Communications question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communications question
During one of the recient and robust discussions about the standard/quality and missunderstandings, on the contents of AIP and the amount of
sh!t that gets read back.
Some one posted about the readback requirment, or lack thereof, for the following two ATC phrases:
1. " Cleared to Leave controlled airspace on descent", (usualy always questioned if not read back) and
2. " Cleared for visual approach". (rarely questioned if not read back)
There is obviously some confusion about the requirments or NOT to read these back. I have read the AIP/Jepps and have my own ideas. It would appear that many others, from both sides of the radio, have thier own ideas as well.
I have asked some ATC mates, both civ and mil, and the responce is the same, that they don't realy know, but most will make sure that they get a reply/readback.
So the question is, Can anyone point to an official statment, of whatever type, that confirms the requirment one way or the other.
Once we have cleared this topic up, it would be time to get someone in ASA to reword the whole of the AIP Standard Pharses section so that it is easily understood and in a useable format.
Richo
sh!t that gets read back.
Some one posted about the readback requirment, or lack thereof, for the following two ATC phrases:
1. " Cleared to Leave controlled airspace on descent", (usualy always questioned if not read back) and
2. " Cleared for visual approach". (rarely questioned if not read back)
There is obviously some confusion about the requirments or NOT to read these back. I have read the AIP/Jepps and have my own ideas. It would appear that many others, from both sides of the radio, have thier own ideas as well.
I have asked some ATC mates, both civ and mil, and the responce is the same, that they don't realy know, but most will make sure that they get a reply/readback.
So the question is, Can anyone point to an official statment, of whatever type, that confirms the requirment one way or the other.
Once we have cleared this topic up, it would be time to get someone in ASA to reword the whole of the AIP Standard Pharses section so that it is easily understood and in a useable format.
Richo
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The visual approach one has to be read back - it's been added to the AIP readback requirements list:
"e. any approach clearance"
I usually read the leave control area on descent back just on the basis that the only reason they haven't given you a specific altitude is that you're leaving controlled airspace. You are still changing levels within controlled airspace to achieve that, and as such the need for a read back is the same as any other altitude change. It's definitely a grey area tho.
"e. any approach clearance"
I usually read the leave control area on descent back just on the basis that the only reason they haven't given you a specific altitude is that you're leaving controlled airspace. You are still changing levels within controlled airspace to achieve that, and as such the need for a read back is the same as any other altitude change. It's definitely a grey area tho.
From the AIP
4.4 Read-Back 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 is included to indicate compliance:
a. an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments;
b. en route holding instructions;
c. any holding point specified 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 aid frequency instructions;
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the above as a guide:
'Leave control airspace on descent' .. is NOT a level instruction.
'Visual approach' is a manoeuvre, not a clearance!
Next ....
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 is included to indicate compliance:
a. an ATC route clearance in its entirety, and any amendments;
b. en route holding instructions;
c. any holding point specified 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 aid frequency instructions;
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the above as a guide:
'Leave control airspace on descent' .. is NOT a level instruction.
'Visual approach' is a manoeuvre, not a clearance!
Next ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one and thanks Gearoff
But your response seems to highlight the varied understanding of the procedures and the wording of the manuals.
In my opinion, (yet to be proved correct or wrong), in the case that you mention that you have to read back "Any Approach" clearance.
The visual approach is a Procedure. it is the same for any controlled aerodrome in Aust. and it involves you following a previous route clearance, until...... . It is therefore in my eyes NOT an approach clearance.
Again it highlights to me the inconsistency of some of the documents.
The best case here is the Perth SID charts. Have a read of the Max speed info. I am sure that you will come to the same conclusion as most have about the speeds listed, but unfortunatly you (like most) may be wrong. As I see it this type of non standard information causes a confusion and ultimatly misstrust in the system, no mater what the original idea was.
Happy to be proved wrong by somone with any OFFICIAL information.
richo
This bit added as capt Fat. posted while I was typing.
Thanks Capt. It appears that the info is there, but still the concensus is not.
richo
But your response seems to highlight the varied understanding of the procedures and the wording of the manuals.
In my opinion, (yet to be proved correct or wrong), in the case that you mention that you have to read back "Any Approach" clearance.
The visual approach is a Procedure. it is the same for any controlled aerodrome in Aust. and it involves you following a previous route clearance, until...... . It is therefore in my eyes NOT an approach clearance.
