A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Blocked"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 11th 04, 06:43 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Judah wrote:

Because the proper response to "was that for N12345" is from the
controller, and is either "no" or a repeat of the call.


Since the call is going to be repeated regardless, the obvious point
here is to simply not say anything and await the repeat. Saying "was
that for blah, blah" just uselessly clutters the frequency even more.

I recall one time while in NY airspace when the controller was
constantly being stepped on, but apparently didn't realize it. After
about the third or fourth repeat, he suddenly berated his listeners by
stating, "I need all of you pilots to pay attention to my calls and not
make me repeat everything twice!"

We all were listening and ready to react, but all we heard were squeals.

--
Peter





  #12  
Old April 11th 04, 08:19 PM
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter R." wrote in message =
...
Judah wrote:=20
=20
Because the proper response to "was that for N12345" is from the=20
controller, and is either "no" or a repeat of the call.

=20
Since the call is going to be repeated regardless, the obvious point=20
here is to simply not say anything and await the repeat. Saying "was=20
that for blah, blah" just uselessly clutters the frequency even more.
=20
=20
--=20
Peter
=20

Under one circumstance, I'll say "blocked".
If I hear my own call just before the beginning of the squeal,
I'm likely to transmit: "Blocked. Say again for Nxxxx."
It saves the wait time for the controller to decide I'm not responding.
---JRC---

  #13  
Old April 12th 04, 04:23 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Judah ) wrote:

What, exactly, is the PROPER response to "blocked"? Both the
controller and the blocker repeat and do it again?


Every time I hear it used, it is the controller who then speaks.

--
Peter










  #14  
Old April 12th 04, 06:11 PM
Lee Elson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I must say that I've found the responses to be quite interesting: the
majority see a problem with "blocked". I plan to reverse a
long-standing procedure that I've always used (effectively, I might
add) and stop using it.

My experience is (from my perspective) that using "blocked" works very
well. I hear it most often with LA or Oakland Center where there are
as many airliners and commuters as bug smashers. There is a key
requirement that *before responding "blocked" a sufficient amount of
time must has elapsed to make it clear that neither intended message
went through*. It seems to work so well because when a true blocking
occurs, there are 2 entities that probably don't know that their
transmissions were not received. A single short transmission
("blocked") *often* replaces 2 or more (since the second attempt is
also blocked) longer transmissions (e.g. "Continental 760, cross XYZ
at and maintain 123, expect ABCD, do not exceed 999 knots, altimeter
30.00, over"). I have *never* heard any confusion on Center
frequencies, when this happens. Transmitting "blocked" almost never
causes total blocking itself since it is so short.

The bottom line: whatever works best.


"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message link.net...
Been a controller for 18 years and I wish "blocked" would
go away.
Once I was in a jumpseat, and this one pilot kept a
firm grip on his mic just waiting to say "blocked" even when
it was obvious the call wasn't for him. I finally told him
to knock it off, free ride or not, I had to finally say something.
I let him know just because it sounded blocked to him, or
that the call may have been for another frequency (controller
working more than one freq at a time) and he may have only
heard half of the communication, etc etc.
It's just bad form, and more often than not the call wasnt really
"blocked" at all as the person the call was intended for shortly
thereafter answers and at least HE was paying attention and
listening. I love it when I hear "blocked" with one aircraft on
frequency. I'll reply with "let me guess, blocked by Guard?"
No, usually blocked by someone not paying attention or blocked
by flight attendant. Usually something can be picked out of the
most blocked, heterodyned call. If you think your callsign was
part of that call, ask "was that for N12345?".
Chris

"Lee Elson" wrote in message
m...
I'd like some input from those of you who are familiar with the
working ATC environment.

In a situation where a transmission to/from ATC is "interfered with"
by a second transmission I've always believed that it is useful to let
all parties know that the tranmission was blocked, even if I suspect
that I'm not the intended receiver. In order to make sure that the
transmission did not go through despite the interference, I usually
wait a few seconds to see if there is an answer. Often there is and I
just keep quiet.

