"Line-up" folks

[The Enema Bandit]

Line up behind. I can't see anything wrong with that.

[airbrake42]

I would like to see readbacks being policed more vigilantly, preferably by company training and checking pilots. In the example Disco Stu posted above, IF, the readback by the C404 pilot was correct or in the very least made sense, this situation probably would not have happened.

How effectively and what priority has readback and radio procedures with in your companies?
I know in the company I work for the standard is attrocious( bit like my spelling) and unfortunately the training Captains in particular are the worst offenders.

How on earth this change is going to help has got me stuffed. It will probably be better under stood by non english speaking people.

[I Fly]

If the Titan did not see the Metro, how is saying "behind" twice going to help. Perhaps a look at the pilot's and controller's fatigue management system might bring better safety results.

[triadic]

airbrake42 you are spot on. The default positon of those that dont know what to read back or dont care or even worse dont understand what they are reading back is to read everything back just to keep the controller happy. Of course the controllers hears all this and says what sort of an idiot is this pilot reading all that other cr@p back...

I even heard a pilot read back traffic info the other week. Makes you wonder about the training that is given, but then I dont think the instructors or the training captains understand it either. Reading it back does not ensure that it is understood either!

I would guess that the level of read backs is close to 50% more than necessary/required.

[triadic]

Having just had a read of the SYD incident linked above, I really dont believe that the proposed amendment would have made any difference. Again it seems that some pilots dont really understand what they are told or read back info they dont understand.

"CSV, Metro departing, behind that aircraft line up".

I really don't believe the words used in this case were specific enough and suggest that the following may have been more appropriate and are in fact quite common in such a situation:...

"CSV, Metro departing from the full length, behind that aircraft line-up"

That should have been clear enough to make him look right and identifying the metro before moving. no?

[airbrake42]

Triadic,
It is not only the pilots that don't understand what is required to be readback it is some of the controllers.

Darwin is a very good example of controllers wanting just about everything read back.

This sets a very poor example to the less experienced, or should I say the less interested, the easy way out is to read everything just to keep them happy. As incorrect as that may be!

I Fly,
correct! If the C404 pilot didn't see the Metro, didn't understand procedures, then he should have asked, NOT just lined up anyway. I can't see saying "behind" a few more times changing peoples lack of situational awareness.

[Icarus2001]

Don't start me.

Airbrake, yes controllers, mmmmmmmmmm.

I am having an on going battle at present as a certain tower require items to be given or read back that ARE NOT in any AIP examples. The reply being, that's the way we do it! Stuff standardisation!

[No Further Requirements]

From ATC.....

I agree that we should have some standardisation with the rest of the world, but as people have said here, the Sydney incident would not have been any different if "BEHIND" has been said twice. I have tossed it up with some other tower monkeys and what TRIADIC said is correct - telling the pilot where the other aircraft was would have saved the day (or night in this case).

Airbrake 42: Readbacks? Don't get me started. Firstly, if we had to change the way R/T was done a fews years ago, then surely pilots can keep up too. I ask you to provide examples of the readbacks that Darwin want you to read back that you think are wrong/unnecessary.

I understand that there is some confusion about Visual Approach being read back. Is it a level assignment? Is it an authorisation to carry out a procedure (like a clearance for final on the ILS)? Either way I think it should be a readback but AIP does not cover this specifically unless you classify it as "an ATC clearance in its entirety."

There is also a passage in MATS (yes, I know you pilot types don't have MATS but hear me out......) that says ATC can ask for any readback to be made to ensure that the instruction given is clearly understood (not verbaitum sorry). If a controller wants to make sure something is understood (and it is usually for a damn good reason: so you don't run into the plane coming the other way) then so be it.

On a personal note, I would say the biggest offenders when it comes to readbacks not being given is commercial jet pilots. Come on guys, just because you have a big shiny jet and earn more than I do doesn't mean you are above the rules. If we miss something (like a landing clearance) sure as hell you will jump down our throats. Give us a break. We might sound anal asking for readbacks all the time, but if you just did it correctly the first time, then it wouldn't have to be such an issue. Yes, I know QNH is a pretty silly readback (someone must have thought it important though), but just do it and live with it.