Again it highlights to me the inconsistency of some of the documents.
The best case here is the Perth SID charts. Have a read of the Max speed info. I am sure that you will come to the same conclusion as most have about the speeds listed, but unfortunatly you (like most) may be wrong. As I see it this type of non standard information causes a confusion and ultimatly misstrust in the system, no mater what the original idea was.
Happy to be proved wrong by somone with any OFFICIAL information.
richo
This bit added as capt Fat. posted while I was typing.
Thanks Capt. It appears that the info is there, but still the concensus is not.
richo
When you live....
Capt. Fathom
Have to disagree with you on both!
"Leave control area descending" is a level instruction - you are instructed to vacate your currently assigned level. If you don't believe me, try maintaining a level you've been cleared to leave descending and see what ATC reaction you get! In the strict sense of the AIP it is a level instruction because you're being told to bugger off from the one you're at - irrespective of the one you're heading for.
"Visual Approach" I agree is a manouvre but is not one you can undertake without a clearance - therefore "cleared visual approach" definately requires a readback (vis 'e') - it is a clearance to descend from your currently assigned altitude (but not to climb) and to manouvre from your current heading/track as required. Again, try doing either without ATC "clearance" and see what happens. Again in the context of the strict AIP, you're being given your approach clearance - without it (and in the absence of an instrument approach clearance) how are you going to make it to the runway without many tedious instructions from the controller - all of which would require a readback.
All of which proves the orginal contention - that nobody really knows what the readback requirements are!
UTR.
Have to disagree with you on both!
"Leave control area descending" is a level instruction - you are instructed to vacate your currently assigned level. If you don't believe me, try maintaining a level you've been cleared to leave descending and see what ATC reaction you get! In the strict sense of the AIP it is a level instruction because you're being told to bugger off from the one you're at - irrespective of the one you're heading for.
"Visual Approach" I agree is a manouvre but is not one you can undertake without a clearance - therefore "cleared visual approach" definately requires a readback (vis 'e') - it is a clearance to descend from your currently assigned altitude (but not to climb) and to manouvre from your current heading/track as required. Again, try doing either without ATC "clearance" and see what happens. Again in the context of the strict AIP, you're being given your approach clearance - without it (and in the absence of an instrument approach clearance) how are you going to make it to the runway without many tedious instructions from the controller - all of which would require a readback.
All of which proves the orginal contention - that nobody really knows what the readback requirements are!
UTR.
Read Backs etc etc etc!!
It is now 10 years since the working group responsible for the read back changes deliberated on these matters. However in this day and age the recommendations of ICAO suggest that we have to align ourselves with their recommendations and our Government policy is to do so as far as is practical (another interpretation!). Mind you, we don’t HAVE to follow ICAO, just have a reason if we choose not to! (don’t look too closely at our FAA mates for good examples)
CASA (not AirServices) has the responsibility for the AIP in terms of phrases etc and since those changes ( in 1997) they have never addressed these issues as the group intended they should. In my opinion it is a case of certain parties believing they knew better than the many heads in the group or perhaps too lazy to produce the education material that was needed (and still is)
Funnily enough, as an example, one of the items that had significant discussion was the read back of the QNH. There has never been a recorded accident that has as a significant contributing factor the setting of an incorrect QNH – so why read it back? Tradition I suggest, from those parts of the world that use/d QNE where you might understand the need for all to know what you have set. But that is not the case in Oz. That was lost in favour of ICAO. But what about the AREA QNH?? In my view that is “information” which as a rule does not have to be read back. No easier to say just read back the QNH !
Today however there have been many subtle changes to this part of the AIP and is it any wonder that many just can’t keep up or the real meaning of what is written is not what many believe it to be. Do you remember the days when there were very few required read backs? Five if my memory serves me correctly – Altitudes/Levels, Anything prefixed by “amended”, SDC’s and something else which fails my memory at this time!! (have another red!). And I don’t really remember any real stuff ups as a result of the lack of read backs.
One of the things that the working group discussed was the possibility that those who did not understand the requirements or perhaps did not really care, would just read everything back and that would keep the system happy. We all really know that that is not how it should be done and that some understanding of the airways system and the AIP would suggest what is really intended. But of course that is not what might be your interpretation of the AIP. (Sadly now we see many pilots just reading it all back, which is wrong or just lazy?)
