R/T congestion

[Wally Mk2]

As the subject heading alludes to this problem is a hassle at times & I often wonder in today's modern tech world if we can overcome it.
I see Airservices latest safety bulletin is reminding us of R/T etiquette especially on the Syd Ground Freq 121.7

At times this is a real pain with multiple A/C all trying to get in with a taxi request all at the same time not to mention the other multiple users of the same Freq.
One item it mentions in the bulletin is that we ought to wait for a previous A/C to reply to say an airways clearance for Eg b4 we speak. Well that's pretty obvious but the timing of such an event might just be when someone first comes on the freq & hears nothing for a few seconds then transmits effectively right at the same time the previous A/C is responding to ground. You can bet yr bottom dollar that should you wait a moment (as suggested) to check if someone is trying to respond that someone else will fill the gap, much like leaving a decent space between the car in front of you in a traffic jam & the usual idiot pushes in front:ugh:
The bulletin also mentioned that during one 21 min time frame (Syd 121.7) there was less than 10 secs for a break in any one period between R/T's...sheeeez that ground controller must have been a wizard!:-)

I'd hate to be an ATC'er they can have that stressful task all to themselves:ok:

So the fix?..anyone? Comments.


Wmk2

p.s......favoritism??.........hmmm does it exist? Touchy subject I know but one has to wonder why we shoot one of our coat of arms animals as pests (both animals actually)on one hand when on the other they "seem" to get Cart Blanche at times:-)

[Ollie Onion]

Quite simply Sydney needs a push and start frequency like other big airports around the world. All push requests should be made on a frequency specific to the terminal area i.e. one for International and one for domestic. Then it should be purely over to the ground frequency for taxi.

I don't know how many times we have been significantly delayed waiting for pushback due to not being able to get a word in with a very very busy ground frequency dealing with aircraft movements.

[Angle of Attack]

Agreed a separate push and start frequency or a domestic ramp frequency, would help, whether it happens I doubt it.

[Mstr Caution]

The resolution to issues cost money & airline execs don't like spending money.

Each large airline operating out of Sydney (ie: QF,VA, JQ) should have their own Ramp Control function. Whether its the existing company frequency or a discrete frequency.

Once the aircraft doors are closed, tug or pushback device connected the aircraft calls the company frequency for the ok to go.

Company calls back call ground for push or calls hold position or pushback after company flight XYZ pushes. They may want to get another company aircraft away first who is pushing curfew, way off schedule or would be blocked in the alley if another company aircraft pushes first.

At least a number of company aircraft would be calling ground frequency at a metered rate.

But I have to agree. I've been given push approval & before I've had the opportunity to respond another aircraft fills the 1 second gap with a transmission. I think it comes down to people don't listen out before transmitting & too much traffic on one frequency.

MC

[Wally Mk2]

"MC" I can see where yr comin' from re a sep freq but that in some ways would put the ground controller out of the loop as not only does he have to grant push-back clearance he also has to deal with A/C just coming off the rwy going to the same area yr pushing back from as well as perhaps multiple A/C already awaiting a taxi clearance beyond a certain holding point to the same parking area (DOM2 for Eg). Having a new freq such as Co ground controller still has to liase with the grnd controller eventually to get a pushback clearance so the congestion still exists I'm afraid.
I can't see a solution really as even the COBTimes aren't working that well & now the new STAR Spd Restrictions are being cancelled at regular times.

Airservices seem to be battling with a lot ATM.

Wmk2

[virgindriver]

As others have said, we need another frequency for pushbacks, etc.

If you wait for a long gap to make a call you will sit there all day...

Airservices needs to do something about the frequency congestion, you can't blame us for it.

[Mstr Caution]

I should clarify.

A seperate frequency with absolutely no authority to tell an aircraft to push.

The existing function of ground control on 121.7 for pushback & taxi in or out from the gate.

The company rep should be just looking at logistics.

Say for example there are two aircraft ready to push and one aircraft has just landed and is taxing in and 3 minutes from the gate.

The aircraft one calls company for the authorisation to call ground for push.

The company knows aircraft two have got the final load sheet and is 30 minutes behind schedule.

Company advises aircraft one. Behind the aircraft taxi in for gate X and after aircraft two pushes your clear to call ground for push.

Hence my comment aurcraft call Ground frequency at a metered rate & the company decides the order in which aircraft shall push.

MC.

[Mstr Caution]

The airlines can do something about it.

Rather than sending 6 narrow bodies on a specific city pair. They should schedule 4 widebodies & reduce congestion.

