7500 response

[radar1]

Question for both pilots and ATCOs. Please no "we cant discuss this here" posts ...

Aircraft hijacked. Pilot squawks 7500. In the centre, alarm goes off and label flashes. Controller notices label. Asks pilot .... and this is where the question is. As we are taught it, we are supposed to say

"CONFIRM SQUAWKING ASSIGNED CODE"

Possible Responses:

1. AFFIRM
2. NEGATIVE
3. No repsonse
4. Say again

Which one means, "Yes, I am being hijacked" ??


However, an airline ops manual I recently read says the expected response from ATC is

"CONFIRM SQUAWKING A7500"

This to me makes more sense, because ...


1. AFFIRM means yes, hijack
2. NEGATIVE means No, not hijacked
3. No repsonse means likelihood of hijack


We were taught from day one, NEVER mention the number 7500 on the frequency ...


So, what IS the correct response?

And should the two at least not be the same.

Thankfully, Ive never had to deal with this one, however, I think I would like to know what to say if I did.

As a final note, a recent NWA incident involved a pilot sqawking 7500 enroute to AMS, without knowing it. I presume he wasnt asked "Confirm squawking 7500", because then he would have checked the Tx. So it seems the UK have the same thoughts on this?

Answers on a postcard ...

[Rad1]

Interesting one posed by my near namesake.

Happened to me once - but I failed to use the correct phraseology (just couldn't remember it). Despite mentioning the taboo numbers the response I got from the crew was completely puzzling and for a couple of minutes I was unsure whether there was some unlawful interference going on. In the event, of course, it was simply finger trouble.

With the benefit of hindsight it might be useful to have some standard response if the code is set in error which, if it sprang to the crew's mind, would do away with misunderstanding. It does undermine some of the benefits of the procedure though.

Interested in other thoughts.

[Aluminium Importer]

radar1

Agree completely. What it all comes down to is:

What does the 'assigned code' actually mean?

I would suggest that it means the code assigned to a hijacking (7500), not the code assigned by a previous sector or aerodrome.

Therefore, I would expect the answer by the pilot to be 'affirm', although I would not be 100% sure whatever the response given.

Heathrow Director or Warped Factor, any ideas?!

Despite radar1's first paragraph, I would suggest that a moderator looks at this thread ASAP, just to be safe....!

AI

[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 23 April 2001).]

[Bagheera]

The question and the answer are both pointless.
The idea is to get the pilot to check his transponder without using the fabled numbers over the R/T.
If there is unlawful interference then the aircraft will continue to squawk 7500 no matter what the pilots response.
If their is no interference then after an embarrassed silence the proper squawk will come up.

[yakkity]

Hey guys,
I was always taught to ask the aircraft:
"confirm squaking (eg) 1234 (whichever was his assigned code)."
he would then have to reply either
"affirm " or "Negetive" , no response would state the obvious.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I am keeping an eye on this one.

At the moment, everything said is public domain (either online or by purchasing the publications). Let's keep it that way.

yakkity has the correct phraseology for the UK.

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[form49]

I was taught "confirmsquawking the assigned code 1234"
That way, any response (or non response) other than "oops sorry!!" would mean exactly what the 7500 converts to.


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

[Gonzo]

Much as Form49,

I was trained that any answer other than 'ummmm, oooops, sorry' would be treated as bad news.

Gonzo

[information_alpha]

yup me too, confirm squawking 1234 and the answer speaks for itself!

[Four Seven Eleven]

A few points:

A pilot who is asked to"Confirm squawking 1234" may look down at the transponder and confirm this visually. Under some circumstances, the numbers on the box will not have changed. No indication to the pilot that there is anything wrong, and they respond "Affirm, code 1234" Result??? Hijack or not?

The real issue, despite people saying they have been 'trained' to expect certain things, is that no-one KNOWS, because there is no standard procedure.

------------------
Regards
4711

"The bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking." — Jonathon Swift

[information_alpha]

re the above, there are three answers i would expect to the question "confirm squawking 1234"

1. "Affirm, squawking 1234" in this case i would assume there was a hijack situation and the pilot was avoiding mentioning 7500 in case the hijackers are listening - the same reason we do not mention the 7500. this must be the meaning of the answer as as far as i am aware there is no way that a transponder showing 1234 in a cockpit could result in 7500 showing on radar.

2. "Negative, sqawking 7500" speaks for itself

3. "Ummm sorry, hang on a minute and i will recycle etc" pilot error no hijack

this was what i was taught and i think it would work - although never have had the chance to test it.

[Mooney]

radar1,

I'd rather you followed your OPS manual and use the term "CONFIRM SQUAWKING ASSIGNED CODE" if we had it on!

[information_alpha]

mooney, our ops manual - MATS p1 states:

Whenever it has been established that the a/c is transponding on SSR code A7500 the atco shall attempt to verify by RTF with the aircraft concerned that the code selection is intentional. THE PHRASEOLOGY TO BE USED IS:

"..(callsign).. confirm you are sqawking assigned code ..(code assigned by atc).."
___________

This is the way every observed 7500 sqawk should be dealt with. Training controllers are instructed to deal with situations this way too.

As i have said before i feel that the answer that is given by the pilot can't be misunderstood.

[form49]

Information_alpha, I agree whole heartedly, the pilots reply couldn't be misunderstood, if the correct phraseology as per MATS part 1 appendix E is to be followed, if the pilot states "Affirm, squawking 1234," then we have to assume the worst.
If there is no reply then we have to assume the worst.
If "Negative squawking 7500" then we have to assume the worst!

In my opinion, it speaks foritself!!
Maybe this is one that should be posted on the Rumours forum, just to get a few extra opinions from the guys and gals in the air!!!

It might help us all out!


Edited for poor synatx!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established

[This message has been edited by form49 (edited 29 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by form49 (edited 29 April 2001).]

[Attendance Monitor]

Radar 1
Great question and one I have often discussed with trainees. And not satisfactorily covered at the College of ATC.Keep this thread going please, and discuss it at your ATSU's. Judging by the variety of responses so far, there's a lot of confusion within the ATC community so my sympathy goes out to any pilots out there who might have the misfortune some day to have to exchange pleasantries with a non-fare-paying visitor to the flight deck (and I don't mean an ATC freeloader.)In the meantime stick to MATS Part 1 phraseology. Is there a SRG bod out there who might care to co-ordinate some AO/ATS provider dialogue on this topic?