QF & the word HEAVY!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: between the indian ocean and the dessert
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF & the word HEAVY!!!
Lately on the airwaves QF international (76s/A330s and above) have been using the word "HEAVY" on initial contact with tower/centre or approach!!......is this just a QF thing or is it a ATC requirement now in Australia that you use the word heavy for large A/C??........the only country where this was the norm was the ol US of A!!.......any answers??
Grandpa Aerotart
It has become a requirement...believe me I want to gag everytime
It is NOT just QF...I have to say it when in Oz airspace in a 767 too...next thing you know they'll want us to say it everybloodywhere!!!
It is NOT just QF...I have to say it when in Oz airspace in a 767 too...next thing you know they'll want us to say it everybloodywhere!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, it's now a bloody requirement. But having discussed it with an Approach ATC mate over a beer, he agrees it's complete crap. They know from the flight-plan/strip/computer screen who's heavy and who isn't. So if you "forget" to say it then the sky isn't going to fall....
Seriously, we really are losing the plot somewhere in Aus.
Seriously, we really are losing the plot somewhere in Aus.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas just wants you to use the word "Heavy" as a reminder to the pilots that once they've finished putting the cleaners through Heavy Maintenance they're coming after them!
Anybody bother to read the AIP these days, anyone? Try reading section ENR 1.4 Para 9.2.7:
This is a new requirement that was introduced by AIR SERVICES AUSTRALIA in AIP amendment 45 dated 24 Nov 05.
For aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category, the word "HEAVY" shall be included immediately after the aircraft callsign in the initial radiotelephony contact between such aircraft and the aerodrome control tower or the approach control unit.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Bleve, that is what we have been saying: that it has become a requirement.
The vast majority of professional pilots operating in/to/from Aus are aware of it so that's why you're hearing it on the airwaves.
But as to whether the "requirement" is really "necessary" - well that's another matter. Perhaps there's an argument that it aids situational awareness of other aircraft out there that might be right behind you? Dunno - any comments?
The vast majority of professional pilots operating in/to/from Aus are aware of it so that's why you're hearing it on the airwaves.
But as to whether the "requirement" is really "necessary" - well that's another matter. Perhaps there's an argument that it aids situational awareness of other aircraft out there that might be right behind you? Dunno - any comments?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Nope..its never helped my SA (although if it ever existed in the first place..my one brain cell would probably get lonely 
) and it usually makes me smirk..kind of a "I say heavy cos mines bigger than yours"..pointless requirement IMHO...keeps someone in CASA in a job though I suppose..
I think this requirement harks back to the days of primary radar..with little or no flight data info..hence the "heavy" to help with separation inside the terminal area..or at least I think I remember reading that somewhere.
) and it usually makes me smirk..kind of a "I say heavy cos mines bigger than yours"..pointless requirement IMHO...keeps someone in CASA in a job though I suppose..I think this requirement harks back to the days of primary radar..with little or no flight data info..hence the "heavy" to help with separation inside the terminal area..or at least I think I remember reading that somewhere.
I'm probably wrong as usual BUT....
1. Hasn't the "Heavy" bit been in the AIP 'Phraseology' section for years? I seem to remember it in the 'taxy calls' section back when I actually used to read that stuff. I'd always wondered why so few people used it!
2. I fly an aircraft under 20 tonnes. When I have minimum separation on the aircraft in front, I want to know what type of aircraft it is that I am following. A callsign such as Qantas 123 doesn't give me this info. Qantas 123 'heavy' does. I guess you could say that enhances my SA. Wake turbulence can be pretty ugly. Yes, ATC are meant to give us prescribed separation but why not be ready to handle the unexpected?
Just my amateur thoughts.
1. Hasn't the "Heavy" bit been in the AIP 'Phraseology' section for years? I seem to remember it in the 'taxy calls' section back when I actually used to read that stuff. I'd always wondered why so few people used it!
2. I fly an aircraft under 20 tonnes. When I have minimum separation on the aircraft in front, I want to know what type of aircraft it is that I am following. A callsign such as Qantas 123 doesn't give me this info. Qantas 123 'heavy' does. I guess you could say that enhances my SA. Wake turbulence can be pretty ugly. Yes, ATC are meant to give us prescribed separation but why not be ready to handle the unexpected?
Just my amateur thoughts.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will take a contrary view (how unlike me!), and say that I think it is not such a bad thing - the problem is it is inconsistent in it's application, therefore any SA gain made for the ATC is diminished.
