SY localiser frequency - readback NOT required
Australian ATC need to get their act together.For those of us who fly to 100's of airports around the world we can't be expected to learn all the local rules.Just look at the pages in jepp's on the Sydney operation.We do our best but remembering everything is impossible.They need to get away from this isolationism mentality they have and start thinking globally even if there operating procedures are limited.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian ATC need to get their act together.
So Australia follows the international rules and are criticised (admittedly only here) for doing so...? This procedure is certainly contained within MATS/AIP/Local documentation; hardly giving any ground for the ATCs to step outside the SOPs.
I believe this problem arose when SACL/FAC etc. put the parallel runway too close to the existing runway.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Brochures" are all very well, but time passes and memories fade. Things get lost out of nav bags, others operate in from overseas and there are new entrants to this game all the time who never get a brochure at all.
And as is often the way in this particular little backwater of the industry, some t(c?)rusty old training Capt will mark you down on your line check for not doing things how he thinks it should be done!
As alluded to by another poster, Jepp or AIP can be the only source document and even Jepp ATC 6.3.1 (f) isnt that clear.
In my humble opinion a "localiser check" is hardly an instruction or clearance. The very fact you have already readback the runway (which has a unique localiser freq), surely means you would be telling them the same thing twice. Pointless.
Maybe someone from SYD ATC can offer something?
And as is often the way in this particular little backwater of the industry, some t(c?)rusty old training Capt will mark you down on your line check for not doing things how he thinks it should be done!
As alluded to by another poster, Jepp or AIP can be the only source document and even Jepp ATC 6.3.1 (f) isnt that clear.
In my humble opinion a "localiser check" is hardly an instruction or clearance. The very fact you have already readback the runway (which has a unique localiser freq), surely means you would be telling them the same thing twice. Pointless.
Maybe someone from SYD ATC can offer something?
PPRuNe Handmaiden
The second "behind" is used in countries where English isn't the first language.
I can't recall if it's a requirement or not, so I just read back how the controller said it to me.
I once said "after the landing traffic" but the controller nearly had kittens.
Lesson learnt there.
I can't recall if it's a requirement or not, so I just read back how the controller said it to me.
I once said "after the landing traffic" but the controller nearly had kittens.
Lesson learnt there.
Australian ATC need to get their act together.For those of us who fly to 100's of airports around the world we can't be expected to learn all the local rules.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who operates about 300 sectors into YSSY each year, my memory of it is initially, when parallel operations started, a readback of the localiser frequency was required. However that did not last very long and ATC asked that it not be read back. I think that might have been done by a memo to operators from ASA before it was amended elsewhere.
In the last few years I cannot recall hearing anyone asked to readback the frequency.
I do have a question for ATC out there though. Non-jets are normally on a heading or turning to a heading when changing to director. The normal requirement is to state the heading when being vectored and changing frequency, but I notice on change to director a lot do not say the heading and director does not seem to care one way or the other. What is the ATC point of view of this?
In the last few years I cannot recall hearing anyone asked to readback the frequency.
I do have a question for ATC out there though. Non-jets are normally on a heading or turning to a heading when changing to director. The normal requirement is to state the heading when being vectored and changing frequency, but I notice on change to director a lot do not say the heading and director does not seem to care one way or the other. What is the ATC point of view of this?
Regarding the second question, heading and (assigned) altitude are required to be included on first contact. You're right in that a lot omit the heading. You're also right in that director doesn't care (nor do we really care about "leaving 6000"). It assists you greatly for "Runway in sight" on first contact too - even if it's behind you or under the wing, epaulette, etc, ...!
All we care about is not having blocked ATC frequencies on DIR while you are being vectored directly towards other aircraft. The LOC frequency check confounds the odd international or non-familiar pilot which often results in a lot of (imho) unnecessary waffle clarifying the difference between a LOC frequency and the QNH
and whilst on the 'different' ATC formats in OZ.... can someone explain why in Perth they say..." cleared ILS runway 03 approach" versus what is commonplace "cleared ILS approach runway 03" ?? Only heard it in Perth.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: FL431
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
redsnail
Re the second behind not required to be readback. Someone gave a link before.
