"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
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.
An instructor is free to require his students to read back clearances.
There is no regulation that requires clearances be read back.
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?
You can reply "roger", you can read back all of it or part of it, you can
say, "got it, thanks". All are done regularly.
Sundowner 34L cleared for the ILS approach 16 right. I reply 34L cleared
for the ILS 16 right. I wouldn't reply roger?
You could.
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?
You could, although "cleared to land" tends to come AFTER contact is made
with the tower.
The above three scenarios are clearances?????
Yup. Keep in mind that nobody's saying it's wrong to read back a clearance,
it's just that it's not required.
If so, I would be required to read back???
No.
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???
Go ahead, many do.
I had an ILS approach canceled on me. Was I not required to read back
that cancellation of a clearance.
No.
Saying "roger 34L" in the clag I don't think
is enough???
Why not?
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.
It's considered a good practice, it's just not REQUIRED.
|