MC

[hotnhigh]

Rather than sending 6 narrow bodies on a specific city pair.
But how else does Jetstar make money if they aren't running within 5 mins of the qantas schedule between city pairs?:}
Agreed separate ramp frequencies would be great.

[Gate_15L]

"Sydney Apron, XXX Request Push..."

"XXX Approaching ____, Contact Sydney Ground, 121.7.."

Problem alleviated...

Just don't go the way of Melbourne... I'm still lost as to why the aircraft needs a push clearance, then the tug needs a push clearance..... talk about double dutch....

[ad-astra]

Why does it take a push back request, a taxi request, an instruction to hold short C, an instruction to hold short Runway 07, an instruction to cross runway 07 and hold short S, a change of frequency to indicate holding short S, a call to indicate I am ready multiplied by two for the acknowledgements just to get airborne even on a day with NO traffic!

Don't start me on the landing process.

They have created this mess with the profusion of unnecessay read backs and partial taxi clearance requirements and now they blame us for not showing a proper R/T etiquette. Give me a break!

Sure when its busy we need restricted taxi clearances but shssssss it is so frustrating to be the only one on frequency and I taxi to a halt at B8 or a runway crossing because a "taxi to the bay" was not issued.

Don't start me on the inane taxi to "THE HOLDING POINT" T6 Runway 34R and not repeat back the "Holding Point" instruction that for the last 80 years everybody has been taxing to!

Sydney should have staggered departures on T5 and T6 so that Northbound flights taxi to T6 and south bound to T5 which would enable a lineup clearance and take off clearance without the applicable spacing requirements if two Northbound or two southbound flights are taxing in tandem.

Brisbane 01 Departures would benefit from staggered departures of A7 and A9 enabling a North South North South stream of departures every 30 seconds.

A controller had at least 12 aircraft taxing the other day in Brisbane and used his nouse to direct aircraft to alternate A7 and A9 holding points and got us all away in about 3 minutes. Fantastic job and I said as much on departure.

Will it become policy...Na....we talk too much .....thats the problem!

[Wally Mk2]

"gate" if it where that simple we wouldn't be here showing our displeasure.

When the Nth Sth Rwy's are in use only I would have thought that making the E/W Rwy lights go to blue ( non active Rwy) would help a little meaning no clearance req'd to cross.

Syd's taxi-way layout is somewhat complex in & around DOM 2&3 that coupled with heavy rain & night time with flood light apron lights it's any wonder half the time A/C simply don't get lost or crawl at snail pace just to stay out of the CP's office!
If I recall ML had an apron Twr atop one of the finger-ways back in the 80's, wonder why that went by the wayside, perhaps expansion made it not practicable or cost.
It's good to see that there's some spirited responses so far:ok:


Wmk2

[neville_nobody]

Ad-Astra is right and it is another example of stupid bureaucratic rules and requirements which create a problem that they then blame pilots for.

Instead of putting out AIP Sups why don't they do something constructive and change the rules to make things workable, rather than loading us up with legal requirements.

For example if they abolish the requirement to get a clearance to cross a non active runway it could save them a tonne of radio traffic.

Rather than sending 6 narrow bodies on a specific city pair. They should schedule 4 widebodies & reduce congestion

Nice idea but there is not enough parking at the domestic side for that

[Nautilus Blue]

If I recall ML had an apron Twr atop one of the finger-ways back in the 80's,

The legendary SMC(A) TWR. I was only an enroute trainee at the time it closed, but from what I remember, whatever they were responsible for (apron sep?) was handed to the airlines.

As well as the number of a/c, I wonder if congestion on ground frequencies (as opposed to enroute) is exasperated by
- longer more complicated clearances will result in larger gaps before read backs.
- many transmissions made by a/c just switched to that frequency, rather than being on the same one for a while.

CPDLC has the potential to reduce frequency congestion, but it isn't common. Its quite nice to datalink a complicated reroute and know that what is in my computer is synced with the crews computer.



PS favouritism - the perception arrises from the preponderance of a particular airline's aircraft at a particular airport. This is the subject to confirmation bias. Lots of pilots think we favour a another airline over theirs, I've never heard of one who thinks theirs is favoured. (Obviously this doesn't apply to the Fokker Conspiracy at PH)

[rmcdonal]

They note from Airservices is not realy going to help. As already posted here if I have to wait for a big gap on the radio I will simply never get a call in. On Dom 2 if you miss a call you could be placed 3-4 in the queue to push and be delayed by over 15min. It is no good for me to have a competing airline jump ahead of me just because I followed the guidelines of when to make a radio call.

