Bad aircraft callsigns

[autoflight]

I'm seriously concerned about confusing and inappropriate aircraft callsigns.

Has anyone done a full study of this matter, and is it possible to get access?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

There has been a phenomenal amount of work on "callsign confusion" over the years. However, speaking as someone with 35 experience in ATC and 50 years in communication as a hobby, I would say that a fair amount of "confusion" is caused by the users rather than by the combination of numbers. No doubt some genius will now say I'm wrong..

[Flybywyre]

We had one the other day, beat this:

Company.............Fomula 1
Call sign...........Formula 2

Does make you wonder doesn't it.

Regards
FBW

[10W]

autoflght,

A study was done by NATS and the industry a couple of years back, by co-incidence called ACCESS. However I don't think it's in the public domain.

You could ask the UK SRG if it's available I suppose.

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[Spotter]

Callsign confusion is not just related to similar callsigns. A fairly new one I have seen is a flight inbound to Glasgow (EGPF) with the suffix PH. (ie ABC12PH) As Glasgow and Edinburgh (EGPH) inbounds are controlled by the same Scottish TMA sector there is ample opportunity for an ATC error due to the association of PH with Edinburgh.

[information_alpha]

spotter: according to the latest incident logs, this callsign by a certain company did make a TMA controller vector a glasgow aircraft toward edinburgh initially, an report was filed regarding the callsign - it is very confusing. Another one that occurs at glasgow is an outbound with the callsign xxx474 with the complany inbound due at the same time xxx747!!! This is always being looked into - see the AIC's but the problems are still there

[1261]

And who's silly idea was xxx1014??

[Avoiding Action]

Doesn't just happen in the civil world.

I was controlling a 4-ship of Britain's premier (and only!) air defence fighter, who took off using the callsign XXX 1-3, and YYY 90 (90 was the boss, who had been up doing some general handling previously, but refused to change his c/s to XXX 4 when he joined the formation - presumably he had his reasons!). When they got into the operating area, they split into two pairs:

XXX 1 became Black 2
XXX 2 became Blue 1
XXX 3 became Blue 2
YYY 90 stayed as YYY 90 (instead of Black 1)

God, it made for an interesting half hour!

[Gonzo]

I would really like to meet the one responsible for the Midland 7777 doing a charter this morning from LHR to Catania I think. God, when Ground is going ape you don't need a callsign like that. Talk about a mouthfull.

Gonzo

[eyeinthesky]

How about SAS's latest bunch:

SAS 524, 542, 1532, 1542, 2532, 1541 and so on all up and down the North Sea at the same time on the same frequency.

I can understand that chance will cause two similar callsigns from different companies to be on the same frequency at the same time, but not the same company. That's just incompetence or stupid scheduling.

I suspect that it is yet another case of the engineers / computers taking precedence over common sense. Bit like having sector numbers instead of names really!.. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[information_alpha]

so what on earth have they been investigating for the last few years, it is just a matter of time before there is an almighty cock up

[autoflight]

Thank-you for the responses. 10W, I will contact you direct. I remain hopeful of contact information or a link for really serious study on this subject.

Its true, Heathrow Director - without users, there would be no confusion. Given that callsigns are a user facility, it is difficult to think of a short term method of eliminating this weak link. Neither do I think we can make our users perfect. There is always a certain amount of stress, pilots and controllers can be tired, or otherwise operating at less than 100%. Its clear that the most appropriate action is to clean up rotten callsigns. Any improvements that do not thereafter require additional operating skill, or attention to detail, must take precedence over other methods of reaching the same goal.

1261 and eyeinthesky, I think you both understand the plot. Any callsign that is too similar to another, or could be a common speed, flight level, heading, QNH etc, should be eliminated. Same for inappropriate figure repetition.

I am aware that most callsigns are simply the airline ident followed by flight number. It is amazing that commercial staff are therefore selecting aircraft callsigns. The evidence is there every day to show that this state of affairs represents a danger to aviation. Same airline confusion callsign confusion is intolerable, and should be forcefully notified. Between airlines is another matter that would require a certain amount of co-ordination, but there is no reason why this should not occur.

My airline is now attending to the worst of their own callsign problems, but I do not expect a leadership role, or extensive liaison with other airlines or aviation authorities. In fact, I don't want them to divert their precious resources away from other more significant safety matters that directly affect my own flights every day.

