Call-signs (Clear Mind Clear Prop 2017)

[Garfly]

I reckon that RAAus have done a great job with their latest booklet and Aviator's Tool Kit folding brochure.

 

For the most part the articles are useful and presented in a tone (more peer to peer than sermonising) that's likely to get read and to get through. And the Tool Kit is a really well thought out thirteen pages (small and folding) of handy reminders. Especially useful for the less-than-frequent flyers that many of us are.

 

One point that caught my attention in the booklet - in the "Radio use in Class G Airspace" article - was the recommendation of speaking the number parts of our call-signs as: "e.g Fourteen ninety nine - ICAO grouping method is preferred and easier to remember."

 

I hadn't seen this format officially recommended to us before but it seems like a good idea. Anything to make radio use quicker and clearer in what are often critical and confusing situations.

 

In fact I'd like to see official approval of abbreviated call-signs (wherever confusion is unlikely).

 

This practice is approved/encouraged by ICAO for professional ops but I think a ground station needs to bless the short form first in any given situation.

 

Aircraft Call-sign - SKYbrary Aviation Safety

 

But, of course, most of our comms are air-to-air and sometimes (and most critically) with RPT aircrew who surely won't know an Avid from a Zenair, or a Bristell from a Nynja. In fact, in most cases, the blurting out of that first bunch of idiosyncratic syllables only serves to mask and blur the rest. Trying to interpret unfamiliar word salad takes up mental resources needed elsewhere - especially at just the moments when talking's needed.

 

Something else - a couple of clear numbers, maybe; easy to recall, easy to read back - would be far better in most cases. Otherwise you have a big waste of airtime and concentration: "aircraft in the circuit at XXXX - I didn't get your call sign - say again type and intentions etc etc."

 

Actually, I do note that in practice quite a few RAAus pilots already do the sensible thing and abbreviate where necessary. But it might be worth regularising it.

 

There may be a case for an abbreviated form for all RAAus aircraft (to be used as necessary or desirable) such as:

 

"Ultralight Fifty-four" at least after initial contact. (The numbers, of course, being the last two of the rego.) You'd soon hear about it if you had a short-name-sake in the area.) And if disambiguation is needed it's quick and easy to say: "Fifty-four, say type (... and colour)."

 

Sure, ATC needs to know, initially, at least, exactly who they're talking to and also the local council certainly wants to know 'who's that landing on MY strip.' But those requirements could be satisfied while, at the same time, making practical radiotelephony a bit more ... practical (and a lot safer).

 

Just like ICAO does for the big boys and girls.

 

 

[Downunder]

I think it depends on the individual number sequence.

 

Some sound ok abreviated, eg sixty nine.

 

Others I think are better as individual numbers, eg all numbers ending in zero (to me "eight zero" is better than "eighty")

 

Just like vh rego letters, some roll off the tongue easily others not so easily.

 

Just my thoughts....

 

 

[Downunder]

One thing they stuffed up badly was the, now outdated, met forecast.

 

Sending it out a few weeks before the change?

 

I like the distance from cloud info. I always get that mixed up.

 

 

[Garfly]

I agree, Downunder. For example my numbers are 5001. And Fife-zero-zero-one is quite distinctive; easy to say and hear - at least as easy as Fifty-zero-one (or Fifty-one? ;-)

 

But that's why I think it should be optional and context dependent.

 

 

[nathan_c]

You do not need ground/ATC approval to use number abbreviations for your call sign. Sixty-Ninety nine is completely acceptable if you should so wish to use it (I do.)

 

If you suspect there may be confusion or ambiguity, sometimes it is a smart idea to clearly differentiate each number (six zero nine nine), for example if there was similar call signs operating. As ATC's we will do this quite alot if we have for example Qantas 614 and 613 both on frequency. At the very least we will strongly emphasise the number section to make it clear.

 

Approval for shortening callsigns is really only for when we are dealing with registrations like N603FJ. On first contact the aircraft is required to use the full call sign, however if ATC deems it safe to shorten it, we will often use something like N3FJ instead. Once we use this, the aircraft is allowed to use the same convention.

