Verbal response to squawk code issuance?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Hello all. I just dropped in from the rotorheads world to ask a fairly atc oriented question...

Lately I've noticed a lot of pilots in my area (Las Vegas, NV) neglecting to read-back squawk codes given by approach after initial contact. I suppose the logic goes that the verbal response is superfluous as the controller will see your new code come up.

My question is, is this regular or accepted (or acceptable?) practice, or would ATC prefer to hear us read back the code?

Thanks for any insight...

[Gonzo]

Ah, but if the ATCO does not hear you read back the code, how does he know it's you who he can now see squawking it?:ok:

[Dick N. Cider]

Code readback mandatory I'm afraid. Gonzo is correct. It's the basis of the indentification and provision of services.

DNC

[SM4 Pirate]

Yes, let's not mention the inadvertent mistaken code coupling and activating the record of another flight that is active but not airborne...

Not sure of the US specs, but down here, we give codes, you read them back...

[Hiro Protagonist]

Right on... You guys are saying what I expected, but I thought I'd ask anyway as I've been noticing this practice more often of late.

BTW, I have to give the LAS approach guys a hand for this evening, I've never seen quite that dense a swarm of helicopters attack the "callville arrival" at once, and ATC handled it without batting an eye.

Thanks...

[anotherthing]

I must admit this is one of my bug bears. When I issue the instruction "Squawk Ident" to departing A/C in the TMA, I expect a verbal reply as well as the Ident.

More and more pilots (and not being xenophobic here) and in particular, American pilots, do not respond verbally.

The whole idea of the initial call is to etablish 2 way communcations AND identify the A/C. If I hear no reply but see that A/C Squawk Ident, can I really be certain that it was in response to my instruction, or was it done in error/for the hell of it by the crew??

What is even worse is when I hear no verbal response and I have the time I will go back and issue the instruction again; more often than not to be told rudely that the A/C is Squawking Ident!! We know you guys are busy in that stage of flight - which is why it is important to stay standard.

We need these verbal feedbacks guys - you are quick enough to jump down our throats if we do not answer your initial call due to us doing something else (that invariably you do not know about).

YES - you guys want the comfort of knowing that you have been seen and that we know you are on frequency, but I would argue that in a known traffic environment, It is more dangerous if I mis-ident you than it is if I do not answer you on your first call...... I know you are there, not answering you just means I am busy - it makes it no less safe for you!

As well as anything else, it is downright rude to ignore someone when they are talkiing to you if you have heard them!!

Whilst on the subject; being picky but in the TMA lots of pilots in their initial call state that they are Squawking Ident. For us to go by the book, your Ident has to be in response to OUR instruction - there may be lots of other A/C in the vicinity Identing at the same time! Therefore, even though you have already told us, don't think we are only half listening or being anal if we then tell you to Ident again!!:ok:

[terrain safe]

On the same tack, have you tried to get a QNH readback from some pilots, sadly again especially Americans. :ugh::ugh:

[Gonzo]

I remember having one pilot really get quite abrupt with me on delivery over read back of QNH. BMI (so it's not just the yanks!) calls me up and gives out all the required info on first call except the QNH.

I pass the clearance and repeat the QNH.

He reads the clearance back, still no QNH.

"Midland xxx, please read back the QNH"

"I don't have to, Midland xxx"

"I'm sorry, but you do"

"No, I don't. That's the whole point of it being on the ATIS"

"No, I'm sorry, but it's on the ATIS so I don't have to transmit it to everyone individually. You are still required to read it back to me"

"Oh well, if you must, it's 1013, Midland xxx......what's the damn point in having an ATIS if you're not going to use it...."

Funnily enough, he was delayed for ten minutes at the holding point, and he had to give way to lots of a/c on the taxi out! :E

[loubylou]

I agree with Gonzo - I've found it's mainly the Brits who get agitated about it.
It took me 5 goes with one guy once to get the read back - he just kept repeating the ATIS letter.:=
Don't upset the only person who is going to give you start up clearance!!!

