Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

Six-Digit Frequencies

Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

Six-Digit Frequencies

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 6th Jun 2006, 09:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
happ1ness - might I suggest that the reason why 'the Powers that be' don't give more thought to the practicalities of RTF is because THEY don't have to deliver the goods at the coal face, day in and day out. And to all the pedants out there - just because it's the gospel according to ICAO Doc or MATS Vol x does not mean that it is the best or most suitable practice. Just because 'its in' does not preclude questioning a possibly flawed procedure. Nineteen Seventy Seven - good night!
MaxReheat is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 11:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Max Reheat

Correct....


Just because 'its in' does not preclude questioning a possibly flawed procedure.
Nothing precludes questioning any procedure, but deliberately contravening one?
Gonzo is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 15:05
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,826
Received 98 Likes on 71 Posts
I sat on the phraseology working group at SRG that decided this change. No civil ATC rep agreed with it and I suggested that we file a difference with ICAO for class G airspace below FL100, but the RAF rep (probably not a controller) said that they had no objections to full implementation, so that carried the argument. Notice how many military ATC units use the new phraseology? I don't think it's reached JSP 552 yet.
chevvron is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 17:06
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More incorrect readbacks from pilots. Very frustrating on very busy days....
Barnaby the Bear is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 21:02
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gonzo
Max Reheat

Correct....




Nothing precludes questioning any procedure, but deliberately contravening one?
Well said that LCE

P7
Point Seven is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 23:05
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said that LCE
And you know more than most how much questioning I do!!!
Gonzo is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2006, 09:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well here are the results of a morning using the new procedure....... 28,yes 28 incorrect readbacks on frequencies alone . I rest my case. And yes, I will be filing some sort of report on what I consider an unacceptable procedure and associated increase in workload.
250 kts is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2006, 09:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I keep getting frequencies wrong I have been using for the last five years and I only have 3 to remember and none of the pilots read back the extra digit. Every day I seem to have at least one aircraft calling me by mistake wanting another unit. Before this ridiculous rule it only ever happened once a month. Why cant we implement it only when it is necessary
atco112 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2006, 10:38
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just as a matter of interest, how many 8.33 kHz frequencies are allocated for use in UK airspace?
Wonkavater is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2006, 14:38
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,826
Received 98 Likes on 71 Posts
I think it's just increased from 1 to 3, but under ICAO rules only 1 makes the entire airspace declared an '8.33 environment'. As I said, I suggested we file a difference, after all 8.33 is only going to be used above FL195 initially and is never going to be allocated for use below FL95 in the foreseeable future.
chevvron is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.