SY localiser frequency - readback NOT required

[Ivasrus]

Please don't read back the LOC frequency when it's given as a cross-check by Sydney Director.

AIP requires a readback of radio navigation aid frequency instructions. In most circumstances, Director is not giving it as an instruction, just a check. And hopefully not for too much longer.

Yours,
Ivasrus

[Dropt McGutz]

I didn't read it back once and got chipped by Director who said that it was required. So on that basis, I've always read it back.

[Capn Bloggs]

Sama Sama "cancel speed restrictions below 10k". I simply acknowledged one day and got bollocked for not reading that back. I then bollocked her via her supervisor (via email):}.

Far too much verbal diarrhoea on the airwaves these days...:{

[Ken Borough]

Far too much verbal diarrhoea on the airwaves these days..Especially from an Emirates chappie who insists on including the word 'altitude' when his service is assigned a new level. His read-back sounds something like "Emirates 413 to descend to altitude 3000". :E

[Captain Dart]

Flying for an Asian airline in and out of Oz, I have been told by Australian ATC to read back the following:

1. The assigned Ground frequency after receiving clearance on Delivery

2. 'Cleared xx miles left/right of track' after requesting and and being granted a weather deviation.

Is it just me or is Australian ATC getting more and more 'anal'? The amount of yap on the frequencies lately is getting like the States but with about one hundredth of the traffic!

[framer]

It drives me bananas flying in and out of SE asia where everyone seems to read back all the bollocks but doesn't read back the really important stuff.
I would have read-back the frequency but won't now....thanks for the heads up :)

[Cypher]

Who do I complain to when I enviably get bollocked by Director (and probably then the Captain) for not reading back the ILS frequency..?

[TROJAN764]

I never read it back and have never been criticised for this. Also, there is no requirement to read back the second 'behind' when told by TWR to (for example) 'behind the Jetstar A380, line up RWY 34 left, behind.'

[Capn Bloggs]

Dart,

In fairness to ATC, those two items are mandatory readbacks. You have to readback frequency change instructions and clearances:

AIP GEN 4:
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 route and holding point specified in a taxi clearance;
d. any clearances or instructions to hold short of, enter, land on, conditional line‐up on, wait, take‐off from, cross, taxi or backtrack on, any runway;
e. any approach clearance;
f. 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 be read back.
g. SSR codes, data link logon codes;
h. level instructions, direction of turn, heading and speed instructions.

Item F may also include the SYD LLZ freq...

[Going Boeing]

I appreciate that Ivasrus is letting us know what is required in Sydney but for pilots it's a problem remembering the individual local procedures at all the ports that they fly into - eg Singapore require POB & Transponder code on first contact at the FIR boundary plus readback of everything in a clearance whereas other ports just require readback of just the essential elements of a clearance.
It would be simpler and safer to have standard procedures in use worldwide.

[Angle of Attack]

Definitely no requirement to readback two behinds as per ATC, Trojan is correct, don't have a link but its in the AIP's, just checked it a few weeks ago.

As for localiser frequency I have been prompted a few times for not reading it back in Sydney. I see what you mean about it as a check but at the end of the day they are instructing you to use that runway are they not? As in they are checking that your ATC instruction for the appropriate runway has been correctly interpreted by you?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to read it back, its a pain in the you know what!

[blueloo]

Having just listened to the ATC instruction:


ATC words were: "Confirm" Localiser frequency 34L 110.1


If they are saying confirm, that is an instruction. Requiring a readback.

[Capn Bloggs]

ATC COMMS Section 6.3 (currently Page ATC AU913).:ok:

[Altimeters]

Quoted by AoA
As for localiser frequency I have been prompted a few times for not reading it back in Sydney. I see what you mean about it as a check but at the end of the day they are instructing you to use that runway are they not? As in they are checking that your ATC instruction for the appropriate runway has been correctly interpreted by you?

But they are also giving you the runway to be used. To confirm what SY APP has told you.

SY DIR: "descend to 4000 runway 34L, localiser check 110.1"

So to me that says that the localiser frequency isn't required but you have been given a runway and therefore that IS to be read back but the check is just that...a check. Perhaps I'm looking too much into it. I tend to do that with air law. :(

[blueloo]

Just listened again:

This time ATC said "Descend 6000 34R localiser 109.3"


Sounds like an instruction to me.

