Does "Squawk Ident" require a readback?
Thread Starter
Does "Squawk Ident" require a readback?
Does "Squawk Ident" require a readback?
Just wondering because CAP314 has an example in it with a readback. Always thought it wasn't a readback.
Just wondering because CAP314 has an example in it with a readback. Always thought it wasn't a readback.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... And just in case any pilots are reading this... calling airborne and stating you are squawking ident does not help us. I appreciate you probably think that by ding so you are helping educe RT clutter in the LTMA, but by the book, we have to see you ident in response to an instruction from us.
That's why, even though you might call on stating you are identing, in the very next reply we will ask you to squawk ident! I can tell from the tne of the voice in some replies that you think we are not listening to what you say... we are!
That's why, even though you might call on stating you are identing, in the very next reply we will ask you to squawk ident! I can tell from the tne of the voice in some replies that you think we are not listening to what you say... we are!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pedantry rules!If you get airborne,give me your callsign,SID designator,level passing and climbing to and say you're identing and that ties in with what I see on the radar, then that will do for me.Also,the number of times I hear people insist on the pilot stating the cleared level(as per the book)when it is obvious if he has got it wrong he wont be able to stop at the SID level with all the implications that has.So, say"xyz123,maintain 6 thousand on reaching" then sort out the niceties of "doing it by the book."
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is fine until you are the LARS controller getting freecalls from bug-smashers all on conspicuity squawks all in the same area and all squawking IDENT on departure.
There is a time and a place for common sense but it is in the book for a reason.
There is a time and a place for common sense but it is in the book for a reason.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tczulu
you are correct, it is pedantry... however how difficult is it for a professional pilot at the beginning of their flight to get their first (simple) call to radar correct?! Even worse is that it is not exclusively non-UK pilots...
Not rocket science.
One often wonders how 'professional' these crews are. Ties in with the general dumbing down of a lot of professions, ATC included.
you are correct, it is pedantry... however how difficult is it for a professional pilot at the beginning of their flight to get their first (simple) call to radar correct?! Even worse is that it is not exclusively non-UK pilots...
Not rocket science.
One often wonders how 'professional' these crews are. Ties in with the general dumbing down of a lot of professions, ATC included.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Over a bit... aah, just there.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tczulu
say"xyz123,maintain 6 thousand on reaching"
Is "on reaching" really necessary? How does one maintain a level without reaching it?
Originally Posted by tczulu
say"xyz123,maintain 6 thousand on reaching"
Is "on reaching" really necessary? How does one maintain a level without reaching it?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is "on reaching" really necessary? How does one maintain a level without reaching it?
It's an acknowledgement that the aircraft is still climbing or descending to the assigned altitude. To say simply "maintain 6000 " or similar could lead the pilot to suspect that is the altitude the controller believes the aircraft to be at right now.
Thus another round of avoidable chatter would ensue.
To say simply "maintain 6000 " or similar could lead the pilot to suspect that is the altitude the controller believes the aircraft to be at right now.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'On reaching' is superfluous crap that does not make sense. You can't maintain it until you have reached it!
I doubt very much if a pilot would think that you surmised they were level when they were still climbing.
tosh!
Telling a pilot to climb and maintain a level will not prevent him from busting his level if he is going to do so by mistake; or do you assume if you do not say 'maintain', that a pilot is more likely to disregard your climb instruction?
Superfluous, non standard rubbish. More dumbing down of something that, if done properly in the first place, is extremely simple.
Extra, non-standard RT added by people who don't trust pilots to do the job, and who are silly enough to believe that by adding their superfluous RT it is going to make a difference.
I doubt very much if a pilot would think that you surmised they were level when they were still climbing.
it's not the reaching, it's the carrying-on-through part which "maintain" intends to emphasise..
Telling a pilot to climb and maintain a level will not prevent him from busting his level if he is going to do so by mistake; or do you assume if you do not say 'maintain', that a pilot is more likely to disregard your climb instruction?
Superfluous, non standard rubbish. More dumbing down of something that, if done properly in the first place, is extremely simple.
Extra, non-standard RT added by people who don't trust pilots to do the job, and who are silly enough to believe that by adding their superfluous RT it is going to make a difference.
Last edited by anotherthing; 20th Jul 2012 at 22:20.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing, I enjoyed reading that! Never used 'maintain on reaching' in 46 years.
Fly heading xxx on reaching?
Speed xxxkts on reaching?
Cleared for take-off on reaching?
'on reaching' is superfluous and a waste of air time.
Which smacks of nats so-called 'best practice' introduced by 'uncontained' jobsworth LCEs!
Fly heading xxx on reaching?
Speed xxxkts on reaching?
Cleared for take-off on reaching?
'on reaching' is superfluous and a waste of air time.
Originally Posted by anotherthing
Extra, non-standard RT added by people who don't trust pilots to do the job, and who are silly enough to believe that by adding their superfluous RT it is going to make a difference
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are correct, it is pedantry... however how difficult is it for a professional pilot at the beginning of their flight to get their first (simple) call to radar correct?!
(he got all sorts of guiding material and help...)
Bout 8 months later I saw him 'captain' an AOC airplane...makes you wonder...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness,
I was fortunate To have flown in a previous career. Whilst not in the commercial field I like think I have some idea of the workload on the flight deck, though it was a long while ago and things do change.
During basic training RT was drummed into us, and the idea that if you could get that right, without having to use precious time thinking about how to say something, then it left you with so much more capacity for other tasks in a high workload environment.
I personally think that when an ATCO uses superfluous RT it, at the very least, detracts from the meaning of what is being conveyed and at worst could confuse the pilot. I've even seen some ATCOs give a climb clearance, then when the aircraft is halfway through the climb, they step in with another transmission to say 'maintain FL... on reaching'. Not only a waste of RT time, but also a possible distraction for the crew, particularly when it is one of the highest workload stages of the flight.
The instruction 'climb FL...' is clear and unambiguous. It does not need anything else.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but quite often I find that it is the less able controllers who feel they have to over control like this.
I was fortunate To have flown in a previous career. Whilst not in the commercial field I like think I have some idea of the workload on the flight deck, though it was a long while ago and things do change.
During basic training RT was drummed into us, and the idea that if you could get that right, without having to use precious time thinking about how to say something, then it left you with so much more capacity for other tasks in a high workload environment.
I personally think that when an ATCO uses superfluous RT it, at the very least, detracts from the meaning of what is being conveyed and at worst could confuse the pilot. I've even seen some ATCOs give a climb clearance, then when the aircraft is halfway through the climb, they step in with another transmission to say 'maintain FL... on reaching'. Not only a waste of RT time, but also a possible distraction for the crew, particularly when it is one of the highest workload stages of the flight.
The instruction 'climb FL...' is clear and unambiguous. It does not need anything else.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but quite often I find that it is the less able controllers who feel they have to over control like this.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
quite often I find that it is the less able controllers who feel they have to over control like this
