Incorrect read back of transponder setting. Written report required

[Tee Emm]

Is it true that if a pilot reads back to ATC an incorrect transponder code setting, a written report must be submitted to ATSB? Same with incorrect read-back of any ATC instruction? If so, what document stipulates this?

[BPA]

Jepps AU 1302 and 1303 RRM;

j. misinterpretation by a flight crew member of information or instructions including; 1. the incorrect setting of a transponder code; or 2. flight on a level or route different to the level or route allocated for the flight; or 3. the incorrect receipt or interpretation of a significant radio, telephone or electronic text message:

[Wing Root]

"The incorrect SETTING of a transponder code." Wouldn't this mean that ATC actually see the incorrect code on the radar return rather than an incorrect readback?

[BPA]

Also look at no.3

[VH-XXX]

Have heard plenty of incorrect read backs without complaint. Hard to read it back correctly if you misheard it and if it's not your fault, eg station over transmits.

As for putting in the wrong code after a successful read back, we can make mistakes after all and surely ATC would pick it up soon enough you'd hope.

Would love to hear if anyone has ever been busted for this...

[Horatio Leafblower]

Did it on Monday.

Probably did it at least once the week before that.

If I have not been corrected, or sought clarification, for one radio call in the course of any fortnight of full-time flying then I would be very surprised.

The fact that it mandates a written report is a little surprising :suspect: but responses like it's not your fault and anyone has ever been busted for this... suggest the idea of "just culture" and "reporting culture" could be emphasised in future CASA Safety junkets :ugh:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Some of you fellas haven't been around much have you!

XXX: "XXX, I have that code set - standby while I recycle my transponder" :O

XXX: "XXX, how's that"? :ok:

Dr :8

[Ovation]

FTDK

That trick has worked for me too, whether I've entered the wrong code or departed with a code from a previous flight. So if Centre or Approach make an error do we write them up too? I've had my Call Sign transposed by them more often that I've screwed up with the transponder.

I find myself getting read-backs screwed up now and then, but then that's why they have it - so you don't get it wrong. I write clearances down and then only read back when I've got it all down, even if it means a "pause" while I finish writing before I read-back.

I make a habit of trawling through the ATSB Weekly summaries (that get updated monthly) and there are plenty of "errors" by RPT in non-compliance with SIDS and STARS, or not updating waypoint ETA's, and they have TWO crew up front.

[VH-XXX]

I once flew an aircraft and the knobs on the transponder didn't show the number that the transponder was transmitting.

It was not my fault.... and I reported it to the maintenance release and the friendly ATC accommodated by letting me use the code that it was currently on.

To be "busted" for this being "not my fault" would be a raw deal.


FTDK - I usually reserve the "recycle" comments for when it's turned off and should be turned on. Usually happens when on the purple area of the VTC if you know what that means :cool: can't give more info on what I mean by purple without incriminating myself.

[Mach E Avelli]

Can confirm that in my former life as a Chief Pilot, almost weekly I got a 'please explain' via an incident report because pilots set the wrong code. I was expected to fill in forms in quadruplicate with sh!t like 'root cause' and 'remedial action' blah blah. Eventually I got so p!ssed off with this waste of time that I would offer the cause as ' human error' or occasionally tongue-in- cheek (in the case of repeated offenders, who also p!ssed me off)) as 'pilot suspected to be dyslexic - suggest you refer to the Director of Aviation Medicine' and the fix as ''impossible to eliminate until the species is extinct". Or in the case of the suspected dyslexic "awaiting medical breakthrough". It seemed to satisfy them because they never got back, or if they did I binned it. If they did go after the repeat offenders, that would have been sweet, too. But they never did. ****wits.....

[Centaurus]

Yup - here it is published in "Transport and Safety Investigation Regulation 2003 -

Wrong or incomplete read-back? ..Bingo That surely must happen hundreds of time in one day in Australia but it would be a courageous pilot (or a nutter) who would go to all the trouble of dobbing himself in by writing a self critical report to ATSB.