There is no requirement to read back the cancellation of a clearance or instruction, which is why up until recently “Visual Approach” (be it “make” or “cleared”), was not a required read back, tho’ many controllers and pilots believed it was, to the point they would sometimes chase it. (I wonder why that was changed?) In days gone by, CASA would talk with industry such as the RAPACS about such changes and there would be broad input – seems they don’t’ do that any more?? In a similar way, the approval to leave controlled airspace on descent is the cancellation of a requirement (to maintain a level) and therefore does not need a read back. (it is default safe in that, what will happen if you just keep cruizen? If the Controller has a requirement associated with your descent, you will get that requirement and read it back) Remember that the AIP (and ICAO) only “try” to lay down what should be a read back item, not the other way (perhaps they should?).
A similar thing applies when you are told to “cancel SID turn right 320”. The read back should be the direction of turn and the heading only – not “cancel SID” as it should be obvious that one supersedes the other. What about the cancellation of a speed requirement? Just callsign is all that is required I suggest. What about when you are given multiple instructions on approach? (eg: turn right xxx, descend to 3000, make pilot intercept of the LLZ, when on the VASI, make visual apch, call twr 120.5….!!!) Do you try and read back the lot or just the last one or the one that gives the controller the comfort that you got it all?? Some academics might suggest that you should read the lot back, however I suggest that that was not and is not the intent of the AIP, and besides the resulting frequency congestion would be a safety issue. And of course we then enter the realm of hear backs, which is perhaps just as bad if the expectation is not as expected and missed !
I am of the belief that this part of the AIP should be revisited by both industry and ASA and CASA with the aim up making it much clearer and removing the cr@p that many pilots read back like traffic info, weather reports, NOTAMs etc.. geeez. Sadly none of this is addressed very often by controllers who I believe have a responsibility to get it right and pass the word around in a gentleman like manner if we get it wrong. Sadly it is the airlines and the controllers who need the education. Speaks volume about the AIP !
CASA (not AirServices) has the responsibility for the AIP in terms of phrases etc and since those changes ( in 1997) they have never addressed these issues as the group intended they should. In my opinion it is a case of certain parties believing they knew better than the many heads in the group or perhaps too lazy to produce the education material that was needed (and still is)
Funnily enough, as an example, one of the items that had significant discussion was the read back of the QNH. There has never been a recorded accident that has as a significant contributing factor the setting of an incorrect QNH – so why read it back? Tradition I suggest, from those parts of the world that use/d QNE where you might understand the need for all to know what you have set. But that is not the case in Oz. That was lost in favour of ICAO. But what about the AREA QNH?? In my view that is “information” which as a rule does not have to be read back. No easier to say just read back the QNH !
Today however there have been many subtle changes to this part of the AIP and is it any wonder that many just can’t keep up or the real meaning of what is written is not what many believe it to be. Do you remember the days when there were very few required read backs? Five if my memory serves me correctly – Altitudes/Levels, Anything prefixed by “amended”, SDC’s and something else which fails my memory at this time!! (have another red!). And I don’t really remember any real stuff ups as a result of the lack of read backs.
One of the things that the working group discussed was the possibility that those who did not understand the requirements or perhaps did not really care, would just read everything back and that would keep the system happy. We all really know that that is not how it should be done and that some understanding of the airways system and the AIP would suggest what is really intended. But of course that is not what might be your interpretation of the AIP. (Sadly now we see many pilots just reading it all back, which is wrong or just lazy?)
There is no requirement to read back the cancellation of a clearance or instruction, which is why up until recently “Visual Approach” (be it “make” or “cleared”), was not a required read back, tho’ many controllers and pilots believed it was, to the point they would sometimes chase it. (I wonder why that was changed?) In days gone by, CASA would talk with industry such as the RAPACS about such changes and there would be broad input – seems they don’t’ do that any more?? In a similar way, the approval to leave controlled airspace on descent is the cancellation of a requirement (to maintain a level) and therefore does not need a read back. (it is default safe in that, what will happen if you just keep cruizen? If the Controller has a requirement associated with your descent, you will get that requirement and read it back) Remember that the AIP (and ICAO) only “try” to lay down what should be a read back item, not the other way (perhaps they should?).
