Identing before asked -
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Identing before asked -
On departure from EDI on handover, Scottish always ask us to IDENT prior to being cleared above the stop altitude for the SID. Some people are in the habit of hitting ident on handover in anticipation of being asked, but is this an annoyance to you guys or does it really make any difference??
Hufty.
Hufty.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's another thread dealing with a similar question. Pilots should never squawk ident until instructed to do so as it could coincide with another aircraft squawking ID as a result of such an instruction and a dangerous misidentification could result.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, with the greatest of respect, that is pure BS.
If a pilot checks in and says "squawking Ident" on first call, and I can see that the radar return is flashing in association with the correct code/callsign conversion and in the right area, then as far as I am concerned (and Mats Pt 1 for that matter) then we have fulfilled the criteria for identification using secondary radar.
I have heard pilots getting an ear-bashing from colleagues that don't like them identing before being asked, then asking them to ident again... This wastes RT time, which in the TMA is often at a premium anyway, and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
By far the most annoying thing that pilots do, or don't do as the case is, is report their passing and cleared altitudes. I HAVE to check those, and that leads to a hell of a lot of wasted time.
If a pilot checks in and says "squawking Ident" on first call, and I can see that the radar return is flashing in association with the correct code/callsign conversion and in the right area, then as far as I am concerned (and Mats Pt 1 for that matter) then we have fulfilled the criteria for identification using secondary radar.
I have heard pilots getting an ear-bashing from colleagues that don't like them identing before being asked, then asking them to ident again... This wastes RT time, which in the TMA is often at a premium anyway, and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
By far the most annoying thing that pilots do, or don't do as the case is, is report their passing and cleared altitudes. I HAVE to check those, and that leads to a hell of a lot of wasted time.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BC, with the greatest of respect, that is pure BS.
The biigest complaints againest "self - ident" is TMA North
Have a word mate!!!
(personally - I think they should give the details as per the AIP)
The biigest complaints againest "self - ident" is TMA North
Have a word mate!!!
(personally - I think they should give the details as per the AIP)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BC, HD is correct....
MATS PART ONE actually says
and.....
Your colleagues are also correct...... Does your LCE agree as well, I wonder?
Rgds BEX
MATS PART ONE actually says
Oberserving an IDENT feature when it has been requested
caution must be exercised when employing this method because simultaneous requests for SPI transmissions withinn the same area may result in misidentification
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry
Get a grip
You obviously have no idea.
Time is a premium, but not to the detriment of safety. Stamp on this gashness, we must (Yoda moment).
Alan and Bex talk most sense!
You obviously have no idea.
Time is a premium, but not to the detriment of safety. Stamp on this gashness, we must (Yoda moment).
Alan and Bex talk most sense!
Last edited by VectorLine; 3rd Aug 2005 at 10:56.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mats Pt 1
Section 1, Chapter 5, Para 4 b.
Recognising a validated four digit code previously assigned to an callsign. Where code/callsign conversion procedures are in use, and the code/callsign pairing can be confirmed, the callsign displayed in the data block may be used to establish and maintain identity.
You therefore don't HAVE to ident aircraft for identification purposes.
AlanM, I have already agreed with your comment about North bank controllers.
Bex, read the above and tell me I'm wrong. Yes I have discussed it with my LCE (many moons ago following a similar thread) and he agreed with my interpretation of the rules. And as for how long have I been valid, what does that matter?
Section 1, Chapter 5, Para 4 b.
Recognising a validated four digit code previously assigned to an callsign. Where code/callsign conversion procedures are in use, and the code/callsign pairing can be confirmed, the callsign displayed in the data block may be used to establish and maintain identity.
You therefore don't HAVE to ident aircraft for identification purposes.
AlanM, I have already agreed with your comment about North bank controllers.
Bex, read the above and tell me I'm wrong. Yes I have discussed it with my LCE (many moons ago following a similar thread) and he agreed with my interpretation of the rules. And as for how long have I been valid, what does that matter?
Last edited by Barry Cuda; 3rd Aug 2005 at 09:27.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't a ident squawk used to be necessary to trigger the Code/Callsign conversion?... therefore an automatic ident by the pilot "may" help in this respect if the software still needs it)... but as the similar,current thread points out with some systems it might be problematic... Best to do what you're told, otherwise it might lead to a misident... or more probably uncertainty... which is then time wasting as the whole process needs to be repeated.
