QANTAS Flight Number Callsigns
 

Is there any truth in the rumour that QANTAS domestic flights will start using Flight Numbers as Callsigns (FNC) as from September 1st?

about time....
 

I seem to remember that they were touting this about 6 odd years ago...finally getting around to doing things the way things are done in the rest of the world?

What is Dunnunda coming to??

Whatever next??:eek:

I work at YBMC. Every Qantas flight I hear does use its Flight Number callsign.

The reason you hear flight numbers at YBMC is because they are QantasLINK aircraft not QF domestic(so to speak)

I believe that the reason the mainline domestic aircraft do not use flight numbers as their callsign is because there is potential for two aircraft with the same flight number to be airborne at the same time which would obviously cause ATC problems. eg QF515 BNE-SYD-PER, if the BNE-SYD flight is delayed it could be inbound to SYD at the same time the SYD-PER flight departs SYD.

I think that aircraft rego's will continue to be used for mainline domestic ops. GB

GB that's interesting to know if its a regular occurance to have two flights with the same number in the air at the same time. Internationals seem to be more prone to this scenario but get around it extremely simply but the addition of a suffix letter to the flight number callsign, eg "D" for delay, "P" positioning (?), etc... surely that couldn't be too hard for dometic ops to arrange? Mind you when we asked for them to drop the "VH" from the callsign in flight plans we got the "too hard" answer.

Not that it makes much difference to me, but the system of using your rego in Aust. for domestic flights has always made me wonder if the rest of the world has got it wrong!:D (or Virgins got it right!:eek: )
I seem to remember a comment from an ATC fellow the last time this topic came up, he said that ATC like regos as they then knew the type of aircraft and could plan accordingly.

dj started bucking the trend and uses fnc's on all domestic flights, very frustrating for us callsign jockeys as it is difficult to find out what aircraft is operating which flight, a thumbs down i reckon for fnc's, i hope qf doesn't go the same way...

I understand that QF are now conducting a review of the use of FNCs by domestic ops. This follows a request from Airservices in CBR for them to do so.

I think it is a case of ... get used to it!

GB is correct re two aircraft airborne with the same Flight Number.
Ansett also suffered from the same scenario...hence their use of callsigns.

QF international might stay with one FNCS all day, but domestically most shorter sectors cop a new flight number every hour or so, and regionals typically suffer even more during a shift.

I cannot figure any practical benefit to pilots, though ATC procedures and equipment may favour FNCS. If we're just going the FNCS way to feel nice about matching an overseas practice, then don't bother. Having used both I much prefer a rego that usually stays the same all day. At least rego's don't change every 30 minutes adding hestitation and confusion on the frequency.

Yeah but isn't it a bit quicker to say 'Qantas 415' than 'Tango Uniform Juliet'?

And if they're not sure, won't ATC usually ask what type and how many POB when you enter their FIR/area?

Taildragger your comment on aircraft type etc. is the bit that gets me, I thought ATC had that information from the flight plan.

That's debatable - depends on the callsign (Mike Mike Mike?) and the airline name adopted by other users. I'd rather stick with TUJ all day than 4 or more FNCS changes in just an afternoon's flying.

Then there's the abundance of numbers when you add 3 or 4 more to a call already heavily populated by numbers - 'QF### at ####ft turn left onto heading ###, climb to FL### ... traffic ahead is QF###'.
I should hope so, but the rest of us locals on a visual approach and looking out for QF415 don't know if we're slotting in behind a B747, B767, B737, B717, BAe146 or a Dash 8 and would have to ask if not told. Rego's become familiar and we can use this info to confirm what ATC have told us - FNCS's change at a whim and offer little help to most at the coal face - QF1 excepted.

Hi Guys, I personally as an ATC prefer the regos. But there are probably ATCs that prefer flight numbers, so dont take my opinion (this time anyway) as gospil :-)

Think there can be a number overload using FNCs, and possibility of 2 companies having same number (eg QANTAS113 and Virgin113) and chance of pilot or ATC not hearing properly and assuming wrong aircraft when busy.

Tho, one advantage of flight numbers will be calling up details on the TAAATS system. If an actraft is using a rego, and someone calls up and asks for an ETA on a flight number, we cant do a search for it. Can only search on callsign aircraft is actually using.

Slightly off topic but;

One International carrier I worked for briefly did not use flight numbers below 361. They were of the opinion flight numbers between 001 and 360 compromised safety.

I was hoping for some input from a QF person who may know more about the rumoured introduction (September 1st).

I believe that in the current system some flight numbers involve landing at intermediate points. EG (fictional) QF234 flies ML-AD-AS-DN. If the schedule gets disrupted, say due to a fog in ML, and a substitute aircraft is used ex AD, you could have the same FNC flying on different legs. I understood the airlines did not want to change their Flight Numbers so that there was a unique one for each leg because of costs and confusion that could be incurred (IATA?) Unfortunately I don't know that much about the airline operations.

TAAATS definitely was designed for FNCs. Pre Departure Clearance (PDC) would work better. As Moby says the search function would be easier for enquiries. Aircraft substitution would be less of a problem. The aircraft registration is of no use to ATC, although planespotters like to know.

The issue of aircraft type is always solved by the ATC giving the aircraft type when required, and applying the necessary sep standard anyway. The type is available on electronic and paper strips plus the lable option.

The only problem I see has already been mentioned. That is the mouthful of numbers. I don't think that many GA operaters and certainly no private pilots would actually know the aircraft type from the rego. If you hear QF234 coming your way it can easily be recognised as something biggish.

Just as an aside any controllers ever looked at VHVXA and thought "Virgin...?" :o

Jungmeister

I can see your point of view however here's my 2c worth:

If the current method of a/c rego continues, you wouldn't have to add to the workload of ATC by pestering them for the type. It's all very well that ATC have strips, labels etc but that doesn't help the pilots.

The majority of GA & RPT pilots (in Darwin anyway) I know do know the aircraft type from the rego, so therefore already have a good idea of where they may be in the upcoming landing sequence.

It depends on one's definition of 'something biggish'. If you were in Sydney & hearing QF234, it could be anything from a Dash 8 up to a 744. However if you heard 'Oscar Juliet xxxx' one could reasonably assume it's a couple of pilots plus a few hundred pax along for the ride! :cool: :cool:

I hate to be picky MIss, but I think the Dash flight numbers are above "400".

Chocks

So if I said QF456 would that add any weight to the argument?

I was actually waiting for someone to say that Sunnies flight numbers are all four digit (if indeed they are)?
:D :D