Duff Man

hear a rumour QF are asking to drop group format from FNCs

ie, 4312
forty-three twelve
now becomes
four three one two

thoughts? around the world?

rack 'n stack

lose the FNCs altogether. I knew what OJG and EBA were.

one25six

The question is why?
Is it too hard for them to comply? Are we going to become non-ICAO compliant in yet another area because of a private company?
When differentiated between 4312 and 4321:
FOURTY THREE TWELVE
FOURTY THREE TWENTY ONE
Or,
FOUR THREE ONE TWO
FOUR THREE TWO ONE
You tell me which is easier to confuse?
That is why we have the group format to start with.

Every day I find myself repeating myself far too often - this idea sounds like it will worse.

Every day I find myself repeating myself far too often - this idea sounds like it will worse.

Every day I find myself repeating myself far too often - this idea sounds like it will worse.

karrank

Will make evening shifts safer when "Vorgin seven fifty three" is sharing a freq with "Kwantars seven five three", or those other times when you can have up to 6 aircraft with "ninety nine" in their callsign.

My error rates with FNC have plateaued at a level I am not personally happy with. I see others do the same.

Detuls

It was QF who wanted these changes in the first place. Their poor cousin (the little white rat) had to redo all their Flt No:s to cater for QF's inability to listen. Oh sorry,forgot, QF has long sectors.

Continental-520

If that's the case, why does QFlink still use aircraft registrations??

E.g. The BA146s and B717s still go as "November Juliet _____" and "November X-ray ________" respectively.

Please explain....?


520.

Transition Layer

Only in your part of the world Cont 520, over here they've been "Eastern" and "Sunstate" basically since the introduction of FNCs.

Besides, I think the change is referring to the use of groupings, as opposed to Flight Number Callsigns themselves.

Cheers,
TL

Lord Snot

It was Qantas who kept on and on about the FNCs in the first place. That and the callsign at the end of the readback. Prior to these changes, you'd hear a Qantars pilot going against the CAOs by proudly leaving his callsign to the end of the transmission of a readback. How clever......

There was even some tw@t who put his name to a little write-up in the old crash comic book about how much better off we'll all be if we say the callsign at the end instead of the beginning of the transmission. That is, however, at least an ICAO item.

Anyway this group format thing might be in use in the USA because they ARE LAZY but don't go thinking this means the rest of the world uses it.

Aust is the only other place I've heard them in use.

Trust Qantars to then go changing minds again. They'd lose their collective head if it weren't screwed on and sticky-taped with 1000mph tape. But they are such damn good piloting sky-godz!!

Capt Fathom

My word Snot, you must feel better after that!

By the way, what CAO was that?

murgatroid

I never knew it was QF that wrote the AIP's, CAO's, CAR's. It's the pinheads in Canberra that write the stuff, perhaps your wind would be better directed there.

Capn Bloggs

QF may not have written the CAOs, but they sure as hell (in particular, one Capt, ex AOPA pres) were in there all guns blazing in support when ICAO R/T was being mooted by those pin-heads a few years back.

Lord Snot

Indeed I do, Captain Dude, indeed I do!!

There's only two things better than a good whinge about Qantarse:

A good o*g**m and
A good DUMP.

All three at once???? Oh ye-eeeeeah......

one25six

Callsign at then end.

This is the most dangerous practice of the lot.

I am sure you can figure out why, and if you are a student of human factors you will know what I am talking about v.v. the actions at the ATC side of the microphone when instructions are read back.

It would also help if we all remembered to PTT - THEN talk, especially with levels usually being readback first. You would not beleive how much time is wasted getting aircraft to readback their levels three times because all that is heard is ".... thousand. <FN callsign>".

karrank

Yeah sure. In my example above it would be great to receive "...753, Flight level numpty-foo".

Having regard to my ATC actions have no problem with or concerns about the callsign at the end, in fact consider it safer but not terribly important. Seems to have an almost religious passion about whether it should be first or last in some. Is a Big-endian, Little-endian issue.

Shitsu_Tonka

I agree the callsign should be first.

The information as it is readback is checked on the screen, but the callsign comes last, so everything in theory then gets unchecked if the callsign at then end is not read back correctly.

The incomplete, or clipped, level readback happens all the time. Especially on grouped frequencies.

In my particular ATC environment I want to hear the levels correctly first time.

Back to the thrust of the thread - one wonders why another change, and why because only one carrier wants it? And why do they want it in the first place?

Any answers or news Duff Man?

Duff Man

From what I heard, QF asked CASA for the change. CASA in response organised Airservices to run a simulator session as an experiment. QF failed to turn up to the session, but it ran anyway and was a dismal failure. CASA told QF to forget it. Phew.

