Birdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 4086 posts, RR: 50 Posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2794 times:
Country prefixes - the situation today:
1) Many different formats exist, e.g. D-ABYY, N169DZ, HP-1525CMP, etc.
2) Country prefixes do not logically represent their countries (EC = Ecuador? - Spain; N=USA=why? TF=Iceland=why? and so on.)
Wouldn't a standardization to ISO country codes, followed by four letters, solve a whole lot of confusion?
For example, a plane that was formerly registered D-ABVA would become DE-ABVA. No big deal.
All US planes would be US-XXXX, where they could do the first two letters according to the airline (US-AAXX for an AA plane), which would give them 676 slots before they need a second one)
Ireland planes would become like IE-ALAX for example. (taking EI-LAX as an example).
UK planes would be like GB-BDXG where it was G-BDXD before.
BHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2763 times:
To be honest I think there is too much standardisation in the world as it is. I like seeing miles / pints etc in England and the US. I was very disappointed to arrive at Karachi's new Jinnah international airport and see the golden arches of MacDonalds as I walked outside.
I have no idea why CS for Portuguese registered a/c
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
VH-KCT* From Australia, joined May 2001, 479 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 2751 times:
I think that while it's a nice idea, standardisation should be concentrated on matters of safety rather than cosmetics.
Also for callsigns (in Australia at least) the prefixes for Australian aircraft are omitted in RT, so changing to AU-XYZ would make no difference other than the expense of repainting a few thousand aircraft, and printing a whole lot of new CORs.
You're forgetting that Ireland is actually "Eire", which makes EI perfectly logical.
As for the rest, it would be a lot of bureaucratic effort (your tax money at work) for very little benefit. I'm not saying it's hard to do technically but the political wrangling and the changing of software would take forever.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Iakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3326 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 2531 times:
Quoting Birdwatching (Thread starter): Wouldn't a standardization to ISO country codes, followed by four letters, solve a whole lot of confusion?
Sorry but there is no confusion, except perhaps for the lazy, the uninformed, the casual observer...and even if there was it is quite safe to think that the task would be of gigantic proportions.
The registration of the aircraft is no number plate, it is (also) the call sign of the aeronautical (radio) station and as such follows the ITU country coding.
The same applies (in principle) to every single registered wireless transmitter in all services, fixed and mobile terrestrial, maritime and aeronautical; civilm and military.
We are talking in the millions, many millions.