Readback of transition level
 

There are some truly idiotic edicts from above now and then, but how did this pile of turd get through?
Who monitors these people and why wasn't the fool who proposed this one not patted on the head and gently shown the door?

I think what is revealed here are two fools! I don't know why the rules have been changed but there must be a reason. If you are required to readback the TL, then just do it. If you want to complain do it through the correct channels.

If it says so in CAP 413 then it must be an ICAO requirement.

Chevron is, as is often the case, correct. It's one of the mandatory readback items. Most of the time of course ATS won't transmit it to you necessitating the readback because it's on ATS.

It's odd that this has come about, especially with the change in which TL is determined, which was introduced earlier this year. In 30-odd years of working in our TMA, I never once passed or was even asked for, the TL. We operated using 'Minimum Stack Level' which always gave at least 1000' separation from the Transition Altitude, and is the basis of the revised procedures mentioned above.
I can't see a big issue here, according to CAP493, you only pass the TL if an a/c requests it, so it seems reasonable that it should be correctly read-back.

Surely now that the TL broadcast over the ATIS, confirming you have Information '...' confirms that you do indeed have the TL?

If an aircraft requests the ground speed of the aircraft ahead, does he need to read that back as well.

No, because it is information, and not a 'readback' item. Information is provided to assist the safe conduct of the flight and should not be read back. If the information is not understood, a request to repeat the information is sufficient.

When I was taught it, the mandatory readbacks included speed *instructions*... not information

Talkdown man
 

Malc, I sent you a PM several weeks ago - have you read it?

I'm not sure how reading back the TL improves anything. When I'm cleared to an altitude I set the QNH straight away. That's the SOP at my current airline and the previous two. Doesn't matter what the TL is.

So if it doesn't matter to you what the TL is, then presumably you wouldn't request it, therefore I wouldn't need to pass it and you wouldn't need to read it back anyway??

I haven't read anywhere that it is only being passed on request.

Exactly, it's only in the unlikely event that ATC don't want you to change to QNH until you have passed the TL that you need to know it, otherwise as Chesty says, if you're at a flight level and cleared to an altitude, you set QNH and descend.

Fair point I suppose. Although in this case, I have to question why ATC aren't just clearing you to a intermediate flight level at or above the transition level. In 9 years of civil radar, and another 6.5 in the mil prior to that, I have never felt the need to pass the transition level. Nor can I see any benefit in a pilot not switching to qnh prior to going through the transition level. Unless I wanted to issue an unplanned stop descent.

7C.3 The Transition Level must be passed to the pilot in due time prior to his aircraft
reaching it during descent (SERA.8015(eb)(2)), either by voice communications,
ATIS broadcast or data link (GM1 SERA.8015(eb)(2).

I also have never been asked for the TL, ATIS fulfills the new requirement :ok:

If/when TA is raised to 18,000ft will this all still apply?

I agree with this entirely. This I why I said I can't see any benefit in not switching to the qnh when you are cleared to an altitude.

And, just as Pringle says, our TL is on the ATIS so I never pass it unless requested.

I don't work up north so I have no experience of the HIAL operation.

TA of 18k is directly linked to the need for airspace reorganisation, predominantly in and around London and we also need to consider LHR 3rd rwy.

Airspace change will take some time and can only occur once we have real clarity on delivering additional rwy capacity in the south-east. TA will come as part of that. Unless someone can come up with a convincing safety assurance argument for SID to a FL? Doing that negates the need for a higher TA which means that we could stick with a lower common TA :D.

6000ft across the UK anyone :E

whowhenwhy,

That's the one I'd go for, given the steep pressure gradients we often have, which could possibly become more frequent with a changing climate.