[framer]

There is something to the statement "we fly all over the world" .
If there was one global ATC readback requirement booklet that we could all learn and then apply everywhere it would be simple. I think most international pilots just come up with their own set of things that they will read-back that cover them in 99% of the places they fly. I know I used to do that with POB and qnh when I was flying into places where about half wanted it and half didn't.....I just gave it to them all because at that stage my priority was learning the new jet I was flying. Now that I have that squared away to a degree I devote more time to the little things. It's impossible to know it all in this job. (Not saying you shouldn't try)
Framer

[How's it Hanging]

As someone who operates about 300 sectors into YSSY each year, my memory of it is initially, when parallel operations started, a readback of the localiser frequency was required. However that did not last very long and ATC asked that it not be read back. I think that might have been done by a memo to operators from ASA before it was amended elsewhere.

In the last few years I cannot recall hearing anyone asked to readback the frequency.

I do have a question for ATC out there though. Non-jets are normally on a heading or turning to a heading when changing to director. The normal requirement is to state the heading when being vectored and changing frequency, but I notice on change to director a lot do not say the heading and director does not seem to care one way or the other. What is the ATC point of view of this?

[walaper]

Sy ATC even put out a "brochure" a few years ago about read back requirements on director and heading/alt were the only required readback items as the rest was advisory.

[Angle of Attack]

Until its in the AIP's brochures don't count!

[Blogsey]

umm, could someone explain to me: Of all the international Airports I've flown into (20 odd outside Aus), Syd is the only one to clarify their ILS Freq? Why?

[mates rates]

Australian ATC need to get their act together.For those of us who fly to 100's of airports around the world we can't be expected to learn all the local rules.Just look at the pages in jepp's on the Sydney operation.We do our best but remembering everything is impossible.They need to get away from this isolationism mentality they have and start thinking globally even if there operating procedures are limited.

[Blockla]

Australian ATC need to get their act together.Why is it the fault of the ATCs? ATCs are constantly under supervision; they have random audio samples conducted. Failure to comply with the 'published procedures' results in disciplinary action which may lead to LOEQ = termination of employment. If the regulations are not compliant to ICAO then a deviation must be published; is this the case with this procedure; I doubt it.

So Australia follows the international rules and are criticised (admittedly only here) for doing so...? This procedure is certainly contained within MATS/AIP/Local documentation; hardly giving any ground for the ATCs to step outside the SOPs.

I believe this problem arose when SACL/FAC etc. put the parallel runway too close to the existing runway.

[waren9]

"Brochures" are all very well, but time passes and memories fade. Things get lost out of nav bags, others operate in from overseas and there are new entrants to this game all the time who never get a brochure at all.

And as is often the way in this particular little backwater of the industry, some t(c?)rusty old training Capt will mark you down on your line check for not doing things how he thinks it should be done!

As alluded to by another poster, Jepp or AIP can be the only source document and even Jepp ATC 6.3.1 (f) isnt that clear.

In my humble opinion a "localiser check" is hardly an instruction or clearance. The very fact you have already readback the runway (which has a unique localiser freq), surely means you would be telling them the same thing twice. Pointless.

Maybe someone from SYD ATC can offer something?

[mattgitau]

Ken Borough - you obviously don't fly outside Australian Airspace very often. You must be a lot of fun to fly with - clearly you know everything.

[redsnail]

The second "behind" is used in countries where English isn't the first language.
I can't recall if it's a requirement or not, so I just read back how the controller said it to me.

I once said "after the landing traffic" but the controller nearly had kittens.
Lesson learnt there.

[OneDotLow]

Australian ATC need to get their act together.For those of us who fly to 100's of airports around the world we can't be expected to learn all the local rules.

If you can't be expected to know the local rules, then you can't be expected to fly there. When flying into somewhere that you are not entirely 'current' with, is it really that hard to open the WWT & RMS (or equivalent) at some stage prior to TOD?

[Ivasrus]

As someone who operates about 300 sectors into YSSY each year, my memory of it is initially, when parallel operations started, a readback of the localiser frequency was required. However that did not last very long and ATC asked that it not be read back. I think that might have been done by a memo to operators from ASA before it was amended elsewhere.

In the last few years I cannot recall hearing anyone asked to readback the frequency.

