Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1839023
akg1486 wrote:......(We don't use the "student" prefix in Sweden.) .....


I'm sure you know, but this is the reason that the "Student" prefix came about in the UK. A 16-year old. :cry:

I know this thread is in some jest; long may it be so :thumright: .

I'm a great believer in the "Student" prefix. Akg1486: perhaps you should promote it in Sweden?

This boy would be 31 or 32 today.

Rob
condor17 liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1839027
Rob L wrote:
VRB_20kt wrote:I've never had it queried when I respond "Squawk 7000" (or 2000 as the case may be).


"Squawk VFR" would be a much better phrase!


Why?
User avatar
By akg1486
#1839028
Rob L wrote:
akg1486 wrote:......(We don't use the "student" prefix in Sweden.) .....


I'm sure you know, but this is the reason that the "Student" prefix came about in the UK. A 16-year old. :cry:

I know this thread is in some jest; long may it be so :thumright: .

I'm a great believer in the "Student" prefix. Akg1486: perhaps you should promote it in Sweden?

This boy would be 31 or 32 today.

Rob

No, I didn't know the background but I've seen on this forum that it's a thing. It's always seemed to make sense to me.

I don't have the connections to promote such call sign schemes, but there's a big difference between UK and Swedish GA: we are taught and actively encouraged to always file ATS Flight Plans whenever leaving the circuit. You put "student" in them, so ATS stations along the way and at the destination know that it's a student.

I flew a bit out of Popham in 2005 when I temporarily worked in Newbury, and I remember asking Irv Lee (who checked me out) how to file flight plans. After looking at me in an amused and astonished way, he explained that you don't do that unless going foreign or over the Welsh mountains. He also told me that I could file a flight plan if I wanted to, but that Heathrow would be wondering what I was up to. I realize of course that it has to do with the traffic in UK airspace being so much denser than in most places in Europe: it would require so much more staff to deal with flight plans from everyone.

I'll read the report. Those are always interesting, also when the outcome is sad.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1839046
JAFO wrote:
Rob L wrote:
VRB_20kt wrote:I've never had it queried when I respond "Squawk 7000" (or 2000 as the case may be).


"Squawk VFR" would be a much better phrase!


Why?


Because it's unambiguous and doesn't require a number.
By riverrock
#1839047
Filed VFR flight plans are pretty much ignored in the UK unless you're going internationally - departure and destination will get them but they don't automatically make their way into ATC's systems. It would seem obvious to have a system where details from a plan would make their way automatically into or available to a console, or a strip automatically generated like IFR ones, or if you are within an area that ATC is interested in, but instead someone has to manually load them, so you end up with needing separate booking procedures anyway. We just don't have joined up ATC for VFR.

I've complained about "conspicuity" before. Its not a word in common use, will not be known by non-native English speakers. You can already be on a basic service conspicuity code, and be asked to squawk conspicuity when that service is terminated - which doesn't make any sense.

There is a long list of codes which are conspicuity codes which you could set, from VFR / IFR / circuit / aeros / high energy to listening squawks.
T6Harvard, Rob P liked this
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1839051
Rob L wrote:
JAFO wrote:
Rob L wrote:
"Squawk VFR" would be a much better phrase!


Why?


Because it's unambiguous and doesn't require a number.


But then the reason this was changed in the first place is because you might not be VFR hence my suggestion of “squawk enroute”
Iceman liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1839065
Rob L wrote:
JAFO wrote:
Rob L wrote:
"Squawk VFR" would be a much better phrase!


Why?


Because it's unambiguous and doesn't require a number.


Why is not having a number better?

Squawk 7000 is no more ambiguous.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1839092
Rob L wrote:7000 is not the only number for VFR in the world.


I agree, so therefore, giving the code you are actually squawking is less ambiguous than saying VFR.

Also, the phrase "Squawk conspicuity" is only in use here in the UK, to my knowledge, so how are codes that are used elsewhere in the world in any way relevant?
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1839099
JAFO wrote:
Rob L wrote:7000 is not the only number for VFR in the world.


I agree, so therefore, giving the code you are actually squawking is less ambiguous than saying VFR.


People seem to be missing the point by only talking about the VFR squawk when the whole reason for the change to “Squawk Conspicuity” is that people may instead set the IFR conspicuity code, personally I would not have a problem with people replying with the squawk they are going to use but that will still have Air Traffic having this tongue twister to say and so would still prefer “squawk enroute” this will also cover the situation where rather than 7000 or 2000 someone sets a listening squawk for a particular area.
JAFO, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1839120
I hadn't missed that point @foxmoth, I was just trying to understand @Rob L's logic.

I readback "Squawk conspicuity" anyway but I can't see anything wrong in principle with saying "Squawk 7000", "Squawk 2000", ""Squawk 3737" or whatever is the case. I think this is very clear - squawk perspicuity if you like.

I do like your idea of "Squawk enroute" though as I have a chance of saying that first time round without sounding like I'm breaking these teeth in for our dog.
T6Harvard, flybymike liked this