When conflicting flight information appears, the first step is to propose a solution to the radar controller.

Title: When Conflicts Pop Up in the Sky: Propose a Solution to the Radar Controller

You’re in a busy radar room, screens glowing, the hum of radios, and a knot of data zipping across displays. Two data streams disagree, a warning light flashes, and in that moment the clock seems to speed up. What should you do first? The answer isn’t logging the moment or pinging the aircraft right away. In real operations, the best first move is to propose a solution to the radar controller. It’s how safety stays at the center of the action.

Let me explain why this step matters and how it plays out in the field.

Why the radar controller should be the first point of contact

Think of the radar controller as the conductor of a busy orchestra. They’re responsible for maintaining situational awareness, coordinating aircraft movements, and ensuring rule-based separation. When information conflicts—perhaps a radar target and a transponder readout don’t line up, or a position report contradicts radar framing—the controller needs to see the conflict and have a proposed way forward. Proposing a solution does two critical things at once:

• It keeps the focus on safety and real-time management. You’re not pausing to debate every detail in isolation; you’re offering a concrete path to resolve the discrepancy.

• It preserves the chain of authority and enables rapid, coordinated action. The controller can approve, adjust, or steer the plan as needed, with the whole team aligned.

If you’re ever tempted to log the discrepancy first, remember that logging is valuable, but it’s not a substitute for timely, decisive action. In the heat of active flight operations, speed and clear communication matter more than ticking every box in a memo.

What the “first move” looks like in practice

When you spot conflicting information, here’s a straightforward way to approach it:

• Pause the moment, then identify the conflict clearly. What data sources disagree? Is it altitude, position, speed, or intent? Get precise so the team isn’t sorting through vague possibilities.

• Turn to the radar controller with a concise proposal. Phrase it as a concrete action, not a question or a long debate. You’re offering options that keep separation and safety intact.

• Stay brief, and ready for feedback. The controller will confirm or refine the plan. If the situation allows, you may propose a single, well-vetted course of action rather than multiple options.

• Implement only after the controller’s signal. Even when you’re confident in a plan, you wait for clearance or explicit instruction before changing the aircraft’s flight path or altitude.

A sample moment

Imagine you’re monitoring two data points that disagree on altitude for a given aircraft. You might say:

“Radar, [Your Unit], Delta 403—conflict between radar altitude and transponder altitude; proposed action: maintain current heading, verify altitude with adjacent sectors, and request automatic altitude reporting from the aircraft once confirmed. Do you want us to proceed with a level-off at 14,500 feet if the altitude cannot be verified within the next two minutes?”

That statement does a few things at once:

• It names the conflict clearly.

• It gives a concrete proposed action (maintain heading, verify data, request a specific report).

• It invites the radar controller to approve, adjust, or direct a different path.

Notice how the phraseology is purpose-driven but not pushy. You’re offering a plan, not issuing orders. The goal is collaboration under pressure.

What about the other options? Why they’re not the first move

You’ll hear a few alternative steps tossed around in the real world. They’re not wrong in every moment, but they don’t tackle the urgency of a live conflict the way a proposed solution does.

• Logging the information for future reference. Useful for post-event review and training, sure. But if the conflict is active, logging doesn’t resolve the immediate risk. It’s the fuel for learning later—not the action that preserves safety now.

• Contacting the aircraft immediately. Communicating with the pilot is essential, but doing so before the radar controller sees the problem can create mixed instructions and duplicate efforts. The controller coordinates the airspace and has the broader view you don’t yet have. A direct line to the aircraft without a controller-coordinated plan can complicate the next steps.

• Seeking advice from a senior controller. Getting guidance from a more experienced colleague is wise, but it’s often a secondary step in the moment of action. The senior controller can provide the broader arc of the operational picture, but you still need a concrete, controller-endorsed plan to move forward.

In other words, the first move isn’t about bypassing others or skipping steps. It’s about getting the right people to the right decision quickly, with a plan they can immediately back.