I do have a question for ATC out there though. Non-jets are normally on a heading or turning to a heading when changing to director. The normal requirement is to state the heading when being vectored and changing frequency, but I notice on change to director a lot do not say the heading and director does not seem to care one way or the other. What is the ATC point of view of this?
How's it Hanging is pretty much correct regarding the history. The LOC freq check by DIR was a safety mitigator for YSSY's close-spaced parallels and AFAIK not done anywhere else in the world where there are parallels - except during a late landing runway change. We hope we won't have to do it for much longer.

Regarding the second question, heading and (assigned) altitude are required to be included on first contact. You're right in that a lot omit the heading. You're also right in that director doesn't care (nor do we really care about "leaving 6000"). It assists you greatly for "Runway in sight" on first contact too - even if it's behind you or under the wing, epaulette, etc, ...!

All we care about is not having blocked ATC frequencies on DIR while you are being vectored directly towards other aircraft. The LOC frequency check confounds the odd international or non-familiar pilot which often results in a lot of (imho) unnecessary waffle clarifying the difference between a LOC frequency and the QNH :confused:

[Watchdog]

and whilst on the 'different' ATC formats in OZ.... can someone explain why in Perth they say..." cleared ILS runway 03 approach" versus what is commonplace "cleared ILS approach runway 03" ?? Only heard it in Perth. :confused:

[100.above]

Re the second behind not required to be readback. Someone gave a link before.

But here it is anyway: Jepps ATC AU913 (conditional clearances) 6.4.1 (d)

Learn something new everyday :}

[Borram]

I doubt very much that any Syd App/Director has required a readback of the llz frequency in the last few years. We all hate giving it as it clogs up the frequency unnecessarily. CASA imposed it on us after United lined on 34R not long after 34R was opened.
I have been doing App/Dir since way back in the 20th century and we now have so much more that we have to say and get readbacks for than we did when I first rated on there. Sometimes we sweat on a transmission finishing from a pilot so that we can issue an instruction such as a turn to final before we lose separation . Our ulcers do get a work out then I can assure you.
As for pilots not reporting there heading on first contact with Dir, yes they are supposed to , but in our defence only jets are on STARS when they call Dir and we know the props have been given headings by App when we are using 34L/R. Thats why we don't chase the heading readback up. After all we can see what heading you are on by radar.
As I said above there is too much BS that has to be given and readback already.
We even get chipped for not giving miles to run when a/c are already on a straight in approach and on final by our Check controllers. With all the onboard and ground equipment available to a/c to work out exactly how far they are from touchdown, I don't think we need to tell you that. On circuits that's different as you may not know when we plan to turn you.
Hope that helps .

[redsnail]

I do note the Jepp reference is "AU". :) I'll have to go to work to read that section.

Well, in the UK it's "After the landing [aircraft type], line up" (ref CAP413). No "behind" there.

Found some documents online.

UK ATC directive.
4.3 Differences between ICAO and UK phraseology

4.3.1 The international standard phraseology set out by ICAO for the issue of a
conditional clearance differs slightly from the standard phraseology used in the
UK. The phraseology described by ICAO for such situations uses the word
‘behind’ and repeats the condition at the end of the clearance, e.g.

“SAS 941, behind the landing DC9, line up behind”


From A EuroControl document,

*ICAO:
In all cases a conditional clearance shall be given in the following order and
consist of:
1. Identification;
2. The condition
3. The clearance; and
4. Brief reiteration of the condition

Conditional phrases, such as “behind landing aircraft” or “after departing aircraft”, shall not be used for movements affecting the active runway(s), except when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the appropriate controller and pilot.

Big Jet 345, behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2, behind.
Behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2 behind, Big Jet 345



I also appreciate that for the vast majority of people flying within Australian borders/FIR, they are native English speakers so "once is enough". This is not the case in Asia, South America, Middle East and Europe. Therefore, the second "condition" must be read back.
:)

[Ivasrus]

and whilst on the 'different' ATC formats in OZ.... can someone explain why in Perth they say..." cleared ILS runway 03 approach" versus what is commonplace "cleared ILS approach runway 03" ?? Only heard it in Perth. :confused:
Phraseology changed in recent year or so for ATC to say "cleared (chart_title) approach". Taking a while to seep in ... especially as it is often so awkward to spit out.

