Confirm aircraft type pedantry

[Depone]

With Mode S and many airlines using a single type, why clog the airwaves with this verbosity?

I'm looking at you Essex Radar and also you Gatwick Director (both of whom do a fantastic and professional job in the main).

Curious.

[Talkdownman]

Because sometimes the aircraft type does not match that entered on the FPL. This might affect Wake Turbulence separation and therefore SAFETY could be compromised. It is NOT pedantry for the sake of it.

[10W]

Mode S does not indicate aircraft type, only identity. As others have said, if we could depend on pilots and operators getting it right in the FPL 100% of the time, we wouldn't need the confirmation. But we can't.

[obwan]

Depone, you are obviously out of your depth, stick to your day job.:ugh:

[Mikehotel152]

Talkdownman and 10W, fair responses to the question.

Obwan, grow up.

The question was made in the context of the query by another poster about the use of the term 'squawk ident'. I do not see this question as being any less worthy of discussion.

You will find that many commercial pilots find reporting their aircraft type a bit annoying at their home base. This is especially so when their airline only flies one type and both the pilot and the controller know this.

If controllers are happy when an aircraft checks in and idents before the controller's response, even when this is apparently contrary to the rules, surely they might not be pedantic when a pilot omits to mention aircraft type when checking in?

[BOAC]

This is especially so when their airline only flies one type and both the pilot and the controller know this. - do you know what a sub-charter is?

[blissbak]

Some pilots are now used to provide it out of the UK too, talking about ryanair and easy it's totally useless :O

[terrain safe]

So when Easy chartered a 757 for the summer season a couple of years ago?

[twentypoint4]

"Radar, EZY9007...... A319"

"EZY9007, Radar..... Confirm A319, my info shows you as an A320?"

"Errr sorry, yes, we are an A320, EZY9007".

The amount I get that type of conversation surprises me. A slip of the tongue, or does the pilot/co-pilot actually think he/she's flying a different type of plane? Whether you're in an A319 or A320 means diddly squat to a radar controller, or probably even the ground handlers, but surely it's handy for YOU to know exactly which one you're flying???

I don't mean to just blame EZY, just seemed appropriate in my example for some reason. Other airlines do it too!

[i_like_tea]

So when Easy chartered a 757 for the summer season a couple of years ago?

True, but then again, I doubt it would have had an EZY call sign?

The amount I get that type of conversation surprises me. A slip of the tongue, or does the pilot/co-pilot actually think he/she's flying a different type of plane? Whether you're in an A319 or A320 means diddly squat to a radar controller, or probably even the ground handlers, but surely it's handy for YOU to know exactly which one you're flying???

Actually it means more to the ground handlers than anyone probably, the loading procedure is different!
Whilst it sounds a bit "silly", don't forget that it looks exactly the same in the pointy end so it is easy for a slip of the tongue to occur when you fly a 19 99% of the time.

[twentypoint4]

The 757's did have EZY call-signs by the way.

Interestingly Ryanair are operating a Lear45 at the moment using a Ryanair call-sign... I'm guessing it's being used to ferry a certain CEO around. This could cause quite a tasty loss of separation on final approach if the controller had reason to believe it was a B738!

[whitelighter]

Titan aviation operate 146s, 737s, 757s and a 767 from EGSS and frequently fly using airline call signs. These are often short notice aircraft replacement flights where flight plan data may be incorrect.

There are lots of examples where the question is far from pedantry

[Lon More]

Had a very nice example once where a certain car manufacturer operated a BA11 and a G159. The blip, BA11 in the flightplan, looked a bit slow so I queried the type. The answer came back, "One Eleven" and the sound of someone being thumped was audible before he released the Tx button. Then "Sorry, Gulfstream" Not a big problem at a UAC, but the wrong info would have been passed down the line. Could be fatal should anything have gone horribly wrong
Easy to fall into complacency.

Check, check, and check again if you have any doubts

[10 DME ARC]

Here in DXB happens all the time, yesterday alone I had two, A320 on strip A300 operating flight and B738 on strip A333 operating flight!! If I had put a medium behind what I thought was another Medium!!!

