When to acknowledge ATC

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