[BuzzBox]

I'm still lost as to why the aircraft needs a push clearance, then the tug needs a push clearance..... talk about double dutch....

Why does it take a push back request, a taxi request, an instruction to hold short C, an instruction to hold short Runway 07, an instruction to cross runway 07 and hold short S, a change of frequency to indicate holding short S, a call to indicate I am ready multiplied by two for the acknowledgements just to get airborne even on a day with NO traffic!

Instead of putting out AIP Sups why don't they do something constructive and change the rules to make things workable, rather than loading us up with legal requirements.

Why??? Because Australia has become the most over-regulated, over-controlled nanny state on the planet. Creating rules for absolutely everything avoids confusion and apparently makes the place so much safer, according to the bureaucrats who write those rules.

Moving back to Australia after living overseas for many years has been a real eye-opener. We delude ourselves that we are the best and have no qualms telling the rest of the world. Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't listening.

[Tidbinbilla]

That Airservices blurb doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. The geography of SY sometimes shields aircraft from hearing one-another's transmissions with SMC. That's only one factor.

Simple airmanship is another.......

Common sense and airmanship isn't that common anymore.

Yes, a separate ramp frequency is most likely the answer. That's how it's done in just about every other civilised country.

[max1]

Angry Rat

Then the controller only interjects when they want them to hold short of an active runway or they want to organise separation between 2 aircraft

And if there is frequency congestion, open mike or other distractions how does the Surface Movement Controller get in to interject and get the aircraft to stop?

99%+ of pilots at the Capital City Airports are good operators. It is the other -1% that surprise us, but even the 99%+ can have a bad day and line up a few holes in the cheese (just like controllers).

[IsDon]

Sydney has been using a coord frequency of late, but it doesn't seem to achieve anything.

Get your clearance/read back PDC on delivery and they tell you to contact coord when ready to push, who then immediately tell you to call ground.????? :rolleyes:

If you're going to have a separate frequency for that phase of departure, why not a ramp frequency?

AKL has a ramp frequency with one movement a week. How the bloody hell does Sydney NOT have one? I am amazed at how the Sydney ground controllers keep it on the rails. You must be bloody good at chess. I don't know how much you guys get paid but its not nearly enough. Hats off to you. But one day some poor controller under the pump is going to make a mistake and clear an aircraft across an active runway in front of another on take off/landing with dire consequences.

A ramp frequency NOW, and an end to bureaucratic lip service of the problem.

[Hugh Jarse]

No disrespect intended, but the lack of ATCO's is not our problem. If Airservices management is incapable of having the foresight to employ and train staff in order to provide the service we require - no, need - then perhaps somebody else should be given the opportunity to pick up the reins.
I think it's about time the industry collaborated and started a class action against Airservices for all the delays we incur as a result of Airservices failure to provide an appropriately manned air traffic control service. Or at least deduct the cost of unnecessary delays from our air nav charges invoices.
And before you ATCO's shoot me down, I'm talking about your bosses. You people do a brilliant job with what you're given. Case in point SY SMC this morning around 0800. Whoever was on that position was a legend. The radio didn't stop the whole time we were on frequency. I was amazed at the bloke's situational awareness and ability to deal with so many movements. But the frequency was choked and movements slowed as a result.

Another vote for a ramp controller here.

[thorn bird]

All you hear on Heathrow ground is almost deathly silence!

[regitaekilthgiwt]

chaps - absolutely no point in extra frequencies for this and that unless there is also someone extra on the other end of it to talk to!.

Get that co-ord who does the Brisbane flights to do something. Every time I ring him he just tells me to contact ground. I want his job!

An airline controlled ramp freq is a pretty terrible idea with airline cost cutting etc. An atc ramp freq is required like the rest of the world. A little while ago we got cleared for a pushback off gate 3 when another plane was taxiing from gate one behind us but not past (qf alley). We saw him coming in the reflection of the glass and the engineer stopped the pushback but it is no surprise the mistake happened and will again with the ridiculous workload the ground controller has. I bet if we had run into the other aircraft on our pushback the system would change and a ramp or some such would be provided. Why do we wait until a accident in Australia to see a meaningful safety change? And yes I waited a couple of seconds before calling for pushback :rolleyes: airservices-seriously??