A common problem seems to be pilots shortcutting a system, without consultation, because they are always asked the same thing, so think it will speed things up... afraid it doesn't necessarily stop Controllers from having to act/ask a question/ make the same statement... and it disrupts a standard practice, which is often how mistakes are made (on the ground and in the cockpit). If a shortcut can be made, go through proper procedure and get the SOP changed... otherwise leave it alone and do as you're told
A common problem seems to be pilots shortcutting a system, without consultation, because they are always asked the same thing, so think it will speed things up... afraid it doesn't necessarily stop Controllers from having to act/ask a question/ make the same statement... and it disrupts a standard practice, which is often how mistakes are made (on the ground and in the cockpit). If a shortcut can be made, go through proper procedure and get the SOP changed... otherwise leave it alone and do as you're told
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre, I couldn't agree more with your second paragraph. My point is that if a pilot does ident without being asked then I am not going to lose my rag with him because it is not always necessary. I believe that the Ident also has something to do with helping the Auto DM facility, rather than the Code-Callsign conversion per se.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there are no Controllers out there who say 'Squawk Ident' to put it on the tape and then do not look at it, because they are busy and looking at their next task.
I'm with Barry and am quite happy with ident with first call, initiated by the pilot. I wish it was the norm.
I'm with Barry and am quite happy with ident with first call, initiated by the pilot. I wish it was the norm.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recognising a validated four digit code
Surely the whole purpose of this thread is to deal with aircraft that are not yet identified?
BC no offense but I agree with the others!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry you are right about the time valid comment - I have removed it from my previous post.
Back to the discussion, which incidently is about pilots identing on first call and not ident methods.
Sometimes pilots ident by accident in normal flight (the might put something down on the button or put their hand on it by accident)
If you work on a sector where you regularly have aircraft joining controlled airspace from an aerodrome that has no SSR (and often no radar at all) it is imperitive that a/c are indentified.
If a pilot checks in already identing and some other aircraft in the vicinity is also identing, then it has to be requested again.
If we stick to SOP, even if there are no other a/c, and make sure pilots do too, then it reduces the opportunity of a 'cock up' that we don't notice during a busy period.
Back to the discussion, which incidently is about pilots identing on first call and not ident methods.
Sometimes pilots ident by accident in normal flight (the might put something down on the button or put their hand on it by accident)
If you work on a sector where you regularly have aircraft joining controlled airspace from an aerodrome that has no SSR (and often no radar at all) it is imperitive that a/c are indentified.
If a pilot checks in already identing and some other aircraft in the vicinity is also identing, then it has to be requested again.
If we stick to SOP, even if there are no other a/c, and make sure pilots do too, then it reduces the opportunity of a 'cock up' that we don't notice during a busy period.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL, no need to edit but I appreciate the sentiment. The original question was about outbounds from an airfield within CAS (I believe), not aircraft joining from outside CAS. In that case it becomes an entirely different situation and more care must be taken when an a/c has 7000 or similar selected.
My initial point was not that HD's comment was wrong, it is in the book after all, but blanket statements like that (and in the book there are many) do not take into account the everyday situation. Maybe thebook needs rewriting... Any volunteers?
My initial point was not that HD's comment was wrong, it is in the book after all, but blanket statements like that (and in the book there are many) do not take into account the everyday situation. Maybe thebook needs rewriting... Any volunteers?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this thread was started referring to Edinburgh departures, and this applies equally to all aircraft arriving on a Scottish control frequency that HAVE NOT been transferred from either London or Manchester Control.
It is a REQUIREMENT as stated in the ScATCC MATS Part 2 that all aircraft are identified by requesting the aircraft to "squawk XXXX and IDENT".
This is required whether or not the aircraft has been worked by another SSR equipped unit, with the exceptions as mentioned above.
So, to answer Hufty's original question, yes it is a pain, and please wait until we ask you.
As was mentioned elsewhere, this also happens regularly with Belfast TMA departures that have worked Aldegrove radar, so they get to press the IDENT button twice !
As an aside, the lack of a level report (and SID if appropriate) on first contact is also annoying, as we are required to check that as well.
It is a REQUIREMENT as stated in the ScATCC MATS Part 2 that all aircraft are identified by requesting the aircraft to "squawk XXXX and IDENT".
This is required whether or not the aircraft has been worked by another SSR equipped unit, with the exceptions as mentioned above.
