Enhancing SA with type-specific call signs
 

Hi All, I'm the Editor of GASCo Flight Safety Magazine, and in my most recent column I opined that situational awareness in the circuit would be enhanced if pilots used “Warrior Charlie Delta or “Skylane Charlie Delta” rather than “Golf Charlie Delta. (CAP 413 does allow this, but few pilots do it, although it's a very common procedure in the US). The piece generated the largest mailbag to the editorial office since I became Editor, and the column was subsequently picked up and reprinted by Flight Training News. I was wondering if the many pilots of PPRuNe had an opinion? Cheers, Dave

I use whatever ATC call me. There used to be two local aircraft with one letter difference and when both on radio ATC used full callsign.
I was told to use Type replacing N in the US but later was told to use N#####.

Thanks Dave for highlighting this...

I mainly fly from strip to strip thus sometimes remaining on the safetycom frequency for the whole flight. Learning from our US cousins I'm rigorous at topping and tailing my calls with the fields designated name and adding my type and colour to my abbreviated callsign. So having made my initial call a subsequent transmission might be " Saltby traffic blue Shark Charlie Delta left base 07 Saltby"

My logic is most pilots are not plane spotters so an encyclopedic knowledge of local callsigns can't be relied upon but hearing "blah blah Blue thing on final" might get through..

In USA when working tower, approach, or center, I'm "Archer xxxxx" or "Experimental Carbon Cub yyyy" on first call then abreviated to "Cub yyy" At an uncontrolled field I'm sometimes "yellow cub". I hate it when experimentals call with "Experimental aaaa" as I have no clue what I'm looking for or what their performance may be. In USA non experimentals almost always give their type.

The abbreviated call sign and the position in the circuit is all that should matter to other pilots. A few exceptions: " G-AB Downwind glide approach", G-AB final land/touch and go"; the occasions when a standard circuit is varied. Knowing whether the aircraft is a PA28-140 or a PA28-32 is of little identification help. To be able to identify any light aircraft 3000ft ahead is as unlikely as doing the same should it be flying overhead at 3000ft. Turning RT into a chat room is a disease of our time and there can be no end of it. The advantage if required of knowing the type is perhaps with ATC who can employ binoculars to look out the window.

Joining correctly, flying an accurate circuit pattern and a thorough LOOK OUT is where the effort should be.

That* is what I was taught in BE, too.

When changing frequency, carefully note what the other party calls you. For example I could depart my homefield and call "xxx traffic, OO-G86 leaving the circuit and the frequency, expect back in two hours, OO-G86", then switch to Brussels info "Brussels Indo, from the Oscar Oscar Golf eight six" and they might reply "Oscar eight six, Brussels Info" and I was O86 for the rest of the conversation.

Note that on your homefield it may matter little, most other pilots will know you anyway and you will know most of them, including the sound of voice, the difference in voice when annoyed or amused, and also the type of plane and its typical usage. For example, when at my homefield I heard Whiskey-8-3** calling, I knew it was the ultralight that the club used for elementary training.

* with the detail note that it is not limited to ATC, it applies to any ground station, be it Control or Info or Tower or whatever.
** identity changed for reasons of privacy

I think it's logical move; there's already several modes of 'abbreviated' callsigns and this would make it, as has been said, more obvious to the ATCO, FISO or Radio Operator.
I'm no longer a member of the UK Phraseology Working Group (which decides what goes into CAP413) and as far as I'm aware, AOPA don't sit on the group (maybe they should), so it needs someone who does sit on the PWG to introduce it for discussion so the best I can suggest without further research is e-mail [email protected]

I'd be absolutely fine with being "Warrior Golf India Juliet". If I'm in the States I'm Skyhawk 9550G abbreviated to Skyhawk 50G (does anybody know how I can say that without it sounding like "Five Zulu Golf" [which in the past has failed to open my flight plan] or do I just keep saying just saying "Fifty Golf" ?).

Must admit it has never occurred to me before in the UK to say the aircraft type, other than on first call ..... "Redhill G-BUIJ; PA-28 at Hanger 8 ... . "

"Golf" is one syllable. "November" is 3 syllables. "Archer" is 2 syllables. "Carbon Cub" is 3 syllables. There is, for me in USA, no reduction in transmission length for the using country prefix rather than a type description and "Archer" is shorter than "November". I am required to include "Experimental" in my first call with the Carbon Cub.

In USA giving the aircraft type in the initial call saves the otherwise inevitable "Say aircraft type".

