Read backs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read backs
Hi,
I'm a British controller, training in Edmonton and I'm kinda curious about the occasional 'Canadianism' that I'm coming accross.
What are pilots required to readback, seems to change depending on who you ask?
When I issue a clearance our Manops requires me to 'verify' the readback, of course I've always done this but in Canada I'm expected to tell you I've verified it?
As vfr pilots are you happy with being issued vectors at altitudes beneath my minimum vectoring altitudes for ifr aircraft?
I'm sure I'll be coming up with more questions as I go along and I'll be a Canuck in no time
Thanks
FT
I'm a British controller, training in Edmonton and I'm kinda curious about the occasional 'Canadianism' that I'm coming accross.
What are pilots required to readback, seems to change depending on who you ask?
When I issue a clearance our Manops requires me to 'verify' the readback, of course I've always done this but in Canada I'm expected to tell you I've verified it?
As vfr pilots are you happy with being issued vectors at altitudes beneath my minimum vectoring altitudes for ifr aircraft?
I'm sure I'll be coming up with more questions as I go along and I'll be a Canuck in no time
Thanks
FT
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West of ZULU
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes gotcha!
I have recently wondered why this is the case. Most international ATC units do not reply back at all. One would conclude if they heard me read it back correctly no need to clogg the freq. with transmitting 'roger' after every read back.
It's funny you posted this because I am not sure if this is a reg. for atc folk now, or just a habit picked up recently. I honestly cannot remember when this started as I just recently began to notice it going through YYZ.
If it is a reg., I would like to know the reasoning behind it.
If anything 'Roger' in my opinion is quicker than 'That is correct'
IABD
I have recently wondered why this is the case. Most international ATC units do not reply back at all. One would conclude if they heard me read it back correctly no need to clogg the freq. with transmitting 'roger' after every read back.
It's funny you posted this because I am not sure if this is a reg. for atc folk now, or just a habit picked up recently. I honestly cannot remember when this started as I just recently began to notice it going through YYZ.
If it is a reg., I would like to know the reasoning behind it.
If anything 'Roger' in my opinion is quicker than 'That is correct'
IABD
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for the IFR pilots out there, on the assumption (I work with Fly Through by the way...) that I jump on a wrong readback to a control instruction, are you really bothered whether or not you get a "roger" to a correct readback?
At least one pilot for a major Canadian airline (nor names, but they're required by law to offer bilingual cabin service...) expects that roger to the extent he complained when he didn't get one recently. One can only assume he never flies outside Canada!
Opinions, if you please...
NB. We're talking only about control instructions, not clearances issued by clearance delivery.
At least one pilot for a major Canadian airline (nor names, but they're required by law to offer bilingual cabin service...) expects that roger to the extent he complained when he didn't get one recently. One can only assume he never flies outside Canada!
Opinions, if you please...
NB. We're talking only about control instructions, not clearances issued by clearance delivery.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to Canada FT!!!
Had the exact same discussion when I first started training, and having delved through the book, as far as I can see there is no MANOPS requirement to transmit a "that is correct" or "roger" when issuing command instructions like a turn, altitude change etc. I believe there was something in the past that was a requirement for this, and has just hung around (like an 8 mile check wheels "call" when performing an SRA in the UK I guess)
It should also be noted that the use of "roger" (I know exactly what you mean" is incorrect. Here in Canada, "roger" means "I have received your transmission" as opposed to Blighty where it means "I have received AND understood your transmission".
Had the exact same discussion when I first started training, and having delved through the book, as far as I can see there is no MANOPS requirement to transmit a "that is correct" or "roger" when issuing command instructions like a turn, altitude change etc. I believe there was something in the past that was a requirement for this, and has just hung around (like an 8 mile check wheels "call" when performing an SRA in the UK I guess)
It should also be noted that the use of "roger" (I know exactly what you mean" is incorrect. Here in Canada, "roger" means "I have received your transmission" as opposed to Blighty where it means "I have received AND understood your transmission".
