It happens more than many people seem to think. Often it's just a minor change, such as an E145 replaced by an E135. Sometimes seemingly minor (ATR42 to ATR72) until you realise that turns a Light to a Small, or vice versa. Apart from the vortex issues, there might be a problem with stand clearance if the airport are expecting a smaller type on a tight stand (tip clearance etc).

His dudeness,

I also fly a C680 or Citation Sovereign :)

When we first got it i annonced to Manchester Radar i was a Citation Sovereign. Reply was confirm you are a C680!!

How you fond your machine?

Happy Landings 3legs
:ok:

Cannot speak for Germany, but in Norway any consequence of wrong a/c type in the FPL (i.e wrong WT spacing) would rest squarely on the muppet that filed it incorrectly, in other words the airline.

If you should apply the HD logic, en route controllers must ask for confirmation on filed speed and flight level, as well as route all the time as well.

M609 - couldn't agree more. Why do some ANSPs cater for errors instead of trying to prevent them before they happen?

Cheers,

NFR.

Better a couple of seconds r/t than an otherwise easily avoidable smoking hole a few miles from the end of the runway.

When pretty much every minute of every hour from 6am to 10pm every single aircraft is going down the approach at the minimum allowed spacing from the one ahead, wake vortex category is safety critical information. Filed cruise speed or level isn't quite the same.

Why take the risk?

Assuming it is correct doesn't seem very safe to me. It is very common for an aircraft to request a different cruising level to the one filed. And especially common these days for an aircraft to fly at a different speed to that filed to save on fuel.

I think you'd have to be quite brave to base seperation on a filed TAS or requested level rather than actually setting a speed etc., so why any difference with type and hence wake category?

Probably to wake up the long haul guys.

Yes, you would be brave. The difference with the wake category is that if you set it up on the assumption that the filed aircraft type is correct, then you'll possibly end up putting someone closer than is safe to do so.

For example, the RPL/FPL shows an Embraer 190 but the flight is actually operated by an Embraer 135 with no CHG message received. Seen similar circumstances enough times to know that there is a chance of it happening. The call of aircraft type as requested is a double check in a safety critical phase of flight. I'd rather 'waste' RT time with that than 'waste' my time filling in reports or worse.

Is this perhaps the reason it's not done in the rest of europe? Do Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt consistently apply minimum vortex spacing as Heathrow does?

Avoiding Action: I meant why don't ANSPs kick the operators' @rses if they don't put the change message in instead of double checking all the time. And how about doing something about inter-unit messaging going wrong rather than doing a patch job down the line.

I would never base separation on the filed level/speed. That's just asking for trouble. Aircraft types, however, I certainly would.

Cheers,

NFR.

NFR, I assume then (for example) that you don't listen to readbacks either on the assumption they'll never be incorrect?

NFR Because mistakes happen. A couple of seconds of RT time is surely better than a crash due to incorrect wake vortex seperation being applied.

Geez guys. Not listening to readbacks - hardly the same as an operator or ANSP not passing through a change message. I fail to see how you can compare the two.

All I am saying is that is LHR have seen too many errors happen in aircraft type being incorrect, what measures are being taken to avoid the necessity of asking each time? Why do [I]most[I] operators/ANSPs around the world get the correct information passed down the line from departure to arrival?

Cheers,

NFR.

A pilot telling us their a/c type during their first contact wastes hardly any time whatsoever. What does waste RT time is pilots not listening to the ATIS correctly subsequently omitting their a/c type on first contact with Heathrow and then we have to go back to them to ask them to report their a/c type.

This isn't something that bothers me particularly, what however annoys me enormously is a/c checking in with their callsign only or speed only with intermediate director on 119.725 and 134.975. Callsign only is for final director on 120.4! Isn't how to check in something that pilots get taught at an early stage, it just seems incredibly unprofessional!

Getting back to the original point though, its safety critical that we get the a/c type correct. Similarly why we get a/c to report their cleared level; we can't trust the fact that because your Mode S SFL is accurate that that's the level you'll stop at, we need you to tell us too. It's about limiting risk, and when I was training I was told 'if it can go wrong it will go wrong.' It takes no time at all to include your type on first contact, just remember!

tc_atco

In defence of the guys who get it wrong, I think that there are some easily solved (free, by NATS) human factors issues here.

Firstly the ATIS says to give the information on "first contact with Heathrow" (no mention of "Director") whereas some of your TMA colleagues transfer aircraft to "Director" (no mention of "Heathrow").

Secondly, some approach charts have "London" in large font and "Heathrow" in a smaller style. Since AC and TC controllers are forever telling people to contact "London" rather than "London Control", I think it is very likely that some people check in with TC SE INS/BIG/LAM etc and give the information to them thinking (as they can clearly see from their map display that they are almost on top of the aerodrome) that they are talking to "London Approach" or somesuch. Of all the occasions that I have heard aircraft erroneously give their details to a TMA controller, I've only once heard that controller explain that they actually need to give all the information again when QSY'd.

On a related note to my first point, it may be that irregular vistors don't realise the connecton between reporting aircraft type and being provided with the correct vortex spacing. I would not be surprised if some people were expecting to report their aircraft type to the TWR controller for route charging reasons, for example. Speculation on my part, but I don't know why I need to tell some en-route controllers my registration (although I can have a pretty good guess).

So to fix some of the problem: someone needs to get their finger out and fix the ATIS to say "Heathrow Director", a gentle reminder could be sent to the TMA controllers that they need to tell crews who check in wrongly who the correct recipient should be and AC need to transfer aircraft to "London Control".

My 2 cents.

Incidentally, the only other place that I can think of that requires aircraft to check in Heathrow-style is Copenhagen. This is also one of the only other places we are regularly, intentionally vectored accurately to the minimum vortex spacing.

G W-H

As I said, I'm not too bothered by crews omitting their type. Your comments regarding why pilots may forget to include this are fair enough.

What does annoy me is pilots checking in with their callsign only on first contact. You'd expect cleared level and next waypoint / heading as a minimum. There is no human factor excuse here; it's plain laziness or cluelessness...

Tc-atco:

Thanks for the helpful replies ( and one or two others). But Dudeness's question is not answered. I fly a C525 -what is most helpful information as regarding aircraft type:
1. C525 - do ATCOs know every ICAO code?
2. Citation Jet (could be anything from 510 to 750)

Also, if it is for wake spacing, why not just ask for a/c wake category? At least pilots would then know why the question is being asked.


Perhaps HEATHROW DIRECTOR should consider before making his snide remarks about the OPs perfectly reasonable question that he may be busy, but is at least working in a familiar ATC environment. I'm flying into LHR for only the second time next week ( and first time single pilot) and so I'm hoping he is not on duty.

It is the ICAO code of the flight planned aircraft which we have infront of us on our strips, so please use that.

I'm afraid asking the pilot for their wake category as apposed to their definitive ICAO aircraft-type-code is a plain stupid idea. The categories' names and limits differ depending where in the world you're flying so whats the point of making it even more confusing? How about you simply answer the question of what type you are and let us separate complying to the UK minima using the UK wake categories.

Enjoy your flight into Heathrow! I'd be very intrigued to see into the flight deck during a single pilot approach into Heathrow.

A Citation Jet isn't the same as a CitationJet. :O