Airplane identity

[Al Downs]

How are you identifying your plane on radio transmissions? I don't think most people recognize Flight Design. Are you saying Flight Design Nxxxxx or Light Sport or something else. No doubt at your home base or if you are in an area with a few Flight Designs, people are aware of the brand but how about when you travel to other areas?

 

We have been using Sport or Light Sport for the most part and the local pilots know what it means. I would like to know what is standard.

 

Thanks

Al Downs

[Roger Lee]

Out west here most of us use something like Flight Design 525AB. If you don't educate people they will never know and use wrong terms. Now out here they know what a FD is. Flight Design tells them what it is like a Cessna, but light sport can be one of a hundred different things. What ever you tell them, is the term they are supposed to use. The identifier is in the IACO book as FDCT, foxtrot, delta, Charlie, tango. Everyone should do the controllers a favor and educate as you fly the country. If you don't do it who will?

[Jim Meade]

The AIM says:  "4-2-4a3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircrafttype, model or manufacturer’s name, followed by thedigits/letters of the registration number.

 

EXAMPLE−

1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf.

2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit

“Experimental” after initial contact)."

 

The FAA says the Manufacture is Flight Design, the Model is CT and the designator is FDCT

 

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/5-1-F.htm

 

Based on that, it would seem that I could say:

 

Des Moines Approach, this is Flight Design 319CT Experimental (mine is an ELSA), or

 

Des Moines Approach, this is CT 319CT Experimental, or

 

Des Moines Approach, this is FDCT 319CT Experimental.

 

The terms "Sport" or "Light Sport" don't seem to be supported by the AIM.

 

Personally, I use Flight Design 319CT Experimental, but a local flight school uses CTxxx and has educated the closest tower so that is what they use. If I check in as Flight Design 319CT they will respond to me as CT319CT. If one looks at standard certified planes, one gets a plethora of calls. "Cessna" covers a multitude of sins but most 210s will call themselves a Centurion and most twin drivers say "Twin Cessna" although Piper will say Navajo or Apache or Aztec.. Pipers each seems to use their model name or number. Cessna makes many models of Citation jet, but when I flew all Citations were "Citation".

 

Many of us are not familiar with some aircraft names. What is a Buccaneer? A Calumet? A Pazmany? I would have to ask the pilot if I needed to know. If ID is important, such as flying into a non-towered fly-in that is busy and there is doubt as to where or what I am, I'll say, "I'm a white single engine high wing turning base" or something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

[kentuckynet]

All the towers in the south new us as

foxtrot delta charlie tango

filing the flight plan with wxbrief was the same.

[rookie]

Now that I'm out west for the winter I'm getting used to using Flight Design. I agree with Roger, lets get everybody familiar with it. On my way out here when I called ATC for flight following they had no clew what Flight Design or Light Sport was so we have some work to do. Speaking of ATC when they asked me what equipment I had I responded "A"; however after reviewing it I think it should have been "G". I have a mode C transponder and GPS. Anyone care to comment?

 

rookie,

[Ian]

Just as confused here in the UK - if I say "G-CGRB is a Fox Delta Charlie Tango" which IS the ICAO designator then the controllers just say "what?"

 

So then I tried "Flight Design CTLS" and then got the response "are you a microlight?"

 

So now I say "G-CGRB CTLS Light Aircraft" (as we don't have a Light Sports or Experimental category over here)

 

As Roger says, you've just got to educate them

[Al Downs]

After reading all of the responses, I am going to start using Flight Design. I think this will begin to help people know what we are flying. If and when Flight Design puts other models in the air we may need to add CT or something like that to differentiate.

 

Thanks for all of the responses

[CT4ME]

This is an ongoing problem, perpetuated by the fact that there is no official FAA identifier....

Read more here - an old Blog

18 months later, and they are still "working on it"

Timm

[Jim Meade]

This is an ongoing problem, perpetuated by the fact that there is no official FAA identifier....