But here it is anyway: Jepps ATC AU913 (conditional clearances) 6.4.1 (d)
Learn something new everyday
But here it is anyway: Jepps ATC AU913 (conditional clearances) 6.4.1 (d)
Learn something new everyday
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GodsOwn
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localiser readbacks.
I doubt very much that any Syd App/Director has required a readback of the llz frequency in the last few years. We all hate giving it as it clogs up the frequency unnecessarily. CASA imposed it on us after United lined on 34R not long after 34R was opened.
I have been doing App/Dir since way back in the 20th century and we now have so much more that we have to say and get readbacks for than we did when I first rated on there. Sometimes we sweat on a transmission finishing from a pilot so that we can issue an instruction such as a turn to final before we lose separation . Our ulcers do get a work out then I can assure you.
As for pilots not reporting there heading on first contact with Dir, yes they are supposed to , but in our defence only jets are on STARS when they call Dir and we know the props have been given headings by App when we are using 34L/R. Thats why we don't chase the heading readback up. After all we can see what heading you are on by radar.
As I said above there is too much BS that has to be given and readback already.
We even get chipped for not giving miles to run when a/c are already on a straight in approach and on final by our Check controllers. With all the onboard and ground equipment available to a/c to work out exactly how far they are from touchdown, I don't think we need to tell you that. On circuits that's different as you may not know when we plan to turn you.
Hope that helps .
I have been doing App/Dir since way back in the 20th century and we now have so much more that we have to say and get readbacks for than we did when I first rated on there. Sometimes we sweat on a transmission finishing from a pilot so that we can issue an instruction such as a turn to final before we lose separation . Our ulcers do get a work out then I can assure you.
As for pilots not reporting there heading on first contact with Dir, yes they are supposed to , but in our defence only jets are on STARS when they call Dir and we know the props have been given headings by App when we are using 34L/R. Thats why we don't chase the heading readback up. After all we can see what heading you are on by radar.
As I said above there is too much BS that has to be given and readback already.
We even get chipped for not giving miles to run when a/c are already on a straight in approach and on final by our Check controllers. With all the onboard and ground equipment available to a/c to work out exactly how far they are from touchdown, I don't think we need to tell you that. On circuits that's different as you may not know when we plan to turn you.
Hope that helps .
PPRuNe Handmaiden
I do note the Jepp reference is "AU". 
I'll have to go to work to read that section.
Well, in the UK it's "After the landing [aircraft type], line up" (ref CAP413). No "behind" there.
Found some documents online.
UK ATC directive.
4.3 Differences between ICAO and UK phraseology
4.3.1 The international standard phraseology set out by ICAO for the issue of a
conditional clearance differs slightly from the standard phraseology used in the
UK. The phraseology described by ICAO for such situations uses the word
‘behind’ and repeats the condition at the end of the clearance, e.g.
“SAS 941, behind the landing DC9, line up behind”
From A EuroControl document,
*ICAO:
In all cases a conditional clearance shall be given in the following order and
consist of:
1. Identification;
2. The condition
3. The clearance; and
4. Brief reiteration of the condition
Conditional phrases, such as “behind landing aircraft” or “after departing aircraft”, shall not be used for movements affecting the active runway(s), except when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the appropriate controller and pilot.
Big Jet 345, behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2, behind.
Behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2 behind, Big Jet 345
I also appreciate that for the vast majority of people flying within Australian borders/FIR, they are native English speakers so "once is enough". This is not the case in Asia, South America, Middle East and Europe. Therefore, the second "condition" must be read back.
I'll have to go to work to read that section.Well, in the UK it's "After the landing [aircraft type], line up" (ref CAP413). No "behind" there.