Any pilots care about the night-time "not below 2100 until on the PAPI" crap either?

[Captain Dart]

First of all, thank you to all who responded about my complaints of unnecessary readbacks in Australian airspace, particularly having to read back 'cleared XX miles left/right of track' after being granted the original request. Also 'thank you' to those who quoted Australian AIP.

Many of us fly internationally for Asian airlines on Asian licences. At last count, my airline flies to at least 25 countries and we read back what is 'normal' in 24 of them. We don't GET Australian AIP or 'pamphlets'. If we had to read the AIP of every country we fly to, we would never get off the ground! We just do what we think is correct in accordance with good airmanship and common sense. This sort of 'anality' would not have prevented the recent breakdown in separation over northern Australia in the middle of the night in a 'head on' situation.

I am not unloading on the average Australian ATCO, but I would recommend a shift in Heathrow Director on a Friday night to every CASA and AirServices policy- and rule-maker. The Brits are good at a few things, humour, museums, breakfasts and above all, ATC. They deal with many more English language-challenged pilots than Australia does, and without having to request them to read back 'one two tree daysimal fower'.

When I fly home to Australia with fellow Aussies in the cockpit, Australian ATC can be a bit of a joke, but when I am with other nationalities it can be positively cringe-worthy.

[Watchdog]

Ivarus...thanks.

OZ is unique in the world in that area it seems.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dart,

Not too sure what you meant by this:
particularly having to read back 'cleared XX miles left/right of track' after being granted the original request.
but, I assume you don't think you need to read back your takeoff clearance, as that was your original request?

[Starts with P]

While we're talking about read backs, as an aside, why does BN GND require a read back of the word "holding point" now? eg. "XXX Taxi B to holding point A7" a readback of "Taxi B to A7 XXX" used to suffice but now it has to be "Taxi B to A7 holding point XXX."

Just curious.
The latest directive from whoever puts out these directive. The words "holding point" must be read back. Apparently this doesn't change any documentation byt clarifies the fact we have to get a readback.

Another example of how this is ATC's problem. No education of pilots, just ATC's having to change what they do and pilots wondering what all the fuss is about. :ugh:

[Captain Dart]

Capn Bloggs:

Us: 'Noodle Jet xxx request 30 miles right of track due weather'
ATC: 'Noodle Jet xxx cleared 30 miles right of track'

It seems Aussie ATC now requires us to read back the 'cleared 30 miles right of track'.

In the rest of the world the response is just callsign, and if you are a polite pilot, 'thank you'. If the clearance is 'cleared only 20 miles right' or similar, yes, you would read that back because it is different to what you asked for. With ADS and radar I really don't see the big deal.

We don't 'request' takeoff. We just call 'ready'. We read back the takeoff clearance as it is a critical manoeuvre, and we are not in the big sky at that stage.

As an aside some time ago our Flight Safety Department notified me that Australian ATC had 'pinged' one of my flights for having a ONE NAUTICAL MILE :bored: track offset without a clearance (our ops manual states 2 nm is OK without informing ATC). Don't these people have better things to do?

[Blockla]

Captain Dart
In the rest of the world the response is just callsign, and if you are a polite pilot, 'thank you'. If the clearance is 'cleared only 20 miles right' or similar, yes, you would read that back because it is different to what you asked for. With ADS and radar I really don't see the big deal. Surveillance certainly makes a difference to the 'effect' of a WX/any diversion from planned/cleared track/course; but I would want a readback - confirmation that you understood how much leverage you had; even in my full radar (non Oz) environment; it's about knowing how many other sectors/units you are plowing into; it's not just initial separation, we do more coordination with other units with diversions than at any other time. Also the 'readback' would assist that 'journalising' didn't occur at either end of the mic.

As for getting 'pinged' for being offset I suspect it's all in the manner in which the aircraft offset itself (or you offset it), a 20+ degree turn to do it fast could be a big deal; where as a gentle 5 degree turn to achieve it would hardly be noticed. I certainly wouldn't be able to tell if you were 1NM offset on my equipment in Enroute. Also it depends on the environment, if you are in or approaching the TMA a 1NM offset is a big deal (the SID/STAR integration doesn't account for offsets), where as at cruise in the middle of NSW it would be really no big deal.

[Tempo]

Who gives a f&$k if you read it back.........