Read more here - an old Blog

18 months later, and they are still "working on it"

Timm

Help me out. I was under the impression that based on the site cited in my post above, the FAA had decided on a designator, FDCT. I've been looking around and it seems to me that the FAA site is authoritative. Can you show where it is not? I don't want to be spreading erroneous information.

 

 

 

[Ian]

It's not actually an FAA thing - (just a gentle reminder to you folks in the US of A that the rest of the world does exist )

 

Aircraft type designators are issued by ICAO and used by all aviation authorities that are participants. ICAO is in fact a UN organisation - and as far as I am aware, there is just one designator "FDCT" issued to cover all Flight Design aircraft

[Jim Meade]

Ian,

 

There was no question that the ICAO designator was FDCT, but I go tthe impression that some thought the FAA had not adopted it whereas it seemed to me that it had. I was under the impression that the U.S. (and other countries) do not always follow all ICAO provisions so it is a valid question.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ian]

Jim - I'm sure you're right in the overall discussion on ICAO vs FAA vs CAA etc - but I think the aircraft and airport designators and items that go on flight plans (which are universal) are the agreed ICAO ones. I stand to be corrected though.

 

Just a gentle tease to my American friends !!

 

Cheers

Ian

[CT4ME]

Jim,

The site you reference is the "contractions" document used by the FAA... not the document used to hold FAA designators. The contractions doc has all sorts of "contractions", and also includes ICAO information. This explains why, sometimes, when you give a controller (especially main ATC) FDCT, they may-or-may-not get it. If they broaden their search to include the "contractions" document, they will find FDCT.

tim

[Jim Meade]

Tim,

 

Thanks for the insight into the documentation. I can't tell from your discussion whether you believe FDCT is a valid FAA designator that may not be known to all ATC personnel, or that it is in an FAA document that is not authoritative.

 

What is the FAA document that holds the designators?

 

I've been asked what my type is and responded with "FDCT" and they didn't reject or question it, so I assumed it was OK. I guess I may need to call the FSDO tomorrow or maybe Edsel Ford and see what the bottom line is.

 

 

[pat]

Here in Connecticut as far as the tower is concerned we call ourselves flight design. the designator when calling for weather breifings is fdct

[Roger Lee]

We are not in the FAA identification book that many of the long time aircraft are. SLSA has not caught up. Tim talked to and wrote the head of the FAA on this point and supposedly some day it will get added.

The FDCT designation is in the ICAO book. The controller's whether at a tower or a major control center have both books. I tell them which book and they will look it up and say thanks.

 

 

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), pronounced /aɪˈkeɪoʊ/, (in French:Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale, OACI), is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. Its headquarters are located in the Quartier International of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

 

The ICAO Council adopts standards and recommended practices concerning air navigation, its infrastructure, flight inspection, prevention of unlawful interference, and facilitation of border-crossing procedures for international civil aviation. In addition, the ICAO defines the protocols forair accident investigation followed by transport safety authorities in countries signatory to theConvention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention.

 

The ICAO should not be confused with the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade organization for airlines also headquartered in Montreal, or with the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), an organization for Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) with its headquarters at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the Netherlands.

 

 

[Jim]

To further muddy the water, the IACRA code for a CTSW is SP-GEN-AP, which I think is a generic code for any light sport plane. You can waste a few hours looking, I did.

[CT4ME]

Here is the document that the controllers use... with several revisions over time:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65TBasic.pdf

This one goes into effect in Feb 2012:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65UBasic.pdf

 

Search either one for, say, "c152" to find the designator area.

 

A flight brief person told me this: Some of them know and recognize the most used identifiers. When something comes in that sounds unusual, the may ask for clarification. But, as long as the code begins with a letter, their system will accept it. So it kinda depends on whether the controller gives a rat's a** or not. Some care and really try to figure out who/what you are... others, not so much.

Like I said in the blog... it's mostly a minor aggravation... but it sure would be nice if we had a definative code, and it would be nice to know that the when the controllers put in our code, they'd know a little about our performance/size etc.