Found some documents online.
UK ATC directive.
4.3 Differences between ICAO and UK phraseology
4.3.1 The international standard phraseology set out by ICAO for the issue of a
conditional clearance differs slightly from the standard phraseology used in the
UK. The phraseology described by ICAO for such situations uses the word
‘behind’ and repeats the condition at the end of the clearance, e.g.
“SAS 941, behind the landing DC9, line up behind”
From A EuroControl document,
*ICAO:
In all cases a conditional clearance shall be given in the following order and
consist of:
1. Identification;
2. The condition
3. The clearance; and
4. Brief reiteration of the condition
Conditional phrases, such as “behind landing aircraft” or “after departing aircraft”, shall not be used for movements affecting the active runway(s), except when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the appropriate controller and pilot.
Big Jet 345, behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2, behind.
Behind landing Airbus 321, cross Runway 09 at C2 behind, Big Jet 345
I also appreciate that for the vast majority of people flying within Australian borders/FIR, they are native English speakers so "once is enough". This is not the case in Asia, South America, Middle East and Europe. Therefore, the second "condition" must be read back.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilots care about the night-time "not below 2100 until on the PAPI" crap either?
First of all, thank you to all who responded about my complaints of unnecessary readbacks in Australian airspace, particularly having to read back 'cleared XX miles left/right of track' after being granted the original request. Also 'thank you' to those who quoted Australian AIP.
Many of us fly internationally for Asian airlines on Asian licences. At last count, my airline flies to at least 25 countries and we read back what is 'normal' in 24 of them. We don't GET Australian AIP or 'pamphlets'. If we had to read the AIP of every country we fly to, we would never get off the ground! We just do what we think is correct in accordance with good airmanship and common sense. This sort of 'anality' would not have prevented the recent breakdown in separation over northern Australia in the middle of the night in a 'head on' situation.
I am not unloading on the average Australian ATCO, but I would recommend a shift in Heathrow Director on a Friday night to every CASA and AirServices policy- and rule-maker. The Brits are good at a few things, humour, museums, breakfasts and above all, ATC. They deal with many more English language-challenged pilots than Australia does, and without having to request them to read back 'one two tree daysimal fower'.
When I fly home to Australia with fellow Aussies in the cockpit, Australian ATC can be a bit of a joke, but when I am with other nationalities it can be positively cringe-worthy.
Many of us fly internationally for Asian airlines on Asian licences. At last count, my airline flies to at least 25 countries and we read back what is 'normal' in 24 of them. We don't GET Australian AIP or 'pamphlets'. If we had to read the AIP of every country we fly to, we would never get off the ground! We just do what we think is correct in accordance with good airmanship and common sense. This sort of 'anality' would not have prevented the recent breakdown in separation over northern Australia in the middle of the night in a 'head on' situation.
I am not unloading on the average Australian ATCO, but I would recommend a shift in Heathrow Director on a Friday night to every CASA and AirServices policy- and rule-maker. The Brits are good at a few things, humour, museums, breakfasts and above all, ATC. They deal with many more English language-challenged pilots than Australia does, and without having to request them to read back 'one two tree daysimal fower'.
When I fly home to Australia with fellow Aussies in the cockpit, Australian ATC can be a bit of a joke, but when I am with other nationalities it can be positively cringe-worthy.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 11th Feb 2010 at 11:01.
Dart,
Not too sure what you meant by this:
but, I assume you don't think you need to read back your takeoff clearance, as that was your original request?
Not too sure what you meant by this:
particularly having to read back 'cleared XX miles left/right of track' after being granted the original request.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding Point
While we're talking about read backs, as an aside, why does BN GND require a read back of the word "holding point" now? eg. "XXX Taxi B to holding point A7" a readback of "Taxi B to A7 XXX" used to suffice but now it has to be "Taxi B to A7 holding point XXX."
