GCAA has established a permanent Working Group “Call Sign Similarity” whose focus it is to provide an effective platform to discuss and propose solutions for the topic of “Call Sign Similarity/Confusion” involving all aviation stakeholders.
(...) DISCUSSION
Establishing a National ‘Call Sign Similarity’ Task Force
2.1 Acknowledging that Call Sign Similarity has the potential of being a safety concern, the U.A.E. (...) The goal is to minimize the occurrence a call sign similarity but also how to deal with the occurrence, if a call sign similarity has been identified.
3.
Language:English
Score: 571832
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/MIDAN...ll%20Sign%20Simiarity%20TF.pdf
Data Source: un
Only when such a Runway at ADEP or ADES?
Similarity Rules - Single C/S (Level Z)
Single C/S similar to … Similarity to Aerodrome
For C/S with 2-final letters E.g. (...) Local?
Similarity to Squawk Values 0001 - 7777 Relevance?
Similarity to VHF frequencies For flight id of format nnnn Values 1180 to 1369 (118.0 MHz to 136.9 MHz) …
Similarity Rules - Single C/S (Level Z)
Other similarity in single C/S Letter visually similar to Digit
E.g.
Language:English
Score: 569283.2
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...15/CSC%20WG1/2-CSS%20Rules.pdf
Data Source: un
Mitigation Measures for Call Sign
Confusions and Similarities Call Sign Similarity Rules EUROCONTROL
6 3. Mitigation Measures for Call Sign
Confusions and Similarities Call Sign Similarity Tool EUROCONTROL
7 3. Mitigation Measures for Call Sign
Confusions and Similarities Call Sign Similarity Performance Monitoring
EUROCONTROL
- END-
Language:English
Score: 564998.8
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...20list%20of%20WPs-IPs-PPTs.pdf
Data Source: un
The expansion of these airlines contained the adoption of similar flight planning principles used for callsign selection with certain destinations or routes.
(...) During the period of the campaign SMS’s were sent to operational staff over a period of 20 days.
2.3.2 Incorporation of similar callsigns within the SZC Emergency & Competency Training (ECT) - During the 2013 & 2014 ECT similar callsigns were incorporated within the simulation exercises to raise awareness of the issues related to similar callsigns. Statistics were captured and distributed to the ATCO’s by SMS:
Similar Callsigns:
I. 146 Cases of Similar callsigns II. 94 advised – 64% III. 52 not advised – 36%
2.3.3 Local Air Traffic Service Instructions (LATSI) References – Incorporation of procedures associated with callsign confusion:
Point 2.9.4 - ’When a sector is manned by an Executive Controller and a Planner, the responsibilities of the Planner are as follows: (i) Point out similar callsigns to the Executive Controller’.
Language:English
Score: 562997.3
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...WP2%20-%20UAE%20Experience.pdf
Data Source: un
The CSC WG developed Draft Safety Enhancement Initiative (SEI) and Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs) related to call sign similarity/confusion of which DIP 4 item 2 calls for the development of call sign similarity rules and guidance material.
(...) The following table provides details on the similarity rules adopted by the MID Region.
MID Region Call Sign Similarity Rules
Based on the EUROCONTROL - OPS NM18.5 (currently 21 rules implemented in the EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Tool (CSST) OPS as Global recommended rules).
The following similarity rules are recommended by the CSS User Group.
Language:English
Score: 562283.84
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...ASG-MID6/WP%2026%20-%20CSC.pdf
Data Source: un
The CSC WG developed Draft Safety Enhancement Initiative (SEI) and Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs) related to call sign similarity/confusion of which DIP 4 item 2 calls for the development of call sign similarity rules and guidance material.
(...) The following table provides details on the similarity rules adopted by the MID Region.
MID Region Call Sign Similarity Rules
Based on the EUROCONTROL - OPS NM18.5 (currently 21 rules implemented in the EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Tool (CSST) OPS as Global recommended rules).
The call sign similarity rules are divided into three categories: Level One, Two and Three.
Language:English
Score: 561815.14
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2014/RASG-MID4/WP25.pdf
Data Source: un
The following table provides details on the similarity rules adopted by the MID Region.
MID Region Call Sign Similarity Rules
Based on the EUROCONTROL - OPS NM18.5 (currently 21 rules implemented in the EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Tool (CSST) OPS as Global recommended rules).
(...) ABC 224 KF vs ABC 36 KF
ABC 36 KF vs ABC 528 KF
AG67
Call Sign Similarity Rules
General Similarity Rules (Applicable to flights within a single AO schedule, i.e. (...) ATM SG/3-WP/28 APPENDIX D
D-3
Instructions Description of the requirement Example
Visual Aural Similarity
Not to consider same or similar flight numbers when airlines letter designators are visually similar or telephony designators are aurally confusing with respect to other airlines.
Language:English
Score: 560583.5
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2017/ATM%20SG3/WP28.pdf
Data Source: un
The CSC WG developed Draft Safety Enhancement Initiative (SEI) and Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs) related to call sign similarity/confusion of which DIP 4 item 2 calls for the development of call sign similarity rules and guidance material.
(...) The following table provides details on the similarity rules adopted by the MID Region.
