Reading Back of callsign and freq!!!

[geo7E7]

Any ATC guys out there who can shed some light rgding the topic? Vaguely described in jepps manual or rather contradicting....Any clearances or information given by ATC has to be read back but on the sample column, when ATC asks the pilot to change to different/next controller, nothing specified about reading back the next ID nor the freq given. Quite a number of ideas here...some say yes to save time on confirming the freq and some say no - to eliminate radio chatter! Two different thing when comes to "normal practice" and actual requirement.

Thank you.:confused:

[blondie118]

It all depends on the situation. For aircraft inside controlled airspace and staying within CAS e.g airways, is mandatory to read back a change of frequency but I'm not sure about the station ID. If on first contact with ATC the aircraft doesn't use the station ID the controller will use their station ident.

For aircraft outside controlled airspace they may have a different route and decide to change to another frequency than suggested by the controller. In that situation, on leaving my frequency the pilot will more often than not inform me of the next station and frequency they wish to change to.

If there is traffic to affect OCAS the controller will inform them that there is traffic in the circuit at ???? etc and suggest you free call that aerodrome.

Hope that has helped.

[Scott Voigt]

In the US.........

There is nothing mandated by regulation that should be read back EXCEPT hold short clearances. They must be read back verbatim...

However, this is one of my pet PEEVES with US flight crews. About one third of the time they are failing to use call signs with transmissions. The state of US flight crew phraseology is getting worse by the year it approves and is making our jobs HARDER! We have to continue to restate the clearance and they piss off the flight crews due to "Yeah we allready SAID that..." Well, if you don't use a call sign we don't know it was YOU! This isn't a telephone... It is a two way radio with more than just yourself up there...

Rant off...

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[AREA52]

Scott, couldn't agree more, we get it all the time especially with the US crews, they read back headings and FL's without any prefix, therefore 280 for example could be a FL or HDG??????

Sometimes, no callsign is used with these readbacks or for frequency changes as you said. It all results in unnecessary RT and phone calls, which does not help when you are busy. Sometimes they just disappear with no reply, wonderful.

It's not just the US crews, but they are definitely the worst offenders. Maybe one day mode S in a user friendly form might help? I'll probably be retired by then and I've still got a long time to go!:rolleyes:

[AREA52]

Oh, I better also say that I am not tarring the US crews all with the same brush. Some of the friendliest and most courteous crews are also american, who also do there job properly.

There are muppets of all nationalities, it just seems that in the UK, most unnecessary work is created by american pilots either not listening, or not replying properly!

Listen out folks, then we won't have to b*****k you so often on the frequency!

AREA 52

[Gonzo]

Maybe they'd listen more if you didn't b*****k them? If you have the R/T time to do that, maybe you could use it to explain why you need a decent readback?

[av8boy]

Gonzo, man, eeeeeeeeeeasy there...

Point taken, but there are more constructive ways to say this, no?

Dave :ugh:

[lukewarmskywa*ker]

I don't think it's any worse than ten years ago, is it? I find that although the US crews are a bit sloppy sometimes, they do pay attention and respond swiftly and correctly (and ooooohh so politely) as soon as the freq sounds busy.

And I love it when crews start to argue about whether they should reply in one way or another... Gonzo, get real: if we couldn't have such fun bol**king people on the freq, what would be the point of being a controller any more?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Luke?????

I find that although the US crews are a bit sloppy sometimes, they do pay attention and respond swiftly and correctly (and ooooohh so politely)

I hope your tongue was planted in your cheek. Either that or when you say yanks you don't include US military in that. They never listen out and are never reading back the frequency and then coming back to confirm the frequency when there is no response on the wrong frequency.

Have to agree on the general trend towards readbacks with no callsign. It is lazy and ends up with the wrong aircraft doing the wrong thing, specially here where there might be 10 Emirates a/c on Freq, all with extremely similair Flight Numbers, or even worse 5 US C-130's with callsigns Flash13, Flash14,15,16,17etc.

[lukewarmskywa*ker]

No, that part wasn't tongue in cheek! I don't see any particular problem, its a general thing from all crews with regards omitting readbacks. In fact, a little story of the reverse scenario:

Long ago I was working a certain sector, busy in and out, with a request for a military C130 (RAF) to cross.

RFR1431 : RFR1431 with you, maintaining FL150, direct Dover**********************
Frequency then stayed open. I swear I could hear him unwrapping his sandwiches. Panic stations ensued; loads of co-ordination to get all Heathrow inbounds late descent, and to arrange 'headings to miss' for the outbounds.

Finally, frequency goes quiet. By this time, RFR 1431 left my airspace. I had to risk talking to him....

Radar: RFR 1431 you have been blocking the frequency for the last five minutes. DO NOT TRANSMIT, I SAY AGAIN, DO NOT TRANSMIT! Listen out on London 134.9.

RFR 1431: Roger London. Do not transmit, and listen ou... oh.. sorry.

