TWR related: Readback correct?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up north
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWR related: Readback correct?
Hey all,
After readback of ATC clearance given to AC at start-up (or at any other stage before departure for that matter ) are we required to say "readback correct"?
Cant seem to find anything in the books about it..
After readback of ATC clearance given to AC at start-up (or at any other stage before departure for that matter ) are we required to say "readback correct"?
Cant seem to find anything in the books about it..
To answer your question, you are quite right that there is no reference to this as a procedure. In effect, it has the status of "custom and (sensible, reassuring) practice", but it is illustrated by example in CAP413.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just more "yap-yap" garbage that has crept in and eventually stays forever. To extrapolate the idea to area control:
xxx Climb FL260........Climb FL260 xxx......xxx readback correct.
xxx turn right ten degrees.......turn right ten degrees xxx....xxx readback correct.
Is one clearance more important than another? If someone makes a case for this, then that case would have to include all executive clearances. At a stroke it would paralyse the whole UK airspace system. Did you know that the traffic capacity of some London sectors is limited by R/T loading alone?
Best practice would be to listen to the readback and only respond if there is an error or omission.......unless you're paid by the word, or work at a quiet unit and need the exercise, or like the sound of your own voice.
To be serious for a moment......I appreciate that it might roll off the tongue more fluently and naturally when combined with another message portion such as "xxx [readback] correct, report ready etc etc"....or similar.
xxx Climb FL260........Climb FL260 xxx......xxx readback correct.
xxx turn right ten degrees.......turn right ten degrees xxx....xxx readback correct.
Is one clearance more important than another? If someone makes a case for this, then that case would have to include all executive clearances. At a stroke it would paralyse the whole UK airspace system. Did you know that the traffic capacity of some London sectors is limited by R/T loading alone?
Best practice would be to listen to the readback and only respond if there is an error or omission.......unless you're paid by the word, or work at a quiet unit and need the exercise, or like the sound of your own voice.
To be serious for a moment......I appreciate that it might roll off the tongue more fluently and naturally when combined with another message portion such as "xxx [readback] correct, report ready etc etc"....or similar.
At last the change has filtered through to the college! I had more or less given up on telling ADC u/t's that the "readback" bit wasn't necessary, but it was too ingrained. As 166k says, it would be crazy to use it elsewhere, especially in area control. However, it has been the convention for decades to use it in response to airways clearance readbacks, in the UK anyway.
Another anomaly is "Report final" for the first aircraft in a visual sequence. When it was decreed that the "number one" bit should be dropped, pilots immediately started asking "Are we Number one?" Far too woolly, and in my experience controllers rapidly reinstated it and do so to this day. Is it still in CAP413, I can't be bothered to check?
Another anomaly is "Report final" for the first aircraft in a visual sequence. When it was decreed that the "number one" bit should be dropped, pilots immediately started asking "Are we Number one?" Far too woolly, and in my experience controllers rapidly reinstated it and do so to this day. Is it still in CAP413, I can't be bothered to check?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up north
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question only refers to the ATC-clearance given by the tower before or at start-up. "Cleared to xxxx via flightplanroute, xxx-departure squawk xxxx" Is there a requirement to confirm "readback correct" or has this just become a practice?
I know some countries the ATCO would reply with the callsign after a readback to confirm the readback:
ATCO: SIA121 climb FL310
SIA121: Climbing FL310
ATCO: SIA121
(but this is not what Im referring to..)
See, everytime I issue a clearance before departure, the pilot would reply: "cleared to EGLL FPL-route etc", BUT if I then dont use the phrase "readback correct", the pilot would say "confirm readback correct"!
Me confused..
I know some countries the ATCO would reply with the callsign after a readback to confirm the readback:
ATCO: SIA121 climb FL310
SIA121: Climbing FL310
ATCO: SIA121
(but this is not what Im referring to..)
See, everytime I issue a clearance before departure, the pilot would reply: "cleared to EGLL FPL-route etc", BUT if I then dont use the phrase "readback correct", the pilot would say "confirm readback correct"!
Me confused..
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started in ATC 40+ years ago I was taught to acknowledge a read-back with an indication that it was right. I seem to recall that I used the phrase "that's correct" or "clearance correct" so it's not a new thing..
I've recently had my knuckles rapped by the Unit LCE Mafia for not replying "(callsign) correct" after readback by a pilot of an ATC Clearance.
My viewpoint was (and still is) that no such requirement is set out in MATS Part 1, therefore it is verbosity. CAP 413, para 1.13.4 says"ATC route clearances shall always be read backunless otherwise authorised by the appropriate ATS Authority". As the UK CAA, the "appropriate (often incompetent) authority" do not mandate such phraseology in MATS Part 1, they have authorised its non use.
What's next, "(callsign) cleared to land"...."(callsign) cleared to land" ...."(callsign) correct"?
My viewpoint was (and still is) that no such requirement is set out in MATS Part 1, therefore it is verbosity. CAP 413, para 1.13.4 says"ATC route clearances shall always be read backunless otherwise authorised by the appropriate ATS Authority". As the UK CAA, the "appropriate (often incompetent) authority" do not mandate such phraseology in MATS Part 1, they have authorised its non use.
What's next, "(callsign) cleared to land"...."(callsign) cleared to land" ...."(callsign) correct"?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LHR/Surrey
Age: 39
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it only really applies to clearances of a certain length that contain quite a few bits of information. I occasionally say "correct" when doing ground having given quite a complex instruction, and certainly always do when passing route/departure clearances. I'm not sure of the exact psychology behind it, I think it's a human nature thing. If you had a conversation with someone like this:
"How do I get to the train station"
"Straight down there"
"Straight down there, thanks"
Then that's fine. However:
"How do I get to the train station"
"Well you turn first left then all the way to the end of the road, take the 2nd exit of the roundabout and then half a mile later you'll be there"
"Ok first left, end of road, 2nd exit and then half a mile down."
... The other person has to say something at this point to conclude the conversation.. so "Yep that's it" happens.
So perhaps it's something that just stems from our communication culture!
The MATS 2 here says that you do need to say "readback correct" when doing departure clearances.
"How do I get to the train station"
"Straight down there"
"Straight down there, thanks"
Then that's fine. However:
"How do I get to the train station"
"Well you turn first left then all the way to the end of the road, take the 2nd exit of the roundabout and then half a mile later you'll be there"
"Ok first left, end of road, 2nd exit and then half a mile down."
... The other person has to say something at this point to conclude the conversation.. so "Yep that's it" happens.
So perhaps it's something that just stems from our communication culture!
The MATS 2 here says that you do need to say "readback correct" when doing departure clearances.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes one has to apply a little commonsense with the rules laid down in MATS.
Who was it said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"? C'mon, you should all know...
Who was it said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"? C'mon, you should all know...
Who was it said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is unnecessary verbiage, and it does not add anything normally. As an ATCO you are required to monitor a readback, and if any element is readback wrongly or omitted, then you would be failing in your job as an ATCO if you did not pick this up and ensure the correct clearance IS readback. Therefore in the absence of any reply from the ATCO after the aircraft reads back the clearance, it means that the readback is correct.
I would only use 'Readback Correct' if the recipient had had more than one go at reading the clearance back correctly, or perhaps if their spoken english was not very good.
The colleges do seem however to teach trainees to do this all the time.
I would only use 'Readback Correct' if the recipient had had more than one go at reading the clearance back correctly, or perhaps if their spoken english was not very good.
The colleges do seem however to teach trainees to do this all the time.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always been taught to confirm a clearnce has been read back correct and most pilots expect it. In Canada I was told every instruction had to be confirmed correct!!
