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!

Without getting into the specific instance, if a controller wants to make sure that something is understood accurately then they're perfectly entitled to ask for a readback of that item even if a readback isn't mandated. Readbacks aren't rationed, you know.

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. :uhoh: 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.

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.

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.

Cap'n Sir, I didn't mean to imply that one should condone ATSers demanding readbacks of trivial things, but there are some instances where I think it is legitimate to ask for a readback of a non-prescribed item. Dealing with foreign student pilots is one that springs to mind. Foreign airline pilots too, for that matter, especially Seppos. But only for important things.

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...

maybe because communication is their highest priority but the lowest for pilots? no excuse i know........

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.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).

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:ok:

I read back .....departures airborne clear for take off...........
To me that confirms to ATC that I must change freq and confirm the correct freq

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]

You are correct. I thought it used to say 2 minutes, not to worry, ignorance fought.

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.

This is the only time we (you) NEED notice. A lot of these rules were written for Flight Service, in the days when a significant proportion of comms were on HF, even in the cruise, and nobody wanted to call aircraft in case they didn't answer, which could up the workload remarkably. If I was sitting in Perth and heard a call to Kalgoorlie (that Kalgoorlie didn't) the notice would give me time to call him & get a traffic statement and call you back.

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" :confused: As opposed to what?

Is this call a requirement?

Do I need to read back this instruction?

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.

Well to take the second point first, I can't imagine why ATC would ask whether you were changing to CTAF. Nevertheless, in relation to the first point, if you're monitoring both frequencies continuously all I need to know is that you're still listening to me. And if you haven't told me you're changing to CTAF then I assume you are.

ATC has no way of knowing and really doesn't care, so long as we know when you're listening to us and when you're not.

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. ;)

"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. Typically those towers would have progressively issued instructions for descent and then clearance for final approach. If a landing clearance is not immediately available it makes sense to simply say "continue approach"
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

Huh?
 

Sorry, but what's so wrong in that? A wise ATO once told me that I need to state I am IFR when operating so, as per AIP GEN 3.4 (pg 45). I do realise that VFR guys don't give taxi reports, so therefore anyone giving one would theoretically be IFR.

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.

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 :ooh: 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! :E
.
Cheers
.
da Dog

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.

My favourite, is the initial call to tower when approaching ....

should be " XXX Tower, ABC"

yet some "professionals" say , "XXX tower, ABC, on final, 7 miles rwy 23" or "XXX towere, ABC, extablished on the ILS for RWY 23"

I think that the tower KNOWS where you are, chaps.

still, 'let he who is without blame, cast the first stone"
. I am sure that I make some calls that are not ENTIRELY standard. I apologise in advance for this.

regards the "STANDBY FOR DEPARTURE", I use this, when departing an aerodrome where I cannot raise centre on taxi. It just gives THEM a heads up, and tells them that I am busy at the moment, and will get back to them shortly.

AIP ENR 1.1 58. TAXIING
58.1 Pilots of IFR flights operating from non-towered aerodromes must report to ATC on taxiing. If unable to establish contact, proceed in accordance with para 56.1.

58.2 Taxiing reports for IFR flights must include the following information:
a. aircraft type;
b. POB (for IFR flights other than RPT);
c. IFR my bold
d. location;
e. destination or departure quadrant or intentions; and
f. runway to be used.


A wise and professional pilot would know where to look in the AIP to confirm whether the information was correct.... it's available online http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....ations/aip.asp

I think its the difference between,

"centre ABC IFR taxi" brake and wait for acknowledement and off we go again and,
"centre ABC B747 300 POB (for IFR flights other than RPT) IFR, Goodooga for Argadargada runway 12.

hell what else are you going to be and why prefix it with taxi anyway, either just say it or if you must "centre ABC"

People,
Let's not forget that we are communicating in the English language and a bit of correct grammar doesn't go astray. The message should be easily understood and make sense.
If we keep on cutting out the "unnecessary" bits we will finish up with something like the ICAO MET abbreviations that can make METARS etc virtually impossible to understand when read verbatim! Or worse still, some Aussie version of Hollywood's "Pushing Tin" dialogue.
:)

jungmeister,

and an example is?

Ex Douglas Driver,
 

Yes, certainly, and I am aware of the extract you quoted, thank you for quoting it anyhow.

