Callsigns

[javelin]

While struggling across the pond last evening, it struck me what a different mishmash of callsigns there are and what confusion they can cause. As the airwaves get very clogged, espescially around the TMA's how about this for a suggestion.

All operators may only use their identifier plus 3 numbers.

We don't need 4 numbers, we don't need letters, shuttles or any other add ons. There are enough combinations to allow even the busy low costers to come up with enough callsigns for the day.

This would reduce confusion, shorten transmissions and enable clearer and more concise communication.

Now, if this seems to be a good idea from you 'communicators', how would we suggest it to them that be ?

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

It seems like a nice idea on the face of it, but many of the alpha-numeric mixes have evolved over time to prevent callsign confusion. If every day ABC101 is passing through the same airspace as ABS101, why not rename one flight ABC2T? After all, the callsign doesn't really have to relate to the flight number.

G w-H

[spekesoftly]

It can be especially tricky when two or more aircraft from the same Airline, scheduled at similar times, also have a similar numerical callsign.

"XXX 7011", "XXX 7101", "XXX 7001" etc. :ugh:

Could it not be easy for companies to avoid this? ;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

There have been many attempts over the years to come up with a foolproof method to prevent callsign confusion without success.
Javelin's idea wouldn't work - the very reason that there are so many combinations is because the three-digit ones caused so much confusion and danger. Also, if an airline changed it's call sign by one digit to prevent callsign confusion at Heathrow that same callsign might become confused with another one elsewhere.

The only system which would be guaranteed to work would be to revert to a/c registration letters/numbers because they are unique to the individual aircraft. So why not?

[FlightDetent]

From my (novice) pilot view not a good idea. I cannot comment on reason for confusion amongst controllers, but the cockpit sort does have a lot to do with selective hearing. I mean to say that we need not to miss a call aimed at us and, simultaneously, listening to all and full callsigns being adressed over radio would put one effectively out of the cockpit. The first tone, letter matters. To my surprise, e.g. CSA mixes quite easily with EZY! Rather recently, our 6 or so morning services westbound on London sectors would present themselves as CSA 6nn. 653 and 681 are not similar at all, but being distracted once every three minutes by other CSA6.. call for a period of two hours is not benefical. Now we do use some alphanumerics and it is an absolute delight.

Using registrations, magnitudes of aircraft would share the leading tone, this pulling a constant stream of much needed and sometimes lacking alertness out of our heads (both pilots and ATCOs).

Using non-abbreviated versions would take up valuable R/T time, compare "Malaysian1" with G-BUSH or G-EUUK, let alone the "funny" comments. :rolleyes:. Abbreviated is an absolute no-no, the propensity to mistake/confusion would be even higher than with 3-digit versions.

Another factor I think is relevant (let's get corrected by some fine ATC proffesional, ;) ?) is the (loss of) ability to match livery to call-signs.

Over to you...

Cheers,
FD.

[Loki]

FD:

Sorry, can`t match livery to callsigns, as the radar I use isn`t quite good enough (yet)

[FlightDetent]

Pun taken. However, at 10 miles, it is still a vapour trail (the best) and a dark dot. No use for livery anyway, sou you are not getting THOSE gadgets anytime near. :D

I was rather aiming at ground operations. There's no such comfort as hearing "Swiss123 extend your push-back to allow a CSA B737 inbound from block 77 (history) to enter stand 213," closely followed by "CSA981 stand 213, follow the greens, the Swiss Airbus will provide enough space foah yeahow.

Also, I understand the reservations that our American friend have towards "behind landing XY ABC line-up RWYnn behid" concept, but being able to maintain situational awareness linking audio (R/T) with video (looking out) is one of the point that makes ME comfortable with it. I suppose awareness it is the core of all native/non-native language disputes on PPRuNe also. After all, men were not built to fly. :{

Cheers,
FD.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<After all, men were not built to fly>>

Right - if they were God would have given ATCOs 10% air fares!

[chiglet]

Yonks ago, Britania changed to "alpha numeric" c/s because of confusion with "Dan Air " c/s :confused:
watp, iktch

[Jerricho]

Using non-abbreviated versions would take up valuable R/T time, compare "Malaysian1" with G-BUSH or G-EUUK, let alone the "funny" comments

Smart @rse comments aside for the funnier registrations, some callsigns can be an absolute mouthful, especially when you have alpha-numerics of 4 letters. HD's suggestion of using the registration is a great one, perhaps even with the operator chucked in at the beginning for the "abbreviation" eg QANTAS VH-EAA could become QANTAS AA.

[ILS 119.5]

Have quite often heard arond the London TMA and other places the phrase, was that for us. Callsign confusion is a big factor for incidents and needs to be addressed. Operators assign callsigns for ease and convenience not for operational reasons. As professionals we need to make this point to the ops staff who give us the conflicting callsigns. We should do this directly, or if this fails then MOR or CHIRP will solve the problem. MOR's & CHIRP work, believe me. If you have a problem then use the methods I have just mentioned.

[FlightDetent]

Ok, now there are 25 fine orange 737s on british register (http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp) with G-EZJx, this making it Easy-Yankee-something with 25 options. I would suppose the aircraft make about 10 sectors a day. G-EZYx is very much the same story. The pool of callsigns available to cover certain amount of operations would limited against the options that are commonplace, thus increasing the potential for a mistake.

