Reading "Approved" back

[Gargleblaster]

Just to put things straigt from the beginning: I'm a humble low time PPL and know nothing about anything and shouldn't be posting anything at all here :-)

But somebody said that there's no stupid questions, so here I go:

When requesting crossing the CTR of a nearby largish international airport, I have at least twice gotten this initial reply: "Approved, report when entering at XYZ".

If I read back "Approved, will report when entering at XYZ", it sounds as if I'm approving something.

So I've invented my own "Approved entering control zone, will report when entering at XYZ", but I shouldn't be making things up in the readback, should I ?

Any comments ?

[eastern wiseguy]

What about saying "roger,will report when entering at XYZ"Seems to cover the situation :)

[WAIF-er]

What you are doing is correct. You are reading back an instruction. If you repeat word for word, then both you and the controller are in no doubt as to what your clearance and instructions are.

If I were you, i would continue doing things as you have been.

Happy flying!:ok:

[pushapproved]

If you are being given a clearance to enter controlled airspace, then the phrase "Cleared to Enter Controlled Airspace..." should be used, as far as I can re-call!

[eyeinthesky]

What you are doing is correct, but the ATCO is not, as you have identified.

The difference between 'approved' and 'cleared' is important: If you are cleared to do domething by ATC, they are taking on the responsibility for nothing getting in the way of that permission: Cleared for take-off, cleared to transit etc.

If ATC approve something, they are giving their permission but not necessarily removing the responsibility from the pilot to take measures for it to happen safely.

An example would be 'Push approved'. If you were to take this as a clearance and push back straight into a catering truck, that would be your responsibility, not ATC's.

[JEP]

As eyeinthesky states, the phrase "Cleared to enter control zone" i incorrect.

The readback to "O-BC Enter (or cross) controlzone and report final rwy 27" is simply:
"Entering (crossing) controlzone and report final rwy 27, O-BC)"

[bookworm]

As eyeinthesky states, the phrase "Cleared to enter control zone" i incorrect.

The readback to "O-BC Enter (or cross) controlzone and report final rwy 27" is simply:
"Entering (crossing) controlzone and report final rwy 27, O-BC)"

eyeinthesky was making the opposite point, that the ATCO should have offered a clearance, not simply an instruction.

The readback you suggest is misleading for a different reason: "Entering control zone" sounds like a position report. The instruction (or preferably clearance ;)) may be given with the aircraft 20 miles away.

Finally, reporting instructions should not be read back.

(All of this applies in the UK and under ICAO PANS-ATM. Denmark may have different rules, but I doubt it.)

[JEP]

Bookworm - you are right "Entering the control zone" implies that I am entering right now, the correct phrase should be "ENTER control zone".


However:
The ATCO's instruction "Enter Control Zone" is an instruction containing a clearance to enter the CTR.
According to our (danish) regulations (BL7-14), the word "CLEARED" may only be used for:
- landing and take off clearances
- approach clearances (ie. "Cleared RWY 27 ILS approach)
- Routing clearances ("Cleared to [destination] via ...")

I will have a look in my ICAO-docs to see if this is ICAO, or just a national rule.

Finally - our rules state that all instructions should be read back or acknowledged in a way that clearly indicates, that the instruction(s) are understood. Reporting instructions are not extempted.

Again I need to dive in to my ICAO-docs to see if this is national rule.
- edit: PANS-ATM 4.5.7.5.1.1 states the same.

[Hay Day May Day]

Often replies to this forum is based on UK rules and not always ICAO. That could help if ppruners state UK or ICAO or ?? The same for the pilot, he should also ask whether the situation is UK or worldwide.

[jangler909]

If controller asks you to report a certain phase of flight that happens in the (near) future (position, level, distance etc), the best answer is "WILCO" - suits perfectly for most of the occasions. No need for long readbacks.

A Finnish example:

ATC: "Cleared to XYZ control zone ("via [FIX name] / flight plan route / etc"), report control zone / [FIX name] inbound."
PILOT (what I'd like to hear): "Cleared to XYZ control zone via..., AB-CDE, wilco."

JEP:

Don't know much about your procedures but here flying in controlled airspace is prohibited without a clearance, so we give clearances by using the phrase "cleared" ;).

[JEP]

JANGLER

same procedures applies in Denmark except the phrase "cleared" should not be used. Hence the instruction to enter with the clearance "embedded".

I cannot find any reference to ICAO-docs on that item - so maybe it is an odd danish rule.
I will ask our CAA. They have an inspector/examiner who knows the ICAO-docs by heart. If it is there, he will tell us - otherwise the danish rule will propably be changed.

[bookworm]

JEP

I can't argue with you on the Danish procedures -- I can only say that the ICAO rules require a clearance to enter a class B/C/D CTR and that Denmark does not appear to have filed a difference. The idea of a clearance being "embedded" is somewhat alarming!