And as for you instructors who teach the newbies to just read everything back, you guys should stop being so lazy and have a look at what is REQUIRED to be read back. If in doubt, make a phne call and discuss it with us.

Ranting complete.

NFR.

[triadic]

NFR - Ah, the "visual approach"... No readback is required. And this is from both ASA and CASA in CBR.

The cancellation of a restriction does not have to be read back and "make visual approach" is the cancellation of a restriction (assigned altitude). Only wish they would tell some towers about the place!

You are correct re the worst "offenders" being the RPT and they are the ones that should be setting the example. No wonder the flying schools get it wrong.

I think QNH readback goes back to the days of QFE etc where they chopped and changed between the two. But on the other hand the controller should only give it to the aircraft ONCE (inbound) unless it changes - not on every frequency change as some tend to do.

[Capt Claret]

NFR

I'm often cleared, "to Gove via Colla, Darwin 2, amended Fl200..."

Recently, on being given take off clearance, I have read back the required, "left zero six zero, cleared for take off, [rego]" only to be asked to read back "intercept flight plan track".

Notwithstanding your comment about MATS, there is no AIP requirement to read back "intercept flight plan track" as it is not a route clearance. Additionally as my route clearance is to Gove, it is unlikely that I'll not intercept flight plan track unless I've been advised not to.

I agree with Triadic, that there is no requirement to read back, "cleared visual approach". I further argue that there is no requirement to read back a clearance for an instrument approach either.

Speaking for myself, I find it incredibly frustrating listening to pilots read back, as close to verbatim as they can, every thing that has been said to them, rather than being acquainted with the requirements of the AIP, and thus keeping the radio traffic, in often busy terminal space, to a minimum.

p.s. IMHO, left zero seven zero (to intercept the 085 radial) would be better than 060.

[airbrake42]

NFR,
Triadic and Claret have pretty well covered it.
It is frustrating listening to people read back everything.
It is more frustrating reading back the correct items as per AIP and then being asked by ATC to read back non required items, only encouraging the lazy ones of us in our shiny jets to read everything back all the time.

[Chief galah]

This post has degenerated into a bit of readback bashing, which is no wonder. After having it forced down our throats a couple of years ago, it continues to cause problems.
A classic that can occur is.. "climb to three thousand, report leaving two thousand"
The readback is often "..three thousand, leaving two thousand" @!##@&??@!
It's patently obvious that the aircraft is nowhere near leaving two thousand, but the readback mania has reduced our reactions to mere parroting.
In our efforts to be "worlds best practise" and "ICAO compliant", the amateurs in CB have left us a legacy of confusion. Just look at the general phrases section in AIP GEN (sec 5.10 is a good example). It is littered with "ICAO silent", ie unique to Australia, phrases. It's all a matter of plugging a hole here, plugging a hole there. And always after the event!!
So for those who suggest we keep it by the book for our foreign friends, I think we need to start focussing on the illogical crappola we currently endure, and go back to the KISS principle.
Unfortunately I will be clearing PIGS to land before that happens.

CG signing off.

[Capt Claret]

Chief, before you go....

I agree with what you say and would like to add that the ninny who designed the current format of "comms" in the AIP might want to look at an old version. It was easy to read, and easy to find information, as all calls were listed in a sequence that took one from pre start to shutdown!

I find the current format reminds me of a dogs breakfast.

[cogwheel]

Its not hard to realise that the folks that write the AIP etc never have to read AND understand it.

#$%^&*@ !!

[divingduck]

ASA reactionaries....

Typical ASA stuff really....I think I can safely say that most of our new phrasiologies are "legal eagle" induced.

In this case, you could say behind a dozen times and it still won't help.

The pilot either sees the departing or he doesn't, like when one military type here was told to follow an ATR on base recently, and then cut in front of him.
The pilot (flying a grey C130) saw an A310 on final and thought that was him! Hmmm.
Unfortunately you can't legislate for every occurence, but the ASA seems determined to try.

ps I loathe the reading back of a QNH, but greater minds than ours...

pps g'day Moby!