Or, how would you feel about resolving two aircraft registered __-XGA and __-YGA of the same operator? These even look similar on the screen, not to mention hand-writing, don't they?

And back on the livery issue, there are operators flying aircraft registered elseware, Aeroflot just to mention one. I still believe one would lose an important bit.

The "Level Best" video provided courtesy of NATS, rates alphanumerics above pure digits as well. But it better be carefully selected say I, e.g. NUJJ is not a viable option.

Operators assign callsigns for ease and convenience not for operational reasons.

Can't agree with that until it involves the "some..." word or alike. DLH went alphanumerics on big scale just to prevent confusions. Ms.-would-be-FD. spent whole week or more soliciting flight permits issues with some Moscow officials after she had changed callsigns. Thanks to her no longer do I get to meet opposite company traffic overhead RVSM entry/exit point shuffling from feetish to metrical FL (me performing the oppsite) under a very lousy R/T environment. Oh yes, I forgot the call-signs, 863&864, Now history.

FD.

[BEXIL160]

Been here before, several times....

Dan Air had a go at the alpha numerics with things like DA B6 ER = DanAir Bravo Six Echo Romeo (HS74 for those that remember).... they gave it up.

Since then many othr have had a go with varying degrees of success, the lastest being DLH.

It's working.. sort of.

I actually would quite like to try the AMERICAN system of callsign plus FOUR numbers, with the numbers in "pairs" using plain English to say them eg:

AAL4469 becomes American Fourty Four Sixty Nine
UAL2743 becomes United Twenty seven Fourty Three

Sounds a bit "Hollywood" on the face of it, but nothing much else has worked, and , sad to say, I haven't seen RT discipline getting any better on either side of the mic.

rgds BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<AAL4469 becomes American Fourty Four Sixty Nine
UAL2743 becomes United Twenty seven Fourty Three

Sounds a bit "Hollywood" on the face of it, but nothing much else has worked, and , sad to say, I haven't seen RT discipline getting any better on either side of the mic.>>

Agree entirely, Bex.. I have to admit that for most of my career I used to use the same phraseology as the guy who called me.. so if Speedbird 123 called as "Speedbird one twenty-three" then that's what I used on the grounds that he would more readily respond to something he had just said. It always worked despite the fact that it was wrong. But there is still no substitute for a properly delivered transmission. The gabblers always claim that they are too busy to speak in measured tones, yet how often do they have to repeat themselves?

[Jerricho]

Not that long ago in the London TMA Lufthansa changed their callsign numbers to those of BMI. The number of times a DLH was referred to as BMI was way to many to count.

[FlightDetent]

Oh yes, the great lenghts one needs to fly for decent foxtrot niner ... :(

[javelin]

Good to see some interesting debate. This forum always seems to generate a better than average response, and I come from the front end !

I agree with Bexil & H Director that the American way works and is quicker to say and usually more understandable. I would call my self XXX thirty three, or XXX sixty one for an example of my two favourite destinations - you get the idea though.

We had XXX 6878 allocated the other day and it caused no end of problems, least of which was that normally we operate a zero plus 2 digit callsign over the pond, i.e. XXX 033 and on HF, they were getting very confused.

I will start to ASR if I feel things get confused in future.

[chiglet]

A couple of good ones out of Manch....
34D.......nice:D
5BJ.......Yes puleeeeze:ok:
watp, iktch

[Timothy]

I use registration and am constantly frustrated by controllers' inability to get the callsign right. I had to give it to Nice six times last Wednesday before they finally got it right, and today after I was asked for the third time by Lyons I spelt it out very slowly ....Golf .....Lima ......India ......Zulu .......Zulu and she came back with "Roger GILZZ", which I didn't bother correcting. By the next transmission I was F-ZZ.

Nope, reg isn't the answer :rolleyes:

[tmmorris]

For GA I appreciate, as a pilot, the American use of aeroplane types (Warrior 141, Citation 2BX, &c) as this helps me get some idea of the likely speed. That said, Cessna xxx or Piper xxx tells me very little...

Agree though that registrations are often difficult to get over correctly to a hard-worked controller - especially ones that are tongue-twisters (I fly a G-CBFO at the moment and it's a nightmare).

Tim

[duknweev]

Downunder flight-number callsign group format is now mandatory for ATC. I was under the impression this was an ICAO thing but by the sounds of it, probably an American import.

Interestingly it is BAW and SIA that seem to have the biggest issues (and some QFA jumbo skips).

Adds a few extra syllables here and there but reduces callsign confusion.

[FlyingForFun]

I sometimes wonder whether you guys get confused by hearing unusual call-signs. I guess this wouldn't apply when a flight plan has been filed, but for GA that's often not the case.

For example, the school where I'm doing my Flying Instructor Course has their own call signs. Just about every flight they do will be a local VFR flight from their base airfield (Wellesbourne Mountford), we very rarely have any reason to contact any controllers other than Wellesbourne Information. But we considered heading to Coventry to do some night-flying when we found that night-flying season at Wellesbourne had stopped sooner than we expected - and I wonder what Coventry ATC would have made of a call-sign they'd never heard before turning up un-announced. The same applies to any LARS providers, etc. Must be quite difficult to make out what we're calling ourselves if it's not a name you know and it's not an aicraft registration?

FFF
----------------