Guest
Posts: n/a
UK Controller are good
Most of my experience are in Asia flying jet, and the only thing
i can say about that is..if any controller in Hong Kong (most are from UK) and Singapore give me a vector i am very happy.BUT and this is a VERY BIG ONE, if you are in Philippine, or Jakarta you cant just thrust them,i have few close call with other trafic or high ground,so i guess after that happen few time is nice to do yourself, but i guess in Canada Controller are very good, so i will say yes take the easy was when you can, of course some controller who are vectoring aircraft on a 25DME ils is not so good for fuel burn
at the end of the day some controller save my life one before, and i love them, they do a job that i cant, and we need to have great respect for them...
cheers
i can say about that is..if any controller in Hong Kong (most are from UK) and Singapore give me a vector i am very happy.BUT and this is a VERY BIG ONE, if you are in Philippine, or Jakarta you cant just thrust them,i have few close call with other trafic or high ground,so i guess after that happen few time is nice to do yourself, but i guess in Canada Controller are very good, so i will say yes take the easy was when you can, of course some controller who are vectoring aircraft on a 25DME ils is not so good for fuel burn
at the end of the day some controller save my life one before, and i love them, they do a job that i cant, and we need to have great respect for them...
cheers
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: "como todo buen piloto... mujeriego y borracho"
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very strange (not ICAO-standard) radiotelephony being used. 
An excellent source of info is the ICAO publication "Manual of Radiotelephony" (Doc 9432-AN/925).
"that is correct?" I thought the response is "affirmative" (yes) or simply "correct" (that is correct).
"blighty?" Is that the same as the British expresion "gor Blimey!"
The proper phrase for "I understand your message and will comply with it" is "Wilco."
I'd say don't worry too much about the "Canadianisms"-- I much more respect a pilot or controller who sticks to the technically correct vocabulary than trying to sound like one of the local cowboys. So "disregard" the "checking in"'s, "with you"'s and "level at 3.5"'s that you hear.
To answer your other questions-- the vectors to VFR aircraft are always appreciated if asked for, as is flight following or "radar surveillence" as it is referred to in Canada. Don't know what your proper ATC protocol is, however, if the pilot is outside of your airspace and doesn't ask, don't give-- he might resent it. The only thing I have heard that pilots are required to read back is a runway hold short instruction ("roger" or "wilco" will not suffice). Even when assigned an IFR clearance, simply reading back the transponder code is sufficient, and I doubt that even that is legally required.
An excellent source of info is the ICAO publication "Manual of Radiotelephony" (Doc 9432-AN/925).
"that is correct?"
I thought the response is "affirmative" (yes) or simply "correct" (that is correct)."blighty?"
Is that the same as the British expresion "gor Blimey!" The proper phrase for "I understand your message and will comply with it" is "Wilco."
I'd say don't worry too much about the "Canadianisms"-- I much more respect a pilot or controller who sticks to the technically correct vocabulary than trying to sound like one of the local cowboys. So "disregard" the "checking in"'s, "with you"'s and "level at 3.5"'s that you hear.
To answer your other questions-- the vectors to VFR aircraft are always appreciated if asked for, as is flight following or "radar surveillence" as it is referred to in Canada. Don't know what your proper ATC protocol is, however, if the pilot is outside of your airspace and doesn't ask, don't give-- he might resent it. The only thing I have heard that pilots are required to read back is a runway hold short instruction ("roger" or "wilco" will not suffice). Even when assigned an IFR clearance, simply reading back the transponder code is sufficient, and I doubt that even that is legally required.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panama, not sure I get the meaning of your post. As I said, there is no requirement for the acknoledgement of a command instruction as FT asked. The Canadianisms he mentions range from using the term "roger" INCORRECTLY, as well as some of the other phraseology that I have heard used, that ranges from "that is correct", "readback correct" or simply "correct". Wilco isn't even appropriate in the context of replying to an ATC command instruction, especially when a readback is required. From my asking around some of the more experienced controllers around here, it seems it was one of things that was required years ago that has hung around.
BTW, Blighty is an affectionate term for England. Perhaps I should have typed "as to opposed IN Blighty where......."
BTW, Blighty is an affectionate term for England. Perhaps I should have typed "as to opposed IN Blighty where......."
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Geneva
Age: 51
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although my location doesn't say it.. I am back working in Canada after having worked in Europe and the middle east for 4 years. You are right, there is no requirement to say "roger" as per MANOPS. It's one of those things that all the old boys have been doing for year and keep training others to do. When I get busy...the "rogers" go out the window. Some people love to talk and talk and talk on the frequency. I don't see the point of it... a total waste of time. When you guys are checked out... definitely get involved in the system and research as to why it's used and if it not necessary start educating those you work with as to how it's unecessary. It's like you ever heard "further recleared to climb and maintain xxx"... like what a waste of breath!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply Euro! When we got here and started training on the floor it did come up a couple of times, and poured through the books (MANOPS, CARs etc) and just couldn't find where it was coming from.
And just to let you know, the other Import and I here in the 'Peg have just checked out.
I know. We're just a bit proud of ourselves at the moment.
And just to let you know, the other Import and I here in the 'Peg have just checked out.
