Just to put yet another slant on this thread here is a copy of an article printed in "The Log" in February/March 2000.
Airbubba, not trying to be prejudiced here but I think the Americans could learn a bit off us Europeans over this issue!
Readbacks in the USA
Most aircrew are probably under the impression that having receiveda clearance from a controller, our readback to them is an opportunity for the controllers to ascertain whether or not we - the aircraft crew - heard the clearance correctly, and then issue a correction if necessary.
It has been reported in the USA that a number of pilots have been hit with sanctions after allegedly failing to adhere to clearances. They appealed to the NTSB, saying that they had read back and complied with the clearance they thought they had heard, with no correction to their erroneous readback from the controller. The NTSB agreed with their reasoning, concluding that "...an air traffic controller's failure to identify and correct a pilot's erroneous readback contributes to the pilot's error and warrants a mitigation of the sanction for the pilot's regulation violation". In response to these NTSB appeal decisions, the FAA had issued an 'interpretive rule', citing the provisions of FAR 91.123 (which essentially says 'you shall comply with an ATC clearance'). The FAA's interpretation of the situation is that the NTSB's line of reasoning "diverges from the FAA's long-standing construction of FAA regulations. These regulations require pilots to comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions. Contrary to the NTSB's reasoning, pilots do not meet this regulatory imperative by offering a full and complete readback or by taking other action that would tend to expose their error and allow for it to be corrected". While the FAA acknowledges that readbacks can be beneficial to safety when radio traffic is light, the FAA asserts that they can be detrimental during periods of concentrated communications. >>Ed - I would have thought it was even more important to use readback when it's busy!!<<
The FAA concludes that: "...the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under FAR 91.123 to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably in the first instance". In cynical summary, as far as the FAA is concerned, when things are busy, then a readback is more or less a waste of breath.
In view of the FAA's interpretation of the situation, BALPA suggests to members the importance of the following advice especially, but not exclusively, when flying in USA airspace:
* Absolutely no distractions or non-operational communication be allowed during descent and approach.
* Maximise monitoring and listening capability by maximum use of the autopilot during approaches into busy US destinations.
*In conclusion, if you're not 100% sure what the clearance was, demand clarification from ATC and don't assume that ATC will correct and erroneous readback!
End of BALPA article.
I first posted this as a thread entitled "Worrying FAA ruling - readback of ATC clearances".
I do not know whether the situation in the USA has changed and it would also be interesting to know whether their incidence of "misinterpretation of clearances" is significantly different to the UK and Europe.
Finally, I am firmly of the view that we should be using the procedures as they are defined and that we are on a slippery slope when we start to deviate from same.
------------------
[This message has been edited by fireflybob (edited 26 June 2001).]