Stand-by for Maastricht?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have yet to hear this actually in use. I have the same thoughts of many others here and elsewhere, its all a bit pointless if a call is still to be made. I also think that the solution to this call still needing to be made is a bit of a joke:
"Frequency is overloaded, let's get the pilots to not call when they change frequency."
"They have to call, ICAO says so"
"Oh okay well then tell them to call when it's silent"
I mean you are going to get idiots regardless, but I would say that very very few intentionally talk over someone else, and the cause for crossed transmissions is normally because a few people were waiting for the silence.
"Frequency is overloaded, let's get the pilots to not call when they change frequency."
"They have to call, ICAO says so"
"Oh okay well then tell them to call when it's silent"
I mean you are going to get idiots regardless, but I would say that very very few intentionally talk over someone else, and the cause for crossed transmissions is normally because a few people were waiting for the silence.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: not telling
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea (although its lost in translation through the poor wording of the NOTAM) is NOT to call at all, and to remain completely silent until you are called by ATC.
As ATCOs we have an indication in the radar label of when at aircraft has been handed over internally via the 'standby' protocol.
It would have been nicer to use 'monitor' in the NOTAM, as that is pretty much self-explanatory - however it was not possible.
If, as a pilot, you are told to 'standby for Maastricht', then switch on the box but do NOT call in.
As ATCOs we have an indication in the radar label of when at aircraft has been handed over internally via the 'standby' protocol.
It would have been nicer to use 'monitor' in the NOTAM, as that is pretty much self-explanatory - however it was not possible.
If, as a pilot, you are told to 'standby for Maastricht', then switch on the box but do NOT call in.
Its not poor wording in the NOTAM, it explicitly states to do so. From the first page:
(A0289/15 NOTAMN
Q) EHAA/QSUXX/IV/NBO/E /245/999/5259N00454E999
A) EHAA B) 1503230000 C) 1504122359
E)A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS-TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY 'STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)' CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY. PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING BY WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.
Q) EHAA/QSUXX/IV/NBO/E /245/999/5259N00454E999
A) EHAA B) 1503230000 C) 1504122359
E)A STANDBY CAMPAIGN AT MAASTRICHT UAC IS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY LOAD AND THE NUMBER OF CROSS-TRANSMISSIONS. THE PHRASEOLOGY 'STANDBY FOR MAASTRICHT ON (CHANNEL-NAME)' CAN BE EXPECTED FOR TRANSFER OF FREQUENCY. PILOTS ARE REMINDED TO ANNOUNCE THEY ARE STANDING BY WHEN FREQUENCY TIME ALLOWS.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is anyone using this new procedure?
I am regularly flying through their airspace but have yet to hear 'standby for Maastricht'
A friend of mine, ATCO over there, hinted it's a procedure developed by paper shufflers too detached from real life controlling. So is it just another mindless SOP added to the ignore list?
I am regularly flying through their airspace but have yet to hear 'standby for Maastricht'
A friend of mine, ATCO over there, hinted it's a procedure developed by paper shufflers too detached from real life controlling. So is it just another mindless SOP added to the ignore list?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: not telling
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright as a MUAC ATCO ill write just one more post, hopefully to put this to bed. Ill try and be clear:
1. It was NOT written by a paper shuffler.
2. What was written was heavily restricted by ICAO stipulations.
3. What was written is not what the NOTAM writer, or we as ATCOs really want.
4. It is, effectively (in my opinion) a waste of time.
5. The issue of pilots 'bursting in' to busy frequencies is a real one, and one that we would like to tackle, as it can cause substantial problems. Despite the poor wording, if the NOTAM and the subsequent discussion it has created causes airspace users to think, take a step back and pay more attention to the frequency then (I suppose) its worth it.
6. Given free choice the NOTAM would have been a 'monitor Maastricht' campaign.
7. ATCOs are not using it, as (without prejudice) pilots tend to ignore, not understand or request clarification on the instruction when its used, which defeats the purpose.
8. UNOFFICIALLY if you are instructed to do this, do NOT call in on the next MUAC frequency, but monitor and wait until called.
I hope that explains it well enough.
DISCLAIMER, the above post represents my personal views, and not that of my employer, yada yada etc etc.
Please note: Ill not be back to this thread to do any more debating / explaining / arguing. The above represents the situation, take it or leave it
1. It was NOT written by a paper shuffler.
2. What was written was heavily restricted by ICAO stipulations.
3. What was written is not what the NOTAM writer, or we as ATCOs really want.
4. It is, effectively (in my opinion) a waste of time.
5. The issue of pilots 'bursting in' to busy frequencies is a real one, and one that we would like to tackle, as it can cause substantial problems. Despite the poor wording, if the NOTAM and the subsequent discussion it has created causes airspace users to think, take a step back and pay more attention to the frequency then (I suppose) its worth it.
6. Given free choice the NOTAM would have been a 'monitor Maastricht' campaign.
7. ATCOs are not using it, as (without prejudice) pilots tend to ignore, not understand or request clarification on the instruction when its used, which defeats the purpose.
8. UNOFFICIALLY if you are instructed to do this, do NOT call in on the next MUAC frequency, but monitor and wait until called.
I hope that explains it well enough.
DISCLAIMER, the above post represents my personal views, and not that of my employer, yada yada etc etc.
Please note: Ill not be back to this thread to do any more debating / explaining / arguing. The above represents the situation, take it or leave it
Last edited by BeT; 12th May 2015 at 17:07.