Extract: (j) misinterpretation by a flight crew member of information or instructions, including:
(i) the incorrect setting of a transponder code; or
(ii) flight on a level or route different to the level or route allocated for the flight; or
(iii) the incorrect receipt or interpretation of a significant radio, telephone or electronic text message;
(k) breakdown of coordination, being an occurrence in which traffic related information flow within the air traffic service system is late, incorrect, incomplete or absent;
(l) failure of air traffic services to provide adequate traffic information to a pilot in relation to other aircraft;
Note The information may have been incomplete, incorrect, late or absent.
(m) a traffic collision avoidance system resolution advisory being given to the pilot of the aircraft;
(n) an occurrence arising from the loading or carriage of passengers, cargo or fuel, such as:
(i) the loading of an incorrect quantity of fuel, if the loading of the incorrect quantity is likely to have a significant effect on aircraft endurance, performance, balance or structural integrity; or
(ii) the loading of an incorrect type of fuel or other essential fluid, or contaminated fuel or other essential fluid; or
(iii) the incorrect loading of passengers, baggage or cargo, if the incorrect loading has a significant effect on the mass or balance of the aircraft; or........

[Capn Bloggs]

Love ya work FTDK.

The issue is setting the wrong code. Report required, as that is a RRM, as pointed out by Centaurus. As for (iii)...

[MARSA]

To answer the original question:

No.


It's ATC's responsibility to listen for correct readbacks and chase if required. Various methods are employed to ensure this. E.g placing a tick next to the SSR code/level/route/heading, etc on a paper flight progress strip, or sometimes placing a < next to the instruction in Eurocat.


As mentioned above, it's more of a problem if you read it back correctly and then make an error in carrying out the instruction.

[Clearedtoreenter]

Isn't the whole point of a read back just to make sure you heard it correctly... So that if you did not hear it correctly, you could be corrected before you set the incorrect code? Just a defence to stop the holes lining up - why would you need to report the system working correctly? Can't see even the most anal ASA employee bothering to write a report on that!

[Sunfish]

Incorrect receipt. You haven't received it until your readback is confirmed and its set in the transponder.

[Cravenmorehead]

In the last company I worked for in Australia if you forgot to turn you transponder on before takeoff it generated an automatic report to the companies ops department. No big deal but it was not advisable to do it too often, lest you incur the wroth of the tough checkies in the sim next check.

[Capt Fathom]

Why do people get bogged down in this bureacratic rubbish.

Just get on with it the best you can! In over 3 decades of flying, I've never come across this.

Everyone (Pilots & ATC) just work together to get to get the job done! Easy! :D

[Jack Ranga]

or sometimes placing a < next to the instruction in Eurocat.


mmmmm.............what is this eurocat? Can I find it in a museum somewhere?

[A37575]

Can not believe this thread is this serious. ATC will not 'write you up' for this, or any initial readback error. ATC would have time for little else if every incorrect readback was entered in to the reporting system. There are much bigger issues out there at the moment anyway.

Now is the opportunity to make a name for yourself for posterity. Write to CASA and tell them what you have said here and tell them where they are wrong. You never know - maybe they will take your sage advice and you will have done something good for the aviation industry. :ok:

[LeadSled]

Yup - here it is published in "Transport and Safety Investigation Regulation 2003 -

Folks,
Don't blame CASA for this one, the above regulations are nothing to do with CASA ----- talk to ATSB.

The real answer to this sort of thing is to conscientiously report every instance to ATSB, deluge them with reports.

Many years ago, BASI demanded an incident report for every case of an activation of ANY TCAS warning ---- not just resolution advisories. With the traffic count in Australia, hardly a problem, but western Europe or US, an entirely different matter.

A whole bunch of Qantas blokes "resolved" to follow the instruction to the letter.

The result was a humongous deluge of paperwork, that didn't make Qantas Flight Ops administration too happy, let alone BASI.
The record ( from memory) was eleven (11) in a 35 minute sector from Manchester to London, with as many as 50 or so from one crew, Sydney London Sydney.

Bottom line, the instructions were promptly changed to line up with the rest of the world, only report RAs.

Tootle pip!!

[Nautilus Blue]

There was a push a while back for us (ATC) to report incorrect SSR codes, but it was non-discrete codes, e.g. 6000, 5000, 2000 and particularly 1200, or more correctly a/c not being on those codes when they should be. All to do with that class of airspace.