Readback of ATC clearances mandatory....?

[Muppet99]

Hi all

Anyone know why LHR have started putting something like 'pilots are reminded that readback of all ATC instructions and clearances is mandatory', at the end of their ATIS?

[fourthreethree]

....but maybe there have been occasions when (perish the thought,) some pilots have failed in their duty to read back clearances issued to them by ATC.

Or maybe they just ran out of stuff to say.....?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[GoneWest]

I do a lot of work - in flight safety - with the FAA (Orlando), alongside an air traffic controller from MCO (Orlando Int).

One of his pet gripes is people reading back too much - and during his lectures to the listening public is constantly saying "If I give you a full airways departure and route clearance, all I need to hear back is "Roger" ".

Before you scream at me - I have screamed at him - on numerous occassions - saying that this does not comply with ICAO.

[radar707]

It's probably because procedures in different countries don't require full readbacks, however in the UK, there are a whole load of things that require a MANDATORY readback:

Level instructions
Heading instructions
Speed instructions
Airways / routeing instructions
Runway in use
Clearance to land / take off
Clearance to enter / cross or hold short of an active runway
SSR codes
Pressure settings
VDF information
Frequency changes
Types of radar service

I think that's just about all of them (if my memory serves me correctly, I would have checked in my MATS pt1 but i don't have one anymore :mad: )

My main problem at my unit when working radar, is US crews not reading back the type of radar service they are receiving RAS/RCS
Or Crews not reading back the frequency change, just saying bye, then 2 minutes later coming back asking what the frequncy was after they've levelled of at SID altitude

[vector4fun]

In General, in the U.S., pilots are told they Should readback those parts of a clearance containing altitude and/or vector information. (AIM 4-4-6) Note, in the U.S. the word should does not mean *shall*.

The ATC handbook 7110.65 states that pilots may acknowledge clearances or instructions by simply saying "Wilco", "Roger", or other appropriate remarks. (FAA 7110.65, 2-4-3)

However, in another section of the .65, (3-7-2) Controllers are required to get a readback of all hold short instructions from aircraft taxiing. In addition, I recall reading somewhere, (don't recall where off the top of my head at the moment) that a controller may insist on a readback of anything he/she thinks is critical.

I don't have any problem with a professional, concise readback of everything. I don't have a problem with a simple "Roger" so long as the aircraft's ID is also clearly stated. My only "problem" is when the readback involves about twenty "Uhs" and "Lessees" etc.,

OR

Goes something like this:

fivefortytwoisclearedjaytwentyoneasfiledfourthirtyfiveninete enzeroandfiftytwofortytwo.......

Maybe a New Yorker understands all that, but us Southerners need a comma or two.....

:D

[ATCO Two]

OK, to answer the original question. This came about because of a Runway Safety Workshop. It has been shown that reminding pilots of their obligation to read back all the information listed by "radar 707" has a positive educational impact, reduces RTF loading (due to Controllers not having to ask for readbacks when these are not forthcoming), and generally improves safety. At Heathrow this message will be put on the ATIS for one month at a time during January, May and September, and wil be ongoing.

[Muppet99]

Thanks guys interesting stuff !

[West Coast]

Radar707
Please explain the remark about the type of radar service being used. I fly N. America only so I am not sure what that is about.
Thanks

[granny smith]

WC

It's a UK thing where we have more than just your basic ICAO Radar Control Service (RCS) and Flight Info & Alerting Service.

Outside controlled airspace (Classes A to E) UK also adds Radar Advisory Service (RAS) where IFR a/c get a service not unlike RCS but not everyone participates and therefore separation is not guaranteed; and also Radar Info Service (RIS) where no separation is provided at all and radar derived traffic info and flight info is passed if controller workload permits.

If you want more info look at Manual of Air Traffic Services online at
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=222

[radar707]

West Coast, Granny Smith has covered what it is.
My gripe is the lack of a mandatory readback, OK, I've told the crew it's a radar advisory service, it's on the tape.
BUT is the proverbial hits the fan and something goes wrong, I'm then criticised for not getting the required readback, it may just be an exercise for the tape since I would gues that the US crews (in the majority of cases) haven't got a clue as to the differences in the type of service being provided.

Maybe crews flying into airports in the UK which require transit of uncontrolld airspace should be made aware of the differences in service through some sort of safety bulletin

[West Coast]

Thanks to the both of you. In the US we are on an IFR flight plan when operating under FAR121 (aircarrier regs) and do not know that we are recieving differing level of control unless not in radar contact. Not to excuse them, they should comply with host country requirements.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

As a controller in the Middle East, I have found the worst pilots to work with are the American pilots, mainly due to the fact they respond to route clearances with "WILCO" and then invariably make a wrong turn and when queried swear black and blue they were cleared that way. Hence the need for full readbacks, so we can pickup the errors before they cause a disaster. I undertand it can be long and laborious, but readbacks are there for a reason and it horrifys me to think in America they let pilots get away with a simple roger to a clearance.

