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.