When JAN Approach conflicts with R931A, offer a solution to the radar controller.

Let me set the scene. You’re staring at the radar display, JAN Approach lines up on your screen like a puzzle piece that doesn’t quite fit with R931A. Two aircraft are tracing paths that could converge sooner or later, and you’re not just watching numbers—you’re guarding lives, momentum, and smooth traffic flow. So, what should you do when you notice a conflict between JAN Approach and R931A? The right move isn’t to shrug it off or to grab the closest headset and yell for a pilot to slow down. The right move, as many seasoned controllers will tell you, is to offer a solution to the radar controller.

Why offering a solution matters

Conflicts on the radar screen demand quick, clear, and collaborative thinking. The radar controller has the big picture: sector boundaries, weather, traffic from other arrivals, and the broader flow of airspace. Your job is to add value to that picture with a concrete, workable option. By presenting a couple of sensible alternatives, you help the controller see paths that might not be obvious in the moment. It keeps the safety margin intact and reduces the chance of unnecessary holds or delays that ripple out into the rest of the airspace.

This isn’t about second-guessing. It’s about teamwork. When you propose a plan—whether it’s a reroute, an altitude change, or a coordination with another sector—you give the controller the tools to act decisively. And when the controller can act quickly, the traffic continues to flow with fewer interruptions. In short: offering a solution is a practical demonstration of situational awareness in action.

What a helpful solution can look like in practice

Here’s the essence, stripped down to workable steps. You’re not just pointing out a problem—you’re whispering potential options that stay within standard procedures and safety rules.

• Propose a reroute for JAN Approach. A small heading change or turn can separate the pairs without forcing a long delay. If R931A is on a fixed route, a mild deviation for JAN Approach might be all that’s needed.

• Recommend an altitude adjustment. If one aircraft can hold a different layer, you lift the conflict by changing the vertical plane. The key is to avoid piling new conflicts on other traffic while preserving separation.

• Suggest coordination with adjacent sectors. Sometimes the best move is to bring in another pair of eyes to re-distribute the traffic. A quick handoff or a joint plan can unlock a safe path that keeps both streams moving.

• Offer a time-based separation strategy. If the runway or sector capacity is tight, a brief, agreed hold or a spaced arrival can buy the necessary time to establish a clean separation.

• Keep touching base with the radar controller. Your proposal isn’t a final decision; it’s a starting point. The controller can refine the plan, confirm pilot instructions, and implement the chosen path.

How to phrase it when you speak up

Clear, concise, and constructive language is your best tool here. Think of it like a quick script you can adapt to the moment:

• “Radar, JAN 1234, conflict detected with R931A at 25 miles, I propose a heading change to 180 degrees and a climb to 8,000 feet.”

• “JAN 1234, suggested reroute via [fix or heading], maintain 8,000 until crossing R931A’s path. Do you want me to coordinate with sector X for spacing?”

• “If you’d like, I can hold JAN 1234 at current altitude and speed for 2 minutes, then reevaluate.”

The point is to present options, not demands. Use plain language, state the problem briefly, and offer one or two practical solutions. It’s a collaborative invitation—“Here’s a path we can take together; what do you think?”—rather than a command.

Don’t forget the pilot

Communicating the situation to the pilot remains essential, but it should complement the radar-level solution, not replace it. A quick pilot briefing that confirms the new heading or altitude helps keep the aircraft’s crew aligned with the change. However, the pilot’s understanding is only part of the safety equation; the real leverage comes from the controller’s ability to adjust the airspace plan using your proposed solution.

A gentle reminder about timing

Ignore the conflict and you risk a close call. Delay the aircraft without a plan, and you might inadvertently create more traffic grunt work later. The sweet spot is to pause with purpose and offer a concrete path forward. If you’ve done your homework—considering potential reroutes, altitude changes, and sector coordination—your proposed solution can be implemented smoothly and quickly.

From theory to the real world: a quick mental model

Think of air traffic control like managing a highway with aerial vehicles. When two cars end up in a narrow lane at the same time, you don’t just tell one driver to slow down and hope for the best. You propose a detour, a different lane, or a short pause while traffic clears. In the sky, that detour might be a slight heading, a change in altitude, or a handoff to a neighboring sector. The same logic applies: safety first, communication clear, flow preserved.

Common missteps to avoid

As you practice, beware of a few tempting pitfalls. They’re not fatal, but they slow you down and add risk.

• Ignoring the conflict. It’s tempting to hope it resolves itself, especially when your workload is high. It rarely does.

• Talking only to the pilot. You can’t move the airspace with alone-pilot instructions. The radar controller needs your input to shape the bigger plan.

• Delaying without a plan. A short hold or delay needs a defined purpose and a concrete next step. Otherwise you’re just shuffling cards without clarity.

• Static thinking. Rules exist for a reason, but airspace is dynamic. Be ready to adapt your solution as conditions change.

A practical, ready-to-use checklist

If you’re stepping into a scenario like this, here’s a compact guide you can mentally run through.

• Confirm the conflict by cross-checking tracks, speeds, and altitudes.

• Identify at least two plausible options (reroute, altitude, sector coordination).

• Pick the most time-efficient option that preserves safety margins.

• Present the solution to the radar controller with a concise rationale.

• Offer to coordinate with pilots and, if needed, with adjacent sectors.

• Confirm acceptance and monitor the implementation.

• Communicate the outcome and updated plan to all involved parties.

A touch of real-world flavor

You’ll hear controllers talk in crisp, practical terms—the kind of language that’s honest but never careless. They mix the calm certainty of their voice with the awareness that every second counts. The moment a student steps into that rhythm, they join a tradition of teamwork. It’s not about “being right” so much as about keeping the sky safe and the flow steady. And that’s something you carry with you, whether you’re on shift at a busy terminal or in a quieter sector, watching a single conflict bloom into a coordinated solution.

A note on tone and style

The goal here isn’t to dump a bunch of jargon on you and call it a day. It’s to show how a well-timed, well-framed suggestion can change a tense moment into a coordinated action. You’ll use a mix of short, direct sentences and longer, explanatory lines. You’ll slip in a few casual phrases to keep the human element front and center, because, at the end of the day, air traffic control is as much about people as it is about procedures.

Putting it all together

When students identify that JAN Approach and R931A might collide, the responsible move is to offer a concrete solution to the radar controller. That approach sits at the intersection of safety and efficiency: it minimizes risk, supports rapid decision-making, and keeps traffic moving with minimal disruption. It’s a proactive collaboration, not a unilateral command. It’s about leadership in the moment—quiet, confident, and practical.

As you continue to learn and grow in your role, keep this principle close: you’re not just watching numbers; you’re shaping the airspace with every clean, clear suggestion you offer. The radar controller isn’t your opponent or your audience—they’re your partner. And together, you keep the sky orderly, safe, and efficient for every aircraft that relies on your judgment.

If you’re reflecting on a scenario like this, ask yourself: what two or three options would I propose if JAN Approach and R931A threaten to conflict? How would I phrase each option so the controller can act immediately? And how would I coordinate with pilots and adjacent sectors to ensure a smooth, safe handoff? The answers aren’t about memorizing a script; they’re about building a habit of clear, collaborative problem solving that serves the entire system.

In the end, the best response isn’t just about the answer you pick—it's about the way you bring it to life. Offer a solution, stand by it, and stay ready to adjust. That’s how you turn a potential clash into a coordinated, safe, and efficient outcome for everyone in the sky.