"...taxying Blonkity for Wonkity, request traffic and transponder code"
Bottums Up
ThoughtCrime,
You said,
I'd disagree inasmuch as good airmanship dictates that if other aircraft know what level one has left, they can determine whether the threat has passed, or remains.
If I'm inbound and you're outbound and you call climbing to Axxx or FLyyy, I'm going to have to ask your level passing.
If you give your level passing as part of the original call, and you're above me, then there's no need for any further calls.
NFR
Yep, it's cleard visual approach. We can't get upset over it any more as it's mandated as of 8Jun06.
As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback.
____________________________
And on an aside, when cancelling SARWATCH the phrase is
Not cancel "SAR". In 99.x% of cases one shouldn't have a SAR phase on!
You said,
how about "passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
on CTAF's!!!!
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.
on CTAF's!!!!
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.
If I'm inbound and you're outbound and you call climbing to Axxx or FLyyy, I'm going to have to ask your level passing.
If you give your level passing as part of the original call, and you're above me, then there's no need for any further calls.
NFR
Yep, it's cleard visual approach. We can't get upset over it any more as it's mandated as of 8Jun06.
As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback.
____________________________
And on an aside, when cancelling SARWATCH the phrase is
BNE/MEL centre, Gove [location], cancel SARWATCH
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Claret
ThoughtCrime,
As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback.
As RENURPP said, t'other day into Alice some obscure comment (forgotten for the moment what it was) that didn't require a readback was made, and the controller on duty pushed for a readback.
Despite what our Lords and Masters seem to think, one of the best and simplest ways to improve aviation safety is to remove ambuguity from the system. Heretical thought: it might even help on occasion if pilots asked controllers for readbacks, because I've heard some fanciful interpretations of what a controller's just been told by a pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Philthy
Well I'll be ed: they did scrub it from AIP while I wasn't looking...
AIP ENR 1.1 - 79
60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.
AIP ENR 1.1 - 79
60.2 The pilot in command of an IFR flight must notify the intention to amend route, deviate from track or change level in sufficient time for ATS to advise traffic.
AIP 1.7 4.2 (08 Jun 06)
4.2 ATC Approval Not Required
4.2.1 In airspace where ATC approval is not required to change level, the pilot of an IFR flight must report present position and intention to ATC approximately one (1) minute prior to making any change.
4.2.1 In airspace where ATC approval is not required to change level, the pilot of an IFR flight must report present position and intention to ATC approximately one (1) minute prior to making any change.
Bottums Up
Philthy
To some degree I disagree with you. One presumes that R/T phreseology is mandated so that pilot and ATS operators alike, know what is expected. Sadly, ATS operators are FAR BETTER at the use of correct phraseology than the general pilot population.
However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.
I forget what the guy into Alice said the other day, save that it was not particularly signifficant. It wasn't a wind check but the scenario could be likened to being given a wind check, x-wind 5 kts, and being asked to read back, "copied 5 kts x/wind".
IMHO we read back far too much. In the good old days where most R/T was acknowledged with the transmission of a call-sign, things seemed to work well from my perspective. I can't see that anything has improved by the mandating of more and more detailed readbacks, so that now, it's not uncommon to be unable to get onto ATS for, say a descent clearance, because Bloggs (not THE Capn Bloggs of course) is reading back,
37 words;
when the only response required is
9 words
ps. haven't had a detailed look at the 8Jun amendment yet, some of the above comments may be incorrect in the light of what ever is in the amendment.
To some degree I disagree with you. One presumes that R/T phreseology is mandated so that pilot and ATS operators alike, know what is expected. Sadly, ATS operators are FAR BETTER at the use of correct phraseology than the general pilot population.
However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.
I forget what the guy into Alice said the other day, save that it was not particularly signifficant. It wasn't a wind check but the scenario could be likened to being given a wind check, x-wind 5 kts, and being asked to read back, "copied 5 kts x/wind".
IMHO we read back far too much. In the good old days where most R/T was acknowledged with the transmission of a call-sign, things seemed to work well from my perspective. I can't see that anything has improved by the mandating of more and more detailed readbacks, so that now, it's not uncommon to be unable to get onto ATS for, say a descent clearance, because Bloggs (not THE Capn Bloggs of course) is reading back,
"copied no Eye-Ef-R traffic, area Que-En-Aitch one zero one three, cleared to leave control area on descent when ready, contact BNE centre one two fife deycimal zero leaving Flight level one eight zero"
when the only response required is
one zero one three, one two fife daycimal zero
ps. haven't had a detailed look at the 8Jun amendment yet, some of the above comments may be incorrect in the light of what ever is in the amendment.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Claret
Philthy
However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.