[Lon More]

Shortly before retirement i was somewhat peeved when a 747 was substituted for a 73. Nothing in the plan and as it was busy I happily vectored another 73 five miles across behind him. Only afterwards did I get a lecture - on a busy freq - from the captain of the second a/c complaining about wake turbulence. The annoying thing was was that he had visual contact with his traffic and I'd also given him traffic info clearly stating "another 737" . In non RVSM airspace so he could have eased up 100 feet and missed it

[BeT]

The Ryanair Learjet 45 is being operated as RYR1. We asked the pilot the other day on freq and he reported to be carrying engineers (flying to Bulgaria).

OP: Cretin.

[Gingerbread Man]

You will find that many commercial pilots find reporting their aircraft type a bit annoying at their home base. This is especially so when their airline only flies one type and both the pilot and the controller know this.


FlyBe don't have any Fokker 50s, but one pitched up flying one of their routes recently. It's the same WT category as a Q400, but i'm just saying - you can get caught out if you don't check. It's also required for referring to an item of traffic;

"G-OD, No.3. No.2 is a ...."

"After the 737 crossing right to left, taxi holding point...." etc.

[Helen49]

Confusion over types has also been known to cause runway incursion problems.

[Spitoon]

It's not just wake vortex. I recall watching a trainee vectoring a KLM CityHopper onto the ILS behind one of the based 737s. It was normally an F100 (or maybe a 28) but on that day it was an SF34 - nothing to indicate the aircraft change.

Trainee duly put the thing on the ILS and threw it to TWR and then, with nothing else happening, he turned to me looking pleased with himself for his neat vectoring and we talked for a short while before I had a quick look at the radar. KLM had rapidly caught up with the 737 and was way closer than I had any right to let it get. Lots of quick talking to TWR - reduce speed to min safe approach and stuff like that - and it all worked out OK in the end, albeit very tight on the runway.

T'was many years ago. It only happened once (that I'm aware of). TCAS not installed widely at the time. We didn't have to pack 'em together routinely. No little radar in front of TWR at the time (I think it was in the process of being replaced at the time). Weather not very nice. But it shook me up. Lots of holes in the cheese started to line up and it shook me up some.

Does that warrant clogging up the RTF with mentions of the aircraft type? My own view - I'm inclined to say yes. Given the number of times I've seen aircraft that didn't match the filed type appear out of the murk over the THR and the number of experiences related in this thread, I'd say yes, without a doubt it's worth the minimal increase in RTF loading.

[Standard Noise]

We've got an Ezy 320 based at Brizzel. Thomson's at Brizz are, in the main, 75s but sometimes they slip a 73 just to keep us on our toes.
Don't see the problem with a/c type on contact myself. Anyhoo, the most verbose people on the r/t tend to be the smartie tube drivers, what's an a/c type between friends!?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I'm glad you ATC lot aren't so, umm, unreceptive when I ask you a question!

[aerotech07]

There's an airline with blue aeroplanes that flies both F70 and F100. They regularly interchange the types and every now and again the flight plan doesn't get updated. The aircraft fall into different wake turbulence categories....

There's another airline with green ATR 42's and 72's. Again interchanged often and sometimes the flight plan doesn't keep up. Also different wake turbulence categories.

Not picking on or criticising the two operators... Just highlighting how it can be a problem. Even for operators with one aircraft type... There aren't many aircraft who's name is such a mouthful that it causes additional R/T congestion?! ;)

[DaveReidUK]

There's an airline with blue aeroplanes that flies both F70 and F100. They regularly interchange the types and every now and again the flight plan doesn't get updated. The aircraft fall into different wake turbulence categories....

Only because the UK's wake turbulence categories differ from ICAO's.

[reportyourlevel]

There's another airline with green ATR 42's and 72's. Again interchanged often and sometimes the flight plan doesn't keep up. Also different wake turbulence categories.

There is also a wake turbulence difference between the ATR42-300 and ATR42-500 which are both operated by that company IIRC. So even substitution of a different series of the same type can be an issue too.

[Depone]

I'm delighted my questions provoked such discussion.

As I think you all realised, I don't have an issue with including aircraft type in the initial call for all the wake turbulence or speed sequencing reasons mentioned above. As a general rule it is worth doing and takes a second.

The pedantry is where a controller, knowing your aircraft type, makes a second call seemingly for the sole purpose of pulling you up on the omission from your first call.

