4. SSR – Mode A 4A. Identification 4A.1 When using Mode A to identify aircraft, one of the following methods is to be employed: (1) Observing the pilot’s compliance with the instruction to select a discrete four digit code; (2) Recognising a validated four digit code previously assigned to an aircraft callsign. When code/callsign conversion procedures are in use and the code/callsign pairing can be confirmed, the callsign displayed in the data block may be used to establish and maintain identity; (3) Observing an IDENT feature when it has been requested. 4A.2 Caution must be exercised when employing this method because simultaneous requests for SPI transmissions within the same area may result in misidentification. Aircraft displaying the conspicuity code 7000 are not to be identified by this met

Fatcontoller....Yes you are. Previously, the only conspicuity that cannot be identifed using ident WAS 7000. Now its all of them. Since the update 2 months ago. Your local orders at wherever you used to work may have said you couldnt, but thats not MATS1. And it isnt 'blindingly obvious', its actually a perfectly sound method of ident for professionals to use that has now been removed.

Yes the mistakes and errors in the new edition are a poor reflection on the CAA and as has been stated the CAA is aware of the issue and working on it.

What few of us are aware of is how few people in the CAA there are working on this stuff at the same time as trying to do a lot of much higher priority work. The software that they are forced to use to create these CAPs is not fit for purpose and causes a lot of the problems that we see published. Finally, in another case of the tail wagging the dog, the editors of the technical content have it filtered by non-technical 'content specialists' who re-word text to make it more reader friendly but then don't to admit what they have changed. Even if the editor does a word-by-word check of every page, they're never going to capture all of the errors before it's time to publish.

So throw out the content specialists and corporate communications and replace them with half the number of people who actually know what they are doing! I am not convinced that the CAA is aware of the extent of the shambles that is the 413, and it would certainly be better to cancel edition 23 altogether.

2 s

Including some diligent proofreaders! ;)

When I was a lad we had ASD & ATSD staff who had considerable experience in the field that they were regulating, ie former pilots, navigators, controllers, airport operations staff etc. With you all the way 2 sheds, Presumably qualifications and experience is one thing that the CAA business model cannot afford?

Gunky - Look in the new edition! It's one change that has been done correctly, at long last, taken from EU.

2 s

Where is this written as can't find it. I can still see reference to Altimeter settings being individual digits. Exceptions in the para below mentions altitude but not altimeter settings. Would love it to change though so it falls in line with what I actually say !

Absolutely correct! You have to remember, though, that these days you have to consider what to do with the products of the "Graduate Trainee Programmes" they have to be employed somewhere, plus all the quotas that have to be filled and boxes ticked - "Equality"; "Diversity"; "Disabilities". These are all cheaper to employ than former pilots, navigators, controllers, airport operations staff, who would be considered as a bolshie lot anyway. Perhaps the answer to solve the problems is to engage a number of the latest panacea for failed management, "Human Factors people". For the uninitiated these are re-packaged "Human Resources" who in turn were formally called "Personnel Officers". :O

Dirty Harry had a choice comment on the subject, as I recall! One could also add that there is a reason why it is known as RAF Gatwick.
Gunky - your post and mine seem to have changed places.
2 s

That, and for ATM related matters the NATS PPP meant that the possibility of secondment for valid ATCOs to the CAA for a period (two or three years being usual, I seem to recall) with the guarantee of returning to the same job and pay scale as if you’d never left vanished. That was a useful way in which the CAA maintained its operational knowledge and recency.

Oh yes, it worked both ways. I certainly would have been interested in doing something like that.

I would welcome a more knowledgable and better-staffed regulator, better equipped to challenge ANSPs rather than perhaps relying too much on performance-based oversight.

I lost count of the times I applied for a job at ATSD at Gatwick only to find I'd lost out to an ex RAF person (usually via the OBN).

Even the GCAA (UAE) are less than impressed with the UK CAA.

Wake Turbulence Induced Loss of Control on Approach during Runway Lighting Calibration Flight

CAP413 probably least of their worries.

Thanks, found it. Glad they have caught up with how I have said it for ever

After 44 years in ATC, not in the UK, I am very glad to be out of it. I miss my colleagues and friends, one is part of a family... BUT I have seen, over the years how 'management' has taken over the whole show. Very cleverly they have adopted American management styles, rules and regulations, which under 'management speak', have become the norm. Rules are important, but in an ever changing environment, such as ATC, surely 'rules are for the guidance of wise men and the instruction of fools' is/was the way to go. Yes there will be situations when the rules are critical but then, with an enquiry, things were sorted out through rules and common sense. Nowadays, in situations such as driving a car, there is no such thing as an accident. Motorways in the UK are shut down after an incident, not accident...because it is a 'crime scene'. I suppose it boils down to insurance as there has to be a guilty party. It's money... and power, responsibility on the management side. Maybe an extreme example but that seems to be a facet of life overall.
Ready to be shot down but that's my sixpence worth. It was a great life, with a good atmosphere and wonderful people. From what I can gather, everyone now is looking over their shoulder and not really relaxed doing the job.
We who are retired had the best of days methinks.

zed3 - could not agree more. Yes, there is a need for a record of due process and responsibility (actually, not demonstrable in the subject case of Edition 23 :ugh:), but it has all gone OTT. That said, we teach HFs but frequently overlook them. In the case of a RTI, the investigation, of which the police appear to be obsessional, needs to be offset against the time and fuel and pollution and loss of productivity and sheer frustration of all those whose day and livelihood is severely disrupted. The WW2 principle of the Fleet Air Arm would be appropriate. Aircraft pranged on the flight deck, can't be easily moved, bulldozed over the side, carry on flying. So the police miss out on a possible prosecution - big deal if it is quite justifiable.

2 s

New, revised Edition 23 (corrigendum) will be published on Monday, effective in August. Let's see how many errors and inconsistencies are corrected!

Something for the weekend sir?

After many sleepless nights of eager anticipation what do we get?

"Placement of surface wind now precedes the clearance" but then goes on to say it doesn't.

Chapter 2 "Military Aircraft Callsigns" still written in militarise with "RT" still present.

Understand that the formal complaint filed by "a stakeholder" in respect of the original attempt at Ed 23 has never been responded to, not even a "thank you for bringing this to our attention".

Dunning-Kruger Effect at work ?