Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had a B737 headed in for Runway 32L and to the northeast of him was a SR22 with altitude separation headed into Runway 32R. Both were inbound for Visual Approaches. Traffic was issued and the SR22 advised he had visual on the B737 stating his own callsign. I told the SR22 to maintain visual separation from the B737 and asked told him the B737 was descending to 40 and asked if he could maintain visual separation all the way to the airport. He replied affirmative; but gave no callsign; same pilot voice. I missed the lack of callsign and restated to the SR22 to maintain visual separation from the B737 and do not overtake that traffic and cleared him for the visual approach and gave a caution wake turbulence. He replied back 'cleared visual 32R behind the B737; WILCO'. I missed the lack of callsign. I am usually the one in the facility that's like a tiger on meat to get pilots to use their callsigns; but in this traffic scenario I missed it; even though the pilot's voice was a very distinct sounding one and was obviously the SR22 pilot and any voice mapping would prove it easily with today's technology. Nonetheless; I take full responsibility for my failure. That being said; I do have some suggestions. Some you may appreciate more than others; but after working traffic in the FAA for almost 30 years now; I have seen a lot of things; had a lot of gained experience and knowledge and went through a lot of changes over the years. While I don't always agree with every change; I do embrace them from the standpoint of always doing my best to follow every rule to the best of my ability. I have always been held to the highest standards and have always strived to deliver. Pilots [who do] not using their callsign is an issue constantly. It happens numerous times every hour at our facility alone; so imagine how many times it happens everyday at facilities across the nation. It is clear that pilots really do not understand the importance of using their callsigns or the ramifications of what happens when they fail to use their callsigns when issued control instructions; especially during busy times. It is much harder for a controller to get the job done; when they continually have to go back and beg for a callsign. I have requested callsigns more times than I care to count from pilots who refuse to restate them with the control instructions. I have had major air carriers and a few regional jet pilots get downright indignant with me when I have requested a callsign be used in the readback so that they could continue an operation. My Supervisor says that every time they go to a pilot meeting; the one thing they repeat every time is to tell pilots to use their callsigns. Of course the only ones hearing it are the ones actually at a pilot meeting. What percentage of the pilots out flying do you think that makes up? Several things can be done to correct the problem and lighten the load for controllers: 1. With all the money the government wastes on sending out posters and news letters and other paperwork that is of little value to the controllers; why not divert some of that money to sending out a letter to every person who holds a pilot license notifying them that a callsign is required with the readback and/or acknowledgement of any ATC control instruction. How about putting a little onus on the pilots?  2. If not already an FAR; make it an FAR.  3. Put a statement on the ATIS at all controlled airports that aircraft are required to use their callsign in response to all control instructions. This will serve as an ongoing; constant reminder and will cut down on the number of occurrences per day dramatically. 4. Make it clear that if a pilot accepts a clearance and acts on that clearance (i.e. climbing; descending; turning; etc.) without stating his/her callsign and an incident occurs; he/she may be sighted for a pilot deviation. So in the above event; here is the question; the pilot failed to use his callsign in conjunction with a clearance and yet he followed all of the instructions that were issued to the SR22; if it was in fact; not the SR22 who replied 'WILCO' to the lengthy clearance; then isn't the SR22 guilty of a pilot deviation for descending out of the last assigned altitude? The realization on my part is; of course; that it doesn't really matter what a pilot does right or wrong; if it can be held against a controller for missing a pilot's failure to follow proper procedures or readback correctly; it is always the controllers fault. Hence; I take full responsibility. This has always been true since I joined the FAA and watched the 7110.65 grow to more than double its original size. We are the watchdogs and we police ourselves to death. We have incorporated new rules and modified so many procedures that we have diminished the capacity of airports/airspace because of all of the excess requirements and the tying of controller's hands with so many overbearing rules and regulations. Basically we have dumbed things down to the lowest common denominator. So with this in mind and to follow in those footsteps; although it won't lighten the load; maybe the best suggestion in the interest of maximizing safety would be to: Get rid of visual separation between aircraft altogether. Then you don't have to rely on the pilot to state a phrase back in accordance with our controller requirements where he/she does not have full understanding of it's importance leaving controllers to have to go back and get the full readback with callsign; while the pilot meanwhile starts climbing/descending out of his/her altitude and into another aircraft in close proximity losing the 1;000 FT separation that the controller had originally built in. Instead; controllers can just build in and maintain standard separation on all aircraft nationwide from the moment of takeoff until the moment of touchdown/termination. That will spread them out a bit!




Synopsis: TRACON Controller was cited for a 'technical' separation loss during visual approach procedures when a pilot failed to acknowledge a clearance by using his/her callsign.