[DirectAnywhere]

OPTION 1:

Get a tug attached, release the brakes. You're now being paid. Get your clearance when you can. If the schedule gets blown out because it takes 10-15 minutes to get a word in that's not your fault/ problem. Multiple delays and crew being paid more because of longer block times will get it fixed.

OPTION 2:

Request your clearance when you can. Any delays - send the ACARS with the appropriate delay code. As above.

I'd choose option 1 myself.

[framer]

Only problem with option one is that the tug is normally attached to someone else trying to get a word in.

[Jack Ranga]

Your answer to this mess came at Albanesse's rail press conference, 40 years to build 1700km's of track. 10 years to gain the necessary approvals. There are yet more enquiries being held into a 2nd Sydney airport, 25 years after the need was identified.

Australia, a 3rd world bureaucratic embarrassment masquerading as experts in everything we do.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Hear hear.

:ok:

[fl610]

Australia, the only 3rd world country where you can drink the water! :sad:

[Keg]

The issue here with congestion is often multiple aircraft jumping on to request push at the same time as ATC is giving taxi instructions, aircraft are clearing runways, etc. we can't possibly see the big picture here and know when to jump in. An ATIS instruction to not over transmit is useless- none of us ever intends to over transmit.

The solution is not airline ramps frequencies. Otherwise you'll end up with a bottleneck on the taxiways because the ramp has pushed three guys back not knowing the SMC controller can't move them out due inbound traffic.

The solution is what Heathrow does....a push back frequency where all you do is request push. They acknowledge it and tell you to monitor ground. The ATCO calls you when he can fit it in and it works with the traffic load. That way the SMC dude can balance the load. He doesn't have to worry about Sonoma e requesting push at the same time as someone else is exiting the runway. In fact, he can wait the three seconds for the vacating aircraft to call and not have the aircraft needing to push back block that call because they're waiting for SMC to call them with a push approval.

It'll work because all the COORD needs to do is to slide the strip across to SMC in order that they call (or by apron) and then SMC is initiating most of the chatter. The only two pilot initiated calls you'd ever hear on SMC would be an aircraft vacating a RWY and an aircraft requesting taxi.

[RAC/OPS]

Keg, good idea, but a bit of educating will be necessary. The times I have asked an aircraft here to monitor XXX, the next call is "XXX, ABC with you"

[clark y]

Another fix for Sydney- why not have 3 ground frequencies. One for the domestic side, one for the international side and one for south of the east/west runway.

[Pucka]

Clarky..good idea but the pundits will just post lack of controllers again...that said, the company controlled frequencies can and do work reasonably well, even in complex ground environments, such as JFK.
I recall in the heady days of UK charter flying, slots were key and we didn't even bother calling ground before our slot window opened..maybe that's the key..everyone takes a slot..more load on ATC though...?

[1Charlie]

I think push back should be requested from clearance delivery. Then told to monitor ground. The strip is slid to the SMC controller and he issues the push back when he can. I realise clearance delivery can be congested too, but at least his head isn't spinning.

[MASTEMA]

Taking a worldwide view of this, it would also really help if ICAO recommended/ enforced a standard set of R/T procedures.

LHR has been mentioned and here is the Jepp version of the airways clearance request;

CallHEATHROW Delivery when fully ready to start and push back within 5 mins:
· Callsign
· Aircraft Type
· Stand number
· QNH
· ATIS
“HEATHROW Delivery, Callsign, Aircraft Type, Stand ___, QNH ___, Received ___, Request Clearance”

I don't see the need for stating QNH and aircraft type but the rest seems a quite logical starting point for sliding strips to the next controller.

Stones are often thrown at the R/T procedures of foreign airlines operating into Oz, but they are usually more 'standard' than you think, given the multiple airspaces they inhabit.

I have a not so fond memory of witnessing a militaristic belligerent dick (micro size) waving bi-polar bully hypocritical back stabbing very sub-standard narcissistic Check Captain ripping into a junior FO about some minor SOP slip and then hearing said Check Captain blurt out the most non standard radio calls. :rolleyes:

Read the Jepp and then walk the talk ladies and gentlemen. It reflects your personal standards.

[Keg]

once again it comes back, like most things airservices are trying to do, is having enough qualified bodies ( atc's , not 'others' ) to do the tasks

I understand this but you already have a dude (or dudette) doing COORD for BNE and PER departures in SYD. Add it to them.

[Starts with P]

The COORD is busy doing things the COORD has always done. And most of the time is also the Supervisor. Every tower has a COORD position but Sydney is the only one now to speak on air due to Metron. SMC is way to busy to check compliance so the COORD does it.

