N90 Controller expressed concern regarding some Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft that fail to utilize published procedures with regard to call sign usage; noting massive confusion and increased controller workload.

Narrative

Very busy VFR day; in and around Class C airspace. A VFR general aviation aircraft using the call sign CGX1AB (Coast Guard Aux Air) (not actual call sign; I can't remember the exact call sign; using some of the aircraft's 'N' call sign as part of the CGX call sign) calls for advisories while doing 'shore patrol' at or below 2000 FT around Long Island. Over the course of 15 minutes I have to give numerous traffic calls to him. On responding to traffic calls; this pilot used no less than 4 different call signs; alternating between his FAA designated call sign (CGX1AB); using his civil call sign truncated (N123); using a highly truncated 'Alpha Bravo;' and using a military call sign ('Coast Guard 1AB' or 'Guard 1AB'). This is an on-going problem with these Coast Guard auxiliary aircraft; almost all pilots operating as Coast Guard Auxiliary shore patrol aircraft continuously alternate their call signs within the course of their flights. This creates massive confusion and workload for ATC as we have to constantly go back and repeat and repeat again traffic alerts to these pilots to ensure that the correct aircraft is responding. The Coast Guard Auxiliary pilots themselves seem annoyed at having to use the correct FAA designated call sign; even when advised by ATC to do so. Additionally; FAA Air Traffic Management seems unable or unwilling to do anything about this issue; and many controllers have resorted to 'inventing' call signs for these aircraft to use in order to try to cut down on their own personal confusion. This is potentially a very dangerous situation; since we routinely work real Coast Guard Military aircraft and National Army Guard military aircraft. Keep in mind that if the Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft being used as a call sign of 'N12345;' then the Coast Guard Auxiliary pilots would call themselves 'Coast Guard Aux Air 345;' But they will resort to shortening that up to 'Coast Guard 345' or 'Guard 345' as well. The chances of an actual Military Guard or Coast Guard aircraft showing up with a similar call sign is real; I have seen it happen. FAA order 7340.2 (Contracting Manual) lists the proper ATC call sign or CGX as 'Coast Guard Aux Air.' FAA AIM Section 2 (Radio Communicating Phraseology and Techniques); Paragraph 4-2-1b states; 'The single most important thought in pilot controller communications is understanding. It is essential; therefore; that pilots acknowledge each radio communication with ATC by using the appropriate aircraft call sign.' FAA Oder 7210.3 Facility Operation and Administration Section 2 paragraph 2-1-13 described procedures for FAA managers to follow in the event of similar of confusing call sign; but does not specifically address what to do about pilots who are unable to unwilling to use the appropriate FAA designated call sign consistently. And finally; it should be noted that when the President of the United States is flying on a civilian aircraft; not even he is allowed to use a military call sign for that flight. The FAA office in charge of issuing call signs should be instructed that under no circumstance can a military call sign be used as part of a civil call sign. Suggestions: Change the telephony or call sign CGX to something completely different that in no way could be confused as a military call sign (such as 'Anchor' or 'Driftwood'). Have CGX pilots use a mission of flight number; preferably assigned by their main office; not part of their aircraft's actual registration number. It should be noted that Air Force Auxiliary flights (CPF - Cap Flight) did this and I've never encountered a problem with them on this issue. And finally; the FAA's flight Standards District Office should ensure that this operator properly educates its pilots in the correct use of FAA designated call signs and ensures that it's pilots (volunteers; if I understand correctly) that just because they happen to be operating under contract by the US Coast Guard (as is my understanding); that they do not have any rights or privileges extended to them by the US Military Command (they are operating as VFR Part 91 civil aircraft only). Apparently some CGX pilots are under the impression that they have some sort of 'right-of-way' because of their 'mission.'