A similar thing applies when you are told to “cancel SID turn right 320”. The read back should be the direction of turn and the heading only – not “cancel SID” as it should be obvious that one supersedes the other. What about the cancellation of a speed requirement? Just callsign is all that is required I suggest. What about when you are given multiple instructions on approach? (eg: turn right xxx, descend to 3000, make pilot intercept of the LLZ, when on the VASI, make visual apch, call twr 120.5….!!!) Do you try and read back the lot or just the last one or the one that gives the controller the comfort that you got it all?? Some academics might suggest that you should read the lot back, however I suggest that that was not and is not the intent of the AIP, and besides the resulting frequency congestion would be a safety issue. And of course we then enter the realm of hear backs, which is perhaps just as bad if the expectation is not as expected and missed !
I am of the belief that this part of the AIP should be revisited by both industry and ASA and CASA with the aim up making it much clearer and removing the cr@p that many pilots read back like traffic info, weather reports, NOTAMs etc.. geeez. Sadly none of this is addressed very often by controllers who I believe have a responsibility to get it right and pass the word around in a gentleman like manner if we get it wrong. Sadly it is the airlines and the controllers who need the education. Speaks volume about the AIP !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Cogwheel.
Thanks for clearing up the bit about CASA and ASA rsponsibility in relation to the AIP.
UTR
Thanks for the input from the ATC side of things. Is there any further documented procedures, which the pilots don't get to see, like MATS, covering these thoughs or is it interpretation of the same AIP stuff. Or is it a case of the way you/others were/are trained.
In relation to the "Cleared (only way I heard it said lately) Visual Approach" I dissagree with you, on a STAR which ends with an intercept of an approach (TASKA6) the visual approach is not required at all, but is almost always given, it does in this case increase radio congestion with no benifit as we still have to fly the full STAR procedure. Also how about we add in the words
"When ready, leave on descent". reguardless of all of this we still have to report leving an altitude in CTA (Blah airspace). So why read back the first bit.
Thanks for your thoughts.
For years we have seen it writen here that the problem was the instructors teaching the incorrect, and while it may be so in a small part, the real problem lies with the source and interpretation of the information.
My personal hate, which we hear on the radio so often is the term 'Visual" used to describe the sighting of other traffic.
"Visual" is a desription of inflight conditions.
"Traffic sighted" is the term used to indicates that you can see another aircraft.
richo
Thanks for clearing up the bit about CASA and ASA rsponsibility in relation to the AIP.
UTR
Thanks for the input from the ATC side of things. Is there any further documented procedures, which the pilots don't get to see, like MATS, covering these thoughs or is it interpretation of the same AIP stuff. Or is it a case of the way you/others were/are trained.
In relation to the "Cleared (only way I heard it said lately) Visual Approach" I dissagree with you, on a STAR which ends with an intercept of an approach (TASKA6) the visual approach is not required at all, but is almost always given, it does in this case increase radio congestion with no benifit as we still have to fly the full STAR procedure. Also how about we add in the words
"When ready, leave on descent". reguardless of all of this we still have to report leving an altitude in CTA (Blah airspace). So why read back the first bit.
Thanks for your thoughts.
For years we have seen it writen here that the problem was the instructors teaching the incorrect, and while it may be so in a small part, the real problem lies with the source and interpretation of the information.
My personal hate, which we hear on the radio so often is the term 'Visual" used to describe the sighting of other traffic.
"Visual" is a desription of inflight conditions.
"Traffic sighted" is the term used to indicates that you can see another aircraft.
richo
Last edited by Richo; 25th Feb 2007 at 12:38.
I have been flying for some 34 years now.
The first 10 involved lots of learning - PPL, CPL, MECIR, tailwheel endorsement, aerobatic rating, instructors rating, aircraft endorsements etc.
For the next 10 I believe I operated at a very high level of professionalism in both Oz and NZ. Knew pretty much all I needed to know about flight planning requirements, getting the weather and notams, radio calls, readbacks etc - all of that stuff. IT ALL STAYED PRETTY MUCH THE SAME!
But for the last 10 years or so - I don't really have a clue. I read all the stuff that is sent to me. I pay attention to the calls etc that others are giving. I note what controllers ask of me. Every 12 months I get a bit of a refresher when I front my IR renewal - I figure the ATO is up to date with the latest and greatest. BUT IT ALL KEEPS CHANGING! Read this back - no, you don't have to read that back any more - airspace is changing - not it's not, we've dropped that idea - this is how you do a circuit entry - now we want you to make these radio calls in the circuit - etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I haven't pranged anything - I haven't run into anyone - and I haven't even managed to scare myself, but I REALLY DON"T HAVE A F*CKING CLUE ANYMORE.