When it came in, last year, it was used a lot more - it seems to have drifted out of use now.
My own view is that it was a band-aid fix to the amount of wake turbulence 'encounters' that ATC were manufacturing - partly as a result of the introduction of FNC's (Flight Number Callsigns). We all used to know that -OGB, RMD, EAA etc were all heavies, and CZU, TJA, TAF etc, were mediums.
QFA1122 doesn't mean much until you look at the radar track / other track. (We dont look at strips much these days - rarely in approach). Herein lies the problem - the H and the M in the TAAATS font (especially in MAESTRO font) look almost the same - and I, fortunately, have excellent eyesight - consider the average age of an approach controller is mid to late 40's, and the vision implications of that, and you can see why it regularly gets missed. Not to the point of an 'encounter', but becomes a surprise nonetheless.
There has been an effort to change the colours of the Wake Turb indicator - unfortunately this seemed to make it worse.
Anyhow - just some background. You only have to say it on first contact - we dont think you are wankers - it's saving us haveing a short 'holiday', so my personal view is that it's not a bad thing.
[Below is a picture I discovered on the web, which indicates the Wake Turb indication - normally labels are green or blue]
When it came in, last year, it was used a lot more - it seems to have drifted out of use now.
My own view is that it was a band-aid fix to the amount of wake turbulence 'encounters' that ATC were manufacturing - partly as a result of the introduction of FNC's (Flight Number Callsigns). We all used to know that -OGB, RMD, EAA etc were all heavies, and CZU, TJA, TAF etc, were mediums.
QFA1122 doesn't mean much until you look at the radar track / other track. (We dont look at strips much these days - rarely in approach). Herein lies the problem - the H and the M in the TAAATS font (especially in MAESTRO font) look almost the same - and I, fortunately, have excellent eyesight - consider the average age of an approach controller is mid to late 40's, and the vision implications of that, and you can see why it regularly gets missed. Not to the point of an 'encounter', but becomes a surprise nonetheless.
There has been an effort to change the colours of the Wake Turb indicator - unfortunately this seemed to make it worse.
Anyhow - just some background. You only have to say it on first contact - we dont think you are wankers - it's saving us haveing a short 'holiday', so my personal view is that it's not a bad thing.
[Below is a picture I discovered on the web, which indicates the Wake Turb indication - normally labels are green or blue]
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done ****su Tonka for explaining it correctly. It's a reminder to the approach guys that their usual minimum 3 miles may not be enough.
And to Eagleman, when BA say "The" speedbird, we still think they are w@nkers.
R.S.
And to Eagleman, when BA say "The" speedbird, we still think they are w@nkers.
R.S.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I alone in struggling to understand the necessity for birdseed/nigel to refer to themselves as "fully ready" "fully established"...Did I miss something when at school (is highly likely )? I thought ready, was ready....established was established...
)? I thought ready, was ready....established was established...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Lookin at that radar screen.....you could say hhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvvvvy, and it wouldn't matter a bean....theres no trafiic (well 1 or 2 tracks) on it
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney,
Those three aircraft look like they will be in about a 4nm trail on final to me.
Would the next ones perhaps be in trail out of picture? Instead of rotting in a holding pattern somewhere?
[EDIT: Sorry Haughtney, I checked your profile. You are a pilot. I understand now why you just wouldn't get it. ]
Those three aircraft look like they will be in about a 4nm trail on final to me.
Would the next ones perhaps be in trail out of picture? Instead of rotting in a holding pattern somewhere?
[EDIT: Sorry Haughtney, I checked your profile. You are a pilot. I understand now why you just wouldn't get it. ]
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 10th Jul 2006 at 10:27.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with ****su. QF started putting a B763 on the morning ML-CB run a few months back. It was still QFA814 and the amount of times I thought "Bugger, that's right, there goes my plan" was quite a few times (got used to it eventually....)
The main thing wasn't the wake turb problem, it was that we needed 15 (!) miles behind them clear so they had time to backtrack on the runway! Could have been nasty with 5.1NM.......
Cheers,
NFR.
Edited for plain stupidity (ML-CB not ML-SY....switch on NFR!)
The main thing wasn't the wake turb problem, it was that we needed 15 (!) miles behind them clear so they had time to backtrack on the runway! Could have been nasty with 5.1NM.......
Cheers,
NFR.
Edited for plain stupidity (ML-CB not ML-SY....switch on NFR!)
Last edited by No Further Requirements; 10th Jul 2006 at 10:23.