If I want to have my cake and eat it, real assistance is required. Air Traffic Controllers cannot escape responsibility for this problem. Its long past the time when controllers, world wide, took an effective role here. This stuff is your bread and butter. Do you have some world wide seminars? Can this matter be placed on the agenda, or is it a long dead issue?

What about aviation authority executives in individual countries or regions? Can some ATC managers actually make this issue more important in your own departments? It is not necessary to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with your good intentions. If you had a crystal ball that said there would be a callsign related mid air collision next week, in your airspace, with eight hundred fatalities, would you do anything in the next 7 days?

So - this post is your crystal ball. Its just a matter of time before it happens somewhere. It could be in your airspace next week. If you read PPRuNe, or this post has been brought to your attention by one of your controllers, the level of your individual responsibility just increased.

Ladies and gentlemen, please let us keep this subject alive. I would like to see input that is designed to actually achieve a result, rather than endless examples of bad callsigns.


[This message has been edited by autoflight (edited 15 April 2001).]

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The perfectly obvious answer is to revert to the "old" days of using aircraft registrations because with the numbers of a/c involved nowadays it would be impossible to ensure that no two similar callsigns are on frequency together.. A few years ago I was told that this would be impossible because of the work involved in updating every flight plan. However, in this computer-age it ought to be dead easy.

I still think that if pilots and controllers imporoved R/T technique many of the problems would be resolved. I had a case of confusion yesterday between two a/c whose callsigns were only vaguely confusing - pilot error on that occasion but I accept that we're all potentially to blame. Prior to that I cannot remember the last time I experienced the problem.

A problem I have noticed with trainees over the years is their tendency to try to talk fast - somethimes this continues after they validate and they often have to repeat instructions because crews - especially foreigners - don't understand. I think older voices - both ATCOs and pilots - are slower because they realise the wisdom of such technique. If you listen on frequency with a gabbling controller you soon notice the problems coming in.. pilots voices begin to sound a little unsure and then the squeal as two a/c reply...

Don't write this off as rubbish, it's based on 30 years experience in very busy airspace of someone genuinly interested in communications.

[5milesbaby]

I think someone needs to chat to Cityflyer too, heard too many times on their KK - JJ route on the flights 'CFE**WY', 'Flyer**YishkeeWankee'. And its not just ATC........ http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

[Der SimMeister]

... and there was I thinking the WY combination only caused a problem on the sims at CATC :) :)

[250 kts]

Can't be that difficult to go back to registrations. The Aussies use them now for their internal flights and seem to have no major problems with it.
Things have got slightly better since the bad old days on Daventry sector at about 0915 every day when it used to go like this : BMA202,BMA252,BMA2,BMA52,BMA652,DAN102 and DAN152. ABSOLUTELY MIND BLOWING!!

[Numpo-Nigit]

Whilst I subjectively agree with Heathrow Director that a return to aircraft registrations would help, I wonder whether, objectively, it is any better to have five similar letters then three or four similar numbers. Remember, airlines tend to register their aircraft in batches - GAPEA, GAPEB, GAPEC, etc (showing my age here). Still, at least you ALWAYS knew what type of aircraft it was on initial call.

As to whether ATC can actually DO anything about the problem, even on a world-wide basis, I believe there are just too many fingers in the pie. Airlines love their flight numbers in "logical" blocks - e.g. all flights to Spain start with a six, and first flight of the day on each route ends in a one. It must be great for crewing and operations departments, but it makes it hell for pilots and ATC.

As regards specifics, we've all done the Flyer WY error, but at least he/she never gets confused with anybody else 'cos we're all listening hard for the next voice to make THE mistake. And, someone should tell FOR2 (Formula One, flight 2) that calling himself Formula 2 is incorrect. I was sorely tempted to file a 1261 on him this morning.

[Avman]

Agree with Heathrow Director and Numpo-Nigit. Another problem is that whilst some carriers have made an effort to solve callsign confusion at their hubs they often run into problems further down the line. I don't think the problem can ever be eradicated. It comes down to good r/t discipline and, as HD rightly pointed out, avoiding rushed transmissions. I would add avoid clipping your own transmissions by depressing the tx button one second prior to actually speaking. This goes for pilots and controllers. I don't like these alphanumeric
weirdo callsigns BAW/BMA/SAB use.

