many miles before they can hear you... I would automatically keep the code without being told because it is a transfer, and I am not being returned to uncontrolled VFR flight ...
Click to expand...
You're an uncontrolled VFR flight at all times while receiving just flight following.
 
Last edited:
O.k. so it's all about as clear as the Gulf Coast Waters !
My take on all this is that it's better to leave the squawk, no harm in any case...

Evan
 
Ron Levy said:
In addition, when you're being sent to another freq without a handoff being fully effected, the last controller must tell you "RST," but the next controller may still have the data block without having accepted the handoff, and being on code keeps that in view for your cold-call. That makes it easier for the next controller to take you even if a full handoff wasn't completed.
Click to expand...

That's a much better explanation of exactly what happened to me... except I didn't keep the code until the second controller told me to switch back.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The answer is if you are not told to change it, don't.:D
Click to expand...
Agreed. But if the controller sounds overwhelmed or distracted, I'll ask to be sure he means for me to keep the code. Oft times if you're arriving at a field under their airspace, Detroit Approach will have you keep it until you land, but it's good to be sure.
 
azure said:
Agreed. But if the controller sounds overwhelmed or distracted, I'll ask to be sure he means for me to keep the code. Oft times if you're arriving at a field under their airspace, Detroit Approach will have you keep it until you land, but it's good to be sure.
Click to expand...

If the controller sounds overwhelmed or distracted the last thing he needs is that question. There's no downside to keeping the code to landing.
 
Ron Levy said:
Around here, when being switched off FF, you do not squawk 1200 unless told to, as you might still be in the SFRA. If you're not sure, ask, as there's no real harm in not switching to 1200, but switching to 1200 in the SFRA would be bad -- very bad.
Click to expand...

If we've had flight following and they say radar service terminated, contact tower on xxx.x, then keep the squawk until landing. Tower here has a display and can watch you, but they cannot use it for seperation only information. If we stay in the traffic pattern for multiple t&g, then the tower may ask us to change our squawk to 1200.

If we are still enroute and the next sector cannot handle a vfr FF, then we hear the, "squawk vfr".
 
roncachamp said:
If the controller sounds overwhelmed or distracted the last thing he needs is that question. There's no downside to keeping the code to landing.
Click to expand...
JOOC why doesn't ATC routinely leave IFR arrivals on their assigned squawk when they cancel with the destination in sight? I'm not asking where in 7110.65 it says to do that but rather what's the reason this is the published SOP especially given the notion that VFR traffic remaining on a discrete code when terminated near their destination doesn't have a downside.
 
gismo said:
JOOC why doesn't ATC routinely leave IFR arrivals on their assigned squawk when they cancel with the destination in sight? I'm not asking where in 7110.65 it says to do that but rather what's the reason this is the published SOP especially given the notion that VFR traffic remaining on a discrete code when terminated near their destination doesn't have a downside.
Click to expand...

The short answer is because the book says to tell 'em to squawk VFR. What's the reason for that? I suppose it's because they're now VFR and 1200 is the code for VFR aircraft not being worked by ATC. Can any harm come from not switching? No, it's not uncommon for aircraft to fail to switch and none of them has fallen out of the sky to date because of that.
 
roncachamp said:
If the controller sounds overwhelmed or distracted the last thing he needs is that question.
Click to expand...
And the last thing I need is a royal chewing out by a tower controller who was expecting me to squawk 1200 because the TRACON controller thought he had told me to squawk 1200, but forgot to. BTDT.
 
azure said:
And the last thing I need is a royal chewing out by a tower controller who was expecting me to squawk 1200 because the TRACON controller thought he had told me to squawk 1200, but forgot to. BTDT.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, was his operation affected by the approach controller not telling you to squawk 1200?
 
roncachamp said:
The first controller said too much. If XXX approach was expecting you a handoff must have been completed. Instead of, "Due to your altitude I'm going to lose radar contact. Radar services terminated, for further advisories contact XXX approach on 123.45, they're expecting you"; he should have said, "Contact XXX approach on 123.45."
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct from a technical standpoint, which I'm sure you dont need people like me to tell you..

BUT.. Being out of radar contact with one sector/facility may also mean being out of radar contact with the next. Providing the context in which that next contact may or may not be made can be enlightening, particularly to us lowly GA guys who dont work in aviation for a living. The guy working the sector knows if he's slow enough or too busy to spoon feed, and made a judgment call that served as a potential learning experience.
 
Doggtyred said:
You are absolutely correct from a technical standpoint, which I'm sure you dont need people like me to tell you..

BUT.. Being out of radar contact with one sector/facility may also mean being out of radar contact with the next. Providing the context in which that next contact may or may not be made can be enlightening, particularly to us lowly GA guys who dont work in aviation for a living. The guy working the sector knows if he's slow enough or too busy to spoon feed, and made a judgment call that served as a potential learning experience.
Click to expand...

