Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 07:53:01 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Small Mistake on My Part
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Small Mistake on My Part  (Read 19751 times)
WhatAirspace
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2008, 01:17:04 AM »


what, that i don't know the CARs??  So Sorry...an American controller didn't know the Canadian aviation regulations? 

I won't take you're opinion to heart though, nor would i from anyone who didn't know the callsign of Air Force One.

Haha that made me laugh.  Easy there though, I’m not familiar with the way that this particular board usually words (see my number of posts), but the guy may have been replying to the original clip, although I don’t agree that it was a dumb-assed mistake by any stretch.

Now I know though.  I made the original reply about readbacks almost in passing, not realizing it would create a little firestorm.  I guess questioning one’s procedure amongst a bunch of aviation nerds such of myself will do that. Anyway, guess I don’t really have anything of substance to add, just random thoughts.
Logged
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2008, 11:33:15 AM »

Quote
"Whether a person is right for a controller's position is irrelevant in this discussion since controllers are human and, like pilots, do occasionally make mistakes"

I think i already acknowledged that people make mistakes in my original post. But agreed, after reading my post again what I said about the person being in the right job wasnt relevant to the discussion.

Logged
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2008, 11:00:18 PM »

very true...in reading your comment i will delete the last post...i may have assumed it was directed towards the CAR post. 

anyway...back to point and to share...

i was working a GA plane to a busy satellite airport ( 3rd in sequence on a gps app) and sequencing arrival a/c into the main airport, and the pilot in the GA may have read back one of every 10 instructions.  very frustrating b/c sometimes he would read back just the callsign, and sometimes just the instruction. 

Bad weather here in the northeast...safe flying all
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2008, 11:52:29 AM »

I made the original reply about readbacks almost in passing, not realizing it would create a little firestorm.  I guess questioning one’s procedure amongst a bunch of aviation nerds such of myself will do that.

I didn't get the impression this was a firestorm.  Instead it was simply a discussion where the opportunity to learn something was there for all involved.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2008, 06:48:13 PM »

I apologise if this has already been discussed before.

Whats the read-back requirements in the US? Cos it seems like pilots are very lax about ensuring the controller they have heard and understood certain clearences and instructions. Obviously this might be FAA regulations..but just curious to know more about you guys n gals over the pond.

Casp
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2008, 07:04:38 PM »

Whats the read-back requirements in the US? Cos it seems like pilots are very lax about ensuring the controller they have heard and understood certain clearences and instructions.

As a general rule of thumb, US pilots are strongly encouraged to read back assigned headings, altitudes, clearance limits (if IFR), and hold short instructions (when on the ground). 

Pilots are actually discouraged from reading back every controller's word verbatim.  Roger and wilco do have their place in today's communication, but they shouldn't substitute for the above.

With respect, I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that US pilots are lax about reading back instructions because in my experience of flying into New York and Boston airspaces in the Northeast US (some of the busier airspaces in the US) I have the opinion that many pilots read back too much. which needlessly ties up the frequency.



Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2008, 08:01:00 PM »

thanks for your reply.

Im not talking about reading back instructions verbatum as such, just for exampple squwak codes. When say a pilot get assigned a squawk and say "roger (callsign)." And then puts the wrong squawk in the transponder. It then requires the controller to reiterate the last transmission, which in turn, as youve stated, redueces available RT time. Where as if the pilot read back squawk 1234 then the controller can hear if this is correct and the short term memory of the pilot registers this number as he/she has said it out loud.

What I was looking for ( youve said xxxx is discouraged ), was if there is an official list of read-backable itemds. ( excuse the rubbish wording ). For example in the UK we have the CAP413 RT manual, Obviously you have something similar that dictates the exact items that are required to be read back.

Just for arguments sake, im not trying to suggest that pilots in the US are rubbish in any way. Every country does things differently so dont take the "lax" comment to heart. I was just pointing out that compared to Europe, the reading back of items doesnt seem to be as...critical...if thats the right word.

Ultimately im trying to learn more about the way things are done in the US. Not trying to debate who is better.