As I said, I think controllers at STN and LGW are the best I've experienced. I raised a specific point on unnecessary pedantry which is regularly commented upon by pilots in my airline.

[orgASMic]

Depone, don't take it personally. Pedantry is trained into us through basic training, OJT, examinations, validations, supervision, standards checks, assurance vistis, SRG, ad infinitum. Just like it is trained into pilots. The difference in the controller-pilot relationship is that everyone else can hear us pick you up, whereas only your co-pilot hears you pick him up.
Standard Noise had it right - if everyone (and that is everyone, not just pilots) transmitted only what they were supposed to transmit, there would be enough airtime for the belt-and-braces bit.:)

[BOAC]

The pedantry is where a controller, knowing your aircraft type - how do you see the controller 'knowing' your type if you omit it?

[5milesbaby]

Depone, you seem to have missed the point. It is not apparent what your aircraft type is unless you state it. If you don't, then expect the next call to be asking what it is! Mode S does not give aircraft type as has also been stated previously.

I can't see how that is pedantic? Please explain how you do!

[BOAC]

Actually the pedantry is in continuing to insist it is pedantic:ugh:

[topdrop]

What I don't get is why there is a comm procedure to pick up airline/pilot's failing to submit correct amendments to FPL. Those that are amending their FPL correctly are being painted with the same brush as those that don't. Corrective action should be aimed at those that don't.
ATC will not be blamed for incorrect wake turb standards where the FPL has not been amended correctly.

[DaveReidUK]

Mode S does not give aircraft type as has also been stated previously

Actually that's not strictly true.

Every Mode S transmission contains a unique ID that is capable of being used to identify pretty well any civil aircraft by tail number, and hence the type - it's just that controllers don't get presented with that data.

[Depone]

No 5milesbaby, you are wrong. That is not correct. I suggest you re-read with an open mind.

[eglnyt]

Every Mode S transmission contains a unique ID that is capable of being used to identify pretty well any civil aircraft by tail number

Certainly every Mode S transmission carries the aircraft id. Using that to identify the tail number is not quite so easy because of the disparate way in which these ids have been allocated and registered.

ATC will not be blamed for incorrect wake turb standards where the FPL has not been amended correctly.

If there is a smoking hole in the ground the blame will be spread far and wide and the smart QC at the subsequent enquiry will only have to ask the ANSP senior manager how often did this happen? with the follow up question what did you do about it? and the blame will very quickly spread that way.

This isn't corrective action it is mitigation.

[Gonzo]

Maybe we can cut RT down even more by not giving out a SID as part of the clearance? After all, one can infer the appropriate SID from the flight plan, so everyone should be fine.

:}

[Denti]

Using RT to give out SID's? What a blatant misuse of airtime, thats what datalink clearance is there fore, isn't it? Makes it even easier to protocol the clearance too, simply print it.

Anyway, we all know the brits have a few special quirks, providing the aircraft type on initial call is one of them. Most of the rest of the world doesn't need it, either because their airlines actually have competent OPS departments or ATCO's that can actually cope with a Fokker 100 instead of a Fokker 70 which is the same wake turbulence category in the rest of the world anyway.

[zkdli]

Sorry denti for our pedantry. Is an A330 the same as an A319, they all look alike to me :O

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry denti for our pedantry. Is an A330 the same as an A319, they all look alike to me

No, the A330 is farther away. :O

[Gonzo]

Think you missed my point, Denti.

[5milesbaby]

Depone, I suggest you visit your nearest ATC unit. I like nearly all of my colleagues work with a VERY open mind because we have to, so we can deal with situations such as a B767 being operated on a route filed to be a B737-400 which happened YESTERDAY! In the UK we do not and will not get aircraft type from Mode S data, you HAVE to state it, that is a mandatory requirement. Still haven't explained why it isn't pedantic to ask if you do not tell......

[blissbak]

I don't wanna criticize the choice and the procedure at all, but you should limit the "state type" to the very first call only where the very first controller would be able to check if the aircraft does match to the FPL.

[Not Long Now]

So you'd only end up having to state your aircraft type to one controller. Very good idea. Oh, hang on, no no no, that's pedantic......

[mr.777]

Is this bloke for real? I mean, how difficult is it to give your aircraft type on first contact?! Dear oh dear.