QANTAS Flight Number Callsigns

[Jungmeister]

QANTAS Domestic started using Flight Number Callsigns today. They have joined the large number of operators in OZ already using FNCs. Virgin, REX, Air North and others have been doing it for a while.

Remember the doom and gloom forecast by all and sundry a few years ago?

It all seemed to go well enough apart from a few crews who slipped back into REGO occasionally and a lot seemed to have no idea about numbers group form. (Six seven eight instead of Six seventy eight) :)

[Capn Bloggs]

Jung,

You've obviously been on long service leave. The QF buses have been on FNCs for some time.

I use both FNCs and regos, and regos are easier in the bush. And who the hell wants to learn your "group" numbers anyway??!! What a load of bollocks. Those hellbent on FNCs, I suspect, probably also have big watches and small....

[SM4 Pirate]

It all seemed to go well; not from my seat; so many repeated transmission/missed calls it wasn't funny...

A little 'fine tuning required'; also the VOZ931, QFA1731, RXA231, EA2231 all on the same frequency... ah ******... works well, was that for me... no....

Bottle of Rum

[tobzalp]

I know that when rex started it it stopped much of the failed cross boundary messaging in the TAAATS world due to no more double up rego/city pairs. Don't the Qantas plans come in 40 mins before departure from a computer not all at once line ssq and rxa?

[Natit]

I beleive ATC have the authority to change the FNC of an aircraft if some sort of interference exists.

An interesting one for yesterday.. QFA747 = B737

N

[blueloo]

Some QF domestic driver with strong Seth Afriken accent was in all sorts of bother trying to use his FNC today. ATC must have called him about 5 times (each request ) in 5 separate requests. Sounded rather unprofessional.

[Blastoid]

****su,

Already happened some time ago with AUZ7914 inbound from Japan and the onwards airborne CS-CG. Created some interesting "workarounds" and confusion if I remember rightly. Shouldn't happen often tho'.

Natit,

Yes, ATC has the discretion to alter a callsign but then you have to "remember" all the way through as the "old" callsign can't be changed in TAAATS once it has been activated unless a whole new flight plan is created. Did tell a couple the other day to change their callsigns though to avoid confusion ... then had to make sure I remembered in the handover :D

[Hugh Jarse]

We had an unscheduled FNC change the other day out of YBNA. It was going fine until the original A/C we pinched the FNC from started to taxi at another port.

Too easy. ATCO just changed us to Eastern 2101A. Worked fine.

Good to see you guys can work around TAAAAAAAAAATS' limitations:E

[Natit]

Weren't ASA supposed to check and approve the new FNC's for QFA to make sure there wasn't confusion (i.e with other FNC's such as REX and VOZ? Sounded like even the pilots struggled on the first day.

Tanga Ju... aaaah Qantas Six Nine Zero... :)

ATC are gonna have a hard time. I can imagine that once they started getting to know the regos of the particular aircraft (i.e VX*'s were all 738's etc. and OG*'s 763's or whatever) it would make it easy. But now...

[Four Seven Eleven]

It seems to be working fairly well, with the occasional missed call.

A worrying trend (especially this early) is the dropping of the airline designator.

"Qantas four twelve, descend flight level 130"
"Flight level 130, four twelve."

Similar numbers, combined with no airline designator are more likely to end in confusion than similar numbers only.

[Blastoid]

Maybe it's part of the whole "adopt the US system" thing which seems to be in vogue at the moment ;) dropping airline names in the designator I mean ...

This morning had:
QFA780 and QFA788 .... and
QFA1602, QFA1622 and QFA1682 on frequency at the same time
(all I was missing was VOZ713 and AUZ7913 as is usually the case!)

Needless to say some confusion resulted, particularly in frequency transfers.

Fortunately most RPTs know what to expect and therefore don't respond to transmissions intended for other aircraft as it would be inappropriate for their position ... :rolleyes:

[Eastwest Loco]

Call me dumb- God knows it has been done before and will be again but:

The US/Brit systems system with calls of normally 2 syllable Airline ID followed by flight number and A/C type- ie: Speedbird 247 Heavy or even Critter 132 seems to identify carrier, class of aeroplane and flight number accurately and quickly.

This is probably a simplistic view but if you heard the call Clipper 811 heavy from the flight deck of an F27 approaching SYD you knew you had a very large chunk of badly maintained Seattle metal up your pooter.

Just seems to be logical and universally adaptable.

I will now siteth back and waiteth for the incoming, and if it is too intense retreat to the garage and a 20 year old 300ZX with a Ross Ryan tape in the deck and sulk.

Best all

Ron

EWL

[Hugh Jarse]

Welcome back Ron,
first of all, ditch the Nissan. Too porky for those Tasmanian roads :E

I think we all just have to listen a little more. Having said that, I think that some of the heavies operating into YSSY run the risk of being run over by SAABs, Dashies and Death Pencils, rather than the other way around.:{

Many's the time I've been slowed to 160 or 140 with 20+ miles to run.:mad: Take a look out the window and it's usually a heavy.

