Nadz..
Perhaps it has, but the people that search this forum are looking for up to date information - not archives. Give them credit for asking - not chaste. If they can't be bothered to search and this upsets you then don't reply. In the mean time let the topics flow without fear of retribution. Thus is supposed to be a rumour forum but most days it feels like an IR renewal.
Sorry about that, but I guess I am expressing my ongong frustration at the lack of any guidance from CASA or those that should know. If it was there, maybe we would not be having this discussion ??
Korn..
Usually you will find behind every senseless air-time consuming read-back requirement is an event in the recent red-tape-riddled past where some halfwit taxied across an active runway or climbed through an altitude or whatever.
Everyone else now has to readback everything and talk for ages to cover the moron-factor.
Too true, and that is why we have such procedures. But you have to draw the line somewhere. To read just about everything back is every bit as bad as getting it wrong and risk having ATS not pick up the error because it was drowned in all the other gooblegook! There is no substitute for well written procedures and sound training. Missing a bit of both I feel.
"Maintaining 9000 feet, Vergin' 181." Callsign at the end!!! Do these simpletons understand what the requirement is?????
Obviously not!! - but have you asked "why not??"
Your examples are all valid and there are lots more, but this thread is about read backs.
The callsign at the end was to bring Oz in line with ICAO. Certainly it was supported by the rat, but only to standardise Oz with the rest of the globe.