Oh that's right.....the 'I am a more professional pilot than that guy' types do.

[blueloo]

I am a more professional pilot than that guy


Arent they the same ones who keep on yelling out "You're on Guard! You're on Guard!!!!!!! " (Whilst thinking: "Mummy would be so proud of me, I told him he was on guard, first!")

[Capt Fathom]

our ops manual states 2 nm is OK without informing ATC.

Your Ops Manual may need updating!

From the AIP

This applies when you are Identified: must advise ATC prior to initiating or changing an offset

In the real world, I guess this means you have to tell ATC of the offset before being indentified!

Easily confused with the next paragraph:
The decision to apply a lateral offset is the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Other than when an Identified aircraft initiates or changes an offset,
pilots are not required to notify ATC that a lateral offset is being applied

[404 Titan]

Captain Dart

As an aside some time ago our Flight Safety Department notified me that Australian ATC had 'pinged' one of my flights for having a ONE NAUTICAL MILE track offset without a clearance (our ops manual states 2 nm is OK without informing ATC).

Vol 2/2 doesn't say that at all.

27. STRATEGIC LATERAL OFFSET PROCEDURES

27.1 Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures should only be applied in oceanic airspace by aircraft capable of automatic offset tracking. Certain states may also allow their use in remote continental airspace − if doubt exists, clarification and/or clearance should be sought from ATC. Where part of the airspace in question is within radar coverage, aircraft should normally be allowed to initiate, or continue, the offset.

27.2 Procedure

Offsets of 1 NM or 2 NM to the right of track are authorized.

Crews are not required to inform ATC when applying the offset.

Australia is obviously a state that doesn't allow it's use in remote continental airspace. Therefore you should have obtained a clearance.

[CSTGuy]

When instructed to contact tower for landing, on first contact state your callsign only please.

The amount of crap that is passed at this stage is mind boggling.

"Sydney Tower, Qantas 2 established ILS 16R leaving 3000" or "Melb Tower, Virgin 123 right base visual approach 34". :=

The correct call in ALL circumstances is: "Sydney Tower, Qantas 2" :D

Finis, nada, zilch, caput, done. Get it?!

All the extra stuff just clutters the frequency and could prevent someone getting away (cleared immediate TO). The tower know where you are and what you're doing. Just please give your callsign when "checking in" with tower. Of all the incorrect readbacks in Oz, this would have to the one done wrong the most.

Rant over.......

[Captain Dart]

Capt Fathom, as I said in a previous post, crew flying on Asian licences don't GET Australian AIP just as we don't get Bangladeshi AIP or Russian AIP; it's no good quoting them to international pilots unless it is reflected in their company publications.

Thanks Titan, my incident was some time ago and my response that it was legal was agreed with by Corporate Safety (who appended the comment 'AirServices Australia can be a bit picky sometimes'), who themselves got back to AirServices. I'm sure that Vol 2 was amended some time after.

I stand by all my previous posts and, while I hereby express my appreciation to the individual Aussie ATCO's, the rules and requirements they have to work under in many cases don't reflect 'convention' in the rest of the world.

It's now been done to death. Cheers to all.

[Capt Fathom]

'AirServices Australia can be a bit picky sometimes'

Well, I guess it's their AIP, and if you're off track without their knowledge, they're entitled to ask the question!

Nothing picky about that!

[max1]

Captain Dart

As an Oz ATC, we just apply what we are told to apply (or should) if you have an issue with it, talk to your Flight Ops department.

It is also frustrating to us. With those pilots who have English as a first language we know it is teaching them to suck eggs, but for those whose English is a bit second rate we are just covering our backside.

It is not unusual to tell the next controlling sector to watch XXX because even though XXX has read everything back correctly we have little faith that XXX will actually do what we have instructed them to do.

It is sometimes 'embarrasing' for us to get our 'extraneous' readbacks off pilots that we know are not in any doubt about what we have instructed them to do. But when we have the level of monitoring that we do, and back office people are looking over your shoulder constantly, a controller does not have the room to assign a good pilot or dodgy pilot rating.

Don't assign us a good or dodgy worldwide rating either, we play the cards we are dealt. Otherwise it is a quiet chat in a back office.

Do you have this problem with ex-Oz ATCs working overseas. Don't think just the good ones have pissed off OS, it's just that they work in a more realistic environment.