Leading zeros in a callsign
Thread Starter
Leading zeros in a callsign
I am curious about the use of leading zeros in a callsign, e.g. BAW027. Is this . .a. Speedbird zero two seven. .b. Speedbird two seven. .c. Speedbird twenty seven. .d. Sppedbird zero twenty seven?
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the characters of the callsign should be used on first contact although I don`t see the point of the zero`s - `KESTREL 019`, `ETHIOPIAN 0750` et all! When you`re really busy, try saying `HOTEL-ZULU-SIERRA-JULIET-PAPA-THREE-ALPHA` without ending up swallowing your tongue. Should there be a rule about the number of syllables in a callsign??? If pilots use their callsign anyway on readback, count yourself lucky. How many times do you hear just `123.45, Bye!` and you`re left thinking `Now, who`s taken that call?`
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it's irrelevant as to the whys and wherefores ?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
If an FPL says 'xxx027' then the crew should use that exact same when tx'ing to ATC ? If they want to be 'xxx27' then they must be filed as such. 'By-the-book' r/t also states you shouldn't abbreviate it to 'Twenty-seven' etc etc.
We often end-up changing our flight c/s's in response to c/s confliction reports by adding a suffix to the c/s. For the crews to just do their own thing whilst on R/T is asking for trouble surely ? <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
If an FPL says 'xxx027' then the crew should use that exact same when tx'ing to ATC ? If they want to be 'xxx27' then they must be filed as such. 'By-the-book' r/t also states you shouldn't abbreviate it to 'Twenty-seven' etc etc.
We often end-up changing our flight c/s's in response to c/s confliction reports by adding a suffix to the c/s. For the crews to just do their own thing whilst on R/T is asking for trouble surely ? <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
I fly a aircraft with a CAA approved callsign of three letters followed by a single digit. Having called a new ATC unit, it isn't unusual for an ATCO to add a zero before the digit.
Don't know why, it seems to roll off the tongue better as it was.
Anyone care to comment?
Don't know why, it seems to roll off the tongue better as it was.
Anyone care to comment?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M3 Veteran, I think I can do better than that! When United Airlines used to fly round-the-world there was a case one morning when the inbound from Delhi was working TC ta the same time as the outbound to New York was just airborne (they use different aircraft to do each leg) and the poor controller had to cope with TWO aircraft both called `UAL1`!!!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once did a Pacific Ranger in a V bomber with the "officail " callsign of RAFAIR 676. We started off using that and then went through Royal Air Force 676 heavy to Vulcan 676 and ended up as Vulcan vis several "in betweens" all. I may add, inititaed by ATC. We just replied as best we could when the Tx was obviously for us!
Going back to the topic though would it not be simpler if ALLcallsigns were numbers greater than 470 which would also avoid confusion with Flight Levels and headings! Why are flt numbers not issued by the relevant ATC authorities, after all the travelling public may be flyig on BA 1 to JFK but what ATC call the ac is not relevant.
Going back to the topic though would it not be simpler if ALLcallsigns were numbers greater than 470 which would also avoid confusion with Flight Levels and headings! Why are flt numbers not issued by the relevant ATC authorities, after all the travelling public may be flyig on BA 1 to JFK but what ATC call the ac is not relevant.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missy et al,
I don't know why they put leading zeros in the c/s. It's a pain. But you should say them.
My understanding is as follows for your example, BAW027:-
ICAO says the c/s is Speedbird zero two seven.
What about CPA001? We are supposed to say Cathay zero zero one - pretty clumsy. Why can't the operator use a simple CPA1 - Cathay one?
Australia differs from ICAO in speaking flight number callsigns. When in Australian airspace, users of flight number callsigns are supposed to use the "group format". So in Aus airspace it should be Speedbird zero twenty seven. BAW27 would be Speedbird twenty seven. QFA6049 would be Qantas sixty forty nine.
The fact that few crews, apart from those Aus domestics trialling FNCs and trying to do the right thing by AIP, use the group format even when ATC uses it to them as per AIP and MATS, is neither here nor there.
I have heard a rumour that there is a proposal in the system to drop the group format in favour of harmonising with the ICAO way. The group format was an Americanism anyway, which, when FNCs were introduced for trial in AUS, someone thought would be a good idea. Clearly the rest of the world does not agree because in practice no-one other than American crews (eg United) will use it, and even they are inconsistent.