[geo7E7]

I know where this is going... and I'm surprised that you could accept the things that pilots do up in the air ( in terms of not using standard ICAO phraseologies, not reading back clearances, replying without the callsign and so on... ), well, whatever it is my hats off to you guys for tolerating us or some of the americans and the rest of the world which I'm pretty sure you guys know what and how to deal with that kind of situation. But to areas where English is not the primary language, than we or some of the americans would probably face some problems understanding and can create some problems too, be it to ourselves, the controllers or even other traffic in the area and by the end of the day, we just want to land the lady safely on the correct runway in use..if you catch my drift.... Need me to remind the crash of Flying Tigers Cargo sometime ago while on approach into old WMKK?! True, most of the aircraft now are fitted with state-of-the-art equiptment like EGPWS and TCAS etc but the possibility of misinterpret a clearance or do something which are not part of the clearance are still happening everywhere.....and why???? WE ALL HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT :(

DO NOT GET OFFENDED GUYS COZ THESE ARE FACTS!!

[WestWind1950]

and what about the Northwest airline that landed in Brüssels instead of Frankfurt some years back?? I still can't understand how that could have happened... :confused:

Westy

[Gonzo]

Dave, sorry if my tone offended. I know it's wandering off the topic, but at work I see some people give really confusing and long instructions to Air China, Korean Air, Uzbekistan etc, and then throw all their toys out of the pram when there's even the slightest hesitation on the crews' part.

Rather unfair on them, I feel.

Luke, I'm glad you go to work for the right reasons!

[lukewarmskywa*ker]

Yes Gonzo; to be serious for a moment, what you and geo7E7 say is true. Those carriers with a low exposure to English do struggle from time to time with complicated clearances.

In that case I absolutely would not blame the crew, but very firmly the controller. Even when you are very busy (no, in fact particularly when busy), it is up to you to use the freq as efficiently as possible. It is not then usually appropriate to give three or so executive instructions plus an 'expect' all in one, to anybody.

As far as tolerating it geo, well that does not apply to those with a general problem with understanding long clearances. If I, and most experienced controllers I know, snap at somebody, it's because the crew were quite capable of listening and understanding, but for whatever reason were not paying attention. Even then, if you're not under any pressure, you can easily make a polite reference to the fact that you have tried to call them a couple of times, or you didn't get the full readback, and simply repeat the clearance. Lazy, or incomplete readbacks can cause accidents, of course.

I think most controllers quickly find that if they don't positively 'control' the frequency, it can easily get away from them. I don't know too many controllers who could be termed shrinking violets!

[av8boy]

Gonzo,

Sorry I was so quick to jump on your post. Your follow-up clarified your point very well and I'm in full agreement. (I'll bet you know that improving ATC behavior toward the customer is one of my long-time crusades...)

Luke,

Well said, with one caveat: (to state the obvious) clearly there is a fundamental level of command of English that is required of the crew if they are to operate in this environment. Once that threshold is met, I am in full agreement with you.

To reiterate (and as a general observation not directed at anyone here), there will be those rare cases where a crew IS out of their depth so far as communication skills go. When that happens, the LAST thing that is appropriate is additional pressure on the crew from a controller bent on punishing them, or even snapping at them. We’ve all been there and been amazed by the fact that one aircraft can triple your workload (or at least SEEM like it’s tripling your workload!). So, slow down, work the aircraft, keep things under control, and see that everybody goes home at the end of the day. There’s no mileage in self-indulgent lashing-out. Of course, this is very different from the crew who is just not paying attention (but from where we sit it isn’t always possible to tell whether they missed the call because they were listening to the game on the ADF or whether they were trying to find the right circuit breaker to kill the smoke starting to come from the same ADF…) Finally, I’d just point out that sometimes mistakes creep in even when we’re being careful and that when we snap at a crew who wasn’t maintaining a proper “listening watch” on frequency, we MAY be throwing the baby out with the bath water. When we treat all failures to listen-up the same, we will undoubtedly alienate drivers who had, up until that point, been part of the team…



Dave

[Gonzo]

Dave,

We're singing off the same hymn sheet, believe me, and I did agree with your post on the other thread.

[report_heading]

Australia has a very extensive list of readback requirements of which few people appear to really know what is required. It seems you either get absolutely everything or nothing ('roger'). It can be a very frustrating part of our job if you strictly chase all readbacks.

Readbacks on frequencies is a requirement although again you would spend your whole life chasing pilots for it to get one every time. Some days I chase it in an attempt to educate the pilots of their requirements but the same old story of a disgruntaled response - yeh yeh whatever. QANTAS being one of the worst offenders.

The issue of acknowledging with callsigns and use of similar flight numbers is a big safety issue. There are alot of flights in Australia with the same or similar numbers, sometimes causing confusion. You need to be very vigilant about who readbacks the response. Oz is conducting a review of flight numbers with domestic operators in an attempt to identify schedules with similar C/S at the same time.

lukewarmskywa*ker - I had an open mike the other day (bug smasher) and managed to get the pilots mobile from the company. I got voice mail the first time and left him a 'lovely little' message. He must have flown into mobile coverage and got the message. He fixed the problem but I had to send him to the next agency early so he would stop apologising. You got love technology.

[lukewarmskywa*ker]

Like it. We've got to have that message......(we've got AGDL, and we could perhaps use it as the stock 'check mike' message!!!!)

[geo7E7]

Thanks guys, that should do it! Safe controlling the skies!;)