Sure, especially if they're using the same radar. But if that was the case here how was a handoff completed?

It sounds like Mr. Kooser was leaving a known area of poor radar coverage in facility A so was handed off to facility B, that does have good radar coverage in that area, before radar contact was lost. Why controller A said "radar services terminated" is a mystery, as radar service would have been continuous. Why he said he would lose radar contact is also a mystery.
 
roncachamp said:
And how, exactly, was his operation affected by the approach controller not telling you to squawk 1200?
Click to expand...
I have no idea, Steven, I'm just a pilot not a controller. All I know is what he told me (which was, in so many words, that I had d_mn well better make sure I'm squawking the correct code the next time I call inbound to his field).
 
azure said:
I have no idea, Steven, I'm just a pilot not a controller. All I know is what he told me (which was, in so many words, that I had d_mn well better make sure I'm squawking the correct code the next time I call inbound to his field).
Click to expand...

Well, I have a very good idea how his operation was affected by the approach controller not telling you to squawk 1200; it wasn't.

And it ain't his field.
 
roncachamp said:
Well, I have a very good idea how his operation was affected by the approach controller not telling you to squawk 1200; it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Whether it was or wasn't actually affected, the guy was pretty upset over my squawking a supposedly unauthorized code and made sure I knew about it. Since then, whenever I'm not sure what code I'm expected to be squawking, I ask.
 
azure said:
Whether it was or wasn't actually affected, the guy was pretty upset over my squawking a supposedly unauthorized code and made sure I knew about it.
Click to expand...

The operation wasn't affected and the code wasn't unauthorized. How could it be considered unauthorized? You were in controlled airspace operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder on the code assigned by ATC, were you not?
 
azure said:
Whether it was or wasn't actually affected, the guy was pretty upset over my squawking a supposedly unauthorized code and made sure I knew about it. Since then, whenever I'm not sure what code I'm expected to be squawking, I ask.
Click to expand...

That wasn't going into MBS was it?
 
BillTIZ said:
If we've had flight following and they say radar service terminated, contact tower on xxx.x, then keep the squawk until landing. Tower here has a display and can watch you, but they cannot use it for seperation only information. If we stay in the traffic pattern for multiple t&g, then the tower may ask us to change our squawk to 1200.

If we are still enroute and the next sector cannot handle a vfr FF, then we hear the, "squawk vfr".
Click to expand...

Well, the radar controller wasn't using it for separation either, only for information on other displayed traffic.
 
roncachamp said:
The operation wasn't affected and the code wasn't unauthorized. How could it be considered unauthorized? You were in controlled airspace operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder on the code assigned by ATC, were you not?
Click to expand...
If ATC tells me to squawk VFR, the code I was squawking becomes unauthorized, correct?

As it turns out, that code WAS authorized, technically, because the approach controller had not only not told me to squawk VFR, but had explicitly told me to keep the code. A review of the tapes would have shown that. Somehow, though, the tower controller believed that I had been told to squawk VFR, and made quite a stink over it until I explained the situation. He made it pretty clear that it would have been a violation if I had been squawking that code in error.

And sure, technically, if a controller says "radar services terminated", but doesn't say "squawk VFR", then it's not a violation and if ATC tries to file a pilot deviation for squawking the discrete code, the action won't stand up once the tapes are reviewed. I'd still rather avoid the situation if all it takes to prevent it is a simple query for clarification.
 
Look at the SEA sectional and follow V204 from OLM to YKM. As you are tooling along VFR with FF you will have a section of that route where radar services are terminated because you are shadowed from their radar by Mt. Rainier. You leave the transponder alone as you will emerge from the shadow on the other side and you still need the code. Unless the controller says "Squawk VFR", leave the code alone.
 
azure said:
If ATC tells me to squawk VFR, the code I was squawking becomes unauthorized, correct?
Click to expand...

Correct.

As it turns out, that code WAS authorized, technically, because the approach controller had not only not told me to squawk VFR, but had explicitly told me to keep the code. A review of the tapes would have shown that. Somehow, though, the tower controller believed that I had been told to squawk VFR, and made quite a stink over it until I explained the situation. He made it pretty clear that it would have been a violation if I had been squawking that code in error.
Click to expand...
Ahh, something new has been added. You said nothing previously about being told to keep the discrete code. You said only, ".... the TRACON controller thought he had told me to squawk 1200, but forgot to." Keeping the code when landing at a towered airport with a radar display makes sense, the tower controller has a data block showing callsign, type, altitude, and position.

And sure, technically, if a controller says "radar services terminated", but doesn't say "squawk VFR", then it's not a violation and if ATC tries to file a pilot deviation for squawking the discrete code, the action won't stand up once the tapes are reviewed.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
I didn't even know Pontiac had radar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top