[/i]
However, if we're to allow individual ATSers to demand a readback of their pet thing, then proscribing the phraseology in the AIP is a waste of time.
[/i]
I tend to agree with you about the extent of readbacks today which, of course, we adopted because ICAO said so. On the other hand, I recently heard someone read back a 20+ mb difference in QNH, so maybe they have some value after all...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, ATS operators are FAR BETTER at the use of correct phraseology than the general pilot population.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But one can over shorten the readback, which may indicate a misunderstanding of the information given by ATC, thereby further cluttering the airwaves while confirmation takes place.
AIP GEN 3.4 - 4.4 Readback Requirements
4.4.1 Pilots must transmit a correct read-back of ATC clearances, instructions and information which are transmitted by voice. For other than Item a., only key elements of the following clearances, instructions, or information must be read back ensuring sufficient detail in included to indicate compliance.
AIP GEN 3.4 - 4.4 Readback Requirements
4.4.1 Pilots must transmit a correct read-back of ATC clearances, instructions and information which are transmitted by voice. For other than Item a., only key elements of the following clearances, instructions, or information must be read back ensuring sufficient detail in included to indicate compliance.
a. an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments;
b. en route holding instructions;
c. any holding point specificed in a taxi clearance
d. any clearances or instructions to hold short of, enter, land on, conditional line-up on, take-off from, cross, taxi or backtrack on, any runway;
e. any approach clearance;
f. assigned runway, altimeter settings directed to specific aircraft, radio and radio navigation frequency instructions;
Note: An "expectation" of the runway to be used is not to be read back.
Note: An "expectation" of the runway to be used is not to be read back.
g. SSR codes, data link logon codes;
h. level instructions, direction of turn, heading and speed instructions.
While I certainly agree that too much is read-back "word-for-word", in CC's shortened readback example, I'd argue that sufficient detail is not included to indicate understanding and compliance with all parts of the instruction (e.g freq change when leaving).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question:
TWR: "ABC, contact departures airborne, runway 12, cleared for takeoff"
Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?? or is it just "cleared for takeoff, ABC"?
I have been told both so just wondering what you guys think?
Thanks,
Namate
TWR: "ABC, contact departures airborne, runway 12, cleared for takeoff"
Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?? or is it just "cleared for takeoff, ABC"?
I have been told both so just wondering what you guys think?
Thanks,
Namate
Bottums Up
G'day Philthy,
I don't have a problem with the QNH being read back, but there's no need to read back the words Queue-En-Aitch. I know it's only three words but they all add up and they all take time, and it sounds aweful listening to some of the twaddle.
namate
I would argue that only the frequency is read back as thr IAP doesn't say frequency and station instructions. I presume that ATS want to know you've got the correct frequency, as the agency doesn't really matter.
[\pontification_mode]
I don't have a problem with the QNH being read back, but there's no need to read back the words Queue-En-Aitch. I know it's only three words but they all add up and they all take time, and it sounds aweful listening to some of the twaddle.
namate
you asked:
Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?
Ex Douglas Driver said, in part: (my bolding)
radio and radio navigation frequency instructions
Is the 'contact dep airborne' required in the readback as the frequency has already been given in the ATIS?
Ex Douglas Driver said, in part: (my bolding)
radio and radio navigation frequency instructions
[\pontification_mode]
Originally Posted by Ex Douglas Driver
Ah, no it hasn't been deleted - one minutes notice and a postion report required.....
AIP 1.7 4.2 (08 Jun 06)
This is pretty clear about reporting present position for all of those braying about not knowing where the descent is about to happen.
AIP 1.7 4.2 (08 Jun 06)
This is pretty clear about reporting present position for all of those braying about not knowing where the descent is about to happen.
So in one part of the AIP it says you must give "sufficient" notice, and in another part it stipulates "approximately one (1) minute". They obviously consider one minute to be sufficient notice. Though I would give at least two minutes when the traffic is being relayed through Flightwatch on HF.
Mostly Harmless
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I would give at least two minutes when the traffic is being relayed through Flightwatch on HF.
I don't need notice on VHF, I've probably already passed any traffic I consider to be immediately vital. I regularly see on my radar screen the Mode C readout going 150, 150, 149, 148, 146, "Senna, ABC, request traffic (grinding of teeth) for descent Urblegurble."
I suppose there are also times when coord to another controller is required to give them the opportunity to assess traffic also.
Any ATCers, what's the go with;
When changing to certain towers:
"YXXX Tower, ABC"
"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" As opposed to what?
