"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
changed. It was widely misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.


It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was
never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated even though his readback
error was not caught. The controller was charged with an error as well.
This is no doubt the exception as usually the controller buys the error
exclusively.