So, to answer Hufty's original question, yes it is a pain, and please wait until we ask you.
As was mentioned elsewhere, this also happens regularly with Belfast TMA departures that have worked Aldegrove radar, so they get to press the IDENT button twice !
As an aside, the lack of a level report (and SID if appropriate) on first contact is also annoying, as we are required to check that as well.
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry Cuda,
[Recognising a validated four digit code previously assigned to an callsign. Where code/callsign conversion procedures are in use, and the code/callsign pairing can be confirmed, the callsign displayed in the data block may be used to establish and maintain identity]
just remind me again then how the code that you are observing has been previously validated?
I agree with Bex, you're supposed to ask, then they push the button, then you watch to see it...
I'm all for time saving, but have no wich to cut corners too tight.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
[Recognising a validated four digit code previously assigned to an callsign. Where code/callsign conversion procedures are in use, and the code/callsign pairing can be confirmed, the callsign displayed in the data block may be used to establish and maintain identity]
just remind me again then how the code that you are observing has been previously validated?
I agree with Bex, you're supposed to ask, then they push the button, then you watch to see it...
I'm all for time saving, but have no wich to cut corners too tight.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not write the rules, just follow them.
All I would expect on initial call would be callsign, SID identifier (if applicable), passing level and cleared level.
I would not expect "squawking 4455 and Ident" to be included, as it's certainly NOT part of the expected STANDARD phraseolgy .
As BEXIL160 previously posted, ATCOs request idents, and pilots therefore should not offer them.
I will say no more.
Good evening.
All I would expect on initial call would be callsign, SID identifier (if applicable), passing level and cleared level.
I would not expect "squawking 4455 and Ident" to be included, as it's certainly NOT part of the expected STANDARD phraseolgy .
As BEXIL160 previously posted, ATCOs request idents, and pilots therefore should not offer them.
I will say no more.
Good evening.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not arguing with how it is supposed to be done, all I am saying is that if a pilot checks in with an ident added on then don't tear him a new a'hole just get on with everything else you have to do. Like I said, common sense can have a place in ATC (and not to the detriment of safety).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BC you asked me to say you are wrong. Well, okay. "You are wrong".
You are interpreting the rules, not applying them. A "non adherence" if you want the actual term, and one that doesn't play well at subsequent boards of inquiry, believe me, I know.
Somebody idents when you haven't asked for it? In the current climate this could so easily be construed as an unusual happening. How do you know that the crew aren't trying to alert you to something serious happening on the Flight Deck?
Again, it won't play too well in court if the only signal the crew were able to give that they were being unlawfully interferred with was identing, when not asked, and you didn't question why
Busy TMA frequency? Well if its SO busy that you are unable to apply the rules as stated then the sector needs to be split, or some form of flow applied.
It is a safety issue, not a contest. And time since valid has nothing to do with it (I certainly didn't mention it)
Rgds BEX
You are interpreting the rules, not applying them. A "non adherence" if you want the actual term, and one that doesn't play well at subsequent boards of inquiry, believe me, I know.
Somebody idents when you haven't asked for it? In the current climate this could so easily be construed as an unusual happening. How do you know that the crew aren't trying to alert you to something serious happening on the Flight Deck?
Again, it won't play too well in court if the only signal the crew were able to give that they were being unlawfully interferred with was identing, when not asked, and you didn't question why
Busy TMA frequency? Well if its SO busy that you are unable to apply the rules as stated then the sector needs to be split, or some form of flow applied.
It is a safety issue, not a contest. And time since valid has nothing to do with it (I certainly didn't mention it)
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Edi are not required to validate and verify a/c on departure, so scottish have to? sorry I kinda skimmed over the bickering. As for the whole 'previously assigned code' etc . . . . we all know the system sometimes doesn't work. I'd rather not have to argue my case with such dodgy legal mats 1 jargon in a court of law. But I am a big girl.
Personally I'd rather a/c did not call me already identing just in case i have a whole load of other a/c (not all on my frequency) 'flashing away' or in the case of most scottish sectors which have rubbish radar cover it's a waste of time cos you wont see it.
Personally I'd rather a/c did not call me already identing just in case i have a whole load of other a/c (not all on my frequency) 'flashing away' or in the case of most scottish sectors which have rubbish radar cover it's a waste of time cos you wont see it.