Confirm aircraft type pedantry
 

With Mode S and many airlines using a single type, why clog the airwaves with this verbosity?

I'm looking at you Essex Radar and also you Gatwick Director (both of whom do a fantastic and professional job in the main).

Curious.

Because sometimes the aircraft type does not match that entered on the FPL. This might affect Wake Turbulence separation and therefore SAFETY could be compromised. It is NOT pedantry for the sake of it.

Mode S does not indicate aircraft type, only identity. As others have said, if we could depend on pilots and operators getting it right in the FPL 100% of the time, we wouldn't need the confirmation. But we can't.

Depone, you are obviously out of your depth, stick to your day job.:ugh:

Talkdownman and 10W, fair responses to the question.

Obwan, grow up.

The question was made in the context of the query by another poster about the use of the term 'squawk ident'. I do not see this question as being any less worthy of discussion.

You will find that many commercial pilots find reporting their aircraft type a bit annoying at their home base. This is especially so when their airline only flies one type and both the pilot and the controller know this.

If controllers are happy when an aircraft checks in and idents before the controller's response, even when this is apparently contrary to the rules, surely they might not be pedantic when a pilot omits to mention aircraft type when checking in?

- do you know what a sub-charter is?

Some pilots are now used to provide it out of the UK too, talking about ryanair and easy it's totally useless :O

So when Easy chartered a 757 for the summer season a couple of years ago?

"Radar, EZY9007...... A319"

"EZY9007, Radar..... Confirm A319, my info shows you as an A320?"

"Errr sorry, yes, we are an A320, EZY9007".

The amount I get that type of conversation surprises me. A slip of the tongue, or does the pilot/co-pilot actually think he/she's flying a different type of plane? Whether you're in an A319 or A320 means diddly squat to a radar controller, or probably even the ground handlers, but surely it's handy for YOU to know exactly which one you're flying???

I don't mean to just blame EZY, just seemed appropriate in my example for some reason. Other airlines do it too!

True, but then again, I doubt it would have had an EZY call sign?

Actually it means more to the ground handlers than anyone probably, the loading procedure is different!
Whilst it sounds a bit "silly", don't forget that it looks exactly the same in the pointy end so it is easy for a slip of the tongue to occur when you fly a 19 99% of the time.

The 757's did have EZY call-signs by the way.

Interestingly Ryanair are operating a Lear45 at the moment using a Ryanair call-sign... I'm guessing it's being used to ferry a certain CEO around. This could cause quite a tasty loss of separation on final approach if the controller had reason to believe it was a B738!

Titan aviation operate 146s, 737s, 757s and a 767 from EGSS and frequently fly using airline call signs. These are often short notice aircraft replacement flights where flight plan data may be incorrect.

There are lots of examples where the question is far from pedantry

Had a very nice example once where a certain car manufacturer operated a BA11 and a G159. The blip, BA11 in the flightplan, looked a bit slow so I queried the type. The answer came back, "One Eleven" and the sound of someone being thumped was audible before he released the Tx button. Then "Sorry, Gulfstream" Not a big problem at a UAC, but the wrong info would have been passed down the line. Could be fatal should anything have gone horribly wrong
Easy to fall into complacency.

Check, check, and check again if you have any doubts

Here in DXB happens all the time, yesterday alone I had two, A320 on strip A300 operating flight and B738 on strip A333 operating flight!! If I had put a medium behind what I thought was another Medium!!!

Shortly before retirement i was somewhat peeved when a 747 was substituted for a 73. Nothing in the plan and as it was busy I happily vectored another 73 five miles across behind him. Only afterwards did I get a lecture - on a busy freq - from the captain of the second a/c complaining about wake turbulence. The annoying thing was was that he had visual contact with his traffic and I'd also given him traffic info clearly stating "another 737" . In non RVSM airspace so he could have eased up 100 feet and missed it

The Ryanair Learjet 45 is being operated as RYR1. We asked the pilot the other day on freq and he reported to be carrying engineers (flying to Bulgaria).

OP: Cretin.

FlyBe don't have any Fokker 50s, but one pitched up flying one of their routes recently. It's the same WT category as a Q400, but i'm just saying - you can get caught out if you don't check. It's also required for referring to an item of traffic;

"G-OD, No.3. No.2 is a ...."

"After the 737 crossing right to left, taxi holding point...." etc.

Confusion over types has also been known to cause runway incursion problems.

It's not just wake vortex. I recall watching a trainee vectoring a KLM CityHopper onto the ILS behind one of the based 737s. It was normally an F100 (or maybe a 28) but on that day it was an SF34 - nothing to indicate the aircraft change.

Trainee duly put the thing on the ILS and threw it to TWR and then, with nothing else happening, he turned to me looking pleased with himself for his neat vectoring and we talked for a short while before I had a quick look at the radar. KLM had rapidly caught up with the 737 and was way closer than I had any right to let it get. Lots of quick talking to TWR - reduce speed to min safe approach and stuff like that - and it all worked out OK in the end, albeit very tight on the runway.

T'was many years ago. It only happened once (that I'm aware of). TCAS not installed widely at the time. We didn't have to pack 'em together routinely. No little radar in front of TWR at the time (I think it was in the process of being replaced at the time). Weather not very nice. But it shook me up. Lots of holes in the cheese started to line up and it shook me up some.

Does that warrant clogging up the RTF with mentions of the aircraft type? My own view - I'm inclined to say yes. Given the number of times I've seen aircraft that didn't match the filed type appear out of the murk over the THR and the number of experiences related in this thread, I'd say yes, without a doubt it's worth the minimal increase in RTF loading.

We've got an Ezy 320 based at Brizzel. Thomson's at Brizz are, in the main, 75s but sometimes they slip a 73 just to keep us on our toes.
Don't see the problem with a/c type on contact myself. Anyhoo, the most verbose people on the r/t tend to be the smartie tube drivers, what's an a/c type between friends!?