Ross Ryan...He was Pegasus, wasn't he :}

[Eastwest Loco]

Hi Hugh - good to be back and thanks mate.

My main point was the easiness of recognition of that system. May well not work here but seems to in higher density situations O/S.

Have had the dubious pleasure of witnessing a 747 at close range from the jump of an F28/4000. Captain Frankie ala Baseball cap was cleared in behind a 742 (Rat) after 20 minutes of Western Suburbs racetrack and wasn't happy with the way the 742 entered cloud and held high as he approached.

Just as well as the Rat heavy skip decided he was a little fast and high and dropped a dogleg in cloud rather than shudder the SLF by deploying speedbrake.

747s look lovely from close up and above!! I also learned a whole new bunch of aviation procedure names and some major medical procedures regarding insertin objects into orifices from the lips of a normally mild gentleman.

I suppose call signs are only relevant when you use them to advise others of something you are about to do, no matter how dumb it is.

As for miss Z girl - she eats Tasmanian roads - a true grand tourer and way ahead of her time. If you havent driven one, please be my guest when you are in town remembering she is a stately old lady now but still turns heads and feels as solid and powerul as an F28-3000 under you. Leave the Z32 and Z33 alone. Get an old Z31 and feel what Katayamsan finest moment was. Thunderstorms are a little horror in her not being used to the flash from above through the Targa glass.

Ross Ryan was indeed Pegasus. That was commercial - better works are Blue Chevrolet- Ballerina and Blood on the Microphone plus many others.

Gawd - Woomera is going to thack me with his thacking stick for flooding!!!!

Best regards

Ron

EWL

[MoFo]

Blueloo.

If that was the guy with the speech impediment and the Seth Ifrikkaan accent the poor bloke might choke himself to death trying to get his tongue around it.

[Angus McGherkinsquirter]

ATC Chaps/Lassies,

Slightly off the topic but close, a while ago we were advised by the company after discussions with ASA if the FNC contained three of the same number not to use the expression triple 3 etc. for fairly obvious reasons, yet I regularly hear VH-CCC referring to himself as triple charlie with the same response from ATC.

Any thoughts, comments?

[Maaate]

Angus

I have also heard VH-WWW referred to as 'triple Scotch'.:D

I beleive you are right about the use of 'triple' and also 'double.' Neither seem to be approved as group format callsigns.

As another aside, there is the potential for confusion between otherwise dissimilar FNCs, when group format is used:

"Company six-ten" can sound very much like "Company sixteen" for example.

A lot of caution and commonsense is called for. One method I have contemplated, but never had to use, is the addition of a second company designator at the end of the callsign. For example, to differentiate between Eastern 212 and Virgin 212, instruct the aircraft to use the callsigns "Eastern two twelve Eastern and Virgin two twelve Virgin" respectively. The benefits are that there is no change to the FNC, no need to change the TAAATS FDR (as that is nearly impossible) and that it very easilly highlights the company designator.

[DirtyPierre]

Not too sure about FNCs.

With callsigns like ZXA and VXA being mixed up on occasions, at least you knew one was a 767 and the other was a 737-800.

With FNCs, eg. QFA505, VOS205, VOS305, QFA405 there is seems to be a greater possibility of confusion, and you don't have an obvious idea what the aircraft type is.

In Brisbane, it seems that both pilots and controllers are getting used to the change.

So, is it a good change?

I feel it may be an unnecessary change with the possibility of greater confusion.

[missy]

FNCs containing common aircraft types, ie 747, 767, 737, 727, 340, 320 should be "banned". Real examples are QFA747, (Qantas Seven Forty Seven) and QFA727 (Qantas Seven Twenty Seven) which are both flown by 737s.
FNCs = reduced situational awareness.

[Disco Stu]

Angus & Maaate

I was inbound to EN one day in VH-RRR ( a Rockwell thingy) and called Romeo Romeo Romeo, to which EN TWR replied "Where for art thou Romeo"

I just replied "Albert Park"

Absolutely floored me, an ATC with a bit of culture and breeding.
Very much unexpected.

Back to FNC's, I remember this being mooted in the mid/late 80's but knocked on the head because of multi-sector flights eg TN 463 was CNS-TSV-BNE-MEL and the distinct possibility of missed connections seeing two flights with the same callsign in the same airspace at the same time. Having failed in that attempt the ATC bill senders then wanted the airlines to use bin (read transponder) codes as callsigns cos it made sending out airways charge invoices easier (for them). I seem to remember the airlines response was basically "no way" or words to that effect:ok:

Disco Stu

[Ausatco]

It must be a recycled rego, Stu. I remember that anecdote from outback WA in the early 70's.

It's an irresistable line, isn't it?

Cheers

AA

[Spotlight]

Stu

You are right it did start in the eighties. As an idea that bright sparks could pick up and run with. 'Sounds good', yeah 'real professional', almost American.

Pointing out that it also has unlimited scope for confusion could never dampen the zeal of people envisioning a new system.

[divingduck]

I remember the flak about FNC's the first time around.