I say "STOP F*CKING CHANGING STUFF EVERY 5 MINUTES - AND LET ME CATCH UP AGAIN!"
FTDK
Ahh - it feels good to have that off my chest!
The first 10 involved lots of learning - PPL, CPL, MECIR, tailwheel endorsement, aerobatic rating, instructors rating, aircraft endorsements etc.
For the next 10 I believe I operated at a very high level of professionalism in both Oz and NZ. Knew pretty much all I needed to know about flight planning requirements, getting the weather and notams, radio calls, readbacks etc - all of that stuff. IT ALL STAYED PRETTY MUCH THE SAME!
But for the last 10 years or so - I don't really have a clue. I read all the stuff that is sent to me. I pay attention to the calls etc that others are giving. I note what controllers ask of me. Every 12 months I get a bit of a refresher when I front my IR renewal - I figure the ATO is up to date with the latest and greatest. BUT IT ALL KEEPS CHANGING! Read this back - no, you don't have to read that back any more - airspace is changing - not it's not, we've dropped that idea - this is how you do a circuit entry - now we want you to make these radio calls in the circuit - etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I haven't pranged anything - I haven't run into anyone - and I haven't even managed to scare myself, but I REALLY DON"T HAVE A F*CKING CLUE ANYMORE.
I say "STOP F*CKING CHANGING STUFF EVERY 5 MINUTES - AND LET ME CATCH UP AGAIN!"
FTDK
Ahh - it feels good to have that off my chest!
Damn it! Now you've gone and got me started.
The confusion over readback is only the tip of the iceberg!
1) Once upon a time, if I wanted to fly VFR at A015 from TBTL to YCHT, I had to go into the briefing office in TL and submit a flightplan.
Then I had to submit a plan to some faceless place in BN.
But for a while there, I could just start up, ask for a clearance to exit the zone via the Clevedon VFR route at 1500 - and get the clearance straight away (this was what I recall from my time flying in NZ - I could rock up to the edge of the Auckland Control Zone, ask for a clearance and get it pretty much straight away).
Now in TL I get -
"XXX, do you have a flight plan in the system?
Negative!
Standby one while I put your details in the system!"
(Thinks!) "What the f*ck! I didn't think you guys even liked VFR plans being submitted!
When did this change? Nobody told me!
2) My recollection is that you used to be able to fly a VFR leg on an IFR flightplan, and still have the same SAR safety net.
But recently while letting down in VMC on an IFR plan from MC into YRED, I am told "Can't descent you any lower unless you downgrade to VFR".
So I change to VFR, arrive at Redcliffe and go to cancel my Sarwatch, to be told "XXX, I cancelled your Sarwatch at MC when you changed to VFR".
Since when??? Nobody told me about this! I thought I was flying a VFR leg on an IFR flightplan ??????
FTDK
The confusion over readback is only the tip of the iceberg!
1) Once upon a time, if I wanted to fly VFR at A015 from TBTL to YCHT, I had to go into the briefing office in TL and submit a flightplan.
Then I had to submit a plan to some faceless place in BN.
But for a while there, I could just start up, ask for a clearance to exit the zone via the Clevedon VFR route at 1500 - and get the clearance straight away (this was what I recall from my time flying in NZ - I could rock up to the edge of the Auckland Control Zone, ask for a clearance and get it pretty much straight away).
Now in TL I get -
"XXX, do you have a flight plan in the system?
Negative!
Standby one while I put your details in the system!"
(Thinks!) "What the f*ck! I didn't think you guys even liked VFR plans being submitted!
When did this change? Nobody told me!
2) My recollection is that you used to be able to fly a VFR leg on an IFR flightplan, and still have the same SAR safety net.
But recently while letting down in VMC on an IFR plan from MC into YRED, I am told "Can't descent you any lower unless you downgrade to VFR".
So I change to VFR, arrive at Redcliffe and go to cancel my Sarwatch, to be told "XXX, I cancelled your Sarwatch at MC when you changed to VFR".
Since when??? Nobody told me about this! I thought I was flying a VFR leg on an IFR flightplan ??????
FTDK
And another thing...
Why does Approach tell me the QNH and expect me to read it back, after I've just told them I've Rxd (e.g.) Delta, and information Delta includes that QNH?
Slightly off topic!
UTR,
In the example you give above, is that an instruction to vacate my current level? All you have said is I can exit the control area on descent, and without restriction.