Off topic - why do pilots take headings , levels etc and fly what you instruct them to - but seem to think that a assigned speed is some sort of advisory thing?!!:ugh:

louby

[Lifes2good]

No argument I'm afraid folks Certainly in UK
From CAP413:
The ATS messages listed below are to be read back in full by the pilot/driver. If a readback is not received the pilot/driver will be asked to do so. Similarly, the pilot/driver is expected to request that instructions are repeated or clarified if any are not
fully understood.
Taxi/Towing Instructions
Level Instructions
Heading Instructions
Speed Instructions
Airways or Route Clearances
Approach Clearances
Runway-in-Use
Clearance to Enter, Land On, Take-Off On, Backtrack, Cross, or Hold Short of
any Active Runway
SSR Operating Instructions
Altimeter Settings
VDF Information
Frequency Changes
Type of Radar Service
Transition Levels

All the best
L2G

[loubylou]

Sadly there are lot of pilots who seem to be unaware of these madatory read backs, and from what I have gathered from various friends, there seems to be no emphasis on R/T disipline in terms of what is to be read back, and indeed how it is to be readback (often heard - " line up rwy blah, pause,2,3, after the landing type")

Ah well

louby

[Hiro Protagonist]

Sadly there are lot of pilots who seem to be unaware of these madatory read backs, and from what I have gathered from various friends, there seems to be no emphasis on R/T disipline in terms of what is to be read back, and indeed how it is to be readback (often heard - " line up rwy blah, pause,2,3, after the landing type")
Ah well
louby

I think this hits the nail on the head... I know that the standard is to read back all instructions given by atc (I try! :E ), but as pilots, many of us don't really know exactly what "ident" (for instance) means... I think it makes my "blip", uh... "flash" or something, but the only radar scope I've seen is Figure 4-5-2 in the AIM, and it's just gobbledegook to me. I would have thought that an ident without readback might be fairly acceptable as my discreet code should be there (assuming I have one), but now I know better.

If you have time, most pilots will probably learn from instruction ("You know, xxyy, it really helps us if you read back ident instructions, ident instructions, airspeeds, etc...") We might remember to do it next time.:ok:

[Scott Voigt]

Hiro;

See if LAS has a raincheck program that you can attend. Sadly most facilities have done away with them as management has been to lazy to put together a good program...

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[Spitoon]

It's not just the UK. ICAO PANS-ATM says:

4.5.7.5.1 The flight crew shall read back to the air traffic controller safety-related parts of ATC clearances and instructions which are transmitted by voice. The following items shall always be read back:
a) ATC route clearances;
b) clearances and instructions to enter, land on, take off on, hold short of, cross taxi and backtrack on any runway; and
c) runway-in-use, altimeter settings, SSR codes, level instructions, heading and speed instructions and, whether issued by the controller or contained in automatic terminal information service (ATIS) broadcasts, transition levels.

Note that it only talks about SSR codes not SSR operating instructions - like idents.

[KiloKilo]

While we are on the subject of things requiring a readback;

Datalink messages that affect the flight profile (so the up,down,right left thing ;) )

All others do not require a readback.

[FlightDetent]

Spitoon - spot on.
UK gentlemen, I was taught that that you must NEVER readback "ident" quite in line with the ICAO wording above. Before I started flying over the La Manche (;) couldn't resist, that's the way we call it. Sorry.) I downloaded CAP 413 and still use it as a reference but the number of differences is quite high.
For instance, if I understand correctly, in UK controlled airspace the requirement is to identify mode C only once. I.e. After transfer from one controller to another (the second and onwards) in climb or descent I do not need to report level passing. This would be a MAJOR sin anywhere else.
The "ident", "after/behind", "go-ahead/pass your message", "degrees, altitude", "hudreds (FL)", "holding points", "SID names" issues do have reasons and I am sure very good ones. A lot of these could be adopted elsewhere, but they are not and on occasions we are trained to the exact opposite.
Bless you for your pampering us, bless your regulator for issuing 413 and making it available free of charge to world (Although I wish it had a little chapter at the end called "icao differencies summary for aliens". For christmas that is.), yet many pilots enjoy fancier pleasures than studying ATC fora on-line. :sad: You see...
FD
(the un-real)

[despegue]

Personally, I think that I have good radio etiquette.

However:
1)can I aknowledge "GSM123 Climb FL350, level abeam Lakey" by saying:" Climb FL 350 WILCO"?

