Registration callsigns - really basic question!
Thread Starter
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Registration callsigns - really basic question!
Something that has long bothered me, but I have always thought too stupid to raise....
The books say that the pilot can shorten G-ABCD to G-CD only once ATC has done so, but my experience is that ATC never take the initiative to do this, it is always the pilot, and many units use the full 5 letters even when the pilot has shortened it. This last point being particularly true of LATCC.
So, what's the position, theoretical and practical?
Will
The books say that the pilot can shorten G-ABCD to G-CD only once ATC has done so, but my experience is that ATC never take the initiative to do this, it is always the pilot, and many units use the full 5 letters even when the pilot has shortened it. This last point being particularly true of LATCC.
So, what's the position, theoretical and practical?
Will
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
WC
I don't know of any unit that does that to be honest. We very much shorten when we can (subject similar c/s on freq).
Obiously those that don't have far too much free airtime!!!
(who at LATCC - do you mean London Info??)
I don't know of any unit that does that to be honest. We very much shorten when we can (subject similar c/s on freq).
Obiously those that don't have far too much free airtime!!!
(who at LATCC - do you mean London Info??)
Last edited by AlanM; 15th January 2004 at 20:15.
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 57
From: Surrey, UK ;
Use of Abbreviated Callsign
My experience is no doubt the same as Will's - I take the initiative not ATC.
Typical exchange would be :-
Farnborough Radar, G-BSBA
G-BSBA, Farnborough Radar pass your message
G-BA is a PA-28 ......
After that it's abbreviated callsign all the way.
The only exception is if (e.g.) G-BRBA came on frequency and a request to use full call sign would be made by ATC.
This isn't (as Will rightly says) what CAP413 says, but it seems to universally apply and I cannot think of a single occasion when I've been pulled up. Even at Tenerife in a rented spanish 172 last week the same happened.
I too will be interested to hear the ATC point of view.
DGG
Typical exchange would be :-
Farnborough Radar, G-BSBA
G-BSBA, Farnborough Radar pass your message
G-BA is a PA-28 ......
After that it's abbreviated callsign all the way.
The only exception is if (e.g.) G-BRBA came on frequency and a request to use full call sign would be made by ATC.
This isn't (as Will rightly says) what CAP413 says, but it seems to universally apply and I cannot think of a single occasion when I've been pulled up. Even at Tenerife in a rented spanish 172 last week the same happened.
I too will be interested to hear the ATC point of view.
DGG
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: London
From my experience - Once they've used your full call sign on the pass your message and you've done that the follw up call is shortened. eg Golf Oscar Delta report at your next turning point.
It always winds me up with people spout incorrect RT. I guess in the grand scheme of things, this isn't really much of an issue!
It always winds me up with people spout incorrect RT. I guess in the grand scheme of things, this isn't really much of an issue!
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in England!
will be interested to hear the ATC point of view
Regards
Pie
'just another atco'
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: LTC Swanwick
MATS Part 1 says that once satisfactory two way communication with an aircraft has been established controllers are permitted to abbreviate the callsign. I tend to use the full callsign during my initial response to a 'freecall' simply in order to check that I have clearly understood exactly what the full callsign was. After I have 'established satisfactory two way communication' I will always abbreviate unless a possibity of callsign confusion exists. The only perculiarity at LTCC that I am aware of is a consession which allows the ground station not to use it's callsign on intitial contact in certain circumstances.
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 57
From: Surrey, UK ;
Abbreviated Call Signs
I suppose the only thing here .... because non of us are in disagreement about what actually happens (quite satisfactorily to all concerned it seems) ..... is that it isn't what CAP413 says.
As far as I (and presumeably Will who started this) am concerned the written proceedure says the abbreviated call sign should only be used by the A/C after it has been used by ATC. Thus my earlier "conversation" should be ....
Farnborough Radar, G-BSBA
G-BSBA, Farnborough Radar pass your message
G-BSBA is a PA-28 ...... request XYZ
Roger BA XYZ commences ......
Only from that stage should I appreviate to G-BA.
If I am picking this up correctly then both MATS1 and CAP413 give ATC the lead and A/C shouldn't abbreviate until after ATC have.
