(Re)setting transponder codes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 53
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Re)setting transponder codes
I heard from someone that the following is a "standard procedure" for setting transponder codes:
1. Switch it to Standby
2. Twist in the new squawk code
3. Switch it back to On or Alt
The reason for this was to prevent accidental squawks of 7x00 codes.
I had never heard of this before. The only advice I've been given is to twist in the new squawk code backwards (i.e. from right to left), which at least in the US where the VFR code is 1200, reduces the possibility of accidentally squawking 7x00.
So I'm curious... What do you do? Am I alone in not having heard of this "standard procedure"?
1. Switch it to Standby
2. Twist in the new squawk code
3. Switch it back to On or Alt
The reason for this was to prevent accidental squawks of 7x00 codes.
I had never heard of this before. The only advice I've been given is to twist in the new squawk code backwards (i.e. from right to left), which at least in the US where the VFR code is 1200, reduces the possibility of accidentally squawking 7x00.
So I'm curious... What do you do? Am I alone in not having heard of this "standard procedure"?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, normally only change the code with the transponder in the standby position.
The reason os not only that one could cycle through 75,76,7700 but also the fact that you could cycle through a code assigned to another aircraft.
For example you are given a code of 0002. If you cycle through 0001 on the way to 0002 and another aircraft is already assigned 0001 by ATC then there can be momentary identification problems.
I know that the time it takes is very small but there is a distinct posibility.
The method I recomend is;
Write down the assigned code
Select Standby
Dial in the code
Confirm the code against the written record
Return to ALT
Regards,
DFC
The reason os not only that one could cycle through 75,76,7700 but also the fact that you could cycle through a code assigned to another aircraft.
For example you are given a code of 0002. If you cycle through 0001 on the way to 0002 and another aircraft is already assigned 0001 by ATC then there can be momentary identification problems.
I know that the time it takes is very small but there is a distinct posibility.
The method I recomend is;
Write down the assigned code
Select Standby
Dial in the code
Confirm the code against the written record
Return to ALT
Regards,
DFC
)Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be an "American" thing - when I was there, I was told by a usually reliable CFII that I should NOT switch to standby while changing squawk.
I still "standby" in Europe - I can imagine the reaction of the ATCO as the transponder wanders across the range of available codes!
I still "standby" in Europe - I can imagine the reaction of the ATCO as the transponder wanders across the range of available codes!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK I've been taught to always select standby before changing the transponder codes. Not to do so seems very bad practice. Surely the SSR readout on the radar would be all over the place as you change the code? As well as the risk of passing through a 7xxx code, you stand the risk of passing through a code allocated to another aircraft. This may well upset various TCAS and Radar systems, whose software developers may not have considered that two returns with the same code is valid, so long as it only occurs momentarily.
UK 1 - US 0.
UK 1 - US 0.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told off by an examiner for switching to standby when changing transponder codes recently. He claimed that there's a delay build into the transponders which prevents them sending spurious codes. No idea if he was right, though - should probably check on the King website.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Urban Myths
The 'delay story' is one of those myths put around by people to try and cover up their laziness 
As the secondary head interrogates your transponder it will display exactly what you have selected at that moment - I see it every day when people are changing squawks. Select standby, and you get a clean change.
CM
As the secondary head interrogates your transponder it will display exactly what you have selected at that moment - I see it every day when people are changing squawks. Select standby, and you get a clean change.
CM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind You
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am concerned it is standard practice to switch to standby before changing sqwarks. I have never flown with anybody who doesn't do so and it makes good common sense all things considered.
The only draw back is you have to remember to switch back to ON. Something I forgot during by BCPL GFT, luckily the examiner either didn't notice or at least chose not to notice. It's not something you do twice after that.
I also thought that a 75 76 or 7700 sqwark remained on the radar screen even if you change sqwarks afterwards. Although ATC Babes post sugest otherwise. Can anyone clarify?
Also presumably there must be a small delay otherwise the radar would show constantly changing numbers as an aircraft (that hasn't changed to standby) changes sqwarks?
The only draw back is you have to remember to switch back to ON. Something I forgot during by BCPL GFT, luckily the examiner either didn't notice or at least chose not to notice. It's not something you do twice after that.
I also thought that a 75 76 or 7700 sqwark remained on the radar screen even if you change sqwarks afterwards. Although ATC Babes post sugest otherwise. Can anyone clarify?
Also presumably there must be a small delay otherwise the radar would show constantly changing numbers as an aircraft (that hasn't changed to standby) changes sqwarks?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 53
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion - I wasn't really trying to start anything; I just wanted to find out how common this procedure is and why I didn't know about it.
It is looking like this might be a "different in the US, different in the UK" type thing. I've searched the FAA FARs and AIM and they make no mention of switching to Standby. The AIM is where I thought I'd find this sort of info, but it is pretty silent. The only relevant thing I could find after a quick search is:
From Chapter 4, Section 4-1-19 of the AIM
e. Code Changes
1. When making routine code changes, pilots should avoid inadvertent selection of Codes 7500, 7600 or 7700 thereby causing momentary false alarms at automated ground facilities. For example, when switching from Code 2700 to Code 7200, switch first to 2200 then to 7200, NOT to 7700 and then 7200. This procedure applies to nondiscrete Code 7500 and all discrete codes in the 7600 and 7700 series (i.e. 7600-7677, 7700-7777) which will trigger special indicators in automated facilities. Only nondiscrete Code 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.