[beaglepup]

I think a few years ago, Britania changed to alpha-numeric [BAL123A] 'cos "Johnny Furriner" was mistaking them for Dan Air!!

[AyrTC]

Bring back

"Dan Air Bravo Four Fox Zulu"

That use to slow everyone's R/T down
:)
AyrTc

[BEXIL160]

At least the Dan Air "experiment" had some logic to it.

As I recall it went something like this:

eg DA B6ER
Dan Air
B= domestic C= Intl
4= BAC111 6= HS748
last two letters = sector specific.

Didn't last long though did it? Dan soon reverted to the numbers only.

rgds BEX

[BuzzLightyear]

Callsign confusion will always be with us I think. Can remember BA going to alphanumerics to try to ease the confusion caused by figures only. Still remember working North Sea with BAW 75CC and BAW 775C meeting at BEENO everyday. BA couldn't see the problem!!!

Now elsewhere and my problem is the tongue twisters that some companies seem to like. Try saying Bristow 70 Z quickly.....

------------------
To infinity and beyond

[cvuser01id]

Perhaps we're getting a little off topic here, but anyhow I am more comfortable with anything that makes sense such that I can do my mental modelling of what's going on.

So DA79FZ sounds like a positioning flight for a N727 in the old days and BAW35AM is going to EHAM these days (or maybe it's coming from...)

I approve of the Brits getting coordinated with charter c/s e.g. Britannias have A/Bs for out and back, Jetset have C/D and JMC have K/L suffixes.

[Rad1]

Numpo-Nigit makes a goods point that trip numbers can be used to provide the operating company with a great deal of information about the flight - but this doesn't mean that a bit of common sense can't be used when coming up with the system.

ATC, of course, don't need to be able to glean nearly as much info about the flight - only enough to know what to call it whilst it's in the particular controller's sector or whatever, and most of that comes off the flight plan. But don't BAW use different R/T callsigns to trip numbers (that the passengers know the flights as) on some flights (Shuttles are the ones that come to mind)? Does anyone know whether this is to avoid c/s confusion? And does it work?

The general point that this is something that needs to be looked at seems to be well illustrated but it needs the airlines to work together on this - if they don't it's only a matter of time before 'someone' sets the rules for them and comes up with a scheme that works for ATC but doesn't do any favours for the airlines. Just because it would be impossible to co-ordinate a worldwide system shouldn't stop the UK (or any other countries) addressing this problem. Once one country is sorted many of the problems will be resolved and then whoever co-ordinates it all can concentrate on the remaining problems.

[beaglepup]

On finals, xxx842, lined up for take off, yyy842.
Good innit?

[Lurk R]

Another factor I believe is that "8" is a superstitious lucky number for Asians. Hence a high proportion of flights in and around Asia seem to have 8 in the call sign somewhere...

[surfingatco]

I remember when we had Air Malta 102, Air India 102, Libyan 102 and Kuwaiti 102 sometimes arrive at the same time! Ah! sweet nostalgia!
I filed a 1261 on BMA440 and BMA480 a while back. I had warned each about each other, and when I descended BMA 480, emphasing the "8" in my intonation, they both read it back!! I got good feedback from my report and after hearing the tape BMA said they were going to enter an ASR into BASIS (thought that was BA?), Company nav logs would include warnings re c/s confusion in future, and the callsign assigner will look at the problem.

BTW, I still can't say "BMA1NL" http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[form49]

Don't worry about not being able to say BMA9NL, neither can half of the pilots, the sad thing is that they actuallly chose the callsign!!!


------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established

[Cough]

AC Registrations - Many airlines now use series for registrations e.g. G-DOC{} for many of their B737-400's. Imagine this on approach freq. Many mistakes, or maybe just the same as today!

[Kirk to Enterprise]

JMC have just started ending all their KK o/bs with L and all th i/bs with K. Or is it the other way round?

Could get interesting in the summer if it's not stamped on PDQ!

------------------
Kirk out

[Mad-Air]

Just thought you guys should know that when SBE becomes XLA (Excel), which is w.e.f 1st May, we will be using EXPO as the call sign! Nice!! ;)
What am I saying! I reckon that you "rackers and stackers" would've known that before us!!

By the way, visited LATCC the other month with a couple of colleagues from SBE, I think you do a superb job....couldn't do it myself though.....

