View Full Version : Six-Digit Frequencies
Beetlejuice
2nd Jun 2006, 11:45
Does anyone else find these new six-digit frequencies a pain in the @rse ?
I have noticed a new phenomenom, the fifth digit pause, as in:
"Contact blah on one two three decimal four five (pause) zero"
"Roger, contacting blah on one two three decimal four five (pause) zero"
Perhaps its just age!
eyeinthesky
2nd Jun 2006, 12:27
It's an ICAO requirement which the UK decided to adopt, despite the fact it uses more R/T time and is subject to more error, and despite the fact that the UK files lots of exceptions to ICAO requirements.
FYI, the third digit is needed when 8.33 Khz spacing is used, so it needs to be spelt out then. I can't see why a non-8.33 frequency also needs to have it. We used to say 'Channel xxx.xxx' for 8.33 frequencies but this has been stopped.
Data Dad
2nd Jun 2006, 12:55
Must confess that I have found the change easier than I expected! Although I do find a "5" easier to remember than a "0".
What raises a wee smile though are the "switched on" pilots who have obviously been told to add the "extra digit" and insist on reading back "Contact Ground, One-Two-One decimal Seven" as "Ground, One-Two-One-Seven-Zero" :ugh:
DD
Beetlejuice
2nd Jun 2006, 13:52
Yeah! Everyone hates a smart-@rse!!
Lookatthesky
2nd Jun 2006, 15:28
It has caused more R/T loading. As inevitably the frequency is read-back incorrectly. :mad:
Beetlejuice
2nd Jun 2006, 17:49
The thing I find is weird is that adding an extra digit makes me forget frequencies that I have been using for years. It seems to change them completely! As I said, it must be age!!
MaxReheat
2nd Jun 2006, 19:08
At a time when RT congestion is endemic in most UK sectors, here we are introducing yet another 'digit' that isn't required. Unless you are going to be handed to a UHF unit, let's get rid of 'one' - we all know we are on VHF - and until 8.33 spacing comes, forget the sixth digit. We all survived quite happily without it until it reared its ugly head a few months ago. And why does the UK always agree to comply with every brainfart anyone else in the rest of the world dreams up? Nineteen seventy-seven, good night, (and save some breath, you might need it one day).:ugh:
chevvron
3rd Jun 2006, 08:06
Biggest problem I find is that many pilots miss out the fourth digit in the readback where it's a '1' eg 'Contact London Control on 133.175' is read back as '133.75'
Cuddles
3rd Jun 2006, 08:08
The 4th number gets missed out quite a lot.
instead of 119.125 I get 119.25 read back. I think pilots are subconsciously listening for the first 3 digits, then only 2 after the decimal, so the 4th number gets missed.
Bloody nuisance. I wonder how many incidents or near incidents have been caused by crews going to an empty frequency when the controller who was expecting them really needed them to be on his frequency?
ATCbabe
3rd Jun 2006, 08:14
I have definately got the fifth digit pause!!!:{ :{
But the powers that be say we must so must we shall:eek:
coolbeans
3rd Jun 2006, 09:47
Ive got that 5th digit pause, but I like to think it makes me sound enigmatic and mysterious.
Red Four
3rd Jun 2006, 11:29
Have to say that most Foreign pilots appear to be fine with the change (IE: they are already used to it?).
The main difficulties seems to come with some UK PPL types where you can end up saying it three times and they still get it wrong.
Could we not drop the 'Day-see-mal' now to save a few syllables; surely if you have a string of six digits or four digits given to you, a pilot can work out where to put the decimal without it being stated each time? What do you think?
4
duncanindevon
4th Jun 2006, 21:15
Me: "Contact London Control, one two six decimal zero seven... zero"
Them: "Isn't that one two six decimal zero seven FIVE?"
Ah. Thinks...
Me: "I don't know. Better try both."
Of course it is zero seven five - I know that now, anyway - but if the bloke on the phone giving the clearance doesn't give the full three decimal places and force of habit means you don't query it, well, what can you do?
On a more serious note, I've experienced a sharp increase in the number of wrong frequency readbacks since the ATSIN came into force, from professionals and PPLs alike, something like five times the number. Not an ideal situation...
250 kts
5th Jun 2006, 16:50
Don't do it and won't do it unless it's a genuine 8.33.
happ1ness
5th Jun 2006, 21:45
Must agree a number of pilots are NOT reading back the Frequency as given. How long will it be before the Powers that be give more thought to the practicalities of RTF rather than bringing out instructions that are not practical ???
