Readbacks
Enrooter,
The first example you gave normally happens because we normally set the planned level into the FMC. What generally happens is we discuss it and agree that we will ask for a lower level and then go into thumb in bum mode and read the level climbing to off the FMC cruise page - which is followed closely by an untransmitted "doh!"
We try and remember to ask for the revised level in the first transmission but sometimes we forget....
As a personal aside nowhere in AIP does it mention "on climb" or "on descent" the proper terms are "climbing to" and "descending to" but that is being picky!
What is with the AIP statement about reading the level passing on first contact with a frequency. I reckon that in a radar environment that is dumb..thoughts anybody?
And finally from Clarries post (not a dig at you by the way!) there is NO requirement to set course within 5 miles. It is in AIP but not the regs and accordingly it is NOT a requirement. There are only 2 controllers that I know of (and one is now in Geneva) that know that, the rest just assume that it is a requirement....
incommmming!!!
The first example you gave normally happens because we normally set the planned level into the FMC. What generally happens is we discuss it and agree that we will ask for a lower level and then go into thumb in bum mode and read the level climbing to off the FMC cruise page - which is followed closely by an untransmitted "doh!"
We try and remember to ask for the revised level in the first transmission but sometimes we forget....
As a personal aside nowhere in AIP does it mention "on climb" or "on descent" the proper terms are "climbing to" and "descending to" but that is being picky!
What is with the AIP statement about reading the level passing on first contact with a frequency. I reckon that in a radar environment that is dumb..thoughts anybody?
And finally from Clarries post (not a dig at you by the way!) there is NO requirement to set course within 5 miles. It is in AIP but not the regs and accordingly it is NOT a requirement. There are only 2 controllers that I know of (and one is now in Geneva) that know that, the rest just assume that it is a requirement....
incommmming!!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DDriver,
No worries, it seems when you are busy this occurs. Someone mentioned that it doesn't take much longer to say extra stuff. 3 or 4 extra words can 'root' you sometimes.
Level passing is not required on every frequency switch (regardless of what the books say) when in radar airspace, you are identified and verified on departures freq.
Cheers
Rooter.
No worries, it seems when you are busy this occurs. Someone mentioned that it doesn't take much longer to say extra stuff. 3 or 4 extra words can 'root' you sometimes.
Level passing is not required on every frequency switch (regardless of what the books say) when in radar airspace, you are identified and verified on departures freq.
Cheers
Rooter.
Dehavillanddriver
I don't think you're being picky at all, I agree wholeheartedly! I was taught early on that those types of transmissions should always end in "ing". If one sticks with that little rule, you can't go wrong.
Some other examples...
"Joins crosswind" = joining crosswind
"Enters and Backtracks" = entering and backtracking
"ABC, taxies" = taxiing
"Lines up" = lining up
"Holds short" = holding short
Anyway, rant over.
TL
As a personal aside nowhere in AIP does it mention "on climb" or "on descent" the proper terms are "climbing to" and "descending to" but that is being picky!
Some other examples...
"Joins crosswind" = joining crosswind
"Enters and Backtracks" = entering and backtracking
"ABC, taxies" = taxiing
"Lines up" = lining up
"Holds short" = holding short
Anyway, rant over.
TL
Point Taken
En-rooter (and others)
I take your point, I guess I was thinking only of my current sphere of aviation, where you're rarely THAT busy... (CR takes off blinkers...)
What I was really trying to say was more along the lines of "if you're not sure, say it all" - then get on with flying (this is untidy, and pilots should of course "know their stuff"). In the event of uncertainty, this also guarantees that ATC won't be further tying things up by coming back for a readback item they should have got the first time...
I like to get things right as much (some who know me would say more) as anyone, but look at the debate already on this thread, if you think that it is clear to pilots AND controllers exactly what is required...
CR
BTW I'm with you TL... I hate hearing taxies, rolls, departs etc. Everyone's got their own little thing and that's mine too...
I take your point, I guess I was thinking only of my current sphere of aviation, where you're rarely THAT busy... (CR takes off blinkers...)
What I was really trying to say was more along the lines of "if you're not sure, say it all" - then get on with flying (this is untidy, and pilots should of course "know their stuff"). In the event of uncertainty, this also guarantees that ATC won't be further tying things up by coming back for a readback item they should have got the first time...
I like to get things right as much (some who know me would say more) as anyone, but look at the debate already on this thread, if you think that it is clear to pilots AND controllers exactly what is required...
CR
BTW I'm with you TL... I hate hearing taxies, rolls, departs etc. Everyone's got their own little thing and that's mine too...
Thread Starter
Sorry have to be short running out of time.
Triadic, yes I am aware that this has been covered before and it was not a question it was bringing hopefully to peoples attention that not everything has to be read back
I agree with your summary
NFR will get around to email soon.
visual approach is a cancellation of a restriction/clearance and does not require a readback. Niether do expectations clearance for instrument approaches.
Just because Darwin ATC require it does not make it correct.
Cheers for now.
Triadic, yes I am aware that this has been covered before and it was not a question it was bringing hopefully to peoples attention that not everything has to be read back
I agree with your summary
NFR will get around to email soon.
visual approach is a cancellation of a restriction/clearance and does not require a readback. Niether do expectations clearance for instrument approaches.
Just because Darwin ATC require it does not make it correct.
Cheers for now.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR,
Not having a go, it's hard to not be confused these days as everything seems to change quite often. The bit about being busy, cause there may not be alot of radio noise, doesn't mean we're not busy! We've got quite alot of manipulating and 'feeding the elephant' to keep it all running.
My main point is that change for change sake is a pain in the ar!e especially this callsign at the end of a readback business. You can do things a little bit quicker if you know the correct aircraft is reading it back. Flight number callsigns has complicated things even more. Was this change for changes sake? Either way, a deadset pain in the ar!e.
Not having a go, it's hard to not be confused these days as everything seems to change quite often. The bit about being busy, cause there may not be alot of radio noise, doesn't mean we're not busy! We've got quite alot of manipulating and 'feeding the elephant' to keep it all running.
My main point is that change for change sake is a pain in the ar!e especially this callsign at the end of a readback business. You can do things a little bit quicker if you know the correct aircraft is reading it back. Flight number callsigns has complicated things even more. Was this change for changes sake? Either way, a deadset pain in the ar!e.
En-rooter
From your last posting I now take it you're a controller? (CR removes second set of blinkers). Nice user-name - that makes sense now too.
Yep, we're all (mostly) friends here!
I had pictured you at the sharp end of a busy flightdeck on my first, quick reading. As for myself, I am closer to the bugsmashing end of the industry (ie I sit in one...) There's not much to play with in most of 'em, and plenty of time to talk (which doesn't mean you should say more than required, before I get jumped on!
)
I agree, change for it's own sake is not helpful, and callsign at the end fits that IMHO.
CR.
Yep, we're all (mostly) friends here!
I had pictured you at the sharp end of a busy flightdeck on my first, quick reading. As for myself, I am closer to the bugsmashing end of the industry (ie I sit in one...) There's not much to play with in most of 'em, and plenty of time to talk (which doesn't mean you should say more than required, before I get jumped on!
)I agree, change for it's own sake is not helpful, and callsign at the end fits that IMHO.
CR.
