When to acknowledge ATC

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
. ..

Has 2-way communication been established?


Yes.



If ATC does not
respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.


ATC had responded.



********. You must.


You keep saying that but you offer no supporting documentation. Please
provide some.



But go on and believe what you believe.
I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
both ATC and pilots.


There is nothing in any of the documentation you provided that supports your
position.



If you want to go on flying like an idiot, I hope
I'm not controlling you (and as I'm more than likely getting the call
to start at NCT in Sacramento (well what do ya know, Class C!)), you'll
resent me, because if I ask you to remain outside of Class C for a
reason, I'm expecting that readback.


What are you going to do if you don't get that readback?

If you don't change your attitude you'll not be able to learn the procedures
and won't check out, so it'll never be an issue.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
. ..

Has 2-way communication been established?


Yes.


How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)


If ATC does not
respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.


ATC had responded.

Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
would you do?


********. You must.


You keep saying that but you offer no supporting documentation. Please
provide some.

Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
clearance from delivery.


But go on and believe what you believe.
I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
both ATC and pilots.


There is nothing in any of the documentation you provided that supports your
position.

Once again, the 7110.65P supports what ATC will say, and expect
to be heard back. Read it. Then read it again.


If you want to go on flying like an idiot, I hope
I'm not controlling you (and as I'm more than likely getting the call
to start at NCT in Sacramento (well what do ya know, Class C!)), you'll
resent me, because if I ask you to remain outside of Class C for a
reason, I'm expecting that readback.


What are you going to do if you don't get that readback?

If you don't change your attitude you'll not be able to learn the procedures
and won't check out, so it'll never be an issue.

If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
concept of communications and readbacks.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfoN3yBkZmuMZ8L8RAnd/AKDzVmYIUBA0YuCJaurbZKlhAe2ZJQCcCScs
ESRDILzv+e3nW7hiV50XOhM=
=rtQt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
.. .

How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)


Here's the exchange again:

"ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."

"JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."

Jackson approach responded to the pilot's transmission with his callsign,
two-way radio communications have been established.



Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
would you do?


Well, once again, they had.



Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
clearance from delivery.


Please cite the general requirement for clearances to be read back.



Once again, the 7110.65P supports what ATC will say, and expect
to be heard back. Read it. Then read it again.


I have read it, many times. You'll likely never encounter anyone more
familiar with it than I. It does NOT use the phrase you quoted.



If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
concept of communications and readbacks.


That is extremely unlikely, but if it ever does happen, then they will be a
bit more knowledgeable about ATC after the call.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
.. .

How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)


Here's the exchange again:

"ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."

"JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."
----------------------------------------------------

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
communication has been established. Your previous *5* posts had said
otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
thread has done gets it into your head.

Jackson approach responded to the pilot's transmission with his callsign,
two-way radio communications have been established.

See above.


Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
would you do?


Well, once again, they had.

Ahh well.. err... yeah. Now you backtrack.


Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
clearance from delivery.


Please cite the general requirement for clearances to be read back.


Fine. Once again. AIM, section 5-5-2:

5-5-2. Air Traffic Clearance

a. Pilot.

1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of an ATC clearance.

3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a
clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a
safety standpoint.

4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except
as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible
and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.

I omitted #2 from that, as it deals with runway instructions.
Note here that ATC clearance does not only mean clearances on the
ground. As Clearance into Class B airspace is a CLEARANCE, you *MUST*
acknowledge receipt of that clearance. If you don't, see #4.


I have read it, many times. You'll likely never encounter anyone more
familiar with it than I. It does NOT use the phrase you quoted.

What makes you so familiar with it? Credentials, please?

If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
concept of communications and readbacks.


That is extremely unlikely, but if it ever does happen, then they will be a
bit more knowledgeable about ATC after the call.

I doubt it. You're not doing their job.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfqKGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkcWAKCw1MPLPBleqrlTqjWYIL jvJExbXACeIcTt
iQXP3pOeTLEfCkWJE5AWI9o=
=eEXn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
. ..

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
communication has been established.


No you didn't. You said ATC hadn't responded. You said it twice.



Your previous *5* posts had said
otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
thread has done gets it into your head.


I never said anything at all like that.



Ahh well.. err... yeah. Now you backtrack.


How so?



Fine. Once again. AIM, section 5-5-2:

5-5-2. Air Traffic Clearance

a. Pilot.

1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of an ATC clearance.

3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a
clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a
safety standpoint.

4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except
as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible
and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.

I omitted #2 from that, as it deals with runway instructions.
Note here that ATC clearance does not only mean clearances on the
ground. As Clearance into Class B airspace is a CLEARANCE, you *MUST*
acknowledge receipt of that clearance. If you don't, see #4.


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. Even if it did say a readback is required it wouldn't be
as the AIM is not regulatory. To support your position you must cite an FAR
that requires a readback. Good luck.



What makes you so familiar with it? Credentials, please?


I've been a controller for 22 years, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and 13
years at Green Bay ATCT/TRACON which has jurisdiction over Class C airspace.

What are your credentials?



I doubt it. You're not doing their job.


Actually, I am.

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

On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:42:33 -0500, A Lieberman
wrote in ::

If so, I would be required to read back???

There is no FAA regulation *requiring* reed back of a clearance.
Subsequent to 'rogering' your clearance, you may detect a bit of
consternation in the controller's voice if you are in contact with
her, but that's about it.

"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.

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.

"A Guy Called Tyketto"
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)

Here's the exchange again:

"ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing
through
500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."

"JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."
----------------------------------------------------

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
communication has been established. Your previous *5* posts had said
otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
thread has done gets it into your head.

For your sake, you had better hope that your examiners or future superiors
aren't reading this. You're way over your head.

The original exchange was:
*******
Ron Natalie wrote:

Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
with your identifier)..

Has 2-way communication been established?
*********

You ask this right after the poster *told* you that communication has been
established. Idiot. Unlike you, the other poster displays a working
familiarity with comm procs.

If ATC does not respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.

This was never an issue. It's a Red Herring. Nobody ever disagreed with
you or made a statement indicating they believed otherwise. This sort of
ranting makes you look crazy and qualified for armchair ATC positions only.

It doesn't bother you that every pilot here is disagreeing with you on a
basic issue. If we're all wrong about readback procedures, we would have
had our tickets suspended long ago. These errors in basic logic are akin to
those made by kooks who demand that others prove their crazy beliefs wrong.
When a poster tells you that they have the occupational authority to
unerringly state the facts they've graced you with (free education) look up
their posting history before you dismiss them as unqualified. Too late for
that now. Nobodys get away with claiming to have qualifications they don't
for very long on an NG like this.

moo