When to acknowledge ATC

-----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.

On Mon, 09 May 2005 06:52:59 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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.

I guess a lot depends on the airport/Center area you are flying
from. In meetings with our local ATC, they advise us to readback
all clearances, hold short, taxi, and runway assignments.

The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
have to file an ASRS form.

Ron

OP wrote:


The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
have to file an ASRS form.

Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction. This
was once touted to be the case, but the FAA stompted on that idea.

Your last sentence makes no sense. You don't need any CYA for filing
ASRS. You can file an ASRS at any time you think you have a
contribution to the safety process. The ASRS itself is a CYA for
some enforcement actions, but it's primary purpose is not a way
for pilots to avoid FAA persecution.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction.

It does if they tell you "readback correct". It doesn't if they don't
acknowledge your readback.

Ron Natalie wrote:

OP wrote:


The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
have to file an ASRS form.

Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction. This
was once touted to be the case, but the FAA stompted on that idea.

Your last sentence makes no sense. You don't need any CYA for filing
ASRS. You can file an ASRS at any time you think you have a
contribution to the safety process. The ASRS itself is a CYA for
some enforcement actions, but it's primary purpose is not a way
for pilots to avoid FAA persecution.

But, alas, that seems to have become its primary use.


Matt

On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:40:40 GMT, OP wrote in
::

On Mon, 09 May 2005 06:52:59 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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.

I guess a lot depends on the airport/Center area you are flying
from. In meetings with our local ATC, they advise us to readback
all clearances, hold short, taxi, and runway assignments.

Regardless of their advice, there is no FAA regulatory basis for
mandating clearance readback. If ATC instructs a pilot to readback
anything, that is another matter.

The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
have to file an ASRS form.

Ron

I'm not sure your reason for repeating controllers' instructions is
useful for the reason you state, but it is just common sense to verify
you've got the information correct.

"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.