H145 in radio call

[Bellrider]

Hi there!
I hear many colleagues on ATC radio calls saying EC45 ( type of aircraft).
What‘s the correct abbreviation for radio calls or flight plans when flying the H145 (BK117 D2/3).
Thank you and greetings

[casper64]

As far as I know, on an ICAO Flightplan it is all EC45…. Valid for BK117 C-2, D-2 and D-3.

[Haligali]

Bell 212 - B12
AW139- A139
EC135- EC35

[RVDT]

ICAO Type Designators

[212man]

Originally Posted by Bellrider

Hi there!
I hear many colleagues on ATC radio calls saying EC45 ( type of aircraft).
What‘s the correct abbreviation for radio calls or flight plans when flying the H145 (BK117 D2/3).
Thank you and greetings

Seems pretentious to me. What you put in a flight plan isn’t necessarily what you say in RT. You wouldn’t say Bravo 737 - you’d say Boeing 737. So why not just say Eurocopter (or Airbus) 145 to ATC, and write EC45 in the flight plan? Similarly Sikorsky S76 rather than Sierra Kilo seven six!

[the coyote]

Originally Posted by 212man

Seems pretentious to me. What you put in a flight plan isn’t necessarily what you say in RT. You wouldn’t say Bravo 737 - you’d say Boeing 737. So why not just say Eurocopter (or Airbus) 145 to ATC, and write EC45 in the flight plan? Similarly Sikorsky S76 rather than Sierra Kilo seven six!

Exactly. I still, perhaps naively, hope common sense can prevail and that the spoonfed will maintain the capacity to think independently.

No harm in asking if you don't know the answer, but I am noticing it increasingly seems the easy (or lazy) first option, rather than doing any legwork and finding it yourself. The answer is in the appropriate publications.

[helichris]

Originally Posted by 212man

Seems pretentious to me. What you put in a flight plan isn’t necessarily what you say in RT. You wouldn’t say Bravo 737 - you’d say Boeing 737. So why not just say Eurocopter (or Airbus) 145 to ATC, and write EC45 in the flight plan? Similarly Sikorsky S76 rather than Sierra Kilo seven six!

In the US, you identify yourself to ATC as "helicopter" followed by the N number. If you are asked the type helicopter (and I have been, many times) you reply with the proper aircraft type designator, which is often different than the model. In this case, it is EC45. It's not being pretentious and has nothing to do with the phonetic alphabet. It is the information they are asking for as that is how an aircraft is listed in their database. casper64 is correct. Why a pilot would give the type designator without being prompted for it by ATC, I don't know.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...tors_FINAL.pdf

[212man]

Originally Posted by helichris

In the US, you identify yourself to ATC as "helicopter" followed by the N number. If you are asked the type helicopter (and I have been, many times) you reply with the proper aircraft type designator, which is often different than the model. In this case, it is EC45. It's not being pretentious and has nothing to do with the phonetic alphabet. It is the information they are asking for as that is how an aircraft is listed in their database. casper64 is correct. Why a pilot would give the type designator without being prompted for it by ATC, I don't know.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...tors_FINAL.pdf

2-1. Aircraft Type Designators. An aircraft type designator is an abbreviated form of an aircraft type. This designator is used in air traffic service automation systems that exchange data. The aircraft type designator is primarily used in flight plans and air traffic service messages but may be used in other matters when needed.

Thanks - I think you have proved my (and The Coyote) point. These designators are not intended for voice communications. I no longer fly, but did manage 11,000+ hours over 25 years on 4 continents (including the US), and I can never recall ever describing my aircraft type to ATC (by RT) in this manner. The closest I came across this was the other way round, when an ATC unit queried with me that EC55 (on the FLPN) was indeed a helicopter and not a mistype for a C525. The reason being they couldn't understand how I was doing 205 kts groundspeed at 10,000 ft!