On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:39:05 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Irrelevant. Your task is to prove that a READBACK is required. The
material you quoted says nothing at all about readbacks and acknowledgement
is not a readback.

Crap, didn't mean to cause such a storm.....

I was always taught that clearances required a readback I.E the following
situations (not all inclusive). I had three instructors that were very
consistent about this.

Sundowner 1234L, cleared as filed to Tupelo, climb and maintain 2000,
expect 6000 in 5 minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I reply
34L cleared as filed to TUP, climb and maintain 2000, expect 6000 in 5
minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I wouldn't reply roger?

Sundowner 34L cleared for the ILS approach 16 right. I reply 34L cleared
for the ILS 16 right. I wouldn't reply roger?

Sundowner 1234L cleared to land 16 right, contact tower point niner. I
reply 34 Lima cleared to land 16 right contact tower point niner. I
wouldn't reply roger?

The above three scenarios are clearances?????

If so, I would be required to read back??? If not, why not say "roger 34L"
to acknowledge cleared to land, or "roger 34L" to cleared for the
approaches if I am not required to readback???

I had an ILS approach canceled on me. Was I not required to read back that
cancellation of a clearance. Saying "roger 34L" in the clag I don't think
is enough???

I bring these three scenarios up, as I never have heard anything different
then read back the clearances as noted above.

If it truly is not required, then why does the airlines, spam cans tie up
the frequency with reading back the clearances.

How would you Stephen, having been on the ATC side, feel about the above
scenarios and responses?

I changed the subject line so I can pick up on this thread on Friday when I
return from out of town. The original thread is going nuts.....

Allen