 

 

[Garfly]

Regarding the GAF info in the Aviator's Tool Kit. They have provided a page with the new forecast areas, right?

 

Is there somewhere else where the info is out of date already?

 

 

[Garfly]

Good to know that, Nathan.

 

Actually I once flew as a pax in my aircraft on a ferry flight with an experienced pro pilot who decided to request clearance through Albury airspace. "What's the type and number of this thing?" he asks. "It's a Skyranger and it's 19-5001" I tell him. "Hmmm, he thinks (audibly)". He keys the mic "Albury tower, Ranger Zero One is approaching WP Y at X thousand 500, request ... etc. etc." No problem. I had to laugh. At one point the controller did ask our type but I'm sure the word Skyranger didn't register. I've thought ever since that maybe he thought we were some special RAAF flight - it sounds a bit like one of those air force codes. And Zero One, no less! Maybe the PM was on board! Although he could have judged from our stately pace (as reported) through his space that we were not a Hawk. LOL.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Good to know that, Nathan.Actually I once flew as a pax in my aircraft on a ferry flight with an experienced pro pilot who decided to request clearance through Albury airspace. "What's the type and number of this thing?" he asks. "It's a Skyranger and it's 19-5001" I tell him. "Hmmm, he thinks (audibly)". He keys the mic "Albury tower, Ranger Zero One is approaching WP Y at X thousand 500, request ... etc. etc." No problem. I had to laugh. At one point the controller did ask our type but I'm sure the word Skyranger didn't register. I've thought ever since that maybe he thought we were some special RAAF flight - it sounds a bit like one of those air force codes. And Zero One, no less! Maybe the PM was on board! Although he could have judged from our stately pace (as reported) through his space that we were not a Hawk. LOL.

While I don’t have the luxury of a zero one call sign I do enjoy using the “hornet” part although like you Garfly I suspect the ground speed may give me away.

Hmmm maybe we should do a flight together one day:thumb up: “Ranger zero one in company with Hornet for victor one” sounds like it would fit the Bill

 

 

[Garfly]

Actually, reading Nathan's post more carefully perhaps I should have replied that, indeed, shortening the numbers to "sixty, ninety-nine" is what we're being encouraged to do now (ref. Clear Mind Clear Prop). My suggestion is to take it further: drop the type prefix (often garbled and meaningless) replace it with a generic term denoting RA and encourage abbreviation to just "ninety-nine" where appropriate. When type info is useful it can be added or asked for. As in '99 say type'

 

As it is, some of our full names and numbers run to over a dozen syllables.

 

We can run out of breath just saying hello.

 

IMHO, for most of our ops, brevity and clarity trump (total) identity. But not always.

 

 

[Nobody]

This is covered in the AIP, specifically GEN 3.4 Publications | Airservices

 

4.16 Flight Number Callsigns - Using Group Form4.16.1 Within Australian airspace, “group form” is the preferred means of transmitting callsign/flight number. Group form should also be used with military and other aircraft using a root word callsign with numeric suffix.

4.16.2 Group form is the grouping of numbers into pairs, or where a number ending in “00” is spoken in hundreds (refer para 4.17). For three digit numbers, the second and third numbers are grouped.

 

Examples are as follows:

 

QLINK 122 QLINK ONE TWENTY TWO

 

QANTAS 1220 QANTAS TWELVE TWENTY

 

CAR 21 CAR TWENTY ONE

 

CLASSIC 12 CLASSIC TWELVE

 

VIRGIN 702 VIRGIN SEVEN ZERO TWO

 

BIRDOG 021 BIRDOG ZERO TWENTY ONE

Note the bit I have bolded below.