MID Region Call Sign Similarity Rules
Based on the EUROCONTROL - OPS NM18.5 (currently 21 rules implemented in the EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Tool (CSST) OPS as Global recommended rules).
The call sign similarity rules are divided into three categories: Level One, Two and Three.
Language:English
Score: 558490.33
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...RSC%2004-Call%20sign%20SA,.pdf
Data Source: un
EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Project Call Sign Similarity Performance Monitoring ICAO MID Region 1st Call Sign Confusion Ad-hoc Working Group Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 16- 18 February 2015
Richard Lawrence Call Sign Similarity Project Manager
NMD/NOM/SAF
Objectives
• Provide visibility of what measures are being adopted by each of the AOs.
• Monitor and verify the performance and efficiency of the CSS Tool.
• Assist with fine-tuning of the CSS Tool parameters.
Operational and Safety Performance Monitoring – Priorities
Priorities based on 2 conditions:
Type of report:
Similarity or
Confusion
Status of AOs reporting: CSS Participating or
CSS Non‐Participating
Applied Principles:
Confusion priority over Similarity, and Participating over Non‐Participating
Operational and Safety Performance Monitoring Proposed Priorities Priority 1: Call sign confusion reports ‐ both AOs participating
Priority 2: Call sign confusion reports when one AO is participating and the other is not participating
Priority 3: Call sign similarity reports when both AOs are participating/using the CSS Service/Tool
Priority 4: Call sign similarity reports when one AO is participating and other is non‐participating
Priority 5: Call sign confusion reports when both AOs are non‐ participating (reports may be received via EVAIR).
55
CSS Tool - Performance Monitoring
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR
CSMC Similarity and
Confusion CSST
Occurrence Analysis
EVAIR Recording and
Safety
Analysis
Notification & Liaison
Safety
Ops/Safety Ops/Flight Scheduling
Liaison
EUROCONTROL
ANSP
ATCO Pilot
Similarity & Confusion Reports & Feedback
Similarity & Confusion Reports & Feedback
Liaison
EVAIR – EUROCONTROL Voluntary ATM Incident Reporting
CSST Users
6
0 2
6
25
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No of AOs using the CSST 2008-2014
AOs using the tool
ANSP Reporting
7
3 4
9
13
17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No of ANSPs CSS/C data providers 2008-2014
AO affected
8
104 70
101
351
539
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
A bs
ol ut
e fig
ur es
Number of AOs Identified by ANSPs with the CSS/C 2008 - 2014
Aos
CSST User v CSST non-User
9
0.00000
5.00000
10.00000
15.00000
20.00000
25.00000
CSS Non Tool Users
CSC Non Tool Users
CSS Tool Users CSC Tool Users
N um
be r o
f e ve
nt s
pe r 1
0. 00
0 fli
gh ts
CSS/C Users and Non Tool users 2009 - 2014
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Intra – v Inter AO CSS/C
10
14.7 17.6
9 14.2
74.8
85.3 82.4
91 85.8
25.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CSS/C btw diff AOs %
CSS/C within the same AOs %
Yearly Percentage of CSS/C within the same and between different AOs 2010 ‐ 2014
Qualitative views
CSST – Users like it! No complaints about operational safety effectiveness.
11
CSST Endorsement
12
Main Lessons Learnt
Call sign similarity v confusion – be clear It’s not an exact science!
Language:English
Score: 557256.5
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...20Performance%20Monitoring.pdf
Data Source: un
DISCUSSION
2.1 The project was presented to the RASG-MID/4 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 30 March – 1 April 2015.
2.2 The UAE presented during the MIDANPIRG/16 the initiative they had taken to address Call Sign Similarity Mitigation. The GCAA established its UAE National Airspace Advisory Committee (NASAC) Working Group on “Call Sign Similarity” in 2014 to manage and mitigate this challenge and continues to work on and promote the use of alpha numerical call signs.
2.3 The UAE through its NASAC WG ‘Call Sign Similarity’ work published the U.A.E. (...) The denial of landing or departure flight plans with alpha numeric call signs results in the flight having to remain on the commercial call sign for the entire flight which may contribute to incidents of call sign confusion in enroute FIRs of the aircraft flight plan.
2.9 ICAO issued state letter Ref: AN 6/34-16/173 dated June 2016, requesting states to implement MIDANPIRG Conclusion 15/2 and report call sign Similarity cases.
2.10 Reporting of call sign Similarity/confusion continues to be a challenge in the region. (...) ACTION BY THE MEETING
3.1 The meeting is invited to:
a) support the CSC initiatives ensuring effective national implementation and cooperation;
b) encourage other regions to implement the use of alpha numeric call signs for ATC use
c) discuss resolution of airport reluctance to accept ANCS to identify ways to overcome this issue
d) take note of and support the work of the UAE
e) encourage the set-up of a national ‘Call Sign Similarity Working Group’
f) report call sign similarity to the following email addresses: MIDCSC@icao.int and MENACSSU@iata.org
- END -
Language:English
Score: 553870.6
-
https://www.icao.int/MID/MIDAN...s/MID17%20and%20RASG7/WP46.pdf
Data Source: un