If I asked for descent, it is expected I will start descending as soon as practicable, but within one minute.
Otherwise....
If you want me to bugger off from the level I'm presently maintaining, I would expect to hear 'DESCEND NOW' or 'DESCEND IMMEDIATELY' or be given a 'REQUIREMENT'...Which I would read-back.
There, that's all cleared up then ...
"Leave control area descending" is a level instruction - you are instructed to vacate your currently assigned level.
If I asked for descent, it is expected I will start descending as soon as practicable, but within one minute.
Otherwise....
If you want me to bugger off from the level I'm presently maintaining, I would expect to hear 'DESCEND NOW' or 'DESCEND IMMEDIATELY' or be given a 'REQUIREMENT'...Which I would read-back.
There, that's all cleared up then ...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: cell block H
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the original thread an interesting point was made on these clearances. A little "thought experiment"
If the ATC instruction was misheard by the pilot, there is no cross-confirmation by ATC that the pilot has made an error. Example, ATC has conflicting traffic underneath and for planning asks pilot to report "top of descent", pilots discussing next EBA, both think they heard "leave on descent" and quickly read back callsign only, set the level bug to lowest safe. Frequency chokes up as said aircraft start descent and only after passing the next two levels report descent to ATC.... get the picture? What happens at ATC's end - immediate stand-down of controller(s) involved pending investigation of level bust.
And here's another required readback:
CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH
same reason!
And here's another required readback:
CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH
same reason!
Hey Creampuff - you would just love flying in NZ then! They want a QNH readback with just about every frequency change.
FTDK
You can still rock up to any control zone boundary in New Zealand without a flight plan and ask for a clearance thru or into the zone for landing. No stress. You can do it in some parts of OZ to as far as I know, but I have been told that the "rules" do change from place to place.
A visual approach is just that, own nav to finals or downwind and unrestricted descent unless otherwise instructed, a clearance readback is required.
My rules for reading back, if it's a clearence or instruction readback it back, if it's information acknowledge receipt.
" ... you would just love flying in NZ then! They want a QNH readback with just about every frequency change ... "
But at least in NZ you are never left wondering what the Area QNH might be.
Unlike in Oz where ATC seems to prefer to keep it a secret - that you have to prize out of them!
FTDC
But at least in NZ you are never left wondering what the Area QNH might be.
Unlike in Oz where ATC seems to prefer to keep it a secret - that you have to prize out of them!
FTDC
The direction this thread has taken, like the many others on the same subject in the past is further justification of the failure of CASA to write the AIP in a clear and unmistakeable manner.
Sorry Buzz, but since 1997 neither have been a readback requirement, in fact the use of the work "cleared" in your examples is yet another interpretation in these discussion. Only with the recent amendment that requires the read back of approach clearances has visual approach been made a read back requirement.
Part of the problem is that many instructors and airline training pilots have made up their own interpretation on this subject and have taught it. There is nobody, repeat nobody either (either as a group or individual) in industry or within CASA that has ever applied any standardisation to eliminate those interpretations that are not what the intention of the AIP authors was in 1997. .... hence our present discussion.
Obviously these discussion are related to Oz procedures not our mates in NZ who follow ICAO but with their own interpretations!
"Cleared to leave CTA" and "Cleared visual approach" are both readback requirements.
Part of the problem is that many instructors and airline training pilots have made up their own interpretation on this subject and have taught it. There is nobody, repeat nobody either (either as a group or individual) in industry or within CASA that has ever applied any standardisation to eliminate those interpretations that are not what the intention of the AIP authors was in 1997. .... hence our present discussion.
Obviously these discussion are related to Oz procedures not our mates in NZ who follow ICAO but with their own interpretations!
FTDK
Setting of QNH was one of the marvellous
changes introduced by Dick and his NAS ****.
You should be using your departure QNH for the first 100NM. I work Approach and never give Area QNH to departures - even low level (A010 etc) - (except when specifically asked - and that's very rare now)
Try this for an explanation
http://www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/faq/altimetry_faq.aspx
Setting of QNH was one of the marvellous
changes introduced by Dick and his NAS ****. You should be using your departure QNH for the first 100NM. I work Approach and never give Area QNH to departures - even low level (A010 etc) - (except when specifically asked - and that's very rare now)
Try this for an explanation
http://www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/faq/altimetry_faq.aspx