My query was whether the initial "make contact" call should be "Centre, ABC, taxi", or "Centre, ABC, IFR taxi", since, as your bold indicates, the requirement does exist to state that you're operating IFR.

Obviously I was not clear enough in my previous post.


520.

My oppinion only is that the first call should be your taxi call, I would just about bet money the ATcer is sitting at a console waiting for some one to say some thing!

Are you lot kidding around or are you that boring that a debate over whether you say IFR in your initial contact transmission or thereafter rates as a technical debate this evening:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

The above is much less painful:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

The same ATCer is often talking to someone else that you can't hear. Their response to you launching in to a taxi, postion, or departure call, is sometimes "ABC, say again."

Touchncloth, what would you like to discuss???
If you don't like our discussion, you can always find something more interesting. Feel free.

Possible, and also possible he is waisting time listening to some one saying twice as much as they need to. I have never and never will, (until it becomes a requirement) waist everybodies time with that call.

If its so important to que ATC for this call they can stick a phrase in AIP as they have for position reports.

e.g. "BN centre ABC position".

Until then they don't so just simply say it.

Ah yes, the old "in with a ground station" excuse.:)

to confuse, or not to confuse?
 

:} Used to hear "Upside Downwind" at YPJT a fair while ago - a Bellanca at on time - any one know what happened to Rob T (part time scuba instructor also)!!

Oh man, this is all getting a bit anal isn't it?

[BTW: The in with a ground station is legit - 90% of communication going on isnt on the VHF - but it is often at the same volume level - 'tuning' out is a skill quickly, and neccessarily learnt. This is something that - when pilots used to be bothered, or permitted, to do a proper ATC famils - they all came away saying: I didnt realise how much coord goes on in the background. So we are not ignoring you - we are just..... uhm, well, kind of ignoring you I suppose - but in a nice way!]

Thought I'd add my 2 cents. My pet hate is

"On climb too" when its "Climbing too"

gets me even more when this is said in a dep report

"On climb, not above xxxx" -> Your already "not above" any altitude even if your still on the ground. No need to climb to get "not above" an altitude.

Also, heard this one a few times at millitary AD's on VFR flights,

"ABC, Cleared for take off, right turn 290, visual"
I thought all VFR flights were visual ?!?! In one instance ATC required me to read back "visual".

Having said all this I know I make many mistakes myself.

Coander,

Visual in the context you have described is required to be read back to ensure that you know, the controller has assigned you the respnsibility of terrain/obstacle clearance. As opposed to you (the pilot) assuming that ATC will keep you clear of obstacles/terrain.

CC,
he said he was VFR. He is already resposnible for visual terrain clearance.
Coander, was it a military ATCér.

RENURPP,

Yes it was a military ATCér. My reply to the call was "V F R".

C

"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?



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...(of course other pilots will not hear about xxx companies changes, hence the "what the.... " when they hear it.)

Coander and RENURPP:
It matters not if it was a military ATC or not. The point is that the ATC must say to any VFR aircraft that is vectored off the runway "VISUAL" with the heading. It is just a rule that we have to do and that is that.
The MATS reference states:
3.2.8.2 When a departing aircraft is required to assume a heading immediately
following take-off, the appropriate controller shall determine the heading and advisethe tower controller as follows:
a. for VFR flights by day or for IFR flights by day in VMC not departing via
a SID "RUNWAY HEADING VISUAL or RIGHT/LEFT (degrees) VISUAL";
Yes, although this talks about what the departures controller says to the tower controller, rest assured that is what is said to the aircraft too. And as it is a heading instruction, it must be read back. I suppose it could be argued both ways as AIP only states that direction of turns and headings are readbacks. I will do a snap poll with the civil tower I work with and see if they chase the "VISUAL" readback.
Cheers all,
NFR.:ok:

Point taken,
If you are required to add "visual" to a VFR aircraft, (seems pointless) then I accept that reading it back is required by the pilot.

Actually after pondering this one a little longer I change my attitude slightly. I don't "recall" ever hearing this instruction given! Having said that it is not possible for me to know who is VFR and who is IFR. If I were VFR I wouldn't read it back, with out meaning to offend, I would expect a military controller to require the readback and otherwise common sense to prevail.