It might therefore be representative of the real situation if the gospels say that rather than "MATS Part 1 says that once satisfactory two way communication with an aircraft has been established controllers are permitted to abbreviate the callsign" ...... "once satisfactory two way communication has been established between an aircraft and ground station, the aircraft's call sign may be abbreviated"
That would "bless" the current practise and allow either party to commence use of the abbreviated call sign (but not too abbreviated Steve
)
DGG
As far as I (and presumeably Will who started this) am concerned the written proceedure says the abbreviated call sign should only be used by the A/C after it has been used by ATC. Thus my earlier "conversation" should be ....
Farnborough Radar, G-BSBA
G-BSBA, Farnborough Radar pass your message
G-BSBA is a PA-28 ...... request XYZ
Roger BA XYZ commences ......
Only from that stage should I appreviate to G-BA.
If I am picking this up correctly then both MATS1 and CAP413 give ATC the lead and A/C shouldn't abbreviate until after ATC have.
It might therefore be representative of the real situation if the gospels say that rather than "MATS Part 1 says that once satisfactory two way communication with an aircraft has been established controllers are permitted to abbreviate the callsign" ...... "once satisfactory two way communication has been established between an aircraft and ground station, the aircraft's call sign may be abbreviated"
That would "bless" the current practise and allow either party to commence use of the abbreviated call sign (but not too abbreviated Steve
)DGG
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
From: Greystation
The MATS Part 1 will say what it does because its the Manual of Air Traffic Services - therefore written for controllers so its permitting its intended to abbrieviate callsigns. I expect that the Air Pilot will have similar entries permitting abbrieviations from a pilots perspective.
As a controller I will always repeat the callsign in full on my first transmission to ensure that I have the full correct callsign, and thereafter will always use the abbrieviation - subject to any similars obviously.
As a controller I will always repeat the callsign in full on my first transmission to ensure that I have the full correct callsign, and thereafter will always use the abbrieviation - subject to any similars obviously.
Thread Starter
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Yes, Dave has perfectly encapsulated what was going through my mind, though probably phrased it better.
AlanM
No I meant airways sector controllers who never seem to abbreviate, even if I do. TC usually do, but not airways.
Will
AlanM
(who at LATCC - do you mean London Info??)
Will
'just another atco'
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: LTC Swanwick
No I meant airways sector controllers who never seem to abbreviate, even if I do. TC usually do, but not airways.
About time you made that visit to LTCC, Timothy
Thread Starter
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Jonathan,
I have visited the old LATCC at W Drayton a number of times and found it fascinating. I have yet to visit Swanwick, but am open to tempting offers!
Whether sectors are part of TC or not is really not the issue. If I am talking to an airways sector, as opposed to an approach control, the norm, if not the rule, is to use the full, five-letter callsign throughout. I am only wondering why.
Will/Timothy, whatever you want to call me
I have visited the old LATCC at W Drayton a number of times and found it fascinating. I have yet to visit Swanwick, but am open to tempting offers!
Whether sectors are part of TC or not is really not the issue. If I am talking to an airways sector, as opposed to an approach control, the norm, if not the rule, is to use the full, five-letter callsign throughout. I am only wondering why.
Will/Timothy, whatever you want to call me
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
I must say I think this is laziness on the part of us pilots. I'm certainly grateful for ATC reading back the full callsign (especially as they do occasionally get it wrong), but I do try hard to stick to the rules in CAP413. They are rules, after all, and you don't know whether ATC has another similar callsign on frequency when you first contact them, or even on another frequency if they are bandboxing.
Tim
Tim
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave suggests that pilots should be able to abbreviate the callsign when he/she believes that satisfctory communications have been established. Bad idea, the controller knows what else is going on and needs to know what each aircraft is calling itself.
Granted, many pilots will abbreviate the callsign and most of the time it really doesn't matter and the controller was about to do it anyway. But the rules are there for a good reason.
5mb, the AIP doesn't permit pilots to abbreviate a callsign of his own volition. The definitive document appears to be CAP 413 and that says
Let's stick with the present rules!
Granted, many pilots will abbreviate the callsign and most of the time it really doesn't matter and the controller was about to do it anyway. But the rules are there for a good reason.
5mb, the AIP doesn't permit pilots to abbreviate a callsign of his own volition. The definitive document appears to be CAP 413 and that says
After satisfactory communication has been established and provided that no confusion is likely to occur, the ground station may abbreviate callsigns. A pilot may only abbreviate the callsign of his aircraft if it has first been abbreviated by the aeronautical station.