The way things stand, the COORD position cannot act as ramp as they are too busy with their regular duties.

Staff it from 0600 to 2300 and they could.

[keepemseperated]

Keg, your suggestion has been raised to management a number of times and reviewed by a couple of 'working groups' and gone no where.

Whilst I agree it's not a pilot/airline issue maybe the pressure that can be applied may lead to an outcome that will benefit everyone.

In the meantime, please have a listen before calling (which I know most do) work out if a read back is pending and then go for it - as crazy as the job is, it's part of what makes working 121.7 so enjoyable (most of the time!).

[Wally Mk2]

Some good suggestions here sadly though I doubt any will come to fruition anytime soon:-(

"keepem" that's half the problem as I have mentioned elsewhere here waiting a moment or listening in b4 transmitting only means you get left behind as several A/C get in b4 you in rapid succession. Being a Christian rule abider means yr get stood on !:-)
As someone has mentioned, the big picture, we simply don't have that & we are pretty much on our own out there in 121.7 land:-)

The answer?.....well I don't believe there is one as we have dug ourselves a whole in which we cannot get out of given the current restraints in Syd.

At times 121.7 is unbelievable so me takes me hat off to you:ok:

We all do our best & we'll keep doing it I guess:-)




Wmk2

[keepemseperated]

Cheers Wally, and I understand where you are coming from (especially if you operate on D2 or 3) and a missed or late call can result in a slide from number 1 for push/taxi to number 3/4/5.

[unseen]

Someone design an app that let's you send GND a message that you are ready for pushback!

Hit the send button and wait for ground to call you.

Like a reverse PDC.

Or have an FMS button to press like the digital clearance request option you can use in HKG.

Can't be that hard....

[Chocks Away]

Finally a topic of substance, which goes right to the core of simple "Airmanship"... which is rarely taught nowdays.

A good opening Wally2 and indeed the first couple of replies.
A separate ACD is a must, I feel.

"PDC" clears alot of that up, if they say what little is required, concisely & at the right time but given the many foreign carriers into Australia who don't have English as their major, it is an issue sometimes.
For those people (or airline beginners- we all were once), can I suggest: BEFORE YOU SPEAK- write down what you SHOULD say, practice it, confirm with your other crew, THEN listen on frequency & wait for a space.:ok:

Personally, I have "Clearance" up on the comm during preflight well before required, to actively listen to flow or RWY changes before we start. You will hear a trend if its busy, with 1, 2, 3 or 4+ on standby.

IF it is busy, just say your call sign, standing-by... ie "GrogMonkey1 standing-by 5" in this instance, so the controller can activate your "slide" and knows you are ready, instead of jamming it all up with your full RT. It's common sense. He will prioritise based on other movements & planned slots and will get back to you accordingly. When they do, THEN, give the required full Clearance Request (or just respond to what he asks). It is their frequency to control so listen out and await anticipated advice.

(Clear, concise & sharp RT is whats needed in busy times, not excessive readbacks of stuff not required or waffle... save that for quiet times.)

Asia in the air is much worse too now, especially Indonesia/Singapore/Philippines/India/Malay with crew told an ATC frequency transfer, which they select then transmit on immediately, without listening if they are interrupting another interaction... hence the following RT takes up twice the time it should have, to resolve the interrupted transmission and others interrupting.

"Common sense is no longer common" :ugh:

For those others in positions able to spread/teach this, please do so actively.

:ok:

[Ollie Onion]

On the subject of PDC's, why in Australia do you have to 'readback' the PDC. In Europe the PDC would arrive at the aircraft and you would 'accept' it via the ACAR's. Once this was done there was no need to then call 'Delivery'. You went straight to ground or pushback frequency.

Seems just more clutter here to have to 'readback' the PDC.

[framer]

Are the PDC's you are talking about an FMC uplink or an ACARS message?
My vote for Sydney goes to a separate Frequency for pushback clearances.
This would immediately reduce traffic on 121.7 by about 20% ( guessing) and that 20% would make a huge difference. This would be a comparatively simple solution and by us five- ten years.

[BuzzBox]

Are the PDC's you are talking about an FMC uplink or an ACARS message?

