Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Squawk Conspicuity

If you ‘wear’ 2000 all it means, is that you are complying with IFR, you are OCAS and the previous ATC has not coordinated with the next ATC you plan to talk to.

Oxford (EGTK)

Buckerfan wrote:

’Conspicuity’ – can anyone say it!

I was practicing pronunciation of ’conspicuity’ with my children who study in UK.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I just wonder when ICAO will award the UK the prize for having the worst ATC system on the planet.

Saying “Com Security” does it well for me with English being my 5th language
I usually reply “sqwak en-route” but some ATC don’t get it…

ESSEX, United Kingdom

So is this change none ICAO? Has the rest of EASA adopted it?

Why would EASA (?) adopt something that the UK does?

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

I’m sticking to my reply ‘Squawk 7000 G-xx’ or ‘Squawk 2000 G-xx’
I’m hoping if enough of us do it, they’ll abandon this nonsense and go back to how it was.

United Kingdom

Some people here have a problem with the problem and others have a problem with the solution. Probably some more have a problem with both.

The underlying problem is that, in the UK, we have a disjointed ATS system.

Each section of CAS looks only after itself and after leaving you are on your own. Specific squawks are assigned in CAS that cannot be used once outside. Therefore a radar controller must tell you to stop using that squawk. You have to squawk something and only a few years ago 7000 was about the only option so it made sense to say “Squawk 7000”.

Now however there are other options. You could go 7000 and switch off the radio. You could remain on frequency and use the listening squawk. You could tune into the next CAS radar frequency and use their listening squawk. You might be going to drop some parachutes and I think this specific activity has yet another squawk. 2000 is another option if IFR. The controller cannot be expected to decide for you what the most appropriate squawk might be. Therefore telling you to squawk 7000 when you’d be better on something else is not very arse-covering in today’s MOR filled world. Also the CAA are keen to promote the use of listening squawks.

Telling you to instead “Squawk Conspicuity” is, I think, quite a neat solution to the problem which, like it or not, exists.

The problem with this solution is simply the use of the word ‘conspicuity’ which we all, native and non-native English speakers alike, agree is potentially confusing and hard to pronounce. I’m not sure what a better option would be. “En-route” has been suggested, but that could be taken to mean change whenever you like whilst en-route.

Whether you give the official reply or still ‘squawk 7000’ I doubt the releasing controller will care as long as he is clear you are no longer going to use his squawk.

Last Edited by S57 at 15 Aug 18:27
EGBJ, United Kingdom

“Squawk flight rules”?

EIWT Weston

What I don’t like about this is not that it is somehow complicated. It isn’t.

It is just that this is yet another nonstandard thing which makes the UK the laughing stock of the rest of Europe – like this. On UK GA social media lots of pilots – no doubt wearing yellow jackets while at the keyboard – posted how clever it is to email ATC for a transit and then, wow, amazing, when they arrive, and ask for a transit, they get a, wow, amazing, a transit! I mean, Of course ATC is unable to give you a transit unless you emailed them the day before. The email is used to enable their radar to see your aircraft.

Sarcasm travels poorly over the internet so I must stop this

This is just another thing which foreign pilots will wonder “WTF is this”? It is considerably worse than “pass your message” which is comprehensively (if rather disingenuously, since the meaning of the phrase is quite obvious) lampooned here.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top