Shitsu_Tonka

One wonders how strongly they felt about it in the first place.

swh

Just to clarify exactly what is the ICAO standard phraseology.

Quoting from Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation International Civil, Procedures for Air Navigation Services Sixth Edition October 2001, Volume II, Communication Procedures including those with PANS status, CHAPTER 5. AERONAUTICAL MOBILE SERVICE — VOICE COMMUNICATIONS.

5.2.1.4 Transmission of numbers in radiotelephony

5.2.1.4.1 Transmission of numbers

5.2.1.4.1.1 All numbers, except as prescribed in 5.2.1.4.1.2, shall be transmitted by pronouncing each digit separately.
Note.— The following examples illustrate the application of this procedure (see 5.2.1.4.3.1 for pronunciation).

aircraft call signs transmitted as
CCA 238 Air China two three eight
OAL 242 Olympic two four two

flight levels transmitted as
FL 180 flight level one eight zero
FL 200 flight level two zero zero

headings transmitted as
100 degrees heading one zero zero
080 degrees heading zero eight zero

wind direction and speed transmitted as
200 degrees 70 knots wind two zero zero degrees seven zero knots
160 degrees 18 knots wind one six zero degrees one gusting 30 knots eight

knots gusting three zero knots
transponder codes transmitted as
2 400 squawk two four zero zero
4 203 squawk four two zero three

runway transmitted as
27 runway two seven
30 runway three zero

altimeter setting transmitted as
1 010 QNH one zero one zero
1 000 QNH one zero zero zero

5.2.1.4.1.2 All numbers used in the transmission of altitude, cloud height, visibility and runway visual range (RVR) information, which contain whole hundreds and whole thousands, shall be transmitted by pronouncing each digit in the number of hundreds or thousands followed by the word HUNDRED or THOUSAND as appropriate. Combinations of thousands and whole hundreds shall be transmitted by pronouncing each digit in the number of thousands followed by the word THOUSAND followed by the number of hundreds followed by the word HUNDRED.

5.2.1.9.2.2 PANS.— An aircraft station should acknowledge receipt of important air traffic control messages or parts thereof by reading them back and terminating the readback by its radio call sign.
Note 1.— Air traffic control clearances, instructions and information requiring readback are specified in PANS-ATM (Doc 4444).
Note 2.— The following example illustrates the application of this procedure:
(ATC clearance by network station to an aircraft)

Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID
Aircraft:
MADRID TWA NINE SIX THREE — GO AHEAD
Station:
TWA NINE SIX THREE MADRID — ATC CLEARS TWA NINE SIX THREE TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND FEET
Aircraft (acknowledging):
CLEARED TO DESCEND TO NINE THOUSAND FEET — TWA NINE SIX THREE
Station (denoting accuracy of readback):
MADRID

5.2.1.9.2.3 When acknowledgement of receipt is transmitted by an aeronautical station:
1) to an aircraft station: it shall comprise the call sign of the aircraft, followed if considered necessary by the call sign of the aeronautical station;
2) to another aeronautical station: it shall comprise the call sign of the aeronautical station that is acknowledging receipt.

5.2.1.9.2.3.1 PANS.— An aeronautical station should acknowledge position reports and other flight progress reports by reading back the report and terminating the readback by its call sign, except that the readback procedure may be suspended temporarily whenever it will alleviate congestion on the communication channel.

5.2.1.9.2.4 PANS.— It is permissible for verification for the receiving station to read back the message as an additional acknowledgement of receipt. In such instances, the station to which the information is read back should acknowledge the correctness of readback by transmitting its call sign.

5.2.1.9.2.5 PANS.— If both position report and other information — such as weather reports — are received in the same message, the information should be acknowledged with the words such as “WEATHER RECEIVED” after the position report has been read back, except when intercept of the information is required by other network stations. Other messages should be acknowledged, the aeronautical station transmitting its call sign only.

5.2.1.9.3 End of conversation. A radiotelephone conversation shall be terminated by the receiving station using its own call sign.

Funk

over ere in the pit, i have to deal with 4 digit FNC's all day and night. With the poor std of r/t english over here and if their C/S's are similar it is a nightmare (had a ton of fun working Emirates 904 and 9904 in the same sequence not!).
I get told off for using grouped FNC's but i believe it is better and quicker with less chance of missinterpretation.

Keg

That's not the information that I have. In fact, the original documentation that came out to us when we moved from rego to FNCs was that it was a CASA or Airservices (I can't remember which) initiative rather than a QF one!