Now having worked o/s for a few years, I find that the rest of the world use them..no major problems until you have IAC921 and AIC921 on freq at the same time, same goes with CPA and GFA..no problem on the RT but these sure do look the same on the radar.

But, if the rest of the world use them...it MUST be worlds best practice, nes pa?:yuk:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Agreed Diving Duck, generally over here no problems using Flight Numbers, but I again wonder whether the change was needed in Oz, as I still think rego. is less confusing than FNC's.
Agree on the IAC and AIC (Indair and AirIndia) 921 being a problem, as is the usual evening holding pattern with 8 UAE aircraft all spinning with callsigns, UAE 8, 18, 81, 181, 2, 12 etc etc. Has happened to me where the guy at the top of the stack has responded to the descend instruction for the guy on the bottom of the stack, because the aircraft involved were UAE 81 and UAE 812.

As a side note is it just me or would you think that a middle eastern airline such as Emirates, would avoid using the flight number 911 for obvious reasons. But it is a daily flight, thankfully not to New York I suppose.

By the way the Triple/Trip thing is only an Oz thing so everyone uses Triple C or Triple 9, when saying someones callsign over hear.

[V1OOPS]

but I again wonder whether the change was needed in Oz, as I still think rego. is less confusing than FNC's I can't see how the northern hemisphere could get by without resorting to FNCS, but having used both over the years my preference is firmly with rego callsigns. From a pilot's point of view in Oz, there's more potentially useful info in 3 letters, less chance of overlapping callsigns and less chance of mixing callsigns with headings, flight levels and times.

The latter point is a pet peeve. Number swapping is not uncommon, which suggests to me, that if the USA and Europe had a better choice than their vast numbers of airborne aircraft dictate, then they'd much rather use Regos too, but they can't without encountering 'alphabet overload'. Studies in the US have highlighted an increasing 'number overload' in most ATC instructions.

If their own studies have shown a problem, and while our airborne aircraft numbers are relatively and accommodatingly low, why not use Regos domestically in Oz?

[Heatseeker]

Rego's don't always work tho. Few years back there was a qantas two and a qantas one two and a qantas two two all bound for MEL around the same time. ATC chappie called up and asked if they could use their rego's as callsigns to cut down on the chance of any confusion. worked a treat. Next day similar prob, qantas two and qantas two two doing the same thing so same chappie called again to ask for rego's. No probs bob thinks skippyjet dispatcher until he looked at the plans. One was echo charlie bravo and other was echo bravo charlie. Sometimes it's better to stay at home. :hmm: :hmm:

BTW when one skippyjet gets delayed and is in the same place at the same time and with the same flight number tas another one the delayed one always gets the suffix delta added to the flt nbr.

Heat

[Buckshot]

Major airlines in Europe, such as BA and LH, have systems in place to avoid confusion with FNCs as they of course often resemble headings, altitudes, other aircraft callsigns etc.
By placing letters amongst the flight number, the callsign stands out more clearly.
EG: Speedbird 82WW or Lufthansa 9D9

[divingduck]

V1oops...

In Oz I had trouble with both FNC's and Fleet regos.
A couple of times the VH-JJ.. were the cause. On one morning shift in Perth I had about 5-6 of the damned things on frequency, and the wrong one accepted a level change that another had requested. Not a problem on the radar, but in procedural land...very disconcerting.

Of course in the old days we also had GIA898, 878,787,877 on freq and a few of the SIA's doing the same thing. Happend a couple of times that the wrong guy went up over the OCA between WA and Bali:uhoh:

Good thing about using regos is that you can attach a skin code to it...ahhh skin codes, no more of this being assigned an SSR code every flight!

[RFZ]

In an attempt to answer the original question as to why QF have decided to go to FNC for all flights, it is so the company can take full advantage of PDC's (Pre Deparure Clearance) and use the aircraft's data-link capability. Aparently these systems can not handle the aircraft regestration, probably a software issue, and so flight numbers need to be used.

[Jungmeister]

RFZ,

The TAAATS PDC system was tweaked to allow QANTAS rego callsigns to be used. The PDC system has been used successfully for about four years. The limitations in PDC use are because not all airline companies have the computer infrastructure via data links.

[nzer]

Only in Australia could the decision to change to a universally used system generate these responses!! It's like the Airspace thing - why are so many Australian (aviators, at any rate) "change resistant" ?

[compressor stall]

A brilliant exchange mid last week in pilbara area between Centre and a coastwatch aircraft (Headland area) over the merits of FNCs.

And some very witty replies from those two and the peanut gallery listening. Was chuckling for a while after that!

[Transition Layer]

Disco Stu

I was inbound to EN one day in VH-RRR ( a Rockwell thingy) and called Romeo Romeo Romeo, to which EN TWR replied "Where for art thou Romeo"

Very funny stuff, although your reply of "Albert Park" would have confused the controller somewhat!

"Where for art thou Romeo" actually translates to "Why is your name Romeo".

But now i'm just being a smartarse...again.

Cheers,
TL
:D