I think we're talking about two different things... our official designator, and the more casual names that our local towers use. The local names seem to vary a lot, depending on what they've gotten used to. At my tower, they're happy with CT xxx, Roger's tower uses Flight Design xxx... others use Light Sport xxx.

Tim

[Jim Meade]

I didn't see Flight Design or any of the other LSA in Apps A-C. One could make something of an argument that it is HXB from App C, but that may not hold up.

 

Flight Design apparently thinks we are FDCT, but that may be just their wishful thinking. The FAA thinks we are FDCT based on their contractions book, so there is some justification for saying they recognize the designation.

 

If I get some time, I may call the FSDO or an ATC office and see how they butcher it.

 

It would seem to me that if we can't find a type, then the AIM says we use either Model (CT) or Manufacturer (Flight Design). I don't see any justification for any other nomenclature such as Light Sport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wlfpckrs]

Flight Design Two-Niner-Three-Charlie-Tango. With ATC, I say, "Foxtrot-Delta-Charlie-Tango Light Sport."

[Jim Meade]

It seems to me this thread exemplifies one of the aspects of aviation communication that drives some people crazy. That is, there are many phrases that are not in the book that are common and some may even be local knowledge so if you say it that way somewhere else you get a raised eyebrow.

 

One famous example of this is the people who check in with ATC using the phrase "with you", as in FD319CT with you at 5,500 feet." That phrase "with you" is not in the book and you can find rather strong arguments about using it, some decrying it and some saying what's the big deal. I've heard plenty of airline calls who use it although it seems to be used more often by GA pilots who perhaps want to sound as if they are experienced. The call ATC prefers is "FD319CT 5,500 feet."

 

Another common phrase not in the book is to answer "looking" when ATC gives a traffic advisory. That is used by many, probably most, who respond to ATC. I imagine the pilot wants ATC to know they are searching the sky. However, ATC is really interested in separation. ATC only really cares about two responses. One is "traffic in sight", which means ATC can rely on the pilot to provide some separation or "negative contact" which means ATC has to provide the separation (in those cases where they have any responsibility - it is always the pilots responsibility to apply see and avoid, even in the clouds). So, to ATC, anything other than "traffic in sight" is the same as saying "negative contact". I used to say 'looking" but now only use the two phrases because I want to communicate clearly with ATC.

 

Perhaps the worst offender in the "bad language" arena is the guy who comes up on Unicom and says, "any traffic in the area please advise". This phrase has it's own entry in the AIM as something to not say, yet we still hear it from time to time. Who uses it? One group is the people who have been ignoring all calls and now decide they want everyone else to get them caught up on where traffic is, there are some who use it because they think it sounds professional (it doesn't) and the other is the guy who comes out of an IFR flight to an untowered airport, maybe just above VFR so there is some possibility of traffic in the pattern doing touch and goes, and has not been able to monitor the Unicom frequency because he's been on with ATC flying an approach. For that guy, I have some sympathy. For the lazy guy and the wannabe pro, I have none.

 

My point in all this rambling is that radio communications touches each of us in many ways. The FAA would prefer, I think, that we always do it by the book (Pilot-Controller Glossary, AIM, etc). Many ATC will tolerate local jargon so long as the meaning is clear. But, on something like separation and IFR clearances (and Class B, for that matter) , you'll often hear ATC require you to use a specific word or phrase and they'll repeat it (for their tape machine) until you do use it. Your instructor will insist that you know you have to be "cleared" into Class B.

 

So, we get back to the point of this comment which touches what we think the FAA and ICAO want us to do, what our local controllers are used to and even what our local pilots have made a habit. People who feel strongly about it one way or the other tend to argue a point and others shrug their shoulders and say, "what difference does it make". I guess I'm in the camp, because of my IFR background, of generally preferring to use the book solution because that means to me that ATC and I are using the same words the same way. Others don't find that necessary or comfortable so it's important for the rest of us to be able to deduce what they mean even if they say it a little differently. It's not always the end of the world.