If it's the same as Hong Kong, it's a two-way system via ACARS. The crew requests a departure clearance via ACARS. The ATC PDC system responds with a departure clearance message which is uplinked directly to the aircraft, again via ACARS. The crew then reviews the clearance and accepts it via ACARS, whereupon another message is downlinked to the ATC system. That message is checked by the system and a further 'Clearance Confirmed' message is uplinked to the aircraft. In Hong Kong, the crew then calls 'Ready' on the Clearance Delivery frequency at the appropriate time and the controller either transfers them to Ground for push & start or holds them on the Clearance Delivery frequency if there are delays.

[ernestkgann]

A very common practice overseas on busy frequencies is to call ground with your c/s then wait. The controller then responds to you as and when priority and traffic warrant. Here we tend to wait for a space then transmit the entire message. If it over transmits or the controller has a different priority it results in much repetition and frequency congestion.
Perhaps we should adopt he practice, seems to work well.

[ghw78]

Hong Kong has two Ground frequencies; one for the north side and another for the south. Perhaps Sydney could do something similar, with one Ground frequency for the west side (ie west of 16R/34L) and another for the east?

Dont SYD already have that, 121.7 for the Domestic Terminal and areas east of 16R/34L and 126.5 for the International Terminal and west of 16R/34L.

I know in some non busy periods there is just 1 frequency used but most of the time there are the two.

[neville_nobody]

Clear, concise & sharp RT is whats needed in busy times, not excessive readbacks of stuff not required or waffle... save that for quiet times.

The problem is that if you shorten it up the radio traffic gets higher because ATC will always be confirming this or that. Australia needs to change it's radio procedures for that to happen.

[MASTEMA]

EKG

This is not a common practice in Europe, UK, Middle East, China, USA, Australia or NZ. Which countries are you referring to?

Usually, calling the controller with just your callsign results in "XXX go ahead" which has now resulted in two extra transmissions, which if adopted by everyone, would double the transmissions instead of reducing them and further clutter the frequency.

This practice was used in the past at remote Canadian, etc airports in order to wake up the controller but it is not used at busy airports.

The controller has your flight plan and is expecting to hear from you shortly before your TSAT/ pushback time.

A standard set of worldwide abreviated procedures would help and PDC/ ACARs, CPDLC and apron control are the way to go.

Oh, and taxi clearence should be "XXX, follow the greens" :ok:

[BuzzBox]

Dont SYD already have that, 121.7 for the Domestic Terminal and areas east of 16R/34L and 126.5 for the International Terminal and west of 16R/34L.

Oops, you are quite right.

[ernestkgann]

It was a common practice at just about all those places, except Australia and New Zealand. I haven't lived overseas for five years so it may have changed but somehow I don't think your first call to ground at Mumbai includes everything. If so, great, things have changed. Thanks though Mastema, experts like you remind me why I rarely contribute. For the record I've flown in all those places as well. No doubt you're employed by the evil empire in Dubai as I used to be.

[MASTEMA]

EKG

Mumbai maybe, never a 'common' practice elsewhere.

No need for you to be to be a expert smart ass, aviation has enough of them.

Insha'Allah

[haughtney1]

On the subject of PDC's, why in Australia do you have to 'readback' the PDC. In Europe the PDC would arrive at the aircraft and you would 'accept' it via the ACAR's. Once this was done there was no need to then call 'Delivery'. You went straight to ground or pushback frequency.

Seems just more clutter here to have to 'readback' the PDC.

Oz has its fair share of ATC anomalies, but then with the PDC, it's the same as everywhere in the USA I fly, you are required to read back the clearance...Europe and other parts seem to be a lot more pragmatic about it. The whole voice back read back is a redundant part of the process, particularly with datalink equipped aircraft, you should hear the silence (for the most part) on the delivery frequency these days in DXB..save for a few with verbal diarrhea.
This all helps reduce frequency congestion :ok:

[BuzzBox]

The whole voice back read back is a redundant part of the process, particularly with datalink equipped aircraft

That's not entirely true. There are two different types of PDC system: A one-way system, used in Australia and the US, where ATC sends a PDC to the aircraft by ACARS via the airline's host computer. ATC don't know the aircraft has received the correct clearance unless it is read back.

The other PDC system is a two-way system, used in Hong Kong, Bangkok, Dubai and parts of Europe, to name a few. The crew requests a departure clearance via ACARS. The ATC PDC system responds with a departure clearance message which is uplinked directly to the aircraft, again via ACARS. The crew then reviews the clearance and accepts it via ACARS, whereupon another message is downlinked to the ATC system. That message is checked by the system, a further 'Clearance Confirmed' message is uplinked to the aircraft and there is no requirement for a read back.