"Blocked"

[Lee Elson]

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 there: which is it?
Does this help or hurt the situation?

[Brad Z]

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 there: which is it?
> Does this help or hurt the situation?

[Bob Gardner]

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 there: which is it?
> Does this help or hurt the situation?

[John T]

"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 there: 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_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dave S]

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 there: which is it?
> Does this help or hurt the situation?

[SeeAndAvoid]

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 there: which is it?
> Does this help or hurt the situation?

[Bill Zaleski]

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
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 there: which is it?
>> Does this help or hurt the situation?
>

[Peter R.]

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

[SeeAndAvoid]

"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

[Judah]

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?
>

[Peter R.]

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

[John R. Copeland]

"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---

[Peter R.]

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

[Lee Elson]

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 et>...
> 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 there: which is it?
> > Does this help or hurt the situation?

[Lee Elson]

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 et>...
> 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 there: which is it?
> > Does this help or hurt the situation?

[SeeAndAvoid]

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

[Stan Gosnell]

"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

[Travis Marlatte]

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
>

[Ben Jackson]

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/

[running with scissors]

(Lee Elson) wrote in message >...
> 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 there: 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.

[Roy Smith]

>> 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.

Until this thread, I never really thought much about this. But today it
happened to me, and boy was it annoying.

I was coming back to HPN. Tower issued me a long stream of
instructions, including pattern entry, sequencing, and a traffic
advisory. Somebody stepped on the tower, but I still got every word of
what she said through the squeal. I was just about to reply, when some
bozo popped up on the frequency with "blocked".

So, yeah, I'm going to throw my vote in with the camp that says, "Don't
say, 'blocked'".

[running with scissors]

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> >> 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.
>
> Until this thread, I never really thought much about this. But today it
> happened to me, and boy was it annoying.
>
> I was coming back to HPN. Tower issued me a long stream of
> instructions, including pattern entry, sequencing, and a traffic
> advisory. Somebody stepped on the tower, but I still got every word of
> what she said through the squeal. I was just about to reply, when some
> bozo popped up on the frequency with "blocked".
>
> So, yeah, I'm going to throw my vote in with the camp that says, "Don't
> say, 'blocked'".


imagine what would happen with 8 or nine people doing that. then
reporting the "blocked" being "blocked".

if everyone were to abide by that the blockage would increase
exponentially and no one would be communicating.

its pointless and detrimental to safety.