 

4.21 Callsigns - Full and Abbreviated Formats

4.21.1 When establishing two way communications and for subsequent communications on any frequency, Australian registered aircraft must use one of the following callsigns:

 

a. for VH-registered aircraft, the last 3 characters of the registration marking (e.g. VH-TQK “TANGO QUEBEC KILO”); or

 

b. the approved telephony designator of the aircraft operating agency, followed by the last 3 characters of a VH registration marking (e.g. “QLINK TANGO QUEBEC KILO”); or

 

c. the approved telephony designator of the aircraft operating agency, followed by the flight identification (e.g. “VELOCITY EIGHT FIFTY SIX DELTA”); or

 

d. for recreation-category aircraft, the aircraft type followed by the last 4 characters of the aircraft’s registration number (e.g. “JABIRU THIRTEEN FORTY SIX”).

[Garfly]

Thanks for finding the chapter and verse, Nobody.

 

So I guess to simplify the pitch, the proposal would be that, for call sign purposes, RAAus be treated as an operating agency with a telephony designator for all its aircraft (or maybe several to separate broad categories). In any case, the actual designator(s) would need to be chosen for phonetic distinctiveness. (Presumably why "Go Cat" was - once - chosen over the word "Tiger" and "Velocity" over "Virgin".) At this level the fact that different aircraft types are covered by the one designator doesn't usually present a problem. Anyway, that info's included in RT whenever it's deemed relevant.

 

 

[nathan_c]

I’d argue against that to be perfectly honest. With multiple aircraft on a frequency with similar numbers the potential for confusion with a standard prefix is huge.

 

And just for interest, Virgin used to use the prefix Virgin, Velocity is only recent as of about 4 years or so ago. From memory the change was to differentiate from the virgin Atlantic or overseas Call signs, not because virgin was harder to understand then velocity.

 

 

[Garfly]

Fair enough, Nathan. Certainly, when (and if) we get access to C/D space, ATC folks will want to have a say as to just how we identify ourselves. But, as you said above, you all, at times, choose, yourselves, to abbreviate in the interest of efficient coms.

 

But anyway, the context I'm thinking of is four or five aircraft in the vicinity of an non-towered field on CTAF trying to separate themselves. I'm not so much thinking of all the folks on a given frequency at any one time. After all, you rarely hear a peep out of the swarm of rag-and-tubers typically on Area.

 

So I'm just suggesting that formalised abbreviations could be approved/encouraged wherever it will add to safety; wherever it can ease the mental load of working out the relative position of a bunch of nearby aircraft based solely on RT coms. (of variable quality.)

 

Sure, all four numbers can be spoken when needed and/or where ATC is involved (unless the controller initiates a shortening). But, in any case, I'd have thought that controllers might prefer a standard RAAus prefix since they probably won't make any sense of the type anyway (present company excluded!) and a word such as 'Ultra' and/or 'Micro' would instantly prepare their ears for the ID number to follow. (Plus a performance ballpark.) Numbers get used for so many different things in aviation the more clearly their meaning is signalled the better, no?

 

(Which is why, I suppose, the 'sixty, ninety-nine' format is now favoured.)

 

P.S: Since so many of our types are so quick nowadays, we might need another RAAus designator ... maybe 'Slippery' ?

 

Just kidding. (I think.)

 

 

[nathan_c]

I appreciate the idea, but I was also referring to comms on the CTAF. From my point of view, having Ultra 8514, 8515, 8516 all in one circuit at one time could be particularly confusing if you are trying to pick out exactly which aircraft is which. At least if you pick up that one aircraft is a Jabiru, one a microlight, one a sling etc you can get at least some differentiation going.

 

Just my 2c anyway.

 

 

[Garfly]

True enough. So in such a case "Savannah 14", "Nynja 15" and "Drifter 16" might work better. In fact, I hear that happening, in a common sense way, as it is.

 

I guess what we want to avoid is "Zenair seven-oh-one-seven-zero-zero-seven turning downwind" thence 'base' 'final' etc.

 

(Do I exaggerate? ... Okay, I exaggerate. ;-)

 

 

[Nobody]

My couple of thoughts...

