PPRuNe Forums - Squawk [code] "coming down!"

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)

- - Squawk [code] "coming down!" (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/581433-squawk-code-coming-down.html)

Quote:

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

Yes definitely better to readback then.

Quote:

And...Ze Germans "Lufthansa 666 climb FL100" "Loofthanza 666 climb FL100" Do they have like a repeat function on their audio control panel?!

Quote:

what should they have said?

I don't speak German, but I think their sentence construction is 'backwards' compared to English?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oggers (Post 9454876)

I was taught - when in the US - to simply go ahead and set the code and ident rather than wasting a call reading back something that ATC are about to verify on their screen anyway. Nonetheless it seems that many - perhaps even most - pilots in the US do readback.

You were taught incorrectly, or your information is out of date.

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.

Quote:

Give some examples of Australia's lots of R/T differences, LedSled.

Bloggsy,
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!!