Read back your full ident
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
I agree. I would also say a lot of those flights cut as many corners as possible when doing other things like clearance readbacks and position reports. I have heard several, particularly it seems in XL (hehe sorry... "CYXL"), pilots reading back as follows:
"ATC clears XXX123 to the Kingfisher Lake airport via Sioux Lookout direct, maintain 5000, depart runway 16, turn left, proceed on course squawk 1234." read back as:
"XXX123 cleared Kingfisher via direct off one-six left turn up to five thousand 1234"
"Readback correct"
First - they got all hot and bothered a while back needing specification of clearance limit as "airport" or "NDB" or whatever the case may be. Seems to be relaxed? At any rate an abbreviated and quickly spit-out readback is inviting someone, somewhere either in the cockpit or ATC to miss something, possibly major. You will always here my readbacks as complete, verbatim of what was given to me as, well, it just makes sense to me. I mean I suppose most if not all the required info WAS in the readback, just in a lousy and "Reason's-Swiss-Cheese"-laden format.
As for position reports, don't even get me started on those Wasaya/NAC Air/"etc" flights who obviously need more training on how to make a proper position report, fly a half-assed circuit when up north (HELLO other airplanes in the circuit too!) or how to reply to some repeated calls for positions etc. when operating in the same area.
I don't mean to "hijack" the post but just wanted to let you know that, yah, I notice the corner cutting too - not only in the flight numbers but also in other things.
As ATC I would just start asking "confirm that was WASAYA 1234" or whatever as the case may be. Then make them read it all back again using their call sign. If I call up as "charlie golf alpha bravo charlie", I cannot abbreviate that to ABC until atc does it for me. If I don't get an abbreviation, I have to continue using GOLF in all my transmissions, or so is my understanding. CYXL radio is bad for reading back full idents - maybe they do it on purpose or maybe accidentally. At any rate I don't see any reason why a flight with some radio callsign should be able to abbreviate. ATC should force the issue on the radio, especially if you think it is a safety concern.
Make em do it two or three times to four or five flights on the same freq and maybe the problem will be noticed a bit more?
"ATC clears XXX123 to the Kingfisher Lake airport via Sioux Lookout direct, maintain 5000, depart runway 16, turn left, proceed on course squawk 1234." read back as:
"XXX123 cleared Kingfisher via direct off one-six left turn up to five thousand 1234"
"Readback correct"
First - they got all hot and bothered a while back needing specification of clearance limit as "airport" or "NDB" or whatever the case may be. Seems to be relaxed? At any rate an abbreviated and quickly spit-out readback is inviting someone, somewhere either in the cockpit or ATC to miss something, possibly major. You will always here my readbacks as complete, verbatim of what was given to me as, well, it just makes sense to me. I mean I suppose most if not all the required info WAS in the readback, just in a lousy and "Reason's-Swiss-Cheese"-laden format.
As for position reports, don't even get me started on those Wasaya/NAC Air/"etc" flights who obviously need more training on how to make a proper position report, fly a half-assed circuit when up north (HELLO other airplanes in the circuit too!) or how to reply to some repeated calls for positions etc. when operating in the same area.
I don't mean to "hijack" the post but just wanted to let you know that, yah, I notice the corner cutting too - not only in the flight numbers but also in other things.
As ATC I would just start asking "confirm that was WASAYA 1234" or whatever as the case may be. Then make them read it all back again using their call sign. If I call up as "charlie golf alpha bravo charlie", I cannot abbreviate that to ABC until atc does it for me. If I don't get an abbreviation, I have to continue using GOLF in all my transmissions, or so is my understanding. CYXL radio is bad for reading back full idents - maybe they do it on purpose or maybe accidentally. At any rate I don't see any reason why a flight with some radio callsign should be able to abbreviate. ATC should force the issue on the radio, especially if you think it is a safety concern.
Make em do it two or three times to four or five flights on the same freq and maybe the problem will be noticed a bit more?
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
The amount of incidents or near incidents that have occured because of JZA idents is rediculous. I've personally had at least 3-4 JZA flights take other aircraft's clearances in the last 6 months alone.
Might not sounds like a lot, but considering that's more then every other airline combined. . .
Might not sounds like a lot, but considering that's more then every other airline combined. . .
Same here, at least 3-4 in the last few months. Couple that with the flight crews who abbreviate their callsign or eliminate it all together and there are some major safety concerns cropping up.Pygmie wrote:The amount of incidents or near incidents that have occured because of JZA idents is rediculous. I've personally had at least 3-4 JZA flights take other aircraft's clearances in the last 6 months alone.
Might not sounds like a lot, but considering that's more then every other airline combined. . .
Well I think it's pretty self-conclusive after 5 years . Silly Jazz.Pygmie wrote:They were approached about it at least 5 years ago. Not sure of the result of those meetings. . .Braun wrote:Has someone ever told them this? Maybe they could revise that, I wouldn't see the problem in an ident change...
I catch myself using the Charlie when the pilot uses it themself, out of habit of just repeating what the pilot says on its first call. I would also occasional use it while I was training, I wonder if the atc/fss using it now are doing the same thing and/or new themselves.bigfssguy wrote:I've never heard an FSS using the charlie??? I only use full idents when talking to a foreign arcraft eg: N345BC, DGHYT, ZKJBC etc.
hydro
Right, I always say the type on initial call-up. Do you mean that ATC will double check the type against the ident? Is this just if you have a flightplan or handoff or something?
Surely it doesn't get checked against the registration database each time?
(C-FFAT is a Cub Special BTW, not a Navajo )
Surely it doesn't get checked against the registration database each time?
(C-FFAT is a Cub Special BTW, not a Navajo )