But why do you need the 'to' in there anyways? You should never say "turn right heading to three five zero". 'To' is a word that adds nothing to the message trying to be communicated, yet has the potential to cause confusion as 'To' could mean 'Two'.

"Alpha Bravo Charlie, climbing to 5000". Is it 5000 or 25000?

I don't get upset either.

I just want to understand the logic underlying ATC giving me and requiring me to readback QNH immediately after I've reported receipt of ATIS containing that QNH. Remember: The OP is an appeal for us not to readback to ATC something that does not need to be readback. I'm interested to understand why ATC feels it necessary to tell me the QNH at YSCB - necessitating a readback - when I've already told them in my inbound report that I have the ATIS.

Because in ATC land even if you call for a clearance with ‘G’ which states a QNH of 1025 - if ATC gave you a clearance without a QNH/readback and you’d inadvertently punched 1035 in and it went wrong ATC would cop the blame for some reason.

80% of ATC radio time is devoted to protecting ourselves should the pilot err. Why do you think we have to tell aircraft without a clearance to ‘remain outside class (cde) airspace and standby’

If I inadvertently punched in 1035, wouldn't there be a 300' delta between the altitude I've reported and the QNH adjusted output of my transponder on the ATC screen? Alarms going off?

And if the justification is, in effect, "just to cover our arse", don't be surprised or criticise when pilots readback everything, just to get arse-covering confirmation that they've copied everything you've said..

LB, Doesn't work if you're on descent or where there's no surveillance coverage.

True. But neither of those circumstances exists in the scenario I’m talking about.

But WhisprSYD’s explanation makes the best sense, given the symbiotic relationship between ATC and pilots in which the game of pass the responsibility parcel continues. (Cue the ‘Mayday Fuel’ debate…)

The scenario doesn't matter, it's about doing things the same way so it doesn't get missed.

Then ATC should recite and require read back of the entirety of the current ATIS information, so nothing “gets missed”.

Sheesh.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin...

If they say standby they don't want me to respond and to wait until they can get back to me.

If they give me a QNH even though I have ATIS, I read it back. (Yeah OK it may unecessarily wear out 2 seconds of the lifetime of the PTT while I say the QNH but they are expecting me to do it and everyone else on frequency knows I will be reading it back so bad luck, they have to accept the 2 seconds longer in my clearance readback).

My 2 questions for ATC folk - if you give me something like "report at X" as part of a clearance, I either don't read that back or sometimes respond "wilco" as I don't think that is actually part of a clearance and (probably due ignorance) cannot find anything about a response in the docs. Do you want me to read anything back about a "report at X" or "report passing X thousand" etc?

And my question to anyone - this one a bit embarrassing - many years ago I recall there seemed there was a habit in more casual conversations on the radio to not say "Roger" but instead "Roger D" (perhaps from the phrase Roger Dodger?). Does anyone remember that? Problem is despite telling myself not to do it, something has hardwired that into my brain and I often catch myself adding the "D" to anytime I say "roger" :( Am I Robinson Crusoe? Is that phrase a figment of my imagination and never happened?

‘Roger’ or ‘Roger Wilco’ would be all we’d want there. If we gave you a clearance limit with a ‘report approaching’ we’d expect a read back of the clearance limit though.
‘Roger D’ isn’t something I’ve heard in a long time!

Read back a clearance to Darwin ATC - and committed the heinous crime of omitting the read back “CLIMB VIA”.

My other non Aussie crew members groaned and asked me if she was for real? I had to embarrassingly say ‘Yes, they are rather anal here.”

Your crew would have had kittens inbound when you didn't report POB on first contact....

But you can't have it both ways. I listen to the loose ATC in the US and think there's an accident waiting to happen.

If you missed a constraint on climb and didn't read back the CLIMB VIA the DN controller would be in trouble. That said, if there's no constraint...

I enjoyed the play on the words “(bi)rth control”!!! back in the day.

Gday Compressor stall. I know what you mean, but after having worked over here for some time now, it all just seems to work. And they handle.farrrrrrrr more traffic than sleepy old Darwin.

Climb via SID is a readback requirement. Aviation is a team sport Captain.

Here is the answer for YSCB QNH. Calling CB APP will the the first time you get an altitude. Here is the MATS reference. Going into ML or SY, centre will give you the QNH when assigned an altitude, CB giving the you QNH is the same thing.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e1e2ed5231.png

I know what the rule book says. The question is why the rule books say that.

I’ll try this way: Why doesn’t 9.2.3.1 have at the end: “…unless the aircraft has reported receipt of ATIS information that includes the local QNH.”?