Time merchant
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
The reasoning behind the rules and the way they are written
i.e. "the ground station may abbreviate the callsign" etc....
is that the controller is the only one who knows if there are two similar callsigns on frequency. Unless you have been listening out for some time before transmitting you will not be aware of other callsigns when you make your first call. On a frequency like London FIR you will not necessarily hear other callsigns transmitting on the same frequency if they are in another part of the country, so even if you do not hear similar callsigns you should not abbreviate your own until ATC has done it first.
You as the pilot of G-BRBA may well abbreviate your callsign on your second transmission but you do not know at that point if there is a G-OHBA on frequency. It is unlikely that there is, so normally you will not be corrected by the controller, but on the occasions where there is possibility for c/s confusion you can be sure that the reply from ATC will ask you to use all the letters.
's all common sense really.
i.e. "the ground station may abbreviate the callsign" etc....
is that the controller is the only one who knows if there are two similar callsigns on frequency. Unless you have been listening out for some time before transmitting you will not be aware of other callsigns when you make your first call. On a frequency like London FIR you will not necessarily hear other callsigns transmitting on the same frequency if they are in another part of the country, so even if you do not hear similar callsigns you should not abbreviate your own until ATC has done it first.
You as the pilot of G-BRBA may well abbreviate your callsign on your second transmission but you do not know at that point if there is a G-OHBA on frequency. It is unlikely that there is, so normally you will not be corrected by the controller, but on the occasions where there is possibility for c/s confusion you can be sure that the reply from ATC will ask you to use all the letters.
's all common sense really.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
One comment and a question from a PPL...
I was once flying with a FIS from Thames Radar in G-ABCD when I heard an exchange between another aircraft and the controller along the lines of:
Aircraft: Thames Radar, G-BBCD
ATC: G-BBCD use full callsign, pass your message
Aircraft: G-CD is a <...>
ATC: G-BBCD please use full callsign, similar callsign on frequency, QNH 1234, <...>
Aircraft: 1013, <...> G-CD
About four more exchanges went on like this, with the pilot even once reading back "use full callsign, G-CD", before I had cause to make my next call:
Me: G-ABCD passing <wherever>
ATC: Thank god someone's been listening to me! Break break G-BBCD you are entering the Stansted Control Zone. Immediate 180 turn.....
Now, the question... on the initial call, I usually say something like:
Me: Thames Radar, good morning, G-ABCD for zone transit
It's not in CAP413, but I figure that (a) the "pleasantry" gives the controller time to pick up his pencil and (b) including the outline of the request gives the controller some idea of the priority of the call. For example, when I'm flying near my local airfield, the calls might be:
Me: Redhill Tower, good morning, G-ABCD for circuits
Me: Redhill Tower, good afternoon, G-ABCD, local east
Me: Redhill Tower, good morning, G-ABCD, VFR to Duxford
Me: Redhill Tower, good evening, G-ABCD, Dorking inbound
Is this helpful? Is this a waste of airtime? No-one has ever criticised me for it, not even instructors flying with me, but it's not technically "by the book".
Your thoughts welcomed!
MD.
I was once flying with a FIS from Thames Radar in G-ABCD when I heard an exchange between another aircraft and the controller along the lines of:
Aircraft: Thames Radar, G-BBCD
ATC: G-BBCD use full callsign, pass your message
Aircraft: G-CD is a <...>
ATC: G-BBCD please use full callsign, similar callsign on frequency, QNH 1234, <...>
Aircraft: 1013, <...> G-CD
About four more exchanges went on like this, with the pilot even once reading back "use full callsign, G-CD", before I had cause to make my next call:
Me: G-ABCD passing <wherever>
ATC: Thank god someone's been listening to me! Break break G-BBCD you are entering the Stansted Control Zone. Immediate 180 turn.....