Searching the Bendix-King site yielded nothing of interest.
I believe (but stand to be corrected), that radar antennae sweep every 10 seconds, so presumably if one changed the transponder code within less than 10 seconds, the changing code would not show up on the radar screen. Would this not explain the delay that has been mentioned?
It is looking like this might be a "different in the US, different in the UK" type thing. I've searched the FAA FARs and AIM and they make no mention of switching to Standby. The AIM is where I thought I'd find this sort of info, but it is pretty silent. The only relevant thing I could find after a quick search is:
From Chapter 4, Section 4-1-19 of the AIM
e. Code Changes
1. When making routine code changes, pilots should avoid inadvertent selection of Codes 7500, 7600 or 7700 thereby causing momentary false alarms at automated ground facilities. For example, when switching from Code 2700 to Code 7200, switch first to 2200 then to 7200, NOT to 7700 and then 7200. This procedure applies to nondiscrete Code 7500 and all discrete codes in the 7600 and 7700 series (i.e. 7600-7677, 7700-7777) which will trigger special indicators in automated facilities. Only nondiscrete Code 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.
Searching the Bendix-King site yielded nothing of interest.
I believe (but stand to be corrected), that radar antennae sweep every 10 seconds, so presumably if one changed the transponder code within less than 10 seconds, the changing code would not show up on the radar screen. Would this not explain the delay that has been mentioned?
Last edited by BayAreaLondoner; 8th Aug 2002 at 00:29.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also thought that a 75 76 or 7700 sqwark remained on the radar screen even if you change sqwarks afterwards. Although ATC Babes post sugest otherwise. Can anyone clarify?
I believe (but stand to be corrected), that radar antennae sweep every 10 seconds, so presumably if one changed the transponder code within less than 10 seconds, the changing code would not show up on the radar screen. Would this not explain the delay that has been mentioned?
CM
Perhaps if the UK SSR system was as pilot-friendly as the US system, this wouldn't matter! It seesm that every time you change frequency (certainly on military frequencies) you have to change the SSR code in the UK....
I was told that changing squawks without selecting 'standby' was fine as it takes 10-20 seconds after changing codes for the new code to be transmitted - or perhaps that really meant for the new code to be registered by the radar heads which were around 10-20 years ago?
I was told that changing squawks without selecting 'standby' was fine as it takes 10-20 seconds after changing codes for the new code to be transmitted - or perhaps that really meant for the new code to be registered by the radar heads which were around 10-20 years ago?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
When we have a unified ATC system outside of controlled airspace instead of lots of different units then we too will be the same as the US - until that time the system we have is the best you'll get I'm afraid as it shows who's working what. It's the old 'dosh' problem I'm afraid.
Once upon a time what you said would be true (I once worked with a radar with a 15 second scan rate) but those days are long gone and I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answers.
CM
When we have a unified ATC system outside of controlled airspace instead of lots of different units then we too will be the same as the US - until that time the system we have is the best you'll get I'm afraid as it shows who's working what. It's the old 'dosh' problem I'm afraid.
Once upon a time what you said would be true (I once worked with a radar with a 15 second scan rate) but those days are long gone and I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answers.
CM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on your left, a little low.....
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for the ATC's among us...
when we leave a frequecy, particularly FIS frequencies like Farnborough, ATC say words to the effect of "call next station, squawk standby" where apon I duly turn the knob to standy and dial in 7000 on the transponder until I have a new squawk.
so my question is
1) can you still see me if I am on standby ( from the posts so far I assume not )
and
2) If I set the transponder to 7000 and turn it to 'alt', because its a local flight or I am passing along the edge of you cover ( not talking about MATZ's here), am I making myself more visible and being a help or am I cluttering up your screen and being a pain in the @ss.
Sky
so my question is
1) can you still see me if I am on standby ( from the posts so far I assume not )
and
2) If I set the transponder to 7000 and turn it to 'alt', because its a local flight or I am passing along the edge of you cover ( not talking about MATZ's here), am I making myself more visible and being a help or am I cluttering up your screen and being a pain in the @ss.
Sky
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - we can't see you when you're squawking standby. The example you quote is interesting because what the ATC unit is saying (if that is what they are saying) is wrong. You should be being told to squawk 7000.
"Squawk Standby" should be used when you're joining the circuit and it means exactly that - the standby switch and not, as many PPL's assume (incorrectly), 7000 but still emitting.
As for your second point - it should be 7000 with mode 'C' (if you can) unless you're in the circuit. Have a read of Redhill and Gatwick.........
CM
"Squawk Standby" should be used when you're joining the circuit and it means exactly that - the standby switch and not, as many PPL's assume (incorrectly), 7000 but still emitting.
As for your second point - it should be 7000 with mode 'C' (if you can) unless you're in the circuit. Have a read of Redhill and Gatwick.........
CM
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 8th Aug 2002 at 10:29.