On Sunday I was flying (VFR) in the Ontario, CA Class C, talking to
ATC in the northeast sector. Things were not as zoo-ey (a technical
term, sorry) as they can be in Socal space, in fact there was not alot
of congestion on the freq. However there were 2 transmissions that
occured at the same time making the first part unintelligable. From
the last few words (from ATC) I strongly suspected the transmission
was intended for me. After waiting a few seconds, I transmitted
"Blocked". The angry response from ATC was "who said 'blocked'?". I
repled that I did and he said "don't do that". He later had time to
explain that this often blocks another of his transmissions and that
it can interfere with a second frequency that he may be using or that
the transmission is not "blocked" at all. He said it is his preference
for pilots not to do this but if they do, they should also give their
N number (e.g. "blocked, N12345").

So here's my question: it's my impression that such a short
transmission almost never causes confusion or interference. Rather it
quickly clears up the situation enabling other aircraft to talk,
freeing up the frequency. So you controllers out the which is it?
Does this help or hurt the situation?

  #15  
Old April 12th 04, 06:12 PM
Lee Elson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I must say that I've found the responses to be quite interesting: the
majority see a problem with "blocked". I plan to reverse a
long-standing procedure that I've always used (effectively, I might
add) and stop using it.

My experience is (from my perspective) that using "blocked" works very
well. I hear it most often with LA or Oakland Center where there are
as many airliners and commuters as bug smashers. There is a key
requirement that *before responding "blocked" a sufficient amount of
time must has elapsed to make it clear that neither intended message
went through*. It seems to work so well because when a true blocking
occurs, there are 2 entities that probably don't know that their
transmissions were not received. A single short transmission
("blocked") *often* replaces 2 or more (since the second attempt is
also blocked) longer transmissions (e.g. "Continental 760, cross XYZ
at and maintain 123, expect ABCD, do not exceed 999 knots, altimeter
30.00, over"). I have *never* heard any confusion on Center
frequencies, when this happens. Transmitting "blocked" almost never
causes total blocking itself since it is so short.

The bottom line: whatever works best.


"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message link.net...
Been a controller for 18 years and I wish "blocked" would
go away.
Once I was in a jumpseat, and this one pilot kept a
firm grip on his mic just waiting to say "blocked" even when
it was obvious the call wasn't for him. I finally told him
to knock it off, free ride or not, I had to finally say something.
I let him know just because it sounded blocked to him, or
that the call may have been for another frequency (controller
working more than one freq at a time) and he may have only
heard half of the communication, etc etc.
It's just bad form, and more often than not the call wasnt really
"blocked" at all as the person the call was intended for shortly
thereafter answers and at least HE was paying attention and
listening. I love it when I hear "blocked" with one aircraft on
frequency. I'll reply with "let me guess, blocked by Guard?"
No, usually blocked by someone not paying attention or blocked
by flight attendant. Usually something can be picked out of the
most blocked, heterodyned call. If you think your callsign was
part of that call, ask "was that for N12345?".
Chris

"Lee Elson" wrote in message
m...
I'd like some input from those of you who are familiar with the
working ATC environment.

In a situation where a transmission to/from ATC is "interfered with"
by a second transmission I've always believed that it is useful to let
all parties know that the tranmission was blocked, even if I suspect
that I'm not the intended receiver. In order to make sure that the
transmission did not go through despite the interference, I usually
wait a few seconds to see if there is an answer. Often there is and I
just keep quiet.

On Sunday I was flying (VFR) in the Ontario, CA Class C, talking to
ATC in the northeast sector. Things were not as zoo-ey (a technical
term, sorry) as they can be in Socal space, in fact there was not alot
of congestion on the freq. However there were 2 transmissions that
occured at the same time making the first part unintelligable. From
the last few words (from ATC) I strongly suspected the transmission
was intended for me. After waiting a few seconds, I transmitted
"Blocked". The angry response from ATC was "who said 'blocked'?". I
repled that I did and he said "don't do that". He later had time to
explain that this often blocks another of his transmissions and that
it can interfere with a second frequency that he may be using or that
the transmission is not "blocked" at all. He said it is his preference
for pilots not to do this but if they do, they should also give their
N number (e.g. "blocked, N12345").

