using the words FLIGHT LEVEL
 

Why do a lot of pilots miss out the words "flight level" when reading back clearances?(it seems to be occurring more frequently!)It is a legal requirement and if omitted causes more work for us lowly controllers.
For example:-

ABC123 descend flight level 260
roger descending 260

But this could also be taken as:-
roger descending to 60

Therefore we have to confirm the cleared level (wasting frequency time) which can annoy some pilots but usually we just hear "affirm"

This may seem a small point but it is me who gets investigated when you bust your level :ouch:

Good point millerman. Sadly, it's just bad airmanship by lazy pilots:zzz: .

I agree
 

I was taught to readback "heading" and "flight level" as the two may be confused.

Except nobody would ever ask you to fly heading 410...but you get my point...;)

UK wise, when issuing climb/descent instructions, there is a difference between an instruction for a Flight Level and an Altitude.

Flight Level : "Descend Flight Level 190"

Altitude: "Descent TO Altitude 4000 FEET" - the inclusion of TO and FEET, and some people add "on the QNH" on every transmission.

When listening in on LHR ATC i have heard the following:
British 295 desend 4000 on QNH 1005

On Manchester control 134.420: Kestrel 114 descend to FL290 he replied descending 290.

The QNH is for the information obviously to the pilot and so he knows passing through transition altitude which at LHR is 6000'ft
At Manchester its 5000'ft so its different all over the UK, sorry if i've missed the point of this post.

G-MIDY, what I posted above is the correct "MATS Part 1" phraseology. When issuing an Altitude descent/climb instruction, TO and FEET should be used, no matter what the Transition Altitude.

What is actually used in the field is a different matter. Standard phraseology is very easily forgotten.

(Just as a little poke of fun....... British 295 into LHR?? Wow.)

I used to reply to the clearance "Cleared to FLXXX" with "Is that PD or PDQ?" ;)