[DivergingPhugoid]

Could it be a case of too few aircraft to control, and too much time to do it in?

Try that phrase in ORD, JFK, ATL, FRA, CDG, or even LHR and hear the resultant mess.

[No Further Requirements]

Me again...

Howdy all.This topic is getting a bit wayward but now we are into it.....

Triadic: Love to see the funky Canberra directive about VSAs. Personally, if I append the VSA with something like 'track direct right base' or 'track over water for final' I would expect that part to be at least read back as it is an instruction for separation, wouldn't you agree?

Capt Claret: I agree that the intercept is not specifically mentioned in AIP. However, as a controller, I have actually given left 060 thru the COLLA track as an assigned heading. Are you telling me that you would intercept the radial even if you wern't told to? The reason that the tower asks for a readback (most of the time) is that when people have not read it back, they have sometimes trundled off on that heading through their track and either ask "did you want us to intercept the TN track?" as they blast through it or the radar controller has to do all the "position ......, resume own nav, track direct........" stuff (which is a waste of time). Yeah, it is not mentioned specifically but do you think that it is an important instruction that should be clear between ATC and the ACFT? There is an important distinction to be made between an airways clearance and and ATC instruction. You must carry out the instruction (in this case, a heading off the runway) until you are told to intercept you flight planned route or to track direct. I understand what you are saying, but it could get messy. I would be interested to hear what other pilots would do. I will now give you guys 070 to intercept as requested and try and pass it down thru the lines.

Cheers all, and happy readbacks!

NFR.

[airbrake42]

NFR,

You are right of course. Some times even when instructed to intercept out bound track, we, I may fly through that track, however I would imagine the opposite is probably more common. Being given a radar heading and intercepting out bound radial/track when this was not the intention.
From the logic above, although not a read back I should say" left 070 radar heading" or some thing similar just to indicate that I understood what you meant.

Reading back, has little to do with understanding an instruction. The example of disco stu's points that out quite convincingly. I find myself regualrly asking the other pilot, "was this hdg for a pilot intercept or not" regardless of whether he has read it back or not. (short term memory).

[Capt Claret]

NFR,

I sort of understand the predicament.

To answer your question first, No, I wouldn’t intercept the radial with out being told to do so. I believe that by reading back the required items of the take-off clearance, I am implying, and the Tower is entitled to infer, that I am acknowledging the clearance to intercept track from the RADAR heading.

I should rephrase my earlier comment. “It’s unlikely that I’ll forget to intercept flight plan track if instructed to do so, because that’s where I want to go”. To add to this, it’s not often that one is given vectors which take one across FPT without being instructed to intercept it.

If we go back to the good old days, (because the old days were always good), all acknowledgments (I think) except for cleared level, were simply the aircraft call sign. And for domestic aviation this worked well and we had reasonably uncluttered airwaves.

Then we had to get with the rest of the world and start to read back more of the pertinent information. All this of course is promulgated in the AIP.

Now whilst I can understand the controller feeling happier if the pilot reads back “intercept flight plan track” or any other item that makes the controller feel better, it is not promulgated in the AIP to do so, and to have a local procedure, in my view, causes confusion and helps justify those who don’t know what they should be saying, rationalise the current trend to read back everything.

I often hear so much cr@p being read back that it is not unusual for the required items to be left out. Another scenario had me held up at something like A070 wanting clearance for the 33 LOC/DME at Cairns, but the bug smasher who was hogging the frequency with his shopping list read back, didn’t give the poor fellow working Approach a chance.

If you, as controllers, think that “intercept flight plan track” and similar should be read back, why not make a submission to the powers that be to have it mandated.

Whilst on a personal level I believe we are required to read back too much, if the book says so then at least we all know where we stand.

p.s.2 Thanks in advance for 070.

[How's it Hanging]

As others have said the main part of this incident is to give the situational awareness to the crew with the conditional clearance to line up.
The situation in SY now seems to always cover that so any further 'behinds' will make it sound like a game of aussie rules.
Just to diverse a bit, is it now a requirement in SY to give a bay number when requesting airways clearance, or is it something that has crept in. I always thought the bay number came with the taxi request