 

Roger, in one of his posts, says he wants us to use Flight Design across the community and mentions the FDCT designator, which I agree with, then cT4ME raises the question of whether that designator is recognized in a book that ATC have access to, which Roger thinks they do but they may not have looked it. Others want ATC and other pilots who are not aware to know we are a light sport type airplane. I think everyone has the best interests at heart and it's an interesting discussion to see what those interests are and why we use the names we do. Gotta go.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim]

Are some of these "variations" regional? My pp instructor is also a Southwest captain. He taught "with you at XXXX" and "looking". He explained that "looking" was important because ATC wants an immediate confirmation that you got the message and you are taking action. Regardless of AIM, that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Jim Meade]

Are some of these "variations" regional? My pp instructor is also a Southwest captain. He taught "with you at XXXX" and "looking". He explained that "looking" was important because ATC wants an immediate confirmation that you got the message and you are taking action. Regardless of AIM, that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

I suspect some of the variations are regional. "With you" is an old habit and one ATC usually discourages because it is wordy. About the only time I ever used it was when I was in a sector and change radios. It woud go like this: We're flying along talking to Chicago Center on 131.6

 

 

Chicago Center: Citation 12345 change to my frequency 128.6

 

Citation 12345 (quickly resets the radio) Chicago Cetner, Citation 12345 is with you on 128.6 (this sets it apart from the last transmission which was on the old frequency,) Even then it is not really what ATC wants to hear.

 

The "Looking" comment is very heavily discussed in some of the other forums. Some make the same point you did, that ATC wants an immediate acknowledgement and "Looking" not only provides taht but also tells them you are acting on their information. What I have found is that I can take about 10-15 seconds to make a quick look in the direction that ATC advised and if I dont' see something I can say "negative contact". I've never been chastised by ATC for not responding immediately. I am not sure that ATC requires a response or that it has to be immeidate. Maybe an ATC type could talk to that. Like I said before, from ATC's perspective, they are only partially trying to keep you from hitting someone. They are mainly ihterested in establishing who is responsible for separation, as I understand it (I am not an ATC trained person).

 

From what I can see, you are not likely to be beat up by ATC for using Looking or With You. The discussion point is more a question of what we say and why. We learn, just like you did, and assume it is OK. Only later, if ever, do we study the AIM or the Glossary for the preferred wording and even when we know we may say we like Looking better than Negative Contact. I suppose we all wonder about the value of precision in language and whether we all know what it means. We old Army guys know that you don't understand something on the radio you never say, "would you repeat that" because REPEAT means shoot the fire mission again. Oops. Clearance has a very specific and critical meaning in aviation. Some of the other phrases are less set in stone, I guess.

 

 

[DocRon]

Guys, I spent 13 years in the FAA (in my younger days) in FSS, AFSS, and as an Academy Instructor. I still feel some kinship toward these folks. I've heard a variety of things said about our CTLS, rarely correctly. I've been called a Cessna, Experimental, Foreign-design, and occasionally Light Sport.

 

For our local tower (about 20 miles away) I'm going to do something that will ensure proper recognition. First, I'm writing a letter to the Air Traffic Manager of the Fargo Tower (who used to work for ME) and tell her about my aircraft and include a photo to share with her Controllers. Then I'll offer to come over and give some of her Controllers familiarization or "fam" flights on a good flying day in future.

 

I've done this before and it yields very good results. Most Controllers are not pilots and, in my experience, when offered a flight around the city they jump at the chance, even if it's only 20 minutes.

 

Give 4-5 "fam trips" to these folks and you have, from that moment on, proper recognition, sometimes even some deference, and significant goodwill from the entire tower team. You won't ever be called a Cessna again.

[Runtoeat]

Flying here in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana I use "Flight Design November 9922Z" and if asked for designation of aircraft, I respond with Foxtrot Delta Charlie Tango ("FDCT"). A few years ago, giving the designation as "FDCT" worked 50/50 with ACT and I was often asked to describe my aircraft. Now, it seems like most controllers are knowledgeable about the designation. The use of Flight Design N9922Z and "FDCT" on my trip to Sebring this week thru various states seemed to satisfy the controllers.