Readbacks

[RENURPP]

Has anybody got a copy or a reference for the readback items for Darwin?

Have I missed a NOTAM which includes the readback differences from the rest of Aus?

[triadic]

eh... Please explain......

more detail required pls

[RENURPP]

Well quite simple really.

I have read and believe understand read back requirements yet every flight into Darwin I am asked by ATC to confirm or require a readback an item that is not in AIP/Jepps and is certainly not required anywhere else in Aus.
Maybe in Townsville or Willy but no major destinations.
I have to assume that Darwin has its own readback requirements and hence I am wondering where I might find a copy.

Had some of the best vectoring to a 7nm final I have ever seen the other day. Boy these guys are good.

[Capt Claret]

Let me guess, "confirm visual approach"! :hmm:

[RENURPP]

I have been asked to readback just about every instruction. Visual approach is certainly one of them.
Cleared for an approach even "expect ILS approach" one day.
ATC - "confirm expect ILS approach" ????

[A31J]

I think they've got you if you do (too much) and got you if you don't..

AIP (Jepp) says:


"Pilots must transmit a correct read-back of ATC clearances, instructions and information.."

The only specified "Do not read-back" is an expectation of a runway.

:confused:

[NOtimTAMs]

AIP Gen 3.4 ( bold type added)

4.4 Read-Back Requirements

4.4.1 Pilots must transmit a correct read-back of ATC clearances, instructions and information which are transmitted by voice. For other than Item a., only key elements of the following clearances, instructions, or information must be read back ensuring sufficient detail is included to indicate compliance:

a. an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments;
b. en-route holding instructions;
c. any holding point specified in a taxi clearance;
d. any clearances or instructions to hold short of, enter, land on, conditional line-up on, take off on, cross or backtrack on, any runway;
e. assigned runway, altimeter settings directed to specific aircraft, radio and radio navigation aid frequency instructions;
Note: an “expectation of the runway to be used is not to read back.
f. SSR codes, data link logon codes;
g. Level instructions, direction of turn, heading and speed instructions.
_______________________________________________

Reading the above, it appears it can be interpreted that read-backs are not just limited to the situations listed a. to g. above (although that has been the application generally) but can include read backs of information which apparently Darwin is insisting on!!

Sounds like Darwin has its own "special" training program to make them stand out! :rolleyes:

[No Further Requirements]

G'day RENURPP, Clarrie,

Ah, this old one! Visual approach is a funny one. Is it a level instruction? Is it a tracking instruction? I reckon if the answer to either is yes, then it constitutes a readback. My opinion only. Honestly though, I wouldn't go chasing it unless there was some other qualifier like 'cleared VSA, enter and maintain downwind' or 'not below 1000 until on final' etc etc. Thoughts?

Now, an expectation of an ILS, well, that is definitely not a readback.

In my experience of both civil and military ATC, I find that RAAF ATCs are far more pedantic with their readbacks, and as suggested by RENURPP, often ask for ones that are not required. However, I find some civil controllers will let some readbacks slip than I would have expected to be chased up (not the majority of controllers, I might add). What's worse? Don't know.

Anyway, hope all is well in the Territory. Hope to visit some time soon.

Cheers,

NFR.

RENURPP - check your email.

[Continental-520]

Um, if you have to read back an ATC CLEARANCE, then isn't the clearance of a visual approach or ANY clearance, be it a altitude or tracking clearance worthy of a readback?

Even if being cleared for a Vis. App. means you can manoevre as you need to, i.e. it's inspecific as far as what exactly you're going to be doing within your manoevres, I would've thought it should be read back when issued since it is indeed a clearance?

My understanding is that whenever the controller says "VH-ABC Cleared for _____________________________________" (insert whatever you want in the space) that you MUST read back the specifics of that.

Is that correct?

520.

[helmet fire]

I am a bit more black and white, and I think it is simple:

Cut and pasted a bit, the AIP says:

For other than an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments, only key elements of the following clearances, instructions, or information must be read back ensuring sufficient detail is included to indicate compliance: and then it lists B to G as per above.

That means, no readback of expectations.

That means no readbacks of radio report requirements like "report at 20nm DME or passing 6000ft" because this is not in the elements listed, it is not a radio frequency information: that would be "contact tower on 120.1" That is a frequency.