How to translate this into daily practice

If you’re aiming to develop a clean, reliable habit around conflicts, here are practical steps you can rehearse:

• Cultivate a concise conflict-check cadence. A quick mental checklist—What’s the conflict? What data sources are involved? What is the safest immediate action? What proposal am I bringing to the controller?—keeps you from flailing when time tightens.

• Build a library of ready-to-use phrases. You don’t want to fumble with wording under pressure. Have a few go-to templates that express the problem and your proposed solution in a single breath.

• Practice data cross-checks. In training environments, we stress cross-verification: don’t rely on one source. The more you can corroborate, the more confident your proposal will be.

• Emphasize calm, clear tone. You’re working in a high-speed environment; a steady voice can help settle the room and improve decision quality.

A quick sample dialogue you can tailor to your own operations

• You: “Radar, [Unit], conflicting altitude data for inbound Bravo 7. Proposing maintain current altitude while we verify with secondary radar and CPDLC, request clearance to proceed if altitude confirms.”

• Controller: “Delta 7, maintain current altitude, verify with secondary radar, prepare to adjust as data comes in. I will authorize any change.”

Small talk in an intense environment is normal, but transitions should be smooth. The goal is to move from problem identification to a controlled action with the controller’s blessing.

Tools that support this approach (without getting fancy)

• The radar display and equivalent data sources. A clear view of what the radar sees, alongside transponder data and any automated alerts.

• Voice and data links. When possible, use CPDLC for precise, written confirmation, but don’t over-rely on it—the voice channel remains essential for rapid coordination.

• Briefing boards and whiteboards in the ops room. Quick notes about the conflict, proposed action, and any required verification steps help keep everyone aligned.

• Standard phraseology. It isn’t just about words; it’s about shared mental models. Clear, consistent language reduces misinterpretation when the room is loud or busy.

Common traps and how to avoid them

• Waiting too long to speak up. If a conflict is obvious, delaying a proposal increases risk. Speak up early, even if you’re not sure you’ve got the perfect fix.

• Overloading the controller with options. A single, well-reasoned proposal is better than several half-baked ones. If you’re unsure, ask for permission to consider a couple of options and return with a plan.

• Under-communicating the rationale. The controller needs to understand not just what you want to do, but why it’s the safest choice given the current picture. A brief rationale helps buy-in.

• Letting emotion creep in. It’s natural to feel pressure, but stay factual. The goal is a safe, efficient resolution, not a victory in the moment.

A broader perspective: why this habit matters beyond a single incident

Conflicts in flight operations aren’t rare, but they do test a team’s dynamic. The habit of presenting a solution to the radar controller embodies three core ideas:

• Safety through shared situational awareness. When everyone knows the plan and why it’s chosen, the airspace stays safer for everyone.

• Efficient decision-making under pressure. A well-formed proposal cuts through uncertainty and keeps the operation moving smoothly.

• Professional maturity and trust. Teams that practice this approach build trust with the radar controller and with each other, which pays off in every shift.

If you’re new to this approach, you might feel a little awkward at first. That’s normal. Like any skill, it gets easier with practice. Start in simulations, then bring the same approach into real-world drills. You’ll notice how much smoother a room can feel when the plan is clear and everyone knows their part.

The bottom line

When conflicting information appears during flight operations, the first action is to propose a solution to the radar controller. This isn’t about pushing your plan into the room; it’s about surfacing a practical way forward that preserves safety and keeps the operation moving. Other steps—logging the event, contacting the aircraft, or consulting a senior controller—still matter, but they come after a solid, controller-endorsed plan is on the table.

If you want to be the kind of professional who keeps the skies safe, practice this approach as a habit. Spot the conflict, propose a path, and let the radar controller steer the next move. In the end, it’s all about teamwork—clear communication, well-timed action, and a shared commitment to safe, orderly air traffic. And that, more than anything, keeps the skies calm, even when the data isn’t.