Squawk [code] "coming down!"
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps when coasting in from Oceanic and on the edge of VHF reception (see my previous post), the ATC instruction to squawk a given code could be picked up by the wrong crew
And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!
what should they have said?
So when they respond to an ATC clearance, they sound as though they are giving a command rather than a read-back, because they put their call sign first instead of last as CAP 413 dictates.
Any German speakers who could verify this?
Not sure about the German syntax, but the Lufty stubbornness over doing it "their way" is not ideal. Their way of reading back instructions contributed to a nasty airprox over Scotland a few years back.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIM 4-1-20
d. Transponder IDENT Feature
1. The transponder must be operated only as specified by ATC. Activate the “IDENT” feature only upon request of the ATC controller.
Give some examples of Australia's lots of R/T differences, LedSled.
Badly phrased on my part, I was referring to the Australian propensity for "difference", usually for difference sake. We do not even have an accurate count on ICAO differences recognized and filed, somewhere between 1600 and 2200, let alone unrecognized differences.
Indeed, there is a really good reason why there is an absence of differences in this area, and it goes to the political decision of the Minister of the day, an easy decision, as the position papers supporting standardization with ICAO Annex X, Vol. 2 (after some really serious near hits cause by "unique" Australian usage of the day) from Qantas, Ansett, AOPA, AIPA and ASAC put a unified position. And a very sensible CASA DAS, Leroy Keith, was in full support, as was the CASA/PAP Review team.
The position papers were virtually identical, mostly only the covering letter from each proponent was different.This was hardly surprising, as the AIPA person wrote the drafts for all of the above.
There was the usual and forecast objection from AFAP, which was ignored, some objections from RAPAC/NAPAC, which were rejected, and some more muted objection from Civilair.
Unusually, and thankfully, despite some attempts that have been "headed off at the pass", ICAO compliance has been maintained.
Here endeth the history lesson.
Tootle pip!!