And BTW: Departures for YSCB doesn’t pass local QNH and expect a read back from departing aircraft…

LB you really do have your lawyer hat on a bit too tight sometimes. Have a reread of part g of the readback requirements. Then answer this question. Of all the information provided on the ATIS, which item is most likely to get you killed if you get it wrong? I'm not sure how you record your ATIS but if you write it down while bumping around in turbulence and distracted by other things then an incorrect QNH can be recorded. ATC are doing you a favour by confirming what QNH you have recorded regardless of the ATIS identifier. I would suggest that you don't fly in NZ because the readback of QNH requirements would make your head explode.

So Altimetry is important to aviation safety, LL? I’ll have to write that down.

You really do have your ‘try to embarrass LB at every opportunity’ hat on too tight sometimes.

The safety issue is not actually about whether I’ve recorded the correct QNH. It’s actually about whether I’m at the correct altitude. And to be at the correct altitude, it’s usually necessary to have the correct QNH set on the altimeter. That’s how I usually ‘record’ QNH: by setting the QNH on the altimeter to the QNH reported in the ATIS.

There’s a way in which YSCB Approach checks whether I’ve set the correct QNH: There’s a thing called a ‘transponder’. If I report inbound at 5,500’ with information Charlie but haven’t set the Charlie QNH, my transponder will say so, whether or not Approach and I have had a little chat about QNH. It even works when ATC mistakenly gives the wrong QNH! (See incident linked earlier in this thread.)

That’s presumably why the ‘passing (e.g.) 3,400’ on first contact with YSCB Departures is enough. We don’t have a chat about QNH.

Remember what this thread’s about: Unnecessary talk.

QNH has far more importance for IFR aircraft into major ports for instrument approach reasons, en-route whether you are plus/minus 5 hpa is not going to have much affect on safety at all. At the bottom of a Cat 1 approach with other errors combined 5 hpa could mean reaching terra firma a lil prematurely. Add that an IFR aircraft may not fly level from transition altitude to touch down allowing any altimetry error catches by ATS. Easier just for ATS to pass and confirm QNH for all aircraft and not be selective I suppose is what they are aiming for.

Transponder Mode C
 

Mode C altitude transmissions are independent of the barometric altimeter sub-scale setting. The transponder can get its information from one of two sources: an encoding altimeter, which transmits a pressure altitude reading to the transponder or (more commonly) a blind encoder permanently set to 29.92 (pressure altitude). In either case, the altimeter setting does not affect the information sent which is always based on 29.92. ATC’s computers apply the current altimeter setting converting it to altitude (which will only match your indicated altitude if you have set the correct QNH).
FlySafe
PJ88

Yes that is what an encoder does, however a pilot flies via the information displayed on the Altimeter, so if that is in error so will his maintained height. However if the aircraft is flying level this will show as an erroneous altitude being flown to ATC out by the amount the altimeter is in error by. The passing altitudes on first contact on climb will only highlight a gross error say more than 300 ft from what the screen shows and the pilots reports. Considering an Cat 1 minima is 200ft then 300ft the wrong way could put you in the ground. Hence why lower approaches have altimetry check points. Cat 2/3 rely more on radio altimetry so its not as critical.

Don't need to wear that hat LB as you seem to be perfectly capable of embarrassing yourself over your obsession with reading back the QNH.

If you don't understand the readback requirements of section g of AIP GEN 3.4 then no one can help you. If you don't comprehend why you aren't given the QNH on departure when you are required to state the altitude you are passing then no one can help you. If you can't discern why the QNH on an ATIS is the only bit of information that can kill you if you have written the incorrect numbers then no one here can help you. Like I said don't go flying in NZ if you want to keep your sanity. Incorrect QNH settings continue to be a problem on two crew airliners when the ATIS is printed out so why do you think that you will never make a similar mistake as a single pilot?

I dunno, still feels like storm in teacup to me.

"sixthousand AlphaBravoCharlie"

or

"sixthousand QNH1015 AlphaBravoCharlie"

How much extra does that add? about a second? two maybe? Some people's "ahhhh" placed between "squawk" and "1234" is way longer than that!

Ah the irony.

The thread was started by someone pointing out (correctly) that it was unnecessary to read back a particular word. A single f*cking word.

I point out that it is objectively unnecessary to read back QNH in a particular set of circumstances, and the answer is it must be read back because that’s what the rule book says.

It all make perfect sense. It must be a consequence of my poor airmanship and a lawyerly obsession with strict compliance with rules.

LB for me there is a difference between reading back "standby" (the controller is using it to specifically ask you to not reply) and reading back the QNH which has a safety implication if this is not correct.