That means "clear visual approach" must be read back as it constitutes a route clearance (element a) and a an instruction on your level (element g) because it is a clearance to leave your altitude. And leaving that altitude requires a "left blah blah" call.

The opening sentance is a general statement about readbacks and is not the instruction, it simply introduces the instructions that follow, and because the information IS specificed so particularly, we can follow that.

I would argue that Darwin is incorrect IAW the AIP, but are you sure they are not using the Military ATC publications?

[triadic]

Oh dear.... here we go again...! This subject has been discussed a number of times on this forum and a search will find much of this has been said before.


There is NO requirement to read back "information" or "the cancellation of a restriction". Althought the preamble says "information" there is no detail of what is regarded as information. There is certainly no requirement to read every full stop back, so you have to work out what is information that may need a read back. I don't read back any information and have never been chased for it. It is clearly not needed.

Yet, so many pilots read back items in both categories and in many cases (such as DN) the controllers seek read backs for various reasons, one of which is the others do it so why not you?

One should not have to define what is "information" as it is far too broard to define. One example would be traffic info, but there are many, many others. The position or time/place to change frequency is also NOT a read back... just the frequency!

Now to the old "visual approach" read back. It is NOT REQUIRED.
The advice to make a visual approach is the cancellation of a restriction (usually a level) - what would be the default position if you did not do it... cruise over the aerodrome?? It goes in the same bag as "cancel SID/STAR". Such advice etc is normally associated with other instructions which in themselves require a read back, such as heading or frequency etc. "Leave control area on descent" is another one - Not required.

A bit of common sense is required most of the time, but seems it is not that common in relation to read backs.

At the 1997 review of RTF phrases which introduced read backs to a new height, it was said that if the AIP was not clear then the default position of those that did not read/understand it or perhaps did not care, would be to read it all back... Sadly the AIP was not written as the review group suggested, and many it seems just read it all back without thinking...

The trouble is that now many instructors and training pilots have been "taught" by those that don't know either and even now much of the training material has errors which are not challenged.

Those in CASA that were involved have moved on and it seems there is very little corporate history on this subject. There is certainly no sign of any attempt to make good the original intent.

Let the discussion continue...

An old example:

"ABC turn left 010 for a pilot intercept of the runway 34L LLZ, descend to 2000, when established on the VASI make visual approach, call tower 120.5"


What would you read back?????

[Counter-rotation]

I'd read it all back, not worry if I said more than I should, and get on with flying the aeroplane. What harm can it do? Even on a VERY congested frequency? Grab a stopwatch and see how many extra split-seconds of transmit are saved by reading back all, or half of this instruction.
This is not a smart arse response, but an honest answer to the question "what would you read back?" I really am interested to know if the controller and myself are on the same channel (so to speak). This is, after all, the purpose of a read-back.
BTW, I think this is a bit of an extreme example (but makes the point well). I don't think I've ever received a control instruction that long...

Triadic,

What would you readback? You seem to know a fair bit on this, and "I say again" I am not being a smart arse but am interested in the answer.

CR.

[Nadzab]

Triadic

Oh dear.... here we go again...! This subject has been discussed a number of times on this forum and a search will find much of this has been said before.

Perhaps it has, but the people that search this forum are looking for up to date information - not archives. Give them credit for asking - not chaste. If they can't be bothered to search and this upsets you then don't reply. In the mean time let the topics flow without fear of retribution. Thus is supposed to be a rumour forum but most days it feels like an IR renewal.

[Kornholeo]

Triadick, is that a deliberate attempt to sound like a condescending fruit with the "oh dear, oh dear" line???

If it's "been done before" why do you feel the need to add your two cents worth...... :rolleyes:

Usually you will find behind every senseless air-time consuming read-back requirement is an event in the recent red-tape-riddled past where some halfwit taxied across an active runway or climbed through an altitude or whatever.

Everyone else now has to readback everything and talk for ages to cover the moron-factor.

I like hearing :

"ABC report ready for descent."

"Report ready for descent, ABC."

Like it's some kind of clearance.

or

"Kwannuss 1, position."

"Kwannuss 1, go ahead."

