Euroscope shouldn't determine callsigns, pilots should

[Wybe van Kampen]

Dear Euroscope team,

 

Euroscope refers to a list of three letter ICAO codes and uses this list to display callsigns at the bottom of the screen. This method is based on a couple of [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions:

- It is possible to build a list of operator codes with their callsigns, and ATC will keep their databases up to date. I believe it's not possible to list all operator codes. Take, for example, the Dutch police code ZXP, which is not even in the Eurocontrol database (https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://webprisme.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/indicators/aircraft_operators_browse.jsp). Additionally, many ATCs do not keep their database current, leading to the callsign of one flight appearing differently with different ATCs.

- Each ICAO code corresponds to exactly one operator with one callsign. Take, for example, the code LTU. This corresponds to 'Air Lituanica' with callsign 'LITUANICA'. However, there are also many pilots who simulate the (now defunct) airline LTU, with callsign 'LTU'. With the current method, there is no way to display both correctly at the same time.

- Each individual operator only uses one callsign. Not true. NCG under normal circomestances stands for 'NETHERLANDS COASTGUARD'. However, during search and rescue missions, the same operator uses the same code NCG with the same aircraft, however now with callsign 'RESCUE PLUTO'.

- Not to mention issues with virtual airlines.

 

My suggestion instead: pilots should be able to report their callsign in their flight plan in such a way that their callsign appears consistently with all ATCs. IVAC does this functionality very nicely: when pilots add CS/LITUANICA in the remarks section of their flight plan, it overrides the callsign from the database with LITUANICA.

[Martin Loxbo]

That's a good suggestion!

 

It would help though if VAs (and individual pilots) would check if their chosen designator is used by a real airline, and if it is don't be surprised if you get called by the real airline's callsign!

 

Also if your callsign is not so common, don't be offended if ATC spells it out as happens many times a day in real life too.

[Jonas Kuster]

Your suggestion might be a nice extension of the current functionality. But I do not want to work without the existing functionality with the list.

 

Regarding the currentness of data: it is also the task of ATC (respectively the sectorfile admin) of each vACC to provide a current airline list. Since we have the GNG tool available, this is much less work. There is even the possibility to consider local differences when it comes to problems with VAs using existing ICAO codes. GNG might also be a good platform to provide information about codes used already by real or virtual airlines. Missing or new airlines (also virtual one) can be reported and will be made available for all participating vACCs once they have been reviewed. I think, GNG provides the most current database of airlines in the VATSIM environment.

 

Nevertheless, the problem with VAs and defunct airlines will always lead to some mutiple use of the same airline code. The suggestions with the code in the remarks is valuable idea, but would then be needed to follow a certain standard which has to be defined an announced. There are a lot of different typing variants in use nowadays ...

[Matthew Gunn 964355]

if i remember right

- euroscope can pick up selcal from the remarks section so I would imagine this idea could be fairly straightforward to implement with a similar p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] after a standard remark e.g. /callsign [name].

 

Also I believe controllers can amend their local list quite easily if a new callsign keeps popping up using a standard alias.

[Gergely Csernak]

I like the idea. As soon as there is a more or less standard way to code this information to the remarks, I ma ready to extract.

[Jonas Kuster]

According ICAO Doc 4444 (Air Traffic Management), Annex 3, 15th Version from 2007, OPR/ should be followed by the "Name of the operator, if not obvious from the aircraft identification in Item 7". The latest change of ICAO flight plan definitions in 2012 (https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/docomeents/nm/flight-planning/icao-2012/icao-2012-fpl-pans-atm-amendment-fpl-latest.pdf, p. 16) describes now OPR/ as "ICAO designator or name of the aircraft operating agency, if different from the aircraft identification in item 7".

Only a small change, but I think it's clear that this suffix describes where the callsign should be. Important to know for pilot that this item should only contain the name but not the (alphanumeric) flight number. So I would propose to implement OPR/ as the suffix to use.

[Martin Loxbo]

The way I understand the definition for the OPR field is that it's not used for callsigns - at least not in real life. As far as I know there is no specific designator to show your callsign. If it needs to be clarified it can be inserted as a free-text remark, e.g. RMK/RTF ODDJET.

[Wybe van Kampen]

I also think there's no standardised way to denote the callsign. So it suffices to agree on something, then the word will spread and pilots who hear their callsign being mispronounced will stick to it. So the question is, what is the most parsable without confusion (I don't know the answer).

[Martin Loxbo]

Most pilots don't even know how to fill in their remarks properly (e.g. RMK/ to precede any free text remarks), so I'm not very optimistic that they will be able to denote their callsign in a standardised way. I'm afraid the only way that - and other things like correct equipment codes - will happen is if the correct format is forced through the pilot client / flight plan interface.

[Andreas Fuchs]

...but I do see a lot of VATSIM-pilots who use the RMK-section to provide information about their callsigns. So I say, let's give it a chance. We should find an "official" definition of how to make a remark regarding callsigns, but also have a look what is being used by pilots. This way we could give feedback to pilots on how to improve the online experience for everyone.

 

What I see regularly are the following versions

 

- RTF/xxxxxxxx

- RMK/RTF xxxxxxx

- RMK/CALLSIGN xxxxxx

- CALLSIGN=xxxxxxx

- CALLSIGN = xxxxxxx

- CALL xxxxxxx

- CALL= xxxxxxx

 

Based on this and other versions we should be able to get something done. Gergely, what do you think?

[Martin Loxbo]

That could work. (C/S or CS is another common way of writing it.)

 

But to me it's really a low priority feature. It's easy enough to check the remarks if unsure about the callsign, and the callsign can always be spelled out phonetically if needed (some pilots seem to get offended by that but I think they need to get out more! ).

[Matthew Gunn 964355]

In the meantime using

.callsign [correctairlinecallsign] and clicking on the tag of the a/c

 

will I believe update the ES file that stores this info which means variations can be easily updated

[Martin Loxbo]

Here is a real world example of a flight plan where apparently they felt it was needed to clarify the callsign!

 

 

(Pic found in and borrowed from another thread.)

[Pierre Ferran]

Well they needed to, since when flying through French airspace, AF1 is Air France 1

[Gergely Csernak]

...but I do see a lot of VATSIM-pilots who use the RMK-section to provide information about their callsigns. So I say, let's give it a chance. We should find an "official" definition of how to make a remark regarding callsigns, but also have a look what is being used by pilots. This way we could give feedback to pilots on how to improve the online experience for everyone.

 

What I see regularly are the following versions

 

- RTF/xxxxxxxx

- RMK/RTF xxxxxxx

- RMK/CALLSIGN xxxxxx

- CALLSIGN=xxxxxxx

- CALLSIGN = xxxxxxx

- CALL xxxxxxx

- CALL= xxxxxxx

 

Based on this and other versions we should be able to get something done. Gergely, what do you think?

 

Yes, we can give them a chance: http://www.euroscope.hu/mantis/view.php?id=576

[Andreas Fuchs]

Thanks a lot for including this feature in your to-do list.