Preferred Callsign Format

[Dash-7 lover]

Hi,
I'm looking to change my airlines callsigns for the summer 2010 schedules and just wanted to clarify the correct format. I'm reading a NATS document here stating that the best format for reducing callsign conflicts are 2numbers/2letters. Is this correct? ie XXX64DM etc etc

Thanks

[javelin]

They are crap, confusing and don't work.............

[mr.777]

I would second that opinion.

[Scott Diamond]

... then all the airlines go for XXX64CM etcetc and it all gets in a big piggy mess. Good example is Thomson, easyJet & Loganair all flying at the same time at Edinburgh & Glasgow

[FinDir]

I third that opinion. Why airlines don't just use the passenger flight number with their callsign is beyond me.

[Sleeping]

Because having the callsigns 'Bigplane 428Bravo' and 'Bigplane 248Bravo' on the same route at similar flight levels and the same frequencies all the way from the UK to the med and back gets quite confusing after a while. And even if ops try to deconflict them sod's law says it will happen at some point - and it does!

[Savard]

A few years ago we'd frequently have 4-5 Lufthansa Aircraft on the frequency departing Munich, all with so similar callsings:

DLH6628
DLH6428
DLH4886
DLH6824
etc.

It was extremely confusing and constantly caused callsign mixups both on the pilots' and the controller's sides. Since they switched to alphanumeric callsigns the situation has greatly improved.

So I definately do not second post #2.

[Defruiter]

I like the 1 number 2 letter callsigns. Can't bear 4 numbers.

[Spitoon]

Sensibly selected 3 digit callsigns have always seemed the best to me. By sensibly selected I mean avoiding repeated numbers and not using numbers that are likely to be confused with headings or levels.

Being able/prepared to deconflict similar callsigns when they have been assigned would be very useful. Although it was some years ago, I once worked at one airport where the first departure at 0700 for three operators used the trip number 101 - despite numerous occurrences of callsign confusion and at least one runway incursion, none of the operators would change the callsigns. Reasons given included that it would confuse passengers and that the FPL had already been filed for the whole season.

[M609]

I find the Lufthasa system to be the best, 1 number and 2 letters. (DLH-4FM etc)

Since SAS changed their system last fall, their system is doing my head in, they just stuck a "4" in front of the old callsign on Norwegian flights, so four numbers. We now sometimes have

SAS4311
SAS4111
SAS4313
SAS4331
SAS4321

etc on the freq.

[Canoehead]

Dh7-Lover: Whatever you decide, you may consider 'including' the aircraft type in the callsign. For a while, in Canada, Jazz (an AC affiliate) had all their DH8 start with 8, as in Jazz 8882, and all RJ's with 4 as in Jazz 4882. This gives us immediate heads up, especially with such different-performing aircraft types.

[mr.777]

Try having 8-10 EZY a/c on frequency, nobody else, and all with 23YX or some such other rubbish as a callsign...it is JUST as confusing as having numbers only, both for us and for them. When they first went to the 2+2 alphanumeric format, a lot of their pilots complained. I guess we just put up with it now.

[sekos]

i think best is dlh like dlh3pv and c/s starting with 7 and then 2 numbers for longhaul flights like dlh727 just looking at the c/s will tell you that it is a heavy a/c.i really hate c/s like ryr7D25 or uae its always uae37 uae47 uae57 all on same frq and route everyday.

[aerotech07]

I can see the point in these callsigns and what they try and achieve, although at times they can be a right mouthful, and seem to take longer to pronounce (not sure if thats just a perception thing or not).

If you fly for the operator I think you do, then you have recently made this change; however I always thought your previous format worked pretty well xxx123K and xxx123L for inbound and outbound flights? Although I guess this could have been confusing downroute when all your aircraft arrive together?

[ZOOKER]

It seems that the smaller the airline, the more pretentious the call-signs become, while the major global carriers seem to get by with Continental20, American54, Delta164 etc. with no apparent problems.
Keep it simple folks.

[Defruiter]

The callsigns from a famous Irish white/blue/yellow airline that keep appearing are the worst ones I have ever seen. "23R5" is a particular one that I can't stand.

[DiCampo]

I rather like the wizzair callsigns...
eg. wzz201c

the 2 is then the actual flight number
the 0 is an unknown to me, but i guess it has something to do with the destination.
the 1 shows it's an outbound flight (mostly out of poland)
and the c is added to get the alphanumeric element in there as well, and goes up with the flight number

So, outbound flights: 101b, 201c, 301d, 401e, 501f
and the returns are then 102b, 202c, 302d, ...

At least those are some of the flights we get through the sector almost every day.

(i must admit wzz771z looks a bit confusing sometimes)

[FinDir]

Actually, the only time the letters prove useful is to differentiate between similar numeric callsigns eg

EXS197
EXS917Q

MON654
MON564M

Other than that, totally pointless and a pain in the a**e on RT

[Wojtus]

Wizzair's code is first digit for base airfield, than two digits of flight number, even ones are outbound from base, odd ones are returns. And the 3 digits are still the flight number for IATA coding! Letters are added alphabetically (101A, 102B, 103C...), but changes are introduced after notices from ATC units (eg. 126Z and 162Z is no longer).

[Pontius's Copilot]

Let's be really daring and go for a totally unique identification for each airframe - with realtime flightplan filing, aircraft swaps/changes would not be an insurmountable problem - and the the identifier is bolted to the dashboard in front of every pilot, and painted on the outside for ATC and the 'spotters'. It's called the aircraft registration marking ... G-ABCD for example.