quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no point did the aircraft specifically readback the landing clearance as required, and even when it was acknowledged it lacked the belt-and-braces inclusion of his callsign. Maybe I'm just being picky though...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was precisely one of the reasons for my orginal post. I have just had personal experience of AT requiring a pilot to join at 1,600 feet. The pilot did not correctly acknowledge the instruction, although he did reply, and AT did not persue the incorrect read back. A little latter the same aircraft had slotted himself in number 2 to land, almost on top of another aircraft, and ending with a very late go around.
I appreciate that had the pilot given the correct read back he still might have misunderstood or misinterpreted or just plain forgotten the instruction. However given that he did not correctly read back the instruction I wonder how that leaves the rest of us. AT is clearly at fault because the pilot might well have not heard the full instruction hence his incomplete read back. I am also left wondering whether other pilots should accept the position. I for example clearly heard that he had failed to read back the instruction correctly and it wasnt a total surprise to see him descending on top of another aircraft but I didnt question his earlier incomplete read back. I have also heard on a few occasions incorrect readbacks (not below 1,600 feet becoming not below 1,100 feet) without AT ensuring they had a correct read back. Should we as other pilots point out the error?