Six-Digit Frequencies
 

Does anyone else find these new six-digit frequencies a pain in the @rse ?
I have noticed a new phenomenom, the fifth digit pause, as in:

"Contact blah on one two three decimal four five (pause) zero"
"Roger, contacting blah on one two three decimal four five (pause) zero"

Perhaps its just age!

It's an ICAO requirement which the UK decided to adopt, despite the fact it uses more R/T time and is subject to more error, and despite the fact that the UK files lots of exceptions to ICAO requirements.

FYI, the third digit is needed when 8.33 Khz spacing is used, so it needs to be spelt out then. I can't see why a non-8.33 frequency also needs to have it. We used to say 'Channel xxx.xxx' for 8.33 frequencies but this has been stopped.

Must confess that I have found the change easier than I expected! Although I do find a "5" easier to remember than a "0".
What raises a wee smile though are the "switched on" pilots who have obviously been told to add the "extra digit" and insist on reading back "Contact Ground, One-Two-One decimal Seven" as "Ground, One-Two-One-Seven-Zero" :ugh:
DD

Yeah! Everyone hates a smart-@rse!!

It has caused more R/T loading. As inevitably the frequency is read-back incorrectly. :mad:

The thing I find is weird is that adding an extra digit makes me forget frequencies that I have been using for years. It seems to change them completely! As I said, it must be age!!

At a time when RT congestion is endemic in most UK sectors, here we are introducing yet another 'digit' that isn't required. Unless you are going to be handed to a UHF unit, let's get rid of 'one' - we all know we are on VHF - and until 8.33 spacing comes, forget the sixth digit. We all survived quite happily without it until it reared its ugly head a few months ago. And why does the UK always agree to comply with every brainfart anyone else in the rest of the world dreams up? Nineteen seventy-seven, good night, (and save some breath, you might need it one day).:ugh:

Waste of time.

Biggest problem I find is that many pilots miss out the fourth digit in the readback where it's a '1' eg 'Contact London Control on 133.175' is read back as '133.75'

The 4th number gets missed out quite a lot.

instead of 119.125 I get 119.25 read back. I think pilots are subconsciously listening for the first 3 digits, then only 2 after the decimal, so the 4th number gets missed.

Bloody nuisance. I wonder how many incidents or near incidents have been caused by crews going to an empty frequency when the controller who was expecting them really needed them to be on his frequency?

I have definately got the fifth digit pause!!!:{ :{
But the powers that be say we must so must we shall:eek:

Ive got that 5th digit pause, but I like to think it makes me sound enigmatic and mysterious.

Have to say that most Foreign pilots appear to be fine with the change (IE: they are already used to it?).
The main difficulties seems to come with some UK PPL types where you can end up saying it three times and they still get it wrong.
Could we not drop the 'Day-see-mal' now to save a few syllables; surely if you have a string of six digits or four digits given to you, a pilot can work out where to put the decimal without it being stated each time? What do you think?
4

Me: "Contact London Control, one two six decimal zero seven... zero"
Them: "Isn't that one two six decimal zero seven FIVE?"
Ah. Thinks...
Me: "I don't know. Better try both."
Of course it is zero seven five - I know that now, anyway - but if the bloke on the phone giving the clearance doesn't give the full three decimal places and force of habit means you don't query it, well, what can you do?
On a more serious note, I've experienced a sharp increase in the number of wrong frequency readbacks since the ATSIN came into force, from professionals and PPLs alike, something like five times the number. Not an ideal situation...

Don't do it and won't do it unless it's a genuine 8.33.

six digits
 

As a readerback I agree with the view that I am making more mistakes under the new rules.

I think they should be changed back to how they were plus we should drop the One AND the Decimal AND allow Seventy Seven/Fifty Five etc.

Cheers

WWW

Is this really the attitude to take for what is now a laid down, mandatory procedure?

Why should we have a different phraseology below FL245 (soon to be FL195) from the one above it? Standardisation is the name of the game, and in the flight deck environment (our "customers" before we forget) it actually makes more sense.

This is the way things are - live with it. There are more important things in the world to worry about.

But is it enhancing your single life mate? ;)

4 digits - 5 digits... who cares. It's in, it's not rocket science, therefore we should use it.

We are supposed to be professionals... this extra digit does not affect the way we control aircraft (if it does, then you're in the wrong job if something so simple can throw you).

Like anything new, it will take a bit of getting used to, but you will get used to it.

With regard to an increse in wrong readbacks - is it really that big a difference? I have not noticed a huge increase... maybe it's because we are not used to the frequencies that we are actually listening more carefully or are more attuned to mistakes. After all, familiarisation leads to complacency.