It is now 10 years since the working group responsible for the read back changes deliberated on these matters. However in this day and age the recommendations of ICAO suggest that we have to align ourselves with their recommendations and our Government policy is to do so as far as is practical (another interpretation!). Mind you, we don’t HAVE to follow ICAO, just have a reason if we choose not to! (don’t look too closely at our FAA mates for good examples)
CASA (not AirServices) has the responsibility for the AIP in terms of phrases etc and since those changes ( in 1997) they have never addressed these issues as the group intended they should. In my opinion it is a case of certain parties believing they knew better than the many heads in the group or perhaps too lazy to produce the education material that was needed (and still is)
Funnily enough, as an example, one of the items that had significant discussion was the read back of the QNH. There has never been a recorded accident that has as a significant contributing factor the setting of an incorrect QNH – so why read it back? Tradition I suggest, from those parts of the world that use/d QNE where you might understand the need for all to know what you have set. But that is not the case in Oz. That was lost in favour of ICAO. But what about the AREA QNH?? In my view that is “information” which as a rule does not have to be read back. No easier to say just read back the QNH !
Today however there have been many subtle changes to this part of the AIP and is it any wonder that many just can’t keep up or the real meaning of what is written is not what many believe it to be. Do you remember the days when there were very few required read backs? Five if my memory serves me correctly – Altitudes/Levels, Anything prefixed by “amended”, SDC’s and something else which fails my memory at this time!! (have another red!). And I don’t really remember any real stuff ups as a result of the lack of read backs.
One of the things that the working group discussed was the possibility that those who did not understand the requirements or perhaps did not really care, would just read everything back and that would keep the system happy. We all really know that that is not how it should be done and that some understanding of the airways system and the AIP would suggest what is really intended. But of course that is not what might be your interpretation of the AIP. (Sadly now we see many pilots just reading it all back, which is wrong or just lazy?)
There is no requirement to read back the cancellation of a clearance or instruction, which is why up until recently “Visual Approach” (be it “make” or “cleared”), was not a required read back, tho’ many controllers and pilots believed it was, to the point they would sometimes chase it. (I wonder why that was changed?) In days gone by, CASA would talk with industry such as the RAPACS about such changes and there would be broad input – seems they don’t’ do that any more?? In a similar way, the approval to leave controlled airspace on descent is the cancellation of a requirement (to maintain a level) and therefore does not need a read back. (it is default safe in that, what will happen if you just keep cruizen? If the Controller has a requirement associated with your descent, you will get that requirement and read it back) Remember that the AIP (and ICAO) only “try” to lay down what should be a read back item, not the other way (perhaps they should?).
A similar thing applies when you are told to “cancel SID turn right 320”. The read back should be the direction of turn and the heading only – not “cancel SID” as it should be obvious that one supersedes the other. What about the cancellation of a speed requirement? Just callsign is all that is required I suggest. What about when you are given multiple instructions on approach? (eg: turn right xxx, descend to 3000, make pilot intercept of the LLZ, when on the VASI, make visual apch, call twr 120.5….!!!) Do you try and read back the lot or just the last one or the one that gives the controller the comfort that you got it all?? Some academics might suggest that you should read the lot back, however I suggest that that was not and is not the intent of the AIP, and besides the resulting frequency congestion would be a safety issue. And of course we then enter the realm of hear backs, which is perhaps just as bad if the expectation is not as expected and missed !
I am of the belief that this part of the AIP should be revisited by both industry and ASA and CASA with the aim up making it much clearer and removing the cr@p that many pilots read back like traffic info, weather reports, NOTAMs etc.. geeez. Sadly none of this is addressed very often by controllers who I believe have a responsibility to get it right and pass the word around in a gentleman like manner if we get it wrong. Sadly it is the airlines and the controllers who need the education. Speaks volume about the AIP !