My situation awareness is greatly enhanced by knowing what aircraft types are in, or joining, the traffic pattern (circuit if you prefer). Where I fly it's quite common to have a mix that includes business jets, L-39 Albatros, Tucano, Archers, Warriors, Seminoles, and occassionally a B-17, B-25, or B-29.

Thanks for all the input PPRuNers, and ETOPS I REALLY like the colour point. Fl1ingfrog, Why? Well, firstly the ‘Golf’ part is completely superfluous and a waste of bandwidth (indeed, there could easily be another ‘Golf Charlie Delta’ on frequency) and secondly, if you’re looking for traffic that you’ve heard, and you see something where you think that thing should be, you will assume that what you’re looking at is what you think you’re looking at. That’s human nature. However, if you heard ‘Warrior Charlie Delta’ but the machine you’re looking at has a high wing or rotary wing, you can be fairly confident that you’ve not yet ascertained the location of Warrior Charlie Delta! I do accept type specific may not be the best way though. Maybe "yellow Piper" or "blue heli" is better? EXDAC - again, agreed. G-CD tells you very little. Jet-CD, a great deal more. Glider -CD tells you its not going to go around, Microlight -CD, no more than 60-ish on final, Autogyro-CD, steep approach, very short ground roll, slow to taxi clear.

What happens with 'duplicated' types eg 'Apache' as in Pa23 (fixed wing) or 'Apache' as in AH64 (rotary wing)?

What about when you fly an experimental type that is not mainstream? "Waiex on downwind for 30" - most don't know what that is. I could say "Silver mini-bonanza that is sort of like a slow RV6" but that gets wordy for me. Even with a generic "experimental 1YX" people know where to look and that I'm not a Cessna, Piper, or the like. Still better than the guys with no radio.

Transport Canada recommends identifying the aircraft type on initial contact:


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....08f91bb376.jpg
Note that the initial "Charlie" (for Canada) is never used in a callsign. When flying a Canadian aircraft in the US, the same callsign is used, prefixed by "Canadian".

In 2017, when I flew down to the uncontrolled Converse County Airport, near Douglas Wyoming, to view the total solar eclipse, a couple of hundred aircraft arrived in the morning or the day before and then departed in the afternoon.

Call signs were very pragmatic - nobody used their registration - it was "Red High Wing", "Blue Low Wing", "Green and White Twin", etc. and it all worked very efficiently.

I had an amusing, but potentially problematic incident a couple of years ago when I was flying my Bo209 Monsun to Biggin Hill. I usually referred to the aeroplane as a "Bolkow 209" when introducing myself to ATC, which is of-course what it is.

After my meetings there, I started up, and called for taxi - being given what to me were rather non-standard instructions, but fine, I continued to follow them until being asked to cross some rather rough grass to the centre of the runway - very odd. Then it dawned simultaneously on me and the controller that they'd heard "Bolkow" and assumed I was a helicopter. All sorted out politely enough, but ever since when I declare my type anywhere but my home airfield I am always "Bolkow 209 AEROPLANE". The extra word hopefully solves any future difficulties, and so far this appears to have worked.

G

Surely accurate position calls are the most important element here. Not sure I'd be too confident in my fellow pilots aircraft recognition - they might be able to tell a Cherokee from a Cessna but wouldn't have a clue what an Archer or a Warrior is. Isn't this just adding complexity and becoming a potential distraction.

We also seem to be confusing what we say on initial contact with a controller with the calls we make in the circuit

We are lucky that our aircraft is a very "distinctive" colour, but all the Cessna's and Cherokee's based at our airfield are mainly white overall

Hah - I had a similar mild confusion, very briefly, long ago when an RAF radar controller asked my aircraft type after I'd asked for clearance to overfly the airfield. I said 'RF5B', meaning a Fournier RF5B. He hesitated then asked for confirmation that I was an RF5B, and state which Air Force - he'd immediately thought of a Northrop RF-5. Then he realised what speed I was doing,as I said I was a motor glider. " A tad slow for recce work" was the next call. (though I don't think anyone used two seat recce F-5s in Europe, did they?)