On the issue of reporting instructions, there is no doubt that reporting instructions should be "acknowledged". However, reading back reporting instructions is, IMO, bad practice for two reasons:

1) A single word misinterpretation can cause a critical failure in the ATC system. Consider the following exchange:

"G-ABCD report passing FL50 in the descent"
"[bzzt] passing FL50, G-ABCD"
"G-ABCD thank you, break, G-EFGH descend FL60"

In fact, G-ABCD is still in a gentle descent through FL65, and was just reading back the reporting instruction. But the readback was misinterpreted (by the omission of a single word) as the report itself. So now we have a loss of separation.

2) By contrast, the failure to make a report can never be critical. If a report doesn't arrive, ATC must assume that it is possible that a comms failure occurred, and that the aircraft has in fact passed the reporting point or level. The report can only act as a release for other aircraft.

ICAO Doc 9432 (Radiotelephony Manual) gives a number of examples:

"G-CD report when ready for departure"
"G-CD wilco"

"Fastair 345 cleared for take-off report airborne"
"Cleared for take-off wilco Fastair 345"

"G-CD report final"
"G-CD"

"Fastair 345 report passing FL70"
"Fastair 345 wilco"

"Fastair 345 report outer marker"
"Fastair 345"

(To my horror there is one example where Fastair does say "will report leaving FL350" but the vast majority indicate that reporting instructions should not be read back.)

[JEP]

BOOKWORM - I see your point on the read back of the reporting instruction, and the situation has arised in the classroom several times when the PPL-students are not yet certain on where to put their call-sign (at the beginning or at the end of their message) and then we get:

TWR: "O-XX report passing yyy VOR"
A/C: "O-XX, report passing yyy VOR - eeh , O-XX"

I then have to ask:" Are you reading back the instruction, or are you reporting your position"



Your example:
"G-ABCD report passing FL50 in the descent"
"[bzzt] passing FL50, G-ABCD"

the a/c call sign is at the end - hence this is an acknowledgement of the instruction, not a position report (in my head anyway).
What we are "spanked" by our CAA is the following procedure:

"G-ABCD report passing FL50 in the descent"
"(will) report passing FL50, G-ABCD"

- moments later

"[Call sign of controller, i.e. "Approach"], G-ABCD, passing FL50"

- note we are told that all messages should be adressed (knowing this is not done in the real world anyway), so the position report would be:

"G-ABCD, passing FL50"


The read back
"Fastair 345 wilco"
looks incorrect to be, as is should be
"Wilco, Fastair 345"

Doc 9432 is from 1990 and a I think a lot has changed since then.


I find this exchange of views and experience very giving so your comments are very welcome.
As already mentioned, I will mention our "embedded clearances" to our CAA next time I get the opportunity.


A total different question:

When a distress situation is over i.e. you engine has resumed running, do you use:
"Cancel Mayday" or "Cancel Distress". ??

We are told that "Cancel Mayday" is a big NO NO.

[bookworm]

Fair points JEP.


The read back
"Fastair 345 wilco"
looks incorrect to be, as is should be
"Wilco, Fastair 345"

Doc 9432 is from 1990 and a I think a lot has changed since then.

That's true. The convention (which I think is adopted in the UK's CAP413 RT manual now) of where to put the callsign is relatively recent, not very uniformly adopted, and in some cases a bit arbitrary. Despite the idea that a strict adherence to the convention might address the issue I raise, I still think that on balance it is better to avoid readback of reporting instructions.

When a distress situation is over i.e. you engine has resumed running, do you use:
"Cancel Mayday" or "Cancel Distress". ??

We are told that "Cancel Mayday" is a big NO NO.

I've never actually had to cancel one, so I can't remember, but I think the point is a good one (in the same way that "departure" is used for "take-off" to avoid any ambiguity).

[tmmorris]

When a distress situation is over i.e. you engine has resumed running, do you use:
"Cancel Mayday" or "Cancel Distress". ??

'G-ABCD, operations normal'?

Tim

[Gargleblaster]

Thank you for all the replies, especially WAIF-er and eyeinthesky.

Nice to know that I'm not doing it entirely wrong.

Rather than approving my request, I prefer ATC to simply instruct me what to do, e.g. "Enter the control zone at XYZ, report XYZ".

Eyeinthesky wrote:
"The difference between 'approved' and 'cleared' is important: If you are cleared to do domething by ATC, they are taking on the responsibility for nothing getting in the way of that permission: Cleared for take-off, cleared to transit etc. If ATC approve something, they are giving their permission but not necessarily removing the responsibility from the pilot to take measures for it to happen safely."

I'm probably being thick, but I don't quite understand your explanation on the difference between "approved" and "cleared".

Remember I'm VFR, so when e.g. "Cleared to transit" TWR will at most give me traffic info on other VFR and instruct IFR to avoid me (my CTR is class D). All responsibility is with me. Can't see the difference between "cleared" and "approved" in this case.