Secondly the Americans are also the most guilty of not reading back the frequency on a change and then either coming back 2 minutes later to confirm the freq. or worse still dissapearing into the wrong freq. ether.

Finally the Yanks are the worst for making the initial call and then not listening again on there radio. It is a running joke that it always takes two calls to get contact with an american at least.

These observations are all made in an environment where almost half the traffic are Russians who's grasp of English is poor, but at least they try.

[FWA NATCA]

Being acontroller that works at a combined approach and tower, I run into very few pilots that DO NOT read back clearances, though lately I've been encountering a few so called professional air line pilots and our ANG F16 pilots only reading back the transponder code.

So the AIM and 7110.65 says that this is legal, is it safe, most of the time it is, but everyone should remember that old Murphy (Murphy's Law) is always lurking around, just waiting for the pilot or controller to make a mistake, so do you feel lucky?

Mike

[FoxRomeo]

I absolutely agree with AirNoServicesAustralia.

You get used to the French and I really tend to like the Russians. Americans, even when asked to confirm a freq, a routing or a restriction, simply answer with YEAH, YEPP, OK, Roger, Wilco, and the like. The worst by far are the reserve pilots busting around in their A10's, but that's an entirely different story.

FR

[C Yeager]

GOOD TOPIC ....ONE THAT IS NEVER QUITE APPRECIATED UNTIL A DISASTER / INCIDENT TAKES PLACE ....
LOOK A ANY A/C INCIDENT / ACCIDENT AND THERE WILL CERTAILNLY ALWAYS BE A COMMS PROBLEM , OR LACK THEREOF.
CLEARANCES AND DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED OR SET SPECIFIC CODES HAVE TO BE READ BACK ..... MOST IMPORTANTLY (AS THIS IS SOMETHING MOST PILOTS ARE GUILTY OF ) A FULL CALL SIGN , FULL CALL SIGN HAS TO ACCOMPANY A READBACK !!!!! ALWAYS !!!!
ANOTHER ONE IS THE READING BACK OF YOUR TAXI INSTRUCTION, MORE IMPORTANTLY YOUR "CLEARANCE LIMIT" OF THE TAXI INSTRUCTION I.E THE HOLDING POINT OR HOLD SHORT OF ..... " TAXI KILO , LIMA HOLDING POINT RWY 20 R" IS SO OFTEN SUBSTITUTED/ABBREVIATED FOR "KILO / LIMA RWY20 R " NO MENTION OF A HOLDING POINT ...THEREBY THEORETICALLY THE A/C COULD PROCEED ONTO RWY20R AS PER THE READBACK ....AND IF THERE WERE AN INCIDENT ...GUESS WHO WILL BE TO BLAME ........ IT HAS HAPPENED AND IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN ....LETS NOT WAIT FOR ANOTHER TENERIFE DISASTER ...... LETS ALL SIMPLY DO WHAT THE BOOK SAYS WE SHOULD

[DrKaos]

Another major control instruction that we can have problems with is QNH. Over the winter months (particularly over the last week) the QNH has been hovering in the low 980's millibars. In the past I have had operators who are used to Inches actually read back "roger on the inches" , and the obvious problems become obvious (London TMA's transition level is very much lower than some pilots may be used to as well).

Readbacks are something we do require, being Tower, TMA or Area, because in the subsequent incident report, it all sounds so bad when standard R/T isn't used, and questions start being asked!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I agree with the previous 2 posts wholeheartedly. Just another point to remember is even though the yanks think lack of readbacks saves them the precious seconds they need to handle their traffic, the subsequent "say agains" and general confusion invariably takes up more time than the original readback would have taken. The bottom line is if pilots listen out properly and make quick concise standard readbacks everything runs smoothly.

[GoneWest]

All good stuff - but who is to say what is correct?

The FAA say they will accept "Roger" in lieu of a readback of any (or all) item(s) in a full route clearance - they still say "ready for take-off" - they still say "cleared the runway" etc.

The Limeys are on edition 13 of their own R/T phraseology book - which no other country follows.

ICAO has said that Limey R/T manual version ONE is to be the (acceptably low?) standard of R/T for the industry.

All three of them see themselves as (sufficiently) correct.

I think it is a battle that will never be won - by anyone.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I can't agree that "Roger" or "Wilco", is sufficient as a replacement for a full route clearance readback. Too many times here, the yank pilots have said "roger" or "wilco" and on being pressed for a readback it becomes apparent that they were going to fly a different route than the one given too them. Hence the need for a readback. The American pilots are the least likely to readback, and the most likely to not adhere to the clearance recieved, recipe for disaster.