Thanks for all the thoughts so far PPRuNers. Excellent points well made Genghis, Chevron, IFMU and Biscuit, maybe "yellow Piper" or "blue heli" is the way to go?
Abrahn, the DG400 pilot would of course call "motorglider CD". It would be ridiculous to call 'Ventus' or 'Discus', all modern single seat sailplanes are essentially indistinguishable at any range.
My primary point is that IMHO "Golf" does literally nothing, and yet everyone uses it.
​​​​​​​

My view is that the main advantage of this would be in a situation where a lot of dissimilar types mix. If you're on a GA field with a lot of Cessnas and Pipers flitting about I'm not sure it will add a lot beyond the opportunity for a bit more confusion on the radio. My flying is often on a field with a lot of the abovementioned types, added to which are some Diamonds and the odd AT-3 or others, almost all of which are painted white or mostly white. When slotting into the circuit the colour or type is not always going to be a lot of help and sometimes I just check that there are two in front when I'm positioned as no.3 in the que. Helicopters and slow-movers use either a separate circuit or are discouraged from visiting.... so perhaps this field is not the best example here.

On a similar topic, another 'waste of bandwidth' is the superfluous 'one' when saying VHF frequencies, and possibly the 'decimal' too, especially since the cumbersome 8.33 frequencies added extra digits. Example of simplified RT:

'Call Stansted Radar two zero six two five.'

Same as the oft used but probably incorrect ... "call ground point niner" ... because everybody know that will be 121.900.

Think all Northrop RF-5s were single seaters. Sometimes see "RF-4" and think it's referring to a Phantom for a second!

Dave, think it is a good idea in general, made sense when I've heard it used in the US.

Both the above are only 'marginal' for ICAO purposes; I don't think SARG will contemplate abbreviation to that extent although I know the FAA allow it in the USA but then the USA is often non ICAO.

No one could reasonably suggest that any one system is always the best in all situations. Generally in the USA, for most things in life, the outside world gets little consideration so 'N' is rarely considered of value. Not so in Europe where there is a much greater mix of nationalities both visiting and also based here. So, the 'N' or 'F' or 'PH' or 'D' etc also helps to narrow things down a mite. If you consider that adding a colour or a type is of value in a particular situation then do so, sometimes it is helpful but at other times it isn't. Helicopters, as pointed out, in accordance with best practice, rarely fly the same circuit, join at a different point and touch down mid runway owing to vortex.

Change the system OK but don't expect to change things of consequence. A lot of fiddling around with little or no gain. In all the incidence that I've debriefed over the years I cannot recall a single incidence where a specific call sign would have made any difference. Failing to fly an accurate circuit, a good look out and a failure to adjust speed to the circuit norms cover most incidents. NEVER assume your number 2 or 3 or 4 unless the circuit is managed by a qualified ATC.

Amen!

Fl1ingfrog it is self evident that Foxtrot CD or Delta CD would indicate a foreign-based aircraft, intel that is well worth knowing as the pilot may well be unfamiliar with nonsense such as QFE. But what does Golf actually add when the G-reg aircraft is within the UK?

Try rrrrrolling the r as if you were Scots or Welsh - or roll it on the back of your tongue, as if you were French.

There is a reason why we are supposed to say "niner" and not "nine", it helps avoiding confusion with five. I always made a point of rolling the r in niner strongly. The letter "r" is not the most difficult to understand, but it wants - and leaves much room for - clear pronounciation.

And in no case should you use "fifty" that's a game-stopper imho. I can imagine some controllers in Europe - given time and patience - would continue with "aircraft calling, please confirm registration" until you dropped the "50". "FIVE-ZERRROOHHH" will do fine.

On a general note: the controller who wants to know my aircraft type can look it up easily enough, no need to confirm it over the radio, purely waste of time and bandwidth.

Cos they've nothing else to do...

I'm a bit baffled about all this 'waste of bandwidth' stuff. Surely we are after clarity? Does saying one of two less words improve things?

In my radio training, being "terse" was again and again stressed as being important, and I never heard anyone saying the contrary.
And yes, on a sunny weekend day, a frequency like Brussels info is really busy so keeping comm's short is a way of being gentle to the operator (not a "controller" mind you).

Nothing very much really but as with many things it is simply a convention and is better to have that than the plethora of choices some would have it.

The construction of the phonetic alphabet is to make vocal acrobatics unnecessary and to be pronounced whatever your mother tongue. The sounds should also be able to be distinguished from distortion and radio noise as best as it can. In particular sounds are not to be confused with sounds that may have different meanings in various languages.

Dave.

Another couple of points to reduce unnecessary clutter on a busy frequency.