C
Logged
aviator_06
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2008, 09:03:31 PM »

In my opinion I think it is a bad idea just to read back your tail number. I think it's a good habit to read  back all intstructions given by an air traffic controller. If you agress or disagree please respond back.
Logged

Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2008, 09:41:52 PM »

it depends on the local (country) standard obviously but i thnk ( this is only me, and i dont want to start a row) that certain items should be read back and not just the callsign. Mainy so the controller can confirm things and the pilots short term memory registers the instruction

C
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2008, 10:41:24 PM »

Im not talking about reading back instructions verbatum as such, just for exampple squwak codes. When say a pilot get assigned a squawk and say "roger (callsign)." And then puts the wrong squawk in the transponder. It then requires the controller to reiterate the last transmission, which in turn, as youve stated, redueces available RT time. Where as if the pilot read back squawk 1234 then the controller can hear if this is correct and the short term memory of the pilot registers this number as he/she has said it out loud.

There is no such list that I am aware of in what is called Part 91 (US General Aviation regulations) flight.  There is an official US document called the Airman Information Manual, or AIM, which takes the regulations and weaves them into an aviation "best practices," or where theory and regulations meets reality.   However, the AIM is NOT regulatory so recommendations within this document not specifically having to do with regulations are just that, recommendations.  Note that any angry FAA official could use the "careless and reckless operation" rule to cite a pilot breaking an AIM recommendation, but that is for another thread.

The specific chapter on communication from the AIM is here:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0402.html

The regulation that covers ATC communications for Part 91 flight is titled "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions" and merely states that a pilot must comply with all ATC instructions, unless an emergency exists.  How the pilot acknowledges these instructions is not mandated, at least for Part 91 flight.  (Note that airline operation manuals often augment FAA rules for commercial, scheduled operations and the rules specified in these manuals become regulation by the fact that they are in operation manuals, but I defer discussion of Part 121/135 - scheduled flight - for a qualified pilot).

What I was looking for ( youve said xxxx is discouraged ), was if there is an official list of read-backable itemds. ( excuse the rubbish wording ). For example in the UK we have the CAP413 RT manual, Obviously you have something similar that dictates the exact items that are required to be read back.

You aren't going to find an official list.  Instead, you will find many authoritative articles written by controllers  providing what they want to hear read back.  Technically, a pilot could simply read back his/her tail ID to acknowledge a controller's instruction (in all cases but runway hold short instructions - a relatively recent requirement) but in cases of altitude, heading, or speed assignments this won't make the controller believe the instruction was completely understood. 

The AIM stresses brevity but doesn't list what is considered crucial.   From the many advanced safety articles I have read the theme is that any instruction that could potentially create a loss of separation if not properly executed should be read back.  Any "informative" comment by the controller, or any instruction that would not result in a loss of separation can be handled by Tail ID, or Wilco, Tail ID.  Fly in busy airspaces and believe me, this is appreciated by all on the frequency.

Consider this example:

Me:  "Syracuse Approach, Bonanza XXX, level five thousand, information bravo."

Controller, "Bonanza XXX, Syracuse Approach, altimeter 29.98, turn left 250, descend and maintain 3,000, expect ILS 28 approach.  You will be number three for the approach."

Me: "left 250, leaving five thousand descending three thousand, Bonanza XXX."   

Note that I did not read back altimeter (since most likely I was ready for it from the ATIS) and did not read back the "expect" part, since that is merely informational and I am already expecting that given the ATIS and weather conditions.

Note also that I have adopted the "do not read back squawk code - instead acknowledge with a tail id" recommendation offered by numerous aviation magazines since I have not yet had a short-term memory issue and know that the controller will see the code appear on the scope.  I do understand and agree that if the pilot finds repeating squawk codes or frequencies a memory aid, then by all means do it.   Again, though, this is not mandated by any regulation.

Just for arguments sake, im not trying to suggest that pilots in the US are rubbish in any way. Every country does things differently so dont take the "lax" comment to heart. I was just pointing out that compared to Europe, the reading back of items doesnt seem to be as...critical...if thats the right word.

Ultimately im trying to learn more about the way things are done in the US. Not trying to debate who is better.

