4-Digit, Similiar-Sounding Callsigns (updated July 24, 2006)
(91) Support Proposal (7) Don't Support Proposal (12) Don't Care Either Way
US Airways, American & Delta all have the same callsign within 20 minutes of each other, 869 is the most common. This has been reported to ZMA management several times but with no correction.
The suffix letters make the call sign sound "clumsy". ASH has this problem at PHX several years ago and dropped the first digit "6" from their call sign and solved the problem. Apparently they forgot what fixed the problem and returned to full call signs.
I haven't had any problems with them, not any more than with 5 digit callsigns that sound similar.
We have had deals at Providence which specifically involved 4 digit commuter airlines.
With the increase in Air Taxi and Regional Jet info...I feel a total overhaul in call signs must be made. A "quick fix" such as this will not solve the problem, just delay it. Let's not bandage it like the FAA does, let's SOLVE it.
BTA is Jetlink JIA is Bluestreak GSJ is Gateway GWY is Getaway. Lets at least make some of the callsigns look like they should sound.
I agree there is a problem. However, I think shortening the numbers and adding a letter is a bandaid fix at best. At my facility we work callsigns with a letter attached somewhat frequently and I find letter callsigns to require more concentration and attention than a normal number only callsign. If the majority of your callsigns had letters attached, I think it will make it more confusing. Think outside the box!!!
Last night, I worked CHQ5313, 5323, 5343, 5363, and 5373 at the SAME TIME!!!! I have reported it to my supervisors several times and the pilots are so used to my "similar sounding call signs" thing, they say "we know, we know". Please fix it!!
If this is seriously a problem then it may be a good idea. However I have never had a serious problem with callsigns in 20 years of ATC. I do have a responsibility to make sure the correct aircraft gets the correct information regardless of how busy the situation is. Just part of the job. Seems that there will always be the possibility for confusion no matter what system is used. There may be some other underlying problems if there is a lot of confusion over callsigns. Personally I believe a big part of the problem is with pilots not paying attention and to a lessor extent controllers being too rushed and not verifying the correct info with the correct aircraft, but, that is a different problem altogether. Sometimes in our haste to simplify matters we tend to "muck" things up, i.e. the person(s) that changed all of the aircraft designators after they had been established for nearly 50 years. Also, often times we tend to make ridicules and overly cerebal changes to very simply problems.

SKW6188 SFO - BFL proposed around 11:30 local time is RIGHT turn from Rys 1. SKW6168 SFO-MRY proposed around 11:50 local time is a LEFT turn from Rys 1. SKW6188 calls for taxi, GC taxi's SKW6168 to Ry 1R, pilot responds using SKW6168, LC clears SKW6168 into position and hold, pilot responds using SKW6168, LC clears SKW6168 for takeoff, while GC is asking SKW6168 to verify call sign. I am working RC between LC & GC, I heard BOTH (virtually simultaneously) say SKW6168. Pilot cleared for takeoff responds with SKW6188. LC cancelled the takeoff clearance. We came extreamly close to having two aircraft depart parallel runways (750ft apart) simultaniously on the same heading
We see Skywest doing the two number letter combination in and out of ELP and it helps since they always come and go at the same time as their company flight to Denver which used to always have a similar callsign.
This is a REAL problem. Thank you for putting this out and i hope it works!
Makes too much sense... It'll never fly
10 years ago Air Midwest dropped the first digit like you suggest and there were no problems. The ticket agents used all four digits.
I'm glad to see this issue being addressed. I have many similar call signs every day and despite my warning each flight crew of the other aircraft, I still have one answering for the other more often than one would believe. At best an readback error I don't catch could lead to an error, at worst in an environment like Atlanta it could lead to an accident.
I really like that someone actually sat down and "cracked the code" on a problem like this. Anything that could reduce frequency conjestion/confusion would be great!
What I don't like is the three digit same number (AAL743, SWA743, DAL743, AWE743)
Will the pilots have trouble remembering their ATC call sign and their airline ID?
Today I worked UAL 1493 and on final right behind him was UAL 493. What are the odds? Mgmnt basically said: "No big deal".
The problem at CVG is with Chataqua call signs all being CHQ56XX
Do the pilots support this. Will it be a topic at Communicating for Safety.
Too many times in the last 2 months Mesa Air (ASH) has taken clearances that were not for them at PHX. We have even had aircraft depart on other call signs than their own on more than one occasion.
I have had dozens of similar readback by the wrong pilot scenarios over the last several weeks in the MEM airspace - FDX, FLG, MES and BTA being the most common airlines with this type of problem. I'm glad the issue is finally being addressed.
TPA has many similar 4 digit flights. GFT9128 and GFT9218 both on final at the same time. Had a SWA and an AAL with 4 digits that were separated by 1 digit, (i.e., 2877 and 2977) as successive departures this week as well. Something has to be done, and soon.
The problem I have in my facility is that certain airlines use the same numbers for their 4 digit calsigns. For example Chataqua3353 and Chataqua 3323. Two different flights going to two completely differnent places. Many of the Chataqua flights in my airspace seem to have the same 33 in the call sign.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT I HAVE NOTICED AT MYR, AS IT INCREASES THE CHANCES FOR MISTAKES BY CONTROLERS AND PILOTS. SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD FIX.