[bookworm]

Can't see the difference between "cleared" and "approved" in this case.

That is, I think, why the US requires a "clearance" only for VFR ops in class B (where ATC separation is applied) and not in class D. ICAO chose to break the clearance paradigm by requiring a clearance for VFR in class D, even though it guarantees separation from nothing.

[TATC]

the requirement for a clearance in class D airspace whilst not giving separation from traffic does make the environemtn safer. It ensures that the traffic environment is known to controllers and full and comprehensive information on all traffic is passed to aircraft. This prevents VFR traffic getting in the way too much of IFR traffic ( and removes the need to avoid unknown traffic).

[TheOddOne]

Can't see the difference between "cleared" and "approved" in this case.

No, SYMANTICALLY, there probably isn't, but that's not the point. After Tenerife, a lot of phraseology was changed to reduce potentially catastrophic ambiguity. One of the words found to be at the heart of the problem was 'cleared'. As far as I am concerned, the ONLY use of the word 'clear' and its derivatives now is 'Cleared for takeoff' or 'Cleared to land'. All other uses of the meanings of this word were replaced by other words & phrases i.e. 'pushback approved', 'runway vacated' 'proceed..' etc.
Other changes included 'affirm' instead of 'affirmative' and 'pass your message' instead of 'go ahead'.

As far as we're concerned on the ground, we NEVER have any occasion in a vehicle to use the words 'clear', 'cleared' 'clearance' 'clearing'.

Now, it may well be that far away from any runway and on an entirely different frequency, it doesn't really matter, but personally I think it's better to steer well away from its use except for that very special case, on the runway.

What we're talking about here isn't 'normal' English, it's Aviation English, a very specialist tool.

Cheers,
The Odd One

[TATC]

Stabdard UK phraeology in the UK is to use the term " Cleared to Enter Contolled Airspace...." including routing, heading and level instructions and at the end include the flight rules to be apllied. In the UK ANO it states that IFR aircraft require a CLEARANCE to enter contolled airspace Classes A-E, and VFR aircraft require a CLEARANCE to enter Controlled airspace Classes B-D. The use of the term cleared in relation to airspace entry in the UK makes perfect sense.

[bookworm]

I think you're missing the point, TATC, that a clearance differs from permission or approval in that it is a contract between ATC and the aircraft. The ATC side of the bargain is that the relevant airspace is or will be clear, either of all traffic or of IFR traffic depending on the circumstances. The etymology of the word clearance as an everyday synonym for permission dates from the 1940s and ATC usage.

In the case of VFR in class D, the permission to enter a CTR is not logically a clearance as there is no promise of separation. That permission should be required to enter a class D CTR to create a known traffic environnment is not in dispute, nor, given the choice of UK law to require a clearance, that the RT phraseology should be "clearance".

[JEP]

So aften another hour of looking through ICAO-docs I find in DOC 4444 (PANS-ATM) chapter 12.3.2.1: Area control services - issuance of clearance:

Phraseologies:
a) (name of unit) CLEARS (aircraft call sign);
b) (aircraft call sign) CLEARED TO;
c) RECLEARED (amended clearance details) [REST OF
CLEARANCE UNCHANGED];
d) RECLEARED (amended route portion) TO (significant point of
original route) [REST OF CLEARANCE UNCHANGED];
e) ENTER CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (or CONTROL ZONE)
[VIA (significant point or route)] AT (level) [AT (time)];
f) LEAVE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (or CONTROL ZONE)
[VIA (significant point or route)] AT (level) (or CLIMBING,
or DESCENDING);


so the phrase "CLEARED TO ENTER CONTROL ZONE" or "CLEARED TO LEAVE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE" (example in CAP 413) is not in accordance with DOC4444.

[bookworm]

so the phrase "CLEARED TO ENTER CONTROL ZONE" or "CLEARED TO LEAVE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE" (example in CAP 413) is not in accordance with DOC4444.

You're misinterpreting the structure of the table, JEP. Why would an ATC unit want to use the transmission "(name of unit) CLEARS (aircraft call sign)" in isolation? It would be meaningless. The phrases are to be concatenated, so (b) + (e) and (b) + (f) form exactly the phrases you quote.

[jangler909]

You're misinterpreting the structure of the table, JEP. Why would an ATC unit want to use the transmission "(name of unit) CLEARS (aircraft call sign)" in isolation? It would be meaningless. The phrases are to be concatenated, so (b) + (e) and (b) + (f) form exactly the phrases you quote.

It's used by AFIS-units in our country. "XYZ control clears ABC123..."

[tmmorris]

Yes, but (a) still needs something else to be meaningful. Agree (a) is used in the UK e.g. a departure clearance at Oxford might begin 'Brize Radar clears G-ABCD standard BOTLI departure...'

Tim