Readback an "instruction" from an AIS?
 

Questions arising from a conversation with our tower personnel...

a) If a towered airport operating nothing more than an Aerodrome Information Service were to say to a joining aircraft ,"Report Downwind", does the "instruction" have to be read back, or does "Wilco" suffice?

b) Does the "instruction" have to be complied with at all?

Regards,

LD Max

I haven't checked to see where you are based but in the UK, requests for information do not need to be readback. So "Report downwind" is answered by "wilco". Only those items listed in the relevant CAP's (413, 493 etc) require to be readback. As an ATCO I find unnecessary readbacks almost as irritating as missed readbacks!!

Don't try not reading back or complying with tower instructions in the US... It wouldn't be smiled upon...

regards

Scott

First...boy are you correct Scott! You don't read back in the states and you better be prepared to take down a phone number! And if you don't comply, you better have your NASA reporting form already filled out!
Next...it may or may not be in the FARs (or whatever), but I was tought to ALWAYS read back instructions and NEVER to use WILCO (again in the states). The read back tends to keep everyone on the same page-people DO make mistakes from time to time after all. :O
There are some exceptions to this - to which the response would just be the A/C id, i.e. TWR:"cherokee 08 foxtrot, report downwind rwy XX". REPLY:"cherokee 08 foxtrot".
Fly safe!

Isn't downwind a compulsory call unless you've been instructed to omit it by the tower controller?

1) It's either "TOWER" or "INFO" - it can't be both. You need to differentiate between the two before you get an accurate answer.
2) This from CAP410 - Manual of Flight Information Services, Aerodrome: (Section 1, Chapter 7 is the required reading):
If the airfield is 'INFO' that should answer your question. If the airfield is 'TOWER' and you're asked to do so you will do it - it's an instruction, otherwise you may find yourself being sent around because you've called final when you weren't expected to. (This is becoming more of a problem at airfields with large 'noise-abatement' circuits, especially if you can't see the whole circuit from the tower).

Sorry...let me clarify my post.
TWR: "cherokee 08 foxtrot, report downwind"
A/C: "cherokee 08 foxtrot"
A/C: "tower, cherokee 08 foxtrot on downwind"
TWR: "cherokee 08 foxtrot, roger. Number 2 to land (or clear to land or whatever)
Sorry for any confusion!:O

Morning Scott,

Agree that we must comply with all tower instructions (like "report downwind") but didn't think in the US it was necessary to readback "report downwind". I only thought we had to read back a "hold short" instruction when VFR at a towered airport?

Generally find US tower controllers very reasonable when dealing with alleged pilot errors....

Regards

Hi Slim Slag;

You are correct that we don't want everything verbatim, except of course runway crossings and hold shorts. However, we do want to be answered and also with a call sign. (Boy is that getting to be hard...) We don't mind wilco with a call sign, however it is much smarter to read back speed, heading and altitude assignements as this acts as a fail safe (hopefully) for pilots miss hearing the clearance.

Oh, as to the writing up of pilots, we don't normally do that, but we will mention transcretions so as to hopefully correct poorly learned techniques or behavior <G>...

regards

Scott

I would suggest that there are no circumstances in which a reporting instruction should be read back.

ATC can never safely assume that a report has been made as requested, as there is always the possibility of comms failure. Thus a report can enable a clearance that must be witheld until the report is made (e.g. a procedural separation: "G-AB passing 4000 ft in the climb", "Roger G-AB, break, G-CD climb to altitude 3000 ft"), but its absence can never trigger a critical situation (e.g. if G-AB never reports, G-CD just stays at 2000 ft).

The disaster scenario is where a report is made (or is misinterpreted as having been made) before it should be. Consider:

"G-AB report passing 4000 ft in the climb"
"[snap, crackle, pop] Passing 4000 ft in the climb, G-AB"
"Ah, roger G-AB, break, G-CD climb to altitude 3000 ft"

In fact G-AB is still at crawling through 2300 ft, and was just reading back the reporting instruction. He's about to be hit by G-CD...

Overall, safety wins if reporting instructions are not read back.

Sorry Bookie - goint to have to disagree with you there:

As all ATC instructions have to be fail safe that would not be acceptable for issuing a further climb to another aircraft. The ATCO concerned would be going back to 'AB to confirm the situation. ( I do think however this is straying from the original thread).