------------------
Watch out...
Too Err is Human.....
To Forgive is not Company
Policy.....!

[This message has been edited by Mad-Air (edited 21 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mad-Air (edited 21 April 2001).]

[HugMonster]

Our company used to have all flights inbound to any particular airport use the same alpha suffix. Daft. It just raises the likelihood of callsign confusion.

Two alpa suffixes is a mouthful (try saying Sierra X-ray five times fast) and increases the length of time on frequency. Bear in mind that only two numbers, 7 and 0 have two syllables (or three if you count 9 "nin-er") whereas only G and M have fewer than two syllables in the phonetic alphabet. Several have three.

My company has just changed to using two numbers and a letter, and it works very well. In the early days we hade two instances of callsign confusion with flights of another operator, but we've changed those conflictions, and cases of callsign confusion have plummeted.

Using all registrations is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of. Firstly, many companies have aircraft registrations in sequence, as has been pointed out, thus increasing callsign confusion. Also, can you explain how you put an RPL in with an aircraft reg? Not to mention having to change the flight plan if you have a late change of aircraft...

[Capt Pit Bull]

I think part of the problem here is the unsuitability of some company callsigns. E.G. "CITYFLYER" gets regularly (always) abbreviated to "FLYER", which just happens to sound very similar to "Niner". Or if ennunciated lazily "FLYa" sound like "Five".

E.G. (real incident), 2 aircraft almost overlaping horizontally.

Jersey 947J @ FL180.
Flyer 47JA @ FL160.

ATC "Flyer 47JA Descend FL 100"
Jersey 947J (omitting company callsign)
"947J Descend FL100"

ATC didn't spot it, fortunately we did (on the ball - for once!), otherwise could have been nasty.

Basically, my point is that the geezers who thought up the revised phonetic alphabet went to great lengths to try and minimise the possibility of number / letter combinations getting transposed, then we just lob in any old company callsigns that somebody thinks sound cool, thereby invalidating the whole phonetic system.

As a tounge in cheek suggestion, how about using the surnames of the crew as the callsign. You wouldn't miss that would you?

"Volestrangler & Handlebar-Moustache, turn left 10 degrees and report your new heading!"

When you apply for an RT licence, anyone named "Smith" would be obliged to change name by deedpoll.

CPB

[chiglet]

When I do Pennine Radar, my (non-standard) C/S is "Midland 5 Tatty Whiskers" to Tees Side.
Does this help?

[Stan By]

Captain Pit Bull,

Have just checked in the ICAO designators for aircraft operating agencies, and they reckon the callsign for Cityflyer Express is "Flyer". Could that be why the majority of ATCO's refer to them as that?

[Pointer]

In the afternoon we come in to London airspace with VG Two,One,One,One ! it is much more easy to just call it two triple one, but ofFcourse thats not proper...

Any one knows the controller thats strugling with the awwr like Wubens twipple twee?

no offence.....just grasping for some air.

[Data Dad]

Well the dumbest allocation I know of is:

Tayside Aviation callsign Tayside code TFY
Tayflite Limited c/s Tayflite code TYF

and yep...they are both based at the same airport! :mad:

[EarlyGo]

Out of EGBB in the afternoons, within 5 minutes of each other, same company, are XXX5975 and XXX9579. At least they're on different SIDs, but if TC Cowly and Welin are bandboxed....nice! Surely this sort of thing is just asking for trouble?

[HugMonster]

Dead right that sort of thing is asking for trouble.

In the first instance, I would advise a CHIRP report on that.

If it DID result in an instance of callsign confusion, I would suggest an MOR.

[Capt Pit Bull]

OK, I stand corrected (The company callsign isn't actually on any of our routine paperwork, I noticed that when ever I go somewhere new that the ATCOs tend to call us CITYFLYER to start with).

But doesn't that make my point even stronger?

i.e. FLYER is an even dumber company callsign than CITYFLYER from a phonetic point of view.

Presumably the potential for callsign confusion is not considered when ICAO decide whether to issue a company callsign?

CPB

[beaglepup]

Past couple of duties
XXX024A
XXX240A
Same time,same pushback, and.........

[chiglet]

Inboud to EGCC today Blank108 and 208 within 5 mins,(same airline) Or can I use RTF?