Heavy complement to your callsign
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere...
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy complement to your callsign
Hi guys,
Does anyone know if the need to use Heavy with your callsign was removed (except in the US).
I was told so by a friend and went to look for it in the LIDO general and couldn't find it anymore.
Regards,
Does anyone know if the need to use Heavy with your callsign was removed (except in the US).
I was told so by a friend and went to look for it in the LIDO general and couldn't find it anymore.
Regards,
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silver valley
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In practice - as stated by 411A. I consistently used Heavy after the call-sign in the USA but nowhere else, although on occasion through force of habit it would blurt itself out when operating elsewhere.
In the later years even in the USA I'd keep the R/T chatter down by not using it in cruise - only for departure/arrival.
Don't recall what our ops said. Repeated reading of them wasn't my style as I tended to make things up as I went along, but there were never any complaints.
In the later years even in the USA I'd keep the R/T chatter down by not using it in cruise - only for departure/arrival.
Don't recall what our ops said. Repeated reading of them wasn't my style as I tended to make things up as I went along, but there were never any complaints.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unhooked, I don't know which side of the mic you might sit on - your profile doesn't give much away - but perhaps you would consider the reasons that the suffix has been used in the past.
Whatever, it still seems to be in ICAO...
Indication of heavy wake turbulence category
For aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category the word “Heavy” shall be included immediately after the aircraft call sign in the initial radiotelephony contact between such aircraft and ATS units. (PANS-ATM, para 4.9.2)
Whatever, it still seems to be in ICAO...
Indication of heavy wake turbulence category
For aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category the word “Heavy” shall be included immediately after the aircraft call sign in the initial radiotelephony contact between such aircraft and ATS units. (PANS-ATM, para 4.9.2)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear the term used abroad occasionally, though not often. Domestically in the US, it's more common, though not always used.
I also hear "Super" used for the A380, once in a while.
"Heavy" is valid internationally, though not often used.
What??
"Heavy" denotes a weight class, and is applicable to wake turbulence separation. It has nothing to do with revenue.
I also hear "Super" used for the A380, once in a while.
"Heavy" is valid internationally, though not often used.
From what I understood it was a term reserved for aircraft on ground to indicate they were a revenue flight to give them priority.
"Heavy" denotes a weight class, and is applicable to wake turbulence separation. It has nothing to do with revenue.
Outside of the US, wake turbulence classicifaction if "Heavy" or "Super" is required on first contact with tower or approach in Australia & also in Hong Kong. Quite possibly other places as well.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Spitoon. As another long-haul guy, I think the ICAO language is clear: Unless the individual state specifies a different process, internationally the word "Heavy" is supposed to be used on the initial call-up to a new facility. Now, have I heard it being done that way? Hardly ever.
Domestic US the AIM says, "Pilots of heavy aircraft should always use the word "heavy" in radio communications." No mention of only with approach or the tower. Again, I don't hear of its being done that way (e.g., using "heavy" when speaking to center) very often.
Domestic US the AIM says, "Pilots of heavy aircraft should always use the word "heavy" in radio communications." No mention of only with approach or the tower. Again, I don't hear of its being done that way (e.g., using "heavy" when speaking to center) very often.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated above the term heavy is used in the USA and also on initial contact with ATC in Canada. We have recently been issued the following memo at work which some of you may have seen and some of you may not. It pertains to to the UK and is of interest to 'heavy' operators.......
The latest edition of UK CAP 413 (Radiotelphony Manual) and UK AIC P072/2010 introduces the same R/T use for 'Heavy' suffix to callsigns as used in Canada:
Aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category shall include the word ‘HEAVY’ immediately after the aircraft callsign in the initial call to each ATSU. The purpose of this call is to confirm the aircraft type and/or wake turbulence category is the same as that stated on the flight progress strip.
http://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&so...acZuS5lOuu-NKw
The latest edition of UK CAP 413 (Radiotelphony Manual) and UK AIC P072/2010 introduces the same R/T use for 'Heavy' suffix to callsigns as used in Canada:
Aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category shall include the word ‘HEAVY’ immediately after the aircraft callsign in the initial call to each ATSU. The purpose of this call is to confirm the aircraft type and/or wake turbulence category is the same as that stated on the flight progress strip.
http://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&so...acZuS5lOuu-NKw
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now and then I hear Delta and United Airlines guys coming into Asia using "Heavy" and it just sounds odd, because nobody else uses it.
It's like...how many times are you going to call yourself "Heavy" when the controllers themselves don't reciprocate the term when calling you.
It's like...how many times are you going to call yourself "Heavy" when the controllers themselves don't reciprocate the term when calling you.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: MC80 Home One type Star Cruiser
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now and then I hear Delta and United Airlines guys coming into Asia using "Heavy" and it just sounds odd, because nobody else uses it.
It's like...how many times are you going to call yourself "Heavy" when the controllers themselves don't reciprocate the term when calling you.
It's like...how many times are you going to call yourself "Heavy" when the controllers themselves don't reciprocate the term when calling you.
According ICAO, you should mention "heavy" on initial call, but as I've noticed, it's not often used. (Never flown heavy though)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unhooked, I used to be a controller - but have been office-based for a good few years now so I make no claim to knowing what happens in the real world today.
I am a terminal and aerodrome person and where I worked the traffic was predominately medium vortex. When a heavy came on frequency it woulds almost always use the H word - it was a useful reminder and double check for spacing on final and, to an extent, I guess it provided some situational awareness to other traffic on frequency which might not be anticipating the possibility of a heavy's turbulence on approach. This is what I was getting at when I suggested considering why it has been used in the past.
It probably is oudated because heavy's have not been unusual or required particularly special handling for years.Is it the end of the world if the suffix isn't used - no, obviously, and the comments on this thread indicate that it is used inconsistently and there's no regular aluminium shower as aircraft suffer upsets. The point I was trying to make by referring to ICAO is that it's still in the book....and the original poster was asking if the general requirement to use the suffix had been removed.
And for GlueBall, the suffix is not part of the callsign but primarily info for the controller. I don't think there is a requirement for ATC to use the suffix (although I have heard it done) - presumably because the pilot already knows.
I am a terminal and aerodrome person and where I worked the traffic was predominately medium vortex. When a heavy came on frequency it woulds almost always use the H word - it was a useful reminder and double check for spacing on final and, to an extent, I guess it provided some situational awareness to other traffic on frequency which might not be anticipating the possibility of a heavy's turbulence on approach. This is what I was getting at when I suggested considering why it has been used in the past.
It probably is oudated because heavy's have not been unusual or required particularly special handling for years.Is it the end of the world if the suffix isn't used - no, obviously, and the comments on this thread indicate that it is used inconsistently and there's no regular aluminium shower as aircraft suffer upsets. The point I was trying to make by referring to ICAO is that it's still in the book....and the original poster was asking if the general requirement to use the suffix had been removed.
And for GlueBall, the suffix is not part of the callsign but primarily info for the controller. I don't think there is a requirement for ATC to use the suffix (although I have heard it done) - presumably because the pilot already knows.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: in a dirty cockpit
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's nice to hear "heavy" after the callsign. It keeps something "romantic" which we are losing now in the aviation environment...
PS: I'm not a "heavy" pilot, I fly on the 737.
PS: I'm not a "heavy" pilot, I fly on the 737.
The not at all heavy 737-800 has the type displayed as B73H on ATC flight progress strips. Spanish ATC, among others, refer to it as a 737 heavy.