 

• It is good to have the discussion on how to improve things but if you feel really passionate about it get RAAus involved in making the case for the change to CASA/Airservices. Don't just start using the different system yourself. Otherwise someone else will make another "improvement" and another and another and things can get very confusing very quickly. An imperfect standard followed and understood by everyone is better than each individual's idea of perfection.
   
   
  
• The aircraft type is useful in identifying aircraft. Imagine you have a drifter without a radio and a Jabiru in the circuit. If the Jabiru calls as a jabiru and you have only seen the drifter you know to keep looking. If the Jabiru calls as an ultralight and you have only seen the drifter....
   
   
  
• Their is probably the case for encouraging standardisation of the aircraft type. From 500 meters can you pick the difference between a jabiru 430 and and a jabiru 170? So just call them both a Jabiru.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Neil_S]

I seem to remember that when dealing with ATC on Area frequency they are happy to have you use nomenclature " Light Sports 1234", which is apparently good enough for them to distinguish you from the big stuff, and GA.

 

When in the circuit and on CTAF then use type and numbers, eg "Savannah 1234" as the other aircraft are most likely light aircraft whose pilots would be familiar with Jabiru, Skyranger, Savannah etc, and that would be better to allow them to distinguish between these aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

 

 

[Garfly]

That 'Light Sports' bit is new to me and I'd say it's a good idea.

 

I wonder if it will be formalised if controlled airspace arrives.

 

Yes, changes should be done properly, by the book.

 

And type info could be designated as an 'as-required' element.

 

When, say, a QantasLink flight announces itself to all and sundry on Area and CTAF when operating at an uncontrolled field, on first contact they seem to include their type e.g 'Dash8' and thereafter, I believe, just go by Designator/Flt. number. That seems to work.

 

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

 

As it says in Clear Mind Clear Prop: "Remember there are no longer any mandatory broadcasts other than those needed for the immediate avoidance of collision or risk of collision." I guess the official message comes down to "use your noggins everyone. And don't crash."

 

 

[frank marriott]

d. for recreation-category aircraft, the aircraft type followed by the last 4 characters of the aircraft’s registration number (e.g. “JABIRU THIRTEEN FORTY SIX”).

 

The method as listed in the AIP (as above) works well in CTA & OCTA, for me anyway.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yes, that's a good one. Some monikers work really well as it is.

 

 

[bushcaddy105]

One of the reasons I chose my number was to have single-syllable digits, so "4 5 6 4" is easier and faster to say than " 45 64" . Four syllables against six. Now I'm not sure whether "Forty-five sixty-four" isn't easier to pick up and understand on the other end of the communication. What are your thoughts?

 

 

[Akromaster]

One of the reasons I chose my number was to have single-syllable digits, so "4 5 6 4" is easier and faster to say than " 45 64" . Four syllables against six. Now I'm not sure whether "Forty-five sixty-four" isn't easier to pick up and understand on the other end of the communication. What are your thoughts?

I guess it depends from what perspective you evaluate this from. It's easier for you to say, but for me at least as a "receiver" of your call, it'd be easier to remember two numbers than four, irrespective of the number of syllables.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yes, we seem to agree, it depends on the luck of the draw as to both name and number. 'Jabiru', for example, happens to be a great RT word despite its three syllables. Better than, say, 'Nynja' with just two. (Partly phonetics and partly fame ;-)

 

But the problem becomes serious when mumbled word salad for ID makes vital coms clumsy, in need of clarification at a point when you may be closing on your unseen chat-mate at a great rate of knots.

 

Just think of the art and science behind the invention of IFR Waypoints: "NICLA" "COOPA" "NAMBA" "SORTI".

 

If our aircraft call signs were like that our problems would be few. But they ain't. And four numbers are necessary for administering and distinguishing a fleet of thousands but can make for a tedious handle in the circuit.

 

All I'm suggesting is an agreed form of shortening as an option where indicated. But you'd need a consensus that there is a real problem to fix, first. It's already an option whether to talk at all in the (uncontrolled) circuit so it's not a great stretch to be allowed to choose a clear call-sign if and when you do.

 

Anyway, Ranger Zero One, over and out. ;-)