I know. We're just a bit proud of ourselves at the moment.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Jerricho!
I guess its just an "IFR-ism" as I've not heard anybody in the tower here use "roger" in the way you describe, although I have heard it in the centre.
I wonder how many expats are working here now. Be interesting to find out and maybe have a get-together at some point.
I guess its just an "IFR-ism" as I've not heard anybody in the tower here use "roger" in the way you describe, although I have heard it in the centre.
I wonder how many expats are working here now. Be interesting to find out and maybe have a get-together at some point.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even when assigned an IFR clearance, simply reading back the transponder code is sufficient, and I doubt that even that is legally required.
a) your clearance must include a SID
b)you must be departing from a controlled airport
c)you must include any ammendments to the SID i.e altitude
d) your routing must be what was filed otherwise you will be required to readback the clearance in its entirety. The controller in that case normally advises that he/she will require the full readback prior to giving it to you initially.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that Jerricho is correct and that there is no need for the "roger" after I have read back an instruction, because it sounds incongruous to say the least.
While we have the interest of some Canadian ATCOs here (and still loosely based on the thread title), could someone explain to me why we have to read our Oceanic clearances back even when we have requested them via ACARS and the clearance comes with an automatic "acknowledge" button to press? More importantly, could someone explain why I never get the clearance I request from Gander Oceanic by ACARS, but instead I get given the clearance that was filed on the flight plan?
I am just interested to know, because when we travel westbound, the complete opposite to the above occurs.
G W-H
While we have the interest of some Canadian ATCOs here (and still loosely based on the thread title), could someone explain to me why we have to read our Oceanic clearances back even when we have requested them via ACARS and the clearance comes with an automatic "acknowledge" button to press? More importantly, could someone explain why I never get the clearance I request from Gander Oceanic by ACARS, but instead I get given the clearance that was filed on the flight plan?
I am just interested to know, because when we travel westbound, the complete opposite to the above occurs.
G W-H
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Giles,
As I said, myself and the other import here pored over just about any document/manual etc that we could find that may have any reference for the requirement by ATC, and came up with nothing. And where does it stop? You issue a command, they reply you say roger, they roger the roger, you..........well you get the idea.
As I said, myself and the other import here pored over just about any document/manual etc that we could find that may have any reference for the requirement by ATC, and came up with nothing. And where does it stop? You issue a command, they reply you say roger, they roger the roger, you..........well you get the idea.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smurfjet
Thanks for that. I know it is not exactly vital, but you never know, it might reduce the workload of the poor Clearance Delivery Officers if they don't have to keep dealing with my requests for changes to the clearance.
Jerricho
Now if you could just persuade them to use the terms "climb" and "descend" rather than "maintain"...
G W-H
Thanks for that. I know it is not exactly vital, but you never know, it might reduce the workload of the poor Clearance Delivery Officers if they don't have to keep dealing with my requests for changes to the clearance.
Jerricho
Now if you could just persuade them to use the terms "climb" and "descend" rather than "maintain"...
G W-H
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G W-H
Arrrggg. It's just taken me 6 months to stop saying that. It is actually acceptable phraseology (can't remember reference off th etop of my head), but is rarely used. And don't ask them what QNH is
Arrrggg. It's just taken me 6 months to stop saying that. It is actually acceptable phraseology (can't remember reference off th etop of my head), but is rarely used. And don't ask them what QNH is
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho
Please don't change! I think I would rather be "rogered" than "maintained" (if you know what I mean!)
We are talking about a zero cost aid to safety here, not something you come across very often. Just don't get me started on level change and frequency change instructions in the same transmission...
G W-H
Please don't change! I think I would rather be "rogered" than "maintained" (if you know what I mean!)
We are talking about a zero cost aid to safety here, not something you come across very often. Just don't get me started on level change and frequency change instructions in the same transmission...
G W-H
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Used to be the Beer Store, now the dépanneur
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G W-H
Ok it has nothing to do with the software. My buddy told me they try to accomodate you as much as they can, and if you don't get it, its because of other traffic.
BTW we don't have clearance delivery officers here, it is actually a controller giving the clearance.
Also wassup with maintain?
Jerricho, maybe its in Manops Part2? I'll take a look. And congrats on the checkout
Ok it has nothing to do with the software. My buddy told me they try to accomodate you as much as they can, and if you don't get it, its because of other traffic.
BTW we don't have clearance delivery officers here, it is actually a controller giving the clearance.
Also wassup with maintain?
Jerricho, maybe its in Manops Part2? I'll take a look. And congrats on the checkout