"...taxying Blonkity for Wonkity, request traffic and transponder code"
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFR, why would we rest assured that what you assert is true? i assume you provided the reference to back up your assertion that "visual" is a required readback. your reference does not support the conclusion.
the collective opinion of those in the tower does not override the MATS.
the collective opinion of those in the tower does not override the MATS.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wdn: What I am saying is that the departure instruction read back by the tower controller to the departures controller is exactly what is transmitted to the aircraft. It is a fact. The tower cannot change it.
With regards to reading back 'VISUAL' I said that I thought it should be read back as it forms part of both a level and heading instruction. Clearly this is not the opinion of some other people. All I was getting at is that it seem that it is not whether one is military or civil, it is whether one thinks that it is required as a readback. One of those grey areas I'm guessing. I'm not saying at all that it over rides MATS, quite the opposite, that as it is not explicity stated that it is read back, do people want it read back?
As I said, AIP/MATS says that headings and levels must be read back. If there is a condition to that heading or level (VISUAL, not below the DME steps etc) should that also form part of the read back? I think yes. Others think no. Some don't care. Where do you sit?
Cheers,
NFR.
With regards to reading back 'VISUAL' I said that I thought it should be read back as it forms part of both a level and heading instruction. Clearly this is not the opinion of some other people. All I was getting at is that it seem that it is not whether one is military or civil, it is whether one thinks that it is required as a readback. One of those grey areas I'm guessing. I'm not saying at all that it over rides MATS, quite the opposite, that as it is not explicity stated that it is read back, do people want it read back?
As I said, AIP/MATS says that headings and levels must be read back. If there is a condition to that heading or level (VISUAL, not below the DME steps etc) should that also form part of the read back? I think yes. Others think no. Some don't care. Where do you sit?
Cheers,
NFR.
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
blueloo
… must have been an internal company thing …
.
AIP GEN 3.4.4.4 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Read-Back Requirements, including 4.4.1.f note ..An “expectation” of runway to be used is not to be read back
.
I interpret this to apply to arriving aircraft including those on final; also
.
AIP GEN 3.4.5.13 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Phraseologies – Vicinity of the Aerodrome - Arrival at Aerodrome, including 5.13.9 d Approach Instructions - “CONTINUE APPROACH” … does not indicate (with an “*” ) a pilot read-back requirement
.
… we are having direct talks with RPT re same! ..early in the process though, and will have to be assessed against ICAO anyhow (seeing as Oz is a signatory)
.. companies and ATC may discuss, and where agreed, operate in certain ways with those carriers! Those sort of ‘unique’ agreements do not (normally) include matters such as Phraseologies or any other operational matter that may affect other airspace users.
… agreed, it is concerning though companies have SOPS not congruent with the Reg's particualrly in this case, given that a read-back by aircrew at that phase of flight, or in the terminal/tower environment where ‘seconds’ of unnecessary VHF use could be detrimental to flight deck and terminal/runway operations safety!
.
NFR … had me head in AIP so …..
.
wdn
AIP GEN 3.4.5.13 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Phraseologies – Vicinity of the Aerodrome – Runway Operations – Take-off Clearance, including 5.13.6.3.f-p, and more particularly:-
.
6.3.l & m – when a VFR aircraft, or an IFR aircraft cleared for a visual departure is issued heading instructions
.
l. (instructions) MAINTAIN RUNWAY HEADING [TURN LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
.
m.* (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
… agreed in principal, there are however other areas of the doc’s that can be read in conflicting ways, Phraseologies is not one of them!
"Continue Approach"
.
I thought this was a requirement to be read back.....or was that an internal memo/ or company publication telling us we had to read it back?
.
I thought this was a requirement to be read back.....or was that an internal memo/ or company publication telling us we had to read it back?
.
AIP GEN 3.4.4.4 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Read-Back Requirements, including 4.4.1.f note ..An “expectation” of runway to be used is not to be read back
.
I interpret this to apply to arriving aircraft including those on final; also
.
AIP GEN 3.4.5.13 Communication Services - Radiotelephony Procedures – Phraseologies – Vicinity of the Aerodrome - Arrival at Aerodrome, including 5.13.9 d Approach Instructions - “CONTINUE APPROACH” … does not indicate (with an “*” ) a pilot read-back requirement
.
Just as an aside, has anyone thought that some companies liase directly with ATC, to find out what they want to hear,
and whilst this may go against whats in the AIP, the company then issues a directive to its pilots in an attempt to standardise procedures at particular aerodromes.......
I am not saying its right or wrong, but if the company makes it part of the SOPs then it tends to be prundent for its employees to follow their wishes...
.
NFR … had me head in AIP so …..
.
wdn
NFR, why would we rest assured that what you assert is true? i assume you provided the reference to back up your assertion that "visual" is a required readback.
.
6.3.l & m – when a VFR aircraft, or an IFR aircraft cleared for a visual departure is issued heading instructions
.
l. (instructions) MAINTAIN RUNWAY HEADING [TURN LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
.
m.* (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees)] VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
the collective opinion of those in the tower does not override the MATS.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't readback the 'visual' then you haven't accepted responsibility for terrain clearance on the assigned heading.
By acknowledging 'visual' you are agreeing that you can maintain VMC and terrain clearance on that heading, as opposed to a right or left turn where you have some extra manoueverability.
I generally agree that there are too many requirements for readbacks and controllers chasing ones that are not mandated is simply a lack of knowledge or training. Controllers should only require mandated readbacks and those readbacks should only include the minimum essential info.
By acknowledging 'visual' you are agreeing that you can maintain VMC and terrain clearance on that heading, as opposed to a right or left turn where you have some extra manoueverability.