Hence my use of the words, "with respect."  It is my impression that this is a civil discussion.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2008, 11:17:35 PM »

Acknowledgement of some sort is always helpful. sounding as if you understand the clearance even though all you're reading back is your tail number, works also. It's very easy for us to hear, in the pilots voice, confidence and/or understanding, or the lack thereof.
I imagine that pilots can hear the same type of things in controller's voices.
If you squawk the wrong code, it will not 'tag' up a data block with your aircraft, it will just show us that there is an aircraft, on a discreet code on our radar scope.
There are many times that I really need to get a readback, and others when a grunt or 'rog' or something of that nature will do. It all has to do with amount and intensity of traffic at that time.
At one time this winter, the instructions were coming out so fast, that all I really wanted to hear was the abbreviated callsign and that was it, because I needed to go on to the next clearance.
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
Canadian eh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2008, 02:49:04 AM »

talking about read backs and rules in diff countries.
the thing i hate is when American sunday flyer's come up to Canada and don't follow the rules. the 2 things that happen the most are: they check in "VFR" in controlled airspace (IE above 12500) looking for ifr, flight following or weather info. sure i could watch a target that's not been radar identified and doesn't have a verified alt. take a run at a controlled a/c and say "it's not my responsibility", but really if i see a target that has a unverified mode c that looks like he's taking a run at a guy, I'm going to apply common sense separation. i don't wanna watch them hit.  the other is when ifr's don't read back anything. i need a readback, whenever i don't get one i know I'm the one that's in trouble if something goes wrong. i shouldn't be hung out to dry cause somebody else doesn't know the rules.
I got nothing against yanks, just happens that part of what i control is northern Ont. and we see a lot of them fly in for fishing and for camping.  lots of these are sunday flyer's and i understand that your not going to know all the rules and that's fine. but if i tell you i need a read back and and all you ever read back is "roger" or "wilco", well come on.
 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 02:53:30 AM by Canadian eh » Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2008, 08:30:54 AM »

but if i tell you i need a read back and and all you ever read back is "roger" or "wilco", well come on.

What are some examples of your calls that require a read back?
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2008, 02:24:20 PM »

Not for nothing in all of this, but while it is written in the AIM that reading back holding instructions is greatly encouraged, that doesn't square with any of the instructions listed on the AF/D for various airports in the US.

Checking various airports in Class B, C, and D airspaces that are controlled, All of the Airport diagrams have explicitly stated:

Quote
READBACK OF ALL RUNWAY HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED.

Airports checked:

Class B: KLAS, KLAX, KSAN, KSFO.
Class C: KOMA, KSMF, KOKC, KRNO.
Class D: KVGT, KPSP, KWHP, KSQL.

When I hear pilots on the feeds read back a runway hold short instruction but forget the numbers for the runway:

"Turn right on Alpha and hold short of the right at Alpha Five"

"I need the numbers; hold short of two-five right at alpha five."

the controller tells they need the numbers and to read it back again.

So I'm thinking what's listed in the AF/D trumps the AIM in that regard.

BL.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2008, 04:22:37 PM »

Not for nothing in all of this, but while it is written in the AIM that reading back holding instructions is greatly encouraged, that doesn't square with any of the instructions listed on the AF/D for various airports in the US.

The AF/D is not regulatory.  What you are seeing in the comment section there is the result of the FAA's push to decrease the amount of runway incursions by coming up with specific, focused requirements to reduce runway incursions.   One of these is the requirement of the pilot to read back all hold short instructions, as well as the requirement of the controller to absolutely ensure that a hold short instruction has been read back.  I, too, have heard exchanges on the frequency where the pilot did not read back a hold short instruction, which then turned into a bizarre broken record game of "I NEED YOU TO READ BACK THE HOLD SHORT" followed by "Roger, Cessna XXX." 

I am unable to find at the moment where in the US FARs (aviation regulations) this regulation is spelled out - perhaps this regulation is at the controller's end to ensure a hold short read back occurs?  All I know is that it must be done verbatim, which may be the only instruction here in the US that absolutely has to be done in this manner.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!