Is this call a requirement?
Do I need to read back this instruction?
When changing to certain towers:
"YXXX Tower, ABC"
"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" As opposed to what?
Is this call a requirement?
Do I need to read back this instruction?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philthy
You are not a fan of 'monitoring ctaf'.
Perhaps there is a better way to convey the message.
The ambiguity lies with how many vhf comms are functioning. If the pilot has access to only one vhf comm then when he says changing to ctaf ATC no longer has comms. Straight forward. Alternatively with two vhf comms the pilot has access to both comms continuously. So if ATC asks the frquency changing question is there a more succinct way to deliver the message.
My point is does ATC know how many vhf comms you have operating or is it an assumption it must be two.
You are not a fan of 'monitoring ctaf'.
Perhaps there is a better way to convey the message.
The ambiguity lies with how many vhf comms are functioning. If the pilot has access to only one vhf comm then when he says changing to ctaf ATC no longer has comms. Straight forward. Alternatively with two vhf comms the pilot has access to both comms continuously. So if ATC asks the frquency changing question is there a more succinct way to deliver the message.
My point is does ATC know how many vhf comms you have operating or is it an assumption it must be two.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by news
Alternatively with two vhf comms the pilot has access to both comms continuously. So if ATC asks the frquency changing question is there a more succinct way to deliver the message.
Originally Posted by news
My point is does ATC know how many vhf comms you have operating or is it an assumption it must be two.
Bottums Up
News, I can't remember how many years CTAFs have been in existance but I've never been asked if I'm monitoring it, nor have I ever heard ATS ask another aircraft, well pilot really 'coz aircraft can't speak.
Originally Posted by grrowler
Any ATCers, what's the go with;
When changing to certain towers:
"YXXX Tower, ABC"
"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" As opposed to what?
Is this call a requirement?
Do I need to read back this instruction?
When changing to certain towers:
"YXXX Tower, ABC"
"ABC, YXXX Tower, continue approach" As opposed to what?
Is this call a requirement?
Do I need to read back this instruction?
An acknowledgement with callsign only sounds a bit blunt. It happens with the "Ready" call too and some controllers say "Hold Short of the runway" but others just acknowledge with a callsign.
Certain Tower checkers are more vigorous than others in pursuing the stamping out of unnecessary TWR transmissions
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh?
Centre IFR Taxi
The said ATO also told me that a MECIR renewal has a requirement to have an IFR flight plan submitted for the renewal flight. Even if OCTA.
Any clarifications? The ATO is not above being wrong, of course, like all of us.
520.
Last edited by Continental-520; 7th Jun 2006 at 09:26.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Mr Philthy et al …
.
Don’t ya just love AIP amendments
.
ThoughtCrime,
.
You said,
… don’t have AIP or MATS handy for references …. In practical terms … D Towers like the ‘passing’ info as it often negates having to ask for it when looking to clear or de-conflict low level non-pump up’s etc
.
jungmeister
… it is primarily to stop pilots asking for a landing clearance before we can issue it (perhaps due one rolling or rolling out) … saves on RT and/or twitchy skippers from applying TOGA when the gap is gunna be OK … otherwise it can get ugly when a go-round is trying to use the same bit of upwind as the airborne departure ahead, slower and lower
true … please don’t read this back
… think you will find it is used at all towers in certain circumstances
.. another ICAO/AIP requirement … we should all be issuing ‘hold short of Runway XX’
… standardisation is a BIG issue at the moment, across ‘like type’ and (where possible) more generally … expect some improvement in uniformity over the next year or so!
.
Cheers
.
da Dog
.
Don’t ya just love AIP amendments
.
ThoughtCrime,
.
You said,
how about "passing XXXX climbing to YYYY"
.
on CTAF's!!!!
.
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.
.
on CTAF's!!!!
.
'Passing' call is for Radar environment to ATC! Nobody cares otherwise.
.
jungmeister
"Continue Approach" is probably a bit of unnecessary padding.
You don't have to read it back!
It has been around for a long time and probably relates to "Procedural Towers" IE those without a Radar Approach service.
An acknowledgement with callsign only sounds a bit blunt. It happens with the "Ready" call too and some controllers say "Hold Short of the runway" but others just acknowledge with a callsign.
Certain Tower checkers are more vigorous than others in pursuing the stamping out of unnecessary TWR transmissions
.
Cheers
.
da Dog
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Age: 67
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hugh Jarse
"THE xxxx"
Used to hear that a lot from a guy out of Whyalla in "THE Victa"
Anyone would think he was something special instead of just an airborne collection of FJ holden and XP Falcon parts.