I generally agree that there are too many requirements for readbacks and controllers chasing ones that are not mandated is simply a lack of knowledge or training. Controllers should only require mandated readbacks and those readbacks should only include the minimum essential info.
If you don't readback the 'visual' then you haven't accepted responsibility for terrain clearance on the assigned heading.
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
RENURPP ..... think it applies to VFR in this case as a heading instruction involves the VFR pilot having to be heads down on the DG rather than out the front full time.
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
..mate .... I hear ya 
... but you know what this world is like with 'legally' having to re-iterate the bleeding obvious ... cause were asking a pilot to use an 'instrument' .... I guess!. 
.. 
... but you know what this world is like with 'legally' having to re-iterate the bleeding obvious ... cause were asking a pilot to use an 'instrument' .... I guess!. ..
Bottums Up
For those of us who are Jeppesen users, the reference can be found at Jeppesen/ATC/AU-936.
The {symbol} which I couldn't paste into the above means:
when a VFR aircraft, or an IFR aircraft cleared for a visual departure is issued heading instructions
13. {symbol} (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees) VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
13. {symbol} (instructions) RUNWAY HEADING [LEFT (or RIGHT) HEADING (degrees) VISUAL, CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF
Unique to Australia (ICAO silent)
Jeppesen/ATC/AU-920 refers.
Jeppesen/ATC/AU-920 refers.
"In with a ground station"
What does this statement actually mean?
I've always imagined it's ATC language for "Sorry, but I had a mouth full of coffee and/or donut and couldn't respond to your transmission."
Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I've always imagined it's ATC language for "Sorry, but I had a mouth full of coffee and/or donut and couldn't respond to your transmission."
Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too right!
Hahahahah!
Well, I can admit to seeing that one.
Mince, what they refer to is they are talking:
a) to Flightwatch, or flightwatch is talking to them
b) to a CTR controller somewhere
c) on the telephone
d) someone else in the room.
e) anyone else that I've not mentioned.
All of the above are at the same volume, pretty much as your voice on VHF on their headset or through the speakers. It may be easier to have you repeat what you said than whoever else you were "in" with.
That's how I understand it anyway.
520.
Well, I can admit to seeing that one.
Mince, what they refer to is they are talking:
a) to Flightwatch, or flightwatch is talking to them
b) to a CTR controller somewhere
c) on the telephone
d) someone else in the room.
e) anyone else that I've not mentioned.
All of the above are at the same volume, pretty much as your voice on VHF on their headset or through the speakers. It may be easier to have you repeat what you said than whoever else you were "in" with.
That's how I understand it anyway.
520.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What it means
Mostly it's a coordination event. Not necessarily about you, but someone else in my airspace or coming into it, or maybe someone 'skimming my airspace' that I need an Ident or boundary traffic on. Everytime you depart somewhere with a frequency transfer within a few minutes; ie EA WOL-ML flight; the coordination is from SY Radar, to SY Deps, to MEL Sectors to NWA Approach; all before the aircraft has hopefully set-course. This might be as quick as 1 minute after the airborne call. Otherwise it's a standard call to the next unit about you coming; ie TWR to DEP, confirming departure instructions, subject to auto release procs.
Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.
Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.
In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.
To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.
It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.
Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.
Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.
In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.
To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.
It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SM4 Pirate
Mostly it's a coordination event. Not necessarily about you, but someone else in my airspace or coming into it, or maybe someone 'skimming my airspace' that I need an Ident or boundary traffic on. Everytime you depart somewhere with a frequency transfer within a few minutes; ie EA WOL-ML flight; the coordination is from SY Radar, to SY Deps, to MEL Sectors to NWA Approach; all before the aircraft has hopefully set-course. This might be as quick as 1 minute after the airborne call. Otherwise it's a standard call to the next unit about you coming; ie TWR to DEP, confirming departure instructions, subject to auto release procs.
Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.
Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.
In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.
To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.
It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.
Other units that coord to us include Flows, Supervisors, technicians, Flightwatch, towers 'under our airspace', international units.
Coord outways R/T by about 5 to one; particularly sequencing and TMA sectors, ie I'm going to do this with my Arriving aircraft, you do this with your departing one (APP-DEP coord) if you've got two or three APP units and DEP units and directors within the TMA etc. it's even uglier.
In non-radar environments, the system (Eurocat, which was designed for no surveillance) does a lot of the coord, but not all of it.
To help us out our comms system is digital now, so your analogue TXs are converted to a digital signal, which nicely takes pitch and volume changes and flattens them, so you sound very similar no matter how you scream; this on top of a coord event is often unreadable; as that sound the same too; we often just finnish the coord and ask you to say again, cause we can 'control' the air for 3 seconds by not answering you, but the chance of the other ATC have someone call is high if you ring them back instead of finnishing it off.
It doesn't always work that way, but we after a while have a really good feel for important calls and ones that can be repeated in a few seconds, even if you don't want to 'say again'.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to modern training techniques, and an alignment with the US NAS system , controllers can now actually listen and drink coffee at the same time.
We are still working on the drinking coffee and talking at the same time however.
We are still working on the drinking coffee and talking at the same time however.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are still working on the drinking coffee and talking at the same time however.
To quote Barney Gumble - JUST TAP IT TO MY VEIN!
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can drink coffee and talk at the same time - is this the beginners qualifiaction? - I presume you only get the advanced qualification when you can drink coffee, eat a krispy creme donut, and talk at the same time?
If drinking and talking at the same time was a prerequisite there would be a hell of a lot more female controllers!
Barny would not waste his time on coffee!
I say we put an I.V. line in for the consumption of coffee