So here's my question: it's my impression that such a short
transmission almost never causes confusion or interference. Rather it
quickly clears up the situation enabling other aircraft to talk,
freeing up the frequency. So you controllers out the which is it?
Does this help or hurt the situation?

  #16  
Old April 15th 04, 08:10 AM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Since reading and contributing to this thread I've been paying
more attention to the situations that bring a "blocked" on
freq. Of course I snicker when I hear it now, and in the
past I've been known to blindly transmit sarcastically
"can I get a blocked" on freq.

Another observation is trying to identify who said it, not
publicly on freq to humiliate, just to myself. And so far
it's been someone who isn't even on freq yet, someone
waiting to check on, yet feels they should throw in their
"blocked", big help.

Well, today had one of the more irritating examples: I heard
both transmissions loud and clear, but the last half second
of one transmission was clipped by the first half second of
the other - but the overlap was a slight squeal and no talking,
just keyed-up dead air. So I was going to acknowledge both
calls, as they were as clear as day to me, but I hesitated,
and sure enough - "blocked". I almost said something, but
as usual, didn't. The most I've said before was "Blocked?
Alright, calling center say again", just to get across in a
friendly way - as I can't get into a three paragraph discussion
on freq about it - that I'm questioning the use of "blocked".
It's just not worth getting into a ****ing contest on freq over
it, once the tone of the sector get's hostile, everyone just
gets in a bad mood and things dont flow as easily. You can
tell when you get a pilot that just came from such a sector.

Sidenote: there is one time I intentionally say "blocked", and
other controllers will understand this one. For laughs, when
a controller keys up on a landline and he goes out over the
speakers (thinking he's transmitting on his freq), the usual
response from other controllers, and several will hear him,
is "you're on the landline". Not me, I jump on and say
"blocked". It's just one of my favorite things. If some of you
pilots havent figured it out yet, most controllers have
a pretty twisted sense of humor. God help us when we accidentally
key up after a transmission, as it's often pretty colorful and rude.
I'm sure you've heard the stories of the occasional "oops" that
wasnt meant to be transmitted. From flying, myself or in a
jumpseat, I know it happens on the other side, too. With cockpit
recorders, I cant imagine it getting as bad as it gets in the
control room.
Later, Chris


  #17  
Old April 15th 04, 04:41 PM
Stan Gosnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in
link.net:

Another observation is trying to identify who said it, not
publicly on freq to humiliate, just to myself. And so far
it's been someone who isn't even on freq yet, someone
waiting to check on, yet feels they should throw in their
"blocked", big help.


About the only time I do it is if transmissions ARE blocked, all I hear is
a squeal, and I'm expecting a call from ATC. That call might have been my
clearance for lower, which I've been expecting and really want, but I
couldn't tell. I want to find out, but I don't want to make a long call,
or antagonize the controller, so I might just transmit a 'blocked' so I can
get a retransmission. It's rare, but it sometimes happens. Otherwise I
just ignore the squeals, because I usually have more important things to
do, like keep the aircraft right-side up, on course and on altitude, or
else make sure the FO is doing all that. If I transmit a 'blocked' it's
because I really wanted to know what was said, and I couldn't understand
it.

--
Regards,

Stan

  #18  
Old April 15th 04, 11:47 PM
Travis Marlatte
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Your description made it sound like ATC would not retransmit unless they
were notified that their message did not get through to you. That certainly
is not the case. They will wait 10 or 15 seconds and retransmit, if you
don't reply.

It is more efficient for everyone if you just wait for ATC to re-transmit
the message to you without broadcasting a "blocked."