I personally find confirming to the controller that you will not reply, (when they have just told you not to reply), mildly annoying, whilst reading back QNH has at least a safety check value so is not a biggie (for me).

I know some people get annoyed over calling WACs "WAC Charts" and ATMs "ATM machines" and this issue feels the same - I reckon there are other things that really do deserve me twisting my knickers over - eg people who are wrong on the internet...

Indeed the irony

Yet you are strenuously objecting to having to read back something that is correctly required. Just because you think its unnecessary is completely irrelevant. Its just a casual observation but there seems to come a point with posters that have quite high post counts where they get upset with anyone who has a contrary view and end up in a vortex of vitriolic keyboard bashing. I would respectfully suggest that if this is causing you such angst then give yourself a break and put the keyboard away for a while.

43Inches. You will see that my post was at time 7.48 - exactly the same time as yours. So we were posting in parallel and I was not disagreeing with the post that you were writing at the time but hadn't appeared. I agree with you. The purpose of my post was to correct the info on transponder altitude information posted by LB at 7.26.
Fly Safe
PJ

Is it full moon again?

I didn't post any incorrect information about transponder altitude information. I know how transponders work. Down to every component on their circuit boards in the aircraft and at the other end in the SSR.

It's precisely because of how transponders and SSRs work that renders the repetition of QNH unnecessary after a pilot has reported being at an altitude and in receipt of ATIS with a QNH in an SSR environment. That SSR data either confirms the accuracy of what the pilot reported or raises doubts about its accuracy...

Either the pilot has received the ATIS QNH and properly set it and is flying the reported altitude, or s/he's f*cked it up or is making it up. And, if s/he*s f*cked it up or is making it up, that will show on the transponder reported (and SSR corrected) altitude and that's when there's an actual need for words on the issue to be exchanged between ATC and the pilot.

I know there are circumstances in which there is no SSR coverage. I know there are circumstances in which aircraft are climbing or descending. I was only talking about circumstances in which a pilot in an aircraft in SSR coverage reports at an altitude with an ATIS code.

Jeeezus, this weirdness must be a symptom of long Covid (or perhaps chemtrails).

The SSR data will only be comparable if the aircraft is in level flight, the climb report to departures is +-300ft and really can't be any tighter as there are delays in the system. An arriving IFR aircraft from the flight levels may never fly level long enough for a SSR to verify it has the correct QNH set prior to an approach. So with regard to large aircraft operations it is a critical check to ensure correct QNH is passed on. However even though a light VFR may not see the issue, if ATS get picky with which situation they provide it inevitably they will forget to pass it to an IFR aircraft that then proceeds to bust a minima and blame ATS for not updating them on QNH. Rules like this are usually reflective of arse covering as well as safety benefits.

There is only one person howling LB and that is you. The only thing that is weird is your obsession with having to a readback of a required item. The thread was started by an ATC'er just asking pilots to not readback the word standby when they are asked to "standby". No one agrees with you and your quest to have readback of the QNH an optional item. Incorrect setting of the QNH is a problem and can lead to accidents thats why it is a readback requirement worldwide and not just on approach into Canberra. If you are aiming for 5000 posts then fill your boots but don't think that everyone else is the problem or suffering from some sort of malaise.

Dare we refer back to this thread on the front page showing what happens when you get the QNH wrong??

Granted I think the English/French usage of the ATCO played a significant part, but simply relying on "It's part of the ATIS which you've already told me you've got" removes a layer of safety in the same manner that not confirming your CPDLC-issued departure clearance would. "Well, we got it printed from 'the magic box', so why do we need to confirm it?"

*sigh*

It's amazing how many pilots - I assume they're pilots - have so much difficulty with written comprehension.

I'm not on a "quest to have readback of the QNH an optional item".

Reading back a number proves only one thing: The pilot heard the number and can read it back.

Well, given pilots are highly-trained individuals (of a higher class than your average trained monkey, one would like to think) it's not unreasonable to think that they, on the whole, most of the time, might be able to set their altimeter(s) QNH to the same figure as the one they just read back to ATC, however... altitude encoder errors do happen. eg. the Mode C encoder in the flight-school aircraft I recently did my test in was out by nearly 200' and resulted in some interesting conversations between me, my examiner and ATC. Stressful, to say the least!

AIUI that's one reason ADS-B is mandated in all IFR-certified aircraft - because GPS Altitude (not Altimeter altitude) is broadcast so ATC (and anyone else nearby with ADS-B In!) can read it direct - rather than rely solely on some highly-trained pilot-monkey entering a number.

Anyway, this thread seems to have drifted slightly off-topic. Some recent thermal activity perhaps?