Just curious.
Just curious.
Another example of how this is ATC's problem. No education of pilots, just ATC's having to change what they do and pilots wondering what all the fuss is about.
Capn Bloggs:
Us: 'Noodle Jet xxx request 30 miles right of track due weather'
ATC: 'Noodle Jet xxx cleared 30 miles right of track'
It seems Aussie ATC now requires us to read back the 'cleared 30 miles right of track'.
In the rest of the world the response is just callsign, and if you are a polite pilot, 'thank you'. If the clearance is 'cleared only 20 miles right' or similar, yes, you would read that back because it is different to what you asked for. With ADS and radar I really don't see the big deal.
We don't 'request' takeoff. We just call 'ready'. We read back the takeoff clearance as it is a critical manoeuvre, and we are not in the big sky at that stage.
As an aside some time ago our Flight Safety Department notified me that Australian ATC had 'pinged' one of my flights for having a ONE NAUTICAL MILE
track offset without a clearance (our ops manual states 2 nm is OK without informing ATC). Don't these people have better things to do?
Us: 'Noodle Jet xxx request 30 miles right of track due weather'
ATC: 'Noodle Jet xxx cleared 30 miles right of track'
It seems Aussie ATC now requires us to read back the 'cleared 30 miles right of track'.
In the rest of the world the response is just callsign, and if you are a polite pilot, 'thank you'. If the clearance is 'cleared only 20 miles right' or similar, yes, you would read that back because it is different to what you asked for. With ADS and radar I really don't see the big deal.
We don't 'request' takeoff. We just call 'ready'. We read back the takeoff clearance as it is a critical manoeuvre, and we are not in the big sky at that stage.
As an aside some time ago our Flight Safety Department notified me that Australian ATC had 'pinged' one of my flights for having a ONE NAUTICAL MILE
track offset without a clearance (our ops manual states 2 nm is OK without informing ATC). Don't these people have better things to do?
Last edited by Captain Dart; 12th Feb 2010 at 04:59.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Dart
Surveillance certainly makes a difference to the 'effect' of a WX/any diversion from planned/cleared track/course; but I would want a readback - confirmation that you understood how much leverage you had; even in my full radar (non Oz) environment; it's about knowing how many other sectors/units you are plowing into; it's not just initial separation, we do more coordination with other units with diversions than at any other time. Also the 'readback' would assist that 'journalising' didn't occur at either end of the mic.
As for getting 'pinged' for being offset I suspect it's all in the manner in which the aircraft offset itself (or you offset it), a 20+ degree turn to do it fast could be a big deal; where as a gentle 5 degree turn to achieve it would hardly be noticed. I certainly wouldn't be able to tell if you were 1NM offset on my equipment in Enroute. Also it depends on the environment, if you are in or approaching the TMA a 1NM offset is a big deal (the SID/STAR integration doesn't account for offsets), where as at cruise in the middle of NSW it would be really no big deal.
In the rest of the world the response is just callsign, and if you are a polite pilot, 'thank you'. If the clearance is 'cleared only 20 miles right' or similar, yes, you would read that back because it is different to what you asked for. With ADS and radar I really don't see the big deal.
As for getting 'pinged' for being offset I suspect it's all in the manner in which the aircraft offset itself (or you offset it), a 20+ degree turn to do it fast could be a big deal; where as a gentle 5 degree turn to achieve it would hardly be noticed. I certainly wouldn't be able to tell if you were 1NM offset on my equipment in Enroute. Also it depends on the environment, if you are in or approaching the TMA a 1NM offset is a big deal (the SID/STAR integration doesn't account for offsets), where as at cruise in the middle of NSW it would be really no big deal.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a more professional pilot than that guy
Arent they the same ones who keep on yelling out "You're on Guard! You're on Guard!!!!!!! " (Whilst thinking: "Mummy would be so proud of me, I told him he was on guard, first!")