"Over the top of blah at time 01, maintaining 9000 feet, estimating overhead Wup-Wup at time 69, Kwannuss 1"

As if the position report is a READ-BACK and they need the callsign at the end!!! Do these tools understand how to structure a position report???

or when asked to report altitude:

Reply:

"Maintaining 9000 feet, Vergin' 181." Callsign at the end!!! Do these simpletons understand what the requirement is?????


By the way... who are the deadsh!ts who instigated the callsign at the end of the statement rule? I think we all know which Rat was responsible for that.

PS

RAAF ATCs are far more pedantic with their readbacks This is because THEIR traffic is usually off to drop bombs on someone. They don\'t want them to take out a wedding party, cluster of canucks or truckload of pommy grunts by accident.

[triadic]

Nadz..

Perhaps it has, but the people that search this forum are looking for up to date information - not archives. Give them credit for asking - not chaste. If they can't be bothered to search and this upsets you then don't reply. In the mean time let the topics flow without fear of retribution. Thus is supposed to be a rumour forum but most days it feels like an IR renewal.

Sorry about that, but I guess I am expressing my ongong frustration at the lack of any guidance from CASA or those that should know. If it was there, maybe we would not be having this discussion ??

Korn..

Usually you will find behind every senseless air-time consuming read-back requirement is an event in the recent red-tape-riddled past where some halfwit taxied across an active runway or climbed through an altitude or whatever.

Everyone else now has to readback everything and talk for ages to cover the moron-factor.

Too true, and that is why we have such procedures. But you have to draw the line somewhere. To read just about everything back is every bit as bad as getting it wrong and risk having ATS not pick up the error because it was drowned in all the other gooblegook! There is no substitute for well written procedures and sound training. Missing a bit of both I feel.


"Maintaining 9000 feet, Vergin' 181." Callsign at the end!!! Do these simpletons understand what the requirement is?????
Obviously not!! - but have you asked "why not??"

Your examples are all valid and there are lots more, but this thread is about read backs.

The callsign at the end was to bring Oz in line with ICAO. Certainly it was supported by the rat, but only to standardise Oz with the rest of the globe.

[En-Rooter]

My favourite,

'Centre, G'Day, .........452 on climb FL200'

'...........452, G'Day, climb F370'

'..........452, request final F390'

Rather than,

'Centre G'Day, ........452 on climb F200, request final F390'

and,

'Centre, .........452, on climb F200 passing F132'

When you're busy it makes a big difference.

Agree with the callsign at the end business, it's a pain in the ar!e and only slows things down.

Me thinks there are too many d!ckheads changing things just to justify their existence.

Rooter.

[No Further Requirements]

Helmet Fire:

I would argue that Darwin is incorrect IAW the AIP, but are you sure they are not using the Military ATC publications?

There is no such thing. Military ATCs use The Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) and AIP just like civil controllers. MATS is a joint publication produced by Airservices and the Military.

triadic, I still think anything to do with a level (visual approach, leave control area descending) fits in the sphere of a readback. "Cleared visual approach" and "cleared ILS approach" have pretty much the same meaning, and I would expect them both to be read back as it is an ATC clearance and also a level assignment, ie, the ground.

My two cents again. I'll be broke soon!!!

NFR.

[Capt Claret]

NFR, there might be a requirement to call when leaving a level that has been maintained, when flying a visual approach but a visual apprach is not a route clearance in itself, therefore visual approach doesn't need to be read back, nor does ILS or VOR, or NDB.

[Waste Gate]

Coming into CNS this morning, got "chipped" by the bloke next to me (not ATC) for not reading back the Tower's instruction to "continue approach"

Scenario: CNS Approach had cleared us for an ILS approach. After reporting established, we were instructed to contact the Tower. . . . "Cairns Tower, Dumpster 101. . . " . "Dumpster 101, Cairns Tower, Good Morning, continue approach. . . ". To this, I replied with callsign only. Since when has it been a requirement to read back an instruction to "continue approach", or have I missed something??:ugh:

WG.

[Capt Claret]

Waste Gate, I'm with you on the "continue approach". Call sign only required.

It's quite amazing listening to a readback full of superfluous bulldust, that almost always leaves out the required items!

