As the controller said the reason he gives this extra restriction is because flight crews don't comply to the already published restriction.....don't go complaining that a controller is making you waste fuel...go complain to your colleauges about not making restrictions....it's not that difficult.....:ugh:

ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:

Hmmmmmm Here there are numerous complaints about this "precious" air time, and when the opportunity arises to push a button and keep your mouth shut....it is also a problem. If the box lights up, why have to confirm verbally?

If the squawk ident request is being used to identify the aircraft, you must verify that the aircraft squawking is the one you asked to squawk and not someone else who misheard your request. The ident and the acknowledgement must be received for the aircraft to be correctly identified.

Ferry Pilot DK
[quote] ATC: "(callsign) squawk ident."

Pilot: SILENCE :ugh:

Hmmmmmm Here there are numerous complaints about this "precious" air time, and when the opportunity arises to push a button and keep your mouth shut....it is also a problem. If the box lights up, why have to confirm verbally?
/QUOTE]

IF the wrong a/c takes the call, selects the sqk and i/d, then there is likely to be a mis ident which at best is a waste of time and annoying, at worst blxxdy dangerous.

I've read all these.As somebody said,slightly worrying.

For me the worst is

"G-ABCD, orbit left over Alderley Edge,1500 ft QNH,expect 45 minute delay due inbound IFR traffic"

They've got autopilots I haven't.

Not meant seriously but it did happen a few times.

That is allowed according to the CAP413 though, isn't it?

I got something similar at KLAS once, but either the controller decided to be nice and help me out, or he didn't want a light IFR airplane in his mix to handle.

ATC: Expect 1 hour delay for IFR traffic.
ME : Understood. Would you prefer I get an IFR clearance from FSS? Or can you handle a pop-up clearance?
ATC: Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace turn left heading..... remain VFR

Come to think of it, KLAS seems to be the worst offender in giving a very low priority to VFR light airplanes. Another time during VFR flight following, when I was overflying Bravo airspace but checked in for traffic advisories:

ATC: Turn right heading 270 for traffic
ME : Turning right 270 (90 degrees to my desired course)

After 10 miles:

ME : Cancel flight following. Turning back on course.
ATC : Uhh ok.

Now I don't bother checking in with KLAS approach when overflying them.

Starting initial calls with the word 'And'!

'And Ground...'
'And Tower...'

Grrrr. :mad:

Notably an Easyjet trait (gross generalisation of course...)

Much easier to give you "service" and get you out of the way rather than vector half a dozen (or more) heavies out of "your way". It amazes me that people assume there is no reason; oh yes that's right we always do it for controller amusement.

Use of "Say again", when "correction" is better:

ME: "Descend to seven thousand feet QNH 1013"
PILOT: "Descend to five {pause}, I say again, seven thousand QNH 1013"

Someone mentioned LIFFY.
Why do ATC insist on not publishing these handover agrements. 330 by exmor, 270 by liffey, 280 by otbed.etc etc. Pain in the arse on a trg flight. Things that need to be planned for on a trg flight need some form of reason. Just do it because it will happen isnt good trg technique. Espacially when it doesnt on occasion. Publish it , with caveats or it shouldnt be a requirement.
Oh and while Im here. 30 track miles should mean just that. Are you listening female controllers at manchester? Requesting to maintain 220kts at 5000 and 15 miles in a 757 with a tail wind and then turning on to the approach with another request for 160 to 4, then an immediate min approach request is pure bolox.

Obviously you fly into Manchester fairly often, if you look at MACC's airspace (which is published) you will see that all of these restrictions are to get you into MACC's airspace. No point in working LACC or Scottish that close to Manch with the volume of other traffic around. They are there to ensure the best efficient use of airspace, not to pi$$ off pilots. ;)

Any ride reports
 

It's annoying to be sure, but when you realize that cruise altitude is about the last opportunity to exercise their discretion allowed crews by todays tightly scripted airline operations along with the desire to give pax as good an experience as possible, very understandable.

Very interesting about the squawk ident. I have always been taught not to reply to this instruction unless there was a new transponder code given. (i.e. squawk 0470 and ident)

A/C: LONDON - ABC123 - PASSING ALTITUDE 2300FT - CLIMBING TO ALTITUDE 3000FT - SAM2V
ATC: ABC123 - LONDON - CLIMB FL80 - SQUAWK IDENT
A/C: CLIMB FL80 - ABC123

Had a look through CAP 413 and couldn't find anything. In the supplement in the Climb-Cruise-Descent section the last instruction is to squawk ident but they don't give a reply.

CEMJ

Quote:

---

Had a look through CAP 413 and couldn't find anything. In the supplement in the Climb-Cruise-Descent section the last instruction is to squawk ident but they don't give a reply.

---

Have a look at CAP 413 Ch2 RT Gen Procedures p1-2-12
Ch5 Rad Phraseology Rad id of a/c p1-5-3 para 1-3-2
And the Supp -Taxi and Take Off section p17 which I interpret as a general instruction as some of the items are unlikely to be included in normal Taxi-T/O situations.

"callsign, london, roger"

and then turns round and

To the management, "boo hoo hoo, im such a loser. i need to complain, IMMEDIATELY, go and do it for me, i couldn't possibly do it myself in a professional mature manner"

GunkyTom,

Thanks you, I hang my head in shame.

1985,

I am fully aware of why the restrictions are there. I am not aware of any reason why they couldnt publish these things next to the waypoints on the enroutes, terminals etc. These are what we use on a day to day basis, not dimensinal tables or aips. Have you sen a uk jepp 1/2 hi level recently? Have a look and tell me how hard it would be , as opposed to trawling the shaded areas for dimensions, reading the front of the chart etc etc, oh and trying to loose upto 7000 with a tail wind in 1/3 profile ie 21 miles when the london guy gives the exmor limit based on 1/3 descent.
Equally the 310 climb limit southbound, publish it somewhere and more people will achieve it with planning

FH

I presume you are talking about FL310 L AMRAL? If so thats not an agreement anywhere. Its a tactical restriction given by the controller based on other traffic going along UL9, the controller probably needs you to achieve that otherwise you are going to get a stepped climb under a transatlantic 747 or A340. Which would you prefer? If you can't make that one then just say so and the controller will sort it. If there is no conflicting traffic then the restriction won't be given.

Its the same with the Exmoor FL330 restriction. Usually this is given to take you out of the High Level sector (FL335+) and to deconflict you with high level cruisers going eastbound along UL9, but its still not a published standing agreement.

I agree if they are standing agreement that are written in our manuals then they should be published, ie the Liffey and Otbed ones, but we can't publish anything if nothing exists to be published

Amral is 270a.
Im on about 310 65 before mid etc. Im not disputing the need for them, but its should be promulgated. I train alot of ab initio f/o from cadet to jet. In the early stages you need something to hang your hat on. Trying to expalin a restriction that you cant prove is annoying.. Not a train smash just makes me hoarse, having to give heads up to unpublished stuff when planning exercises would be so much more beneficial if one could present all the info and let them figure it out. Second guessing a candidates knowledge is the worst form of demoralising technique. Bit of a tangent but my perspective.
Cheers

Crispey
 

Perhaps it was busy with IFR traffic that had been holding - I imagine any IFR aircraft would be a bit miffed if a VFR traffic pitched up and got straight in when they had been going around in circles for an hour!! :hmm:

louby