2) "GSM123, Intercept localiser RWY23 from the right" This IMHO is a wrong wording by UK ATC and should be "CLEARED to intercept Localiser RWY23" and then "CLEARED ILS rwy23" and not: "Descend with the glide".
Very poor and only in the United Kingdom I'm afraid...

rant over

[FlightDetent]

I truly believe that the problem lies with the word "cleared" you seek so badly. By some, cleared for "approach" relieves you of any speed and altitude limits issued before. Should this not be the case intended, the best practice by ATC is NOT to issue such clearance. If they do not inted to let us perform loops and barrel rolls, they don't clear us but issue instructions instead. We all visitors may miss the word, perhaps, but it removes the possible ambiguity they fear. Keep us all happy, not lucky.

Pass your message,
FD
(the un-real)

[anotherthing]

Despegue

Personally, I think that I have good radio etiquette.

However:
1)can I aknowledge "GSM123 Climb FL350, level abeam Lakey" by saying:" Climb FL 350 WILCO"?

I would say that you have to read the clearance back in full.... if you just reply "GSM123 Climb FL350 WILCO", the wilco (will comply) could be inferred as meaning that you will comply with the climb to FL350 and not the "Level By" restriction.

The vagaries of English I'm afraid, you could be construed as reading back the "climb FL350" part of the message as almost repetition for confirmation and/or checking and not as acknowledgement that you will actually do it - all because you added the "wilco".

"Wilco" is an old piece of phraseology, although perfectly valid, but it is supposed to be used for more routine conversation and not for mandatory readbacks.

For example if your wife was an ATCO and happened to be controlling you as you were making an approach (ooh err missus) and she passed the message "Feed the dog when you get home", you could just reply "Wilco".

(Or you could tell her to do it herself as you were off to the pub).

By the way, I am not advocating discussing domestic arrangements over the R/T!! :p

[Telstar]

Well thank you Gonzo I have learnt something!

I spend most of my time flying in countries with 3rd world style ATC and always enjoy my time in UK airspace from the perspective of consistent and safe ATCers. I did get a little bent out of shape one day in a London airport when the situation you mentioned happened. I could not for the life of me understand why, if I said I had ATIS "X" the del controller wanted a readback on top of that with the QNH, which is obviously contained in the ATIS. I thought he/she was just being a pedant!

[bookworm]

"Wilco" is an old piece of phraseology, although perfectly valid, but it is supposed to be used for more routine conversation and not for mandatory readbacks.

"Wilco" is useful for acknowledging reporting instructions, which should not be read back.

"Songbird 123 climb FL 120"
"Climb FL 120 Songbird 123"
"Songbird 123 report passing FL 90"
"Wilco Songbird 123"

[anotherthing]

is what I said - is it not Songbird??

[VATCO]

Sorry bookworm think you'll find any "Level Instructions" should be read back in full.

[NIMFLT]

Sorry bookworm think you'll find any "Level Instructions" should be read back in full.

Report requests are not instructions and do not need to be readback. This avoids confusion between the acknowledgment and the report.

[Gonzo]

Off the top of my head, the UK CAP413 R/T Manual says that even 'report passing' instructions are to be read back in full.

[bookworm]

CAP413 is inconsistent on this issue. There is no explicit procedure mentioned, only the following examples:

Ch 3 1.2.3.1
ATC: G-CD report passing FL 80
Aircraft: Report passing FL 80 G-CD
Aircraft: G-CD passing FL 80

Ch 6 1.1.3
ATC: Fastair 345 report passing FL 70
<note no acknowledgement, only the report>
Aircraft: Fastair 345 passing FL 70 routeing direct Wicken

Ch 7 1.2
ATC: Fastair 345 report passing radial 270 Kennington VOR
Aircraft: Wilco Fastair 345

Ch 10 1.3.4
Aircraft: Borton Approach G-ABCD airborne runway 14 turning left heading 330 degrees climbing to altitude 2500 feet QNH 990 millibars, en-route Walden
ATC: G-CD Roger. Report reaching 2500 feet
Aircraft: Wilco G-CD

I agree with NIMFLT. The chance of "<bzzt> passing FL 80 G-CD" being mistaken for "Passing FL 80 G-CD" is high enough that the procedure should be not to read back reporting instructions, even when they involve levels. To do otherwise courts disaster.

[Gonzo]

I yield my time on the floor to my learned friend.... :ok:

[bookworm]

Phew. Bookworm strides confidently out of the corner he painted himself into... ;)