"Blocked"

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?

Let the controller settle communication issues, it's his frequency. If
everyone did what you did, every stepped transmission would result in fifty
"blocked" replies, all stepping on one another. Only reply if you truly
believe the transmission was for you, with your call sign.

"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?

If the FAA thought that it was a good idea, it would be in the
Pilot/Controller Glossary.

Bob Gardner

"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?

"Lee Elson" wrote in message
m

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?

If the controller were calling you and you didn't respond, he'd re-transmit.
If the transmission weren't for you, I'd recommend not tying up the airwaves
with your well-intended assistance.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

I am of the opinion that unless you suspect the transmission was
intended for you, be a spectator. Dont contribute to further congestion.
I had a front row seat today watching 2 F-16's and a Sierra try to
all share a runway today, with the sierra not quite following all
directions and very nearly causing a problem. One of the xmissions was
stepped on as well. My potential speaking up out of good intentions
could have actually made the communications situation worse.

Dave

Lee Elson wrote:

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?

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?

Thanks Chris. Great input. You have changed a bad habit of mine.



On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:08:02 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:

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
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?

SeeAndAvoid wrote:

snip
If you think your callsign was
part of that call, ask "was that for N12345?".

Only having a few hundred hours in busy Northeast US airspaces such as
New York and Boston, I have to ask: How is asking "was that for
N12345?" less troublesome on a busy frequency than calling "Blocked" or
better yet, not saying anything at all and waiting for the controller to
call again?

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote
How is asking "was that for
N12345?" less troublesome on a busy frequency than calling "Blocked" or
better yet, not saying anything at all and waiting for the controller to
call again?

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
IF you think your callsign was part of that call
IF you're not sure or it definitely was not for you, then saying
nothing at all would be the way to go.
I also find one "blocked" often leads to another "blocked" as the
"blocker" "blocks" you again as you (the controller) key up. Who's
to say who should speak next after a "blocked"? Whoever last keyed,
and it takes two or more to be "blocked", will assume they were
the "blockee" and will key again (pilot or controller) to get across
what was "blocked".
Sort of on this topic is another favorite transmission of mine, this
coming from controllers: 2 or more aircraft call at the same time,
response: "two called at once, say again". Shocker, two call at
once again. Hilarious.
Chris

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

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


Peter R. wrote in
:

SeeAndAvoid wrote:

snip
If you think your callsign was part of that call, ask "was that for
N12345?".

Only having a few hundred hours in busy Northeast US airspaces such as
New York and Boston, I have to ask: How is asking "was that for
N12345?" less troublesome on a busy frequency than calling "Blocked" or
better yet, not saying anything at all and waiting for the controller to
call again?