Now, the question... on the initial call, I usually say something like:
Me: Thames Radar, good morning, G-ABCD for zone transit
It's not in CAP413, but I figure that (a) the "pleasantry" gives the controller time to pick up his pencil and (b) including the outline of the request gives the controller some idea of the priority of the call. For example, when I'm flying near my local airfield, the calls might be:
Me: Redhill Tower, good morning, G-ABCD for circuits
Me: Redhill Tower, good afternoon, G-ABCD, local east
Me: Redhill Tower, good morning, G-ABCD, VFR to Duxford
Me: Redhill Tower, good evening, G-ABCD, Dorking inbound
Is this helpful? Is this a waste of airtime? No-one has ever criticised me for it, not even instructors flying with me, but it's not technically "by the book".
Your thoughts welcomed!
MD.
Thread Starter
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Firstly, now that Jonathan has blown my cover, I have decided to migrate from WCollins to Timothy. I don't know why I ever didn't really!
And now that is blown, I can ask another question on a similar subject. My reg is G-LIZZ. Why, can anyone tell me, do so, so many controllers read this back as G-ILZZ? It is always the same error...I hear it all the time and no other...why should that be? If I am airborne and someone denies that I have an IFR plan filed, I now ask "do you have a G-ILZZ?" because I just know that that will be the transcription error.
It happens all the time....why
Oh and I crossed with MD's post...I always say Good morning or afternoon on first contact unless the frequency is frantic. I just think that it's courteous and I probably couldn't stop myself after the first 33 years!
Timothy (not Will)
And now that is blown, I can ask another question on a similar subject. My reg is G-LIZZ. Why, can anyone tell me, do so, so many controllers read this back as G-ILZZ? It is always the same error...I hear it all the time and no other...why should that be? If I am airborne and someone denies that I have an IFR plan filed, I now ask "do you have a G-ILZZ?" because I just know that that will be the transcription error.
It happens all the time....why
Oh and I crossed with MD's post...I always say Good morning or afternoon on first contact unless the frequency is frantic. I just think that it's courteous and I probably couldn't stop myself after the first 33 years!
Timothy (not Will)
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, first things first. One, it's always struck me that WC has made positive contributions to any thread - so why hide (but, when I think about it, it's probably the same reason that I do!). Two, am I supposed to know which Timothy you are??
As to your question, I think everyone has a subconscious tendency to transpose a common phrase or letters if the brain is left to its own devices. The only reason I can think of for this particular thing is that I comes before L in ILS!
As to your question, I think everyone has a subconscious tendency to transpose a common phrase or letters if the brain is left to its own devices. The only reason I can think of for this particular thing is that I comes before L in ILS!
Thread Starter
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Spitoon
I have been advised that it is a very bad idea to reveal your whole name to the Internet at large, because you can get unwelcome attention from all sorts of people.
Apart from anything else, I am a JP and make no secret of it, and I would have to be terribly careful about anything I said if I thought that it might be compared to a "judicial" position by, for example, a journo.
Having said that, a lot of people know me personally, and I have written for the mags a bit, and G-INFO has my name and address on the reg already given above, so I can't really hide!!
Timothy
I have been advised that it is a very bad idea to reveal your whole name to the Internet at large, because you can get unwelcome attention from all sorts of people.
Apart from anything else, I am a JP and make no secret of it, and I would have to be terribly careful about anything I said if I thought that it might be compared to a "judicial" position by, for example, a journo.
Having said that, a lot of people know me personally, and I have written for the mags a bit, and G-INFO has my name and address on the reg already given above, so I can't really hide!!
Timothy
ATC
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Lisbon, Portugal
I'm an Air Traffic Controller in Lisbon Approach/TMA and dur to the proximity of several small aerodromes near Lisbon Airport we have a 30 NM Radius area where the FIS (even on G Airspace) is Approach responsability.
On first contact I expect to ear full (registration) Callsign and on my first reply I also use the full callsign.
Only after first contact I expoect to ear and use reduced callsign.
However, and this is not a rule but a common practice, if ATC uses complete callsign, pilots tend to reply using also the complete callsign - it seems they know we have a motif for not using the reduced callsign and so we don't need to ask for pilots to do it when similar reduced callsigns are in the frequency.
Did it help ?
On first contact I expect to ear full (registration) Callsign and on my first reply I also use the full callsign.
Only after first contact I expoect to ear and use reduced callsign.
However, and this is not a rule but a common practice, if ATC uses complete callsign, pilots tend to reply using also the complete callsign - it seems they know we have a motif for not using the reduced callsign and so we don't need to ask for pilots to do it when similar reduced callsigns are in the frequency.
Did it help ?