1. Many aircraft, especially training aircraft, always seem to call for a Radio Check prior to passing their details for each and every flight. Why? The aircraft may have already flown half a dozen times already and if there is a problem then they will soon be told. Whilst the procedure is itemised in CAP 413 it is not listed as a required call prior to taxiing. Imagine every aircraft at Heathrow making this call!

2. Calling “runway vacated” after every landing. CAP 413 clearly states that this can be omitted if the “controller” can see if an aircraft has vacated. So why call it?

At a busy airfield, with 250 movements a day, these superfluous calls and responses can add up to 500 unnecessary transmissions each day.

Conversely the ATCO/FISO may be just about to transmit an urgent message such as a amendment to a clearance or details of an emergency callout when someone starts with a radio check and then passes their entire plan of action hence blocking anybody else from transmitting.
I've had this happen many times (usually when it's very busy) as ATCO, FISO and radio operator and at one airfield we specifically asked pilots not to do this; just make a call to establish 2-way then when the person on the ground replies ask them to pass their complete message or stand by.

How many pairs of headphones have been plugged in and taken out that day? It's not just the radio thats being checked.

I've often thought that this would work well in a 'similar callsign' situation, where otherwise, full callsigns would have to be used.

MJ:ok:

I had the same thought. I would agree.

Agree... In The Netherlands we abbreviate everything to 'Papa - Bravo - Charlie' for the theoretical PH-ABC, but the Papa acts as an indicator to say 'This is a callsign', where you don't specifically need the Papa to be included, but it does help to 'translate' the other two letters as a callsign instead of a taxiway indicator or other random abbreviation. If I would just hear 'Bravo - Charlie' it would probably take more time for me to recognise it as my callsign and respond to it.

As I said, they will soon be told if their transmissions are not good.

It should be a “negative” check. In other words 5’s unless told otherwise.

Thread drift alert!
Dave Unwin said:
Well, since I find myself disagreeing with most of what you've said, I thought I'd pick out the one thing I agree with!
As a re-qualified RT examiner, can I give the following:

I agree that the 'Golf' is a turn-on for 'expect a callsign'.

I also think that a plethora of people making up their own ideas of what to say to distinguish themselves from everyone else is a recipe for a lot of misunderstanding. The phraseology in CAP413 has been deliberated over by lots of people over the years and it's what we should be teaching and enforcing for the sake of standardisation and an enhancement of flight safety. ICAO Annex 10 phraseology was largely written around CAP413.

Oh and while we're at it, let's get rid of all this backsliding into 'go ahead' instead of 'pass your message'. The changes made after Tenerife were put in place for reasons given by several people above. I was working out on the airfield at Heathrow when we were handed a typewritten sheet with all the changes on it, no longer 'affirmative' or 'clear of 27 left' but 'affirm' and '27 left vacated'. However, there was one controller who got away with 'mess your passage' for about a month before the GM found out...

BTW, why 'pass your message? As discussed above, our 1940's vintage AM radio system is far from perfect and interruptions and interference abound. A critical ATC instruction is 'go around'. If only the 'go' part is heard, there could be a confusion so the ONLY time the word 'go' should be used in ANY context is in that safety critical message. There are many other examples of exclusive words.

TOO

Why indeed? In my 200 hours or so of piloting I never heard the phrase, but then I never visited old blighty. This is what I was taught, and experienced, example when leaving the circuit in uncontrolled airspace:
"Hasselt radio, OOG86 leaving the circuit and the frequency, expect back in two hours"
(toggle frequency)
"Brussels information, from the OOG86"
"OOG86 Brussels information"
"Brussels information, goedemiddag mevrouw*, the OOG86 just airborne from Hasselt Kiewit for a local flight Hasselt-Hasselt via Diest, Aarschot, Westerlo. VFR 1500, negative transponder. OOG86.
"G86 be aware of paradropping near Diest. Regional QNH 1015"
"QNH1015, will report leaving your frequency, G86"
and that was extensive, at busy moments one would go even more terse.

* the local language greeting was an old tradition of courtesy, the first to be dropped if the frequency was very busy. You could hear people's background from their accent anyway, most of the time. And it was not relevant, anyway. All R/T in English only, to the surprise of the occasional French visitor.

What value "pass your message" could have added here is quite unclear to me.

NB from my registration/callsign, the Info operator could already tell I was flying an ultralight, so cruising at 100 knots or thereabouts. Many countries have such a system of registration (D-Mxxx is always a motorglider, for example), Germany certainly, Netherlands I think too, other countries I cannot say but there must be some. The UK not, of course, as far as I can tell.