Use of the term "heavy"

[Yvan Ung 987353]

I saw many VAC flights done with aircraft within FAA and ICAO respective "heavy aircraft" categories (255,000 lbs and 300,000 lbs respectively) and few of them append the term heavy, even on T/O or landing.

 

As in a controller might say (for our example, ACA2, flown with an A343) Air Canada 2 for an IFR or a T/O clearance when the aircraft is clearly heavy according to F/P.

[Greg Calderin]

Alot of pilots file with HEAVY but never call using it, Most of the time i need to ask them if they are a heavy or not.

 

Im not sure if this is accurate, but when i listen in on the RW coms for NY CTR I never hear the term HEAVY.

[Yvan Ung 987353]

Alot of pilots file with HEAVY but never call using it, Most of the time i need to ask them if they are a heavy or not.

 

Im not sure if this is accurate, but when i listen in on the RW coms for NY CTR I never hear the term HEAVY.

 

Real-world or VATSIM?

 

To be truly certain, I never file heavy, even if I flew an A380.

[Victor Sussman 911965]

Yvan, you're required to file as 'heavy' if your aircraft has an MTOW greater than 136,000 kg (300,000 lbs).

 

(See Part VIII Standard 821 - Canadian Domestic Air Traffic Control Separation, Canadian Aviation Regulations)

 

This is so that controllers can apply appropriate wake turbulence separation requirements.

 

As for filing heavy and not using it -- the only thing I can think of is that someone did a flight with a 'heavy' and then forgot to uncheck the appropriate box when they're not doing a flight with a heavy aircraft.

 

As for appending the term 'heavy' to a communication, I believe it's only required on check-in, and if the controller shortens it later, then it can be omitted from subsequent transmissions (just like if a controller shortens a G/A callsign.)

 

In general, if you are called something by ATC, it's best to stick with what they call you. (e.g. if you're ACA450 and they call you "Air Canada Four Fifty" then you're good to stick with that (instead of sticking with something like "Air Canada Four Five Zero.")

I seem to recall reading that in the TC-AIM, but I'd have to go back and look.

[Matthew Horan 901577]

I saw many VAC flights done with aircraft within FAA and ICAO respective "heavy aircraft" categories (255,000 lbs and 300,000 lbs respectively) and few of them append the term heavy, even on T/O or landing.

 

As in a controller might say (for our example, ACA2, flown with an A343) Air Canada 2 for an IFR or a T/O clearance when the aircraft is clearly heavy according to F/P.

 

I don't see a question there.. was this just a general comment about your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed ineptitude of controllers?

[Yvan Ung 987353]

I saw many VAC flights done with aircraft within FAA and ICAO respective "heavy aircraft" categories (255,000 lbs and 300,000 lbs respectively) and few of them append the term heavy, even on T/O or landing.

 

As in a controller might say (for our example, ACA2, flown with an A343) Air Canada 2 for an IFR or a T/O clearance when the aircraft is clearly heavy according to F/P.

 

I don't see a question there.. was this just a general comment about your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed ineptitude of controllers?

 

Just a general comment about my own experience of online flying. I often filed heavy but no controller would append the term heavy in the past.

[Joshua Greenway 937147]

As for appending the term 'heavy' to a communication, I believe it's only required on check-in,

 

That's correct, the suffix "heavy" is only ammended to an aircraft in a non en-route environment, for example, TWR, DEL or GND

[Martin Georg 811874]

I saw many VAC flights done with aircraft within FAA and ICAO respective "heavy aircraft" categories (255,000 lbs and 300,000 lbs respectively) and few of them append the term heavy, even on T/O or landing.

 

Regulations are different in different parts of the world. In Germany, f.e., "heavy" must only be used during the initial call on the frequency, and may be consequently dropped.

[Yvan Ung 987353]

My last flight with ATC was filed like this:

 

ANA3: H/B763/Q

 

and RKRR_CTR (the ATC online; I suspect that he logged in just to make me land with ATC) said: All Nippon 3, cleared ILS approach runway 13R. I thought that landing clearances were given with the term heavy appended to it.

[Andras Kiss 888081]

Alot of pilots file with HEAVY but never call using it, Most of the time i need to ask them if they are a heavy or not.

 

Im not sure if this is accurate, but when i listen in on the RW coms for NY CTR I never hear the term HEAVY.

 

Real-world or VATSIM?

 

Real-world

 

RW = Real World

 

In a non en-route environment the "heavy" suffix is mandatory for controllers to say. Centers can or cannot depending on what they want to do.

[Yvan Ung 987353]

Landing clearances are non-enroute clearances, so it usually has the heavy term appended to it. And even for taxi or T/O clearances, I never heard the term heavy even if I filed it.

 

Oh and for the real-world ATC stuff for NY_CTR I. I suppose that LiveATC.net can make you learn a couple of things about real-world ATC procedures.

[Daniel Gustin 940540]

My last flight with ATC was filed like this:

 

ANA3: H/B763/Q

 

and RKRR_CTR (the ATC online; I suspect that he logged in just to make me land with ATC) said: All Nippon 3, cleared ILS approach runway 13R. I thought that landing clearances were given with the term heavy appended to it.

 

Btw: That was an APP clx not a landing clx.