It is interesting to note that QANTAS crews pointedly refuse to respond in group format when addressed that way by Aus ATCs complying with Aus AIP. Interesting, that - is there a quality control issue here?
Cheers
AA
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Ausatco ]</p>
I don't know why they put leading zeros in the c/s. It's a pain. But you should say them.
My understanding is as follows for your example, BAW027:-
ICAO says the c/s is Speedbird zero two seven.
What about CPA001? We are supposed to say Cathay zero zero one - pretty clumsy. Why can't the operator use a simple CPA1 - Cathay one?
Australia differs from ICAO in speaking flight number callsigns. When in Australian airspace, users of flight number callsigns are supposed to use the "group format". So in Aus airspace it should be Speedbird zero twenty seven. BAW27 would be Speedbird twenty seven. QFA6049 would be Qantas sixty forty nine.
The fact that few crews, apart from those Aus domestics trialling FNCs and trying to do the right thing by AIP, use the group format even when ATC uses it to them as per AIP and MATS, is neither here nor there.
I have heard a rumour that there is a proposal in the system to drop the group format in favour of harmonising with the ICAO way. The group format was an Americanism anyway, which, when FNCs were introduced for trial in AUS, someone thought would be a good idea. Clearly the rest of the world does not agree because in practice no-one other than American crews (eg United) will use it, and even they are inconsistent.
It is interesting to note that QANTAS crews pointedly refuse to respond in group format when addressed that way by Aus ATCs complying with Aus AIP. Interesting, that - is there a quality control issue here?
Cheers
AA
[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Ausatco ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howdy;
Over here we would say the zero... We mainly see it on European carriers and hardly ever for our own, but there are always exceptions to everything.
regards
Scott
Over here we would say the zero... We mainly see it on European carriers and hardly ever for our own, but there are always exceptions to everything.
regards
Scott
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Scott,
How would you say the whole callsign BAW027? You have indicated that you would say the leading zero. So would you say "Speedbird zero two seven" or "Speedbird zero twenty seven"?
How would you say ACA6133? (Air Canada, but I guess you know that <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> )
The group format (which says that in the above example you would say "Air Canada sixty one thirty three") that I referred to earlier was introduced here because some people engaged in a phraseology overhaul identified that it was in use in North America.
Is that so - ie, is it in official use, or is it just a commonly accepted practice which just happens to help speed up verbal communication, reduce frequency workload and therefore is granted continued, though informal, acceptance?
Can any Canadian ATCs or aircrew offer some input re their part of the world?
Just curious.
AA
How would you say the whole callsign BAW027? You have indicated that you would say the leading zero. So would you say "Speedbird zero two seven" or "Speedbird zero twenty seven"?
How would you say ACA6133? (Air Canada, but I guess you know that <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> )
The group format (which says that in the above example you would say "Air Canada sixty one thirty three") that I referred to earlier was introduced here because some people engaged in a phraseology overhaul identified that it was in use in North America.
Is that so - ie, is it in official use, or is it just a commonly accepted practice which just happens to help speed up verbal communication, reduce frequency workload and therefore is granted continued, though informal, acceptance?
Can any Canadian ATCs or aircrew offer some input re their part of the world?
Just curious.
AA
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AA;
We would normally say Speedbird zero two seven even though you could say zero twenty seven, but it just doesn't sound right <G>...
As to the Air Canada call sign, we would indeed use group form... We have used it for a long time.
regards
We would normally say Speedbird zero two seven even though you could say zero twenty seven, but it just doesn't sound right <G>...
As to the Air Canada call sign, we would indeed use group form... We have used it for a long time.
regards
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: west with the night
Age: 43
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the after-hours cargo flights that come in to our airport all have two leading 0's in thier callsigns and they're always called.. .either as- "georgian zero-zero-two"
or "georgian double-oh two"
...no, we never get a georgian007
or "georgian double-oh two"
...no, we never get a georgian007
In our flight-plan format (SWORD, i think BA uses the same) the first line quotes the flight number (DI4716) and the second line quotes the callsign (BAG716M), so we pilots should know the leading zero.