ATC: ABC contact melbourne centre 128.85 leaving 5000', no requirement to set course within 5 miles, Runway 12 cleared for take-off, make left turn

Bloggs: (apologies to Capt & F/O) no requirement to set course within 5 miles, contact melbourne centre 128.85 passing 5000. ABC :{

It should be, IMHO, 128.85, left turn, clear for take-off RWY 12, ABC :ok:

[Waste Gate]

Thanks Clarrie, that's what I thought . . . :hmm:

[Dehavillanddriver]

Enrooter,

The first example you gave normally happens because we normally set the planned level into the FMC. What generally happens is we discuss it and agree that we will ask for a lower level and then go into thumb in bum mode and read the level climbing to off the FMC cruise page - which is followed closely by an untransmitted "doh!"

We try and remember to ask for the revised level in the first transmission but sometimes we forget....

As a personal aside nowhere in AIP does it mention "on climb" or "on descent" the proper terms are "climbing to" and "descending to" but that is being picky!

What is with the AIP statement about reading the level passing on first contact with a frequency. I reckon that in a radar environment that is dumb..thoughts anybody?

And finally from Clarries post (not a dig at you by the way!) there is NO requirement to set course within 5 miles. It is in AIP but not the regs and accordingly it is NOT a requirement. There are only 2 controllers that I know of (and one is now in Geneva) that know that, the rest just assume that it is a requirement....

incommmming!!!

[En-Rooter]

DDriver,

No worries, it seems when you are busy this occurs. Someone mentioned that it doesn't take much longer to say extra stuff. 3 or 4 extra words can 'root' you sometimes.

Level passing is not required on every frequency switch (regardless of what the books say) when in radar airspace, you are identified and verified on departures freq.

Cheers

Rooter.

[Transition Layer]

Dehavillanddriver

As a personal aside nowhere in AIP does it mention "on climb" or "on descent" the proper terms are "climbing to" and "descending to" but that is being picky!

I don't think you're being picky at all, I agree wholeheartedly! I was taught early on that those types of transmissions should always end in "ing". If one sticks with that little rule, you can't go wrong.

Some other examples...

"Joins crosswind" = joining crosswind
"Enters and Backtracks" = entering and backtracking
"ABC, taxies" = taxiing
"Lines up" = lining up
"Holds short" = holding short

Anyway, rant over.

TL

[Counter-rotation]

En-rooter (and others)

I take your point, I guess I was thinking only of my current sphere of aviation, where you're rarely THAT busy... (CR takes off blinkers...)
What I was really trying to say was more along the lines of "if you're not sure, say it all" - then get on with flying (this is untidy, and pilots should of course "know their stuff"). In the event of uncertainty, this also guarantees that ATC won't be further tying things up by coming back for a readback item they should have got the first time...

I like to get things right as much (some who know me would say more) as anyone, but look at the debate already on this thread, if you think that it is clear to pilots AND controllers exactly what is required...

:)
CR

BTW I'm with you TL... I hate hearing taxies, rolls, departs etc. Everyone's got their own little thing and that's mine too...:hmm:

[RENURPP]

Sorry have to be short running out of time.
Triadic, yes I am aware that this has been covered before and it was not a question it was bringing hopefully to peoples attention that not everything has to be read back
I agree with your summary

NFR will get around to email soon.
visual approach is a cancellation of a restriction/clearance and does not require a readback. Niether do expectations clearance for instrument approaches.
Just because Darwin ATC require it does not make it correct.

Cheers for now.

[En-Rooter]

CR,

Not having a go, it's hard to not be confused these days as everything seems to change quite often. The bit about being busy, cause there may not be alot of radio noise, doesn't mean we're not busy! We've got quite alot of manipulating and 'feeding the elephant' to keep it all running.

My main point is that change for change sake is a pain in the ar!e especially this callsign at the end of a readback business. You can do things a little bit quicker if you know the correct aircraft is reading it back. Flight number callsigns has complicated things even more. Was this change for changes sake? Either way, a deadset pain in the ar!e.

:ok:

[Counter-rotation]

From your last posting I now take it you're a controller? (CR removes second set of blinkers). Nice user-name - that makes sense now too.

Yep, we're all (mostly) friends here!

I had pictured you at the sharp end of a busy flightdeck on my first, quick reading. As for myself, I am closer to the bugsmashing end of the industry (ie I sit in one...) There's not much to play with in most of 'em, and plenty of time to talk (which doesn't mean you should say more than required, before I get jumped on! :ouch: )

I agree, change for it's own sake is not helpful, and callsign at the end fits that IMHO.

CR.