Wee Weasley Welshman
6th Jun 2006, 07:31
As a readerback I agree with the view that I am making more mistakes under the new rules.
I think they should be changed back to how they were plus we should drop the One AND the Decimal AND allow Seventy Seven/Fifty Five etc.
Cheers
WWW
Well, I've not had any problems with pausing or with readbacks :confused:, but then i started using the new style months ago in anticipation.
In over seven years of controlling, I can count the number of times I've had to resort to using the 'thirty-four-twelve' phraseology on one hand.
If we take the 'one' off the front, then how do we differentiate between VHF and UHF?
If we take the decimal out, it just sounds like a load of numbers.....'Sorry London, was that heading and flight level?'
Chilli Monster
6th Jun 2006, 08:56
Don't do it and won't do it unless it's a genuine 8.33.
Is this really the attitude to take for what is now a laid down, mandatory procedure?
Why should we have a different phraseology below FL245 (soon to be FL195) from the one above it? Standardisation is the name of the game, and in the flight deck environment (our "customers" before we forget) it actually makes more sense.
This is the way things are - live with it. There are more important things in the world to worry about.
Ive got that 5th digit pause, but I like to think it makes me sound enigmatic and mysterious.
But is it enhancing your single life mate? ;)
anotherthing
6th Jun 2006, 09:30
4 digits - 5 digits... who cares. It's in, it's not rocket science, therefore we should use it.
We are supposed to be professionals... this extra digit does not affect the way we control aircraft (if it does, then you're in the wrong job if something so simple can throw you).
Like anything new, it will take a bit of getting used to, but you will get used to it.
With regard to an increse in wrong readbacks - is it really that big a difference? I have not noticed a huge increase... maybe it's because we are not used to the frequencies that we are actually listening more carefully or are more attuned to mistakes. After all, familiarisation leads to complacency.
MaxReheat
6th Jun 2006, 09:51
happ1ness - might I suggest that the reason why 'the Powers that be' don't give more thought to the practicalities of RTF is because THEY don't have to deliver the goods at the coal face, day in and day out. And to all the pedants out there - just because it's the gospel according to ICAO Doc or MATS Vol x does not mean that it is the best or most suitable practice. Just because 'its in' does not preclude questioning a possibly flawed procedure. Nineteen Seventy Seven - good night!
Max Reheat
Correct....
Just because 'its in' does not preclude questioning a possibly flawed procedure.
Nothing precludes questioning any procedure, but deliberately contravening one?
chevvron
6th Jun 2006, 15:05
I sat on the phraseology working group at SRG that decided this change. No civil ATC rep agreed with it and I suggested that we file a difference with ICAO for class G airspace below FL100, but the RAF rep (probably not a controller) said that they had no objections to full implementation, so that carried the argument. Notice how many military ATC units use the new phraseology? I don't think it's reached JSP 552 yet.
Barnaby the Bear
6th Jun 2006, 17:06
More incorrect readbacks from pilots. Very frustrating on very busy days.... :ugh:
Point Seven
7th Jun 2006, 21:02
Max Reheat
Correct....
Nothing precludes questioning any procedure, but deliberately contravening one?
Well said that LCE;)
P7
Well said that LCE
And you know more than most how much questioning I do!!! :}
250 kts
8th Jun 2006, 09:14
Well here are the results of a morning using the new procedure....... 28,yes 28 incorrect readbacks on frequencies alone:( :( :( . I rest my case. And yes, I will be filing some sort of report on what I consider an unacceptable procedure and associated increase in workload.
atco112
8th Jun 2006, 09:52
I keep getting frequencies wrong I have been using for the last five years and I only have 3 to remember and none of the pilots read back the extra digit. Every day I seem to have at least one aircraft calling me by mistake wanting another unit. Before this ridiculous rule it only ever happened once a month. Why cant we implement it only when it is necessary :ugh:
Wonkavater
8th Jun 2006, 10:38
Just as a matter of interest, how many 8.33 kHz frequencies are allocated for use in UK airspace?
chevvron
8th Jun 2006, 14:38
I think it's just increased from 1 to 3, but under ICAO rules only 1 makes the entire airspace declared an '8.33 environment'. As I said, I suggested we file a difference, after all 8.33 is only going to be used above FL195 initially and is never going to be allocated for use below FL95 in the foreseeable future.