phraseology squawk

[ICING AOA]

Why does everybody answer "Ident you have" when the air traffic controler request "squawk ident (please)" ?? :ugh::ugh:

The correct phraseology is just "Ident" and that's it !!! :D

[bflyer]

Hi...that's the first time i heard this term beign used...usually,the guys say.....identing,or identing followed by the code..and i've been flying in the middle east,north africa,europe for the last 20 years
could you tell me which region/airline..it is used in?

[ICING AOA]

well, at least in UK !!! Most pilots from all UK airlines (thomson, BA, Monarch, easy, GB, flybe, etc,..) use this strange phraseology "Ident you have" !! :ugh:

[Kestrel_909]

Something that has crept in, much like Fully ready, Ident coming down or XXXX in the box and identing before being asked.

[Intruder]

Why is a verbal reply required at all? Hit the button!

[Dan Winterland]

I've always thought that no response was required, except for pushing the ident button. If you've heard the request, the controller will have his reply when he sees an ident. That's all I've done for about 25 years and it's never been questioned by a controller. And it keeps the airwaves quieter.

BTW. Do you know whay a squawk is called a squawk? Well, it's because during WW2, the first transponders were a system called IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) and like many pieces of classified equipment, it was given a code name. IFF's was parrot. So when you parrot was interrogated, it gave out a squawk!

[eastern wiseguy]

Good man Dan....and I wish that the squawking without being requested would stop...really not helpful!

[galaxy flyer]

I agree, Dan, nothing need be said. I was also taught when a new squawk code was given, simply enter it in the box correctly. If it is wrong the ATCO will tell you. Let the transponder do the talking--it is called SQUAWK for a reason.:ok:

[Dom Joly]

Surely as an instruction from an ATC unit, it should be read back to the station to confirm the correct squawk. I understand your intentions/validity of not replying but the Iran Air incident is a case in point where the correct squawk was vitally important.

As to the correct response to the call, I think it's splitting hairs. There should be a correct phraseology for this but I believe "Ident(ing) XXXX", "Squawk XXXX" even "XXXX Coming Down" seem to be internationally recognised by the ATC stations I have spoken to.

[fireflybob]

CAP 413 states that "SSR Operating Instructions" should be readback in full.

[Intruder]

Well, I suppose that's yet another leftover directive that predates concern over congested airwaves...

Thirty-something years back I was taught that an "Ident" request need only be followed by pushing the button. I've followed that since, nad have only been asked for a verbal response a handful of times.

It really is silly... If you hear and comply, the controller will see the result before you can reply verbally. If it doesn't work, or you didn't hear, another verbal exchange will be required regardless.

[Loose rivets]

I like quiet on the airwaves, but surely, isn't there is a chance of the wrong A/C pressing the little red button ?

[Dream Land]

I simply answer by acknowledging the request with my call sign, sounds like more needless slang creeping in. :bored:

[Gary Lager]

As mentioned here already, crews often (incorrectly) squawk ident wihout being asked.

We need to readback the squawk ident instruction so that the ATCO can confirm that the correct aircraft has done so - instances of aircraft squawking within being asked or taking instructions intended for others are abound, as I'm sure we recognise.

If an aircraft is required to ident at all, it is because the ATCO wishes to identify an aircraft unambiguously - they can't do that without a readback.

Hence CAP413, regardless of what we were 'taught'.

I think 'ident you have' is lazy phraseology, but I don't think it's the end of civilisation!

Now "ready on reaching", that's another story.....:mad:

[wingedwilliam]

So "ready on reaching" IS the end of civilisation then... Can you elaborate a little bit?

WW.

[Jaguar Pilot]

The world is full of unofficial, and often incorrect, RT.

Within ICAO, and that includes the UK, SSR instructions are mandatory read-back items and must be read back in full.

JP

[Dream Land]

Fully ready on reaching? :}

[ICING AOA]

Fully ready on reaching? :}


what about the difference between "ready" and "fully ready" ? :confused::bored:


It's like "affirm" and "correct" ! have never really understood the nuance :(

[WhiskeyDelta]

If you read back a request to ident and the controller sees nothing on his screen he can reasonably assume that the aircraft has a faulty transponder.

If you do not read back a request to ident and the controller sees nothing on his screen then a whole world of possibilities opens up, from comms failure to a proper nasty, resulting in a lot more comms traffic while he tries to find out.

I was always taught to read back an ident request... and it only occupies the frequency for about 2 seconds.

WD

[outofsynch]

I hate the 'fully ready' call.... sounds daft, and I wonder what would happen if I call 'semi-ready' one day.
Same goes for 'fully established' (ILS)
Sorry for the thread creep!

[Gary Lager]

elaboration as requested:

You're either ready for departure or you're not. You may believe you will be ready on reaching the holding point but there is no guarantee, and most of us with experience will be able to recall occasions when situations have arisen during taxi which affected our ability to depart.

Why not wait until you are ready before clogging the freq with unnecessary (and in my experience, often misunderstood by non-UK ATS) RT?

It seems the intention of crews who call "ready on reaching" is to influence ATC into expediting their line-up & departure. Whether made with innocent intentions or as a result of crews rushing to get away, I think at best it is unprofessional use of non-standard RT, and at worst ambiguous and potentially risky.

The standard CAP413 phrase is 'ready for departure'; if, and only if, you are.

Thread creep, sorry. I've no more to elaborate on!