Even if you hear your tail number but the rest of the message is garbled, it
is better to wait. Any attempt to alert ATC that they were blocked risks
further delaying the original message and causing confusion.

For all you know, it was blocked by some guy broadcasting "Mayday, Mayday,
Mayday." Stay off the air and let the protocol do it's job. The protocol is
designed so that the originator of the message has responsibility to make
sure the message got through and was understood. Your job as a receiver, is
to wait and listen.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in
link.net:

Another observation is trying to identify who said it, not
publicly on freq to humiliate, just to myself. And so far
it's been someone who isn't even on freq yet, someone
waiting to check on, yet feels they should throw in their
"blocked", big help.


About the only time I do it is if transmissions ARE blocked, all I hear is
a squeal, and I'm expecting a call from ATC. That call might have been my
clearance for lower, which I've been expecting and really want, but I
couldn't tell. I want to find out, but I don't want to make a long call,
or antagonize the controller, so I might just transmit a 'blocked' so I

can
get a retransmission. It's rare, but it sometimes happens. Otherwise I
just ignore the squeals, because I usually have more important things to
do, like keep the aircraft right-side up, on course and on altitude, or
else make sure the FO is doing all that. If I transmit a 'blocked' it's
because I really wanted to know what was said, and I couldn't understand
it.

--
Regards,

Stan



  #19  
Old April 16th 04, 01:12 AM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
Travis Marlatte wrote:
Your description made it sound like ATC would not retransmit unless they
were notified that their message did not get through to you. That certainly
is not the case. They will wait 10 or 15 seconds and retransmit, if you
don't reply.


10 or 15 seconds?? I try to set the heading bug before I read it back
and if it takes me more than a split second they're reading it all to me
again.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #20  
Old April 18th 04, 07:52 PM
running with scissors
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Lee Elson) wrote in message om...
I'd like some input from those of you who are familiar with the
working ATC environment.

In a situation where a transmission to/from ATC is "interfered with"
by a second transmission I've always believed that it is useful to let
all parties know that the tranmission was blocked, even if I suspect
that I'm not the intended receiver. In order to make sure that the
transmission did not go through despite the interference, I usually
wait a few seconds to see if there is an answer. Often there is and I
just keep quiet.

On Sunday I was flying (VFR) in the Ontario, CA Class C, talking to
ATC in the northeast sector. Things were not as zoo-ey (a technical
term, sorry) as they can be in Socal space, in fact there was not alot
of congestion on the freq. However there were 2 transmissions that
occured at the same time making the first part unintelligable. From
the last few words (from ATC) I strongly suspected the transmission
was intended for me. After waiting a few seconds, I transmitted
"Blocked". The angry response from ATC was "who said 'blocked'?". I
repled that I did and he said "don't do that". He later had time to
explain that this often blocks another of his transmissions and that
it can interfere with a second frequency that he may be using or that
the transmission is not "blocked" at all. He said it is his preference
for pilots not to do this but if they do, they should also give their
N number (e.g. "blocked, N12345").

So here's my question: it's my impression that such a short
transmission almost never causes confusion or interference. Rather it
quickly clears up the situation enabling other aircraft to talk,
freeing up the frequency. So you controllers out the which is it?
Does this help or hurt the situation?



hurt. the immediate result is more stepped on transmissions, and the
instructions for the recipient are going to be further delayed.

if everyone reported a stepped on transmission, the result of
reporting stepped on transmissions, being stepped on would lead to
more stepped on transmissions, and stepponed transmissions would
increase exponentially.

yes socal is busy, but the key is to shut up and respond to your
transmissions only with minimal verbosity.

i personally have had vectors from socal stepped on by some berk
nattering on about crap, one that sticks in my mind completely was
during actual and was vectors for approach/traffic and the freq. tied
up with bull**** conversation causing a break off from the approach.

areas like socal have high traffic volumes so before you engage the
mic, engage the brain.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.