A Lieberman wrote:


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

Most pilots read back IFR clearances. Some just respond with the
transponder code, some say "Roger". Either way it doesn't matter.



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 can simply respond with "34L".



The above three scenarios are clearances?????

Yes.



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???

No reason not to.



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???

Not required, you might want to read back whatever you're new clearance was.


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.

To put ATC back on the hook for readback/hearback errors.