When to acknowledge ATC

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
will hear that.


You're not in a position to tell me anything on this subject and FAAO
7110.65 does NOT use that phrase.


Nor are you in any position to tell me anything on this subject
either. So quit trying to make yourself sound better than anyone else
here. So far, you've said that I'm wrong, others are wrong, but you
haven't backed up with anything to substantiate anything you're saying
as being RIGHT. Like I said before, put up, or shut up.


I'll say request, because even a 'roger' is acknowledgment.


Are you saying your original statement was wrong?

You're trolling again.


But if ATC must get a readback that the pilot acknowledges and knows he
must tay outside of that airspace.


There is no requirement for ATC to get that readback.


blah blah. I've heared this before. back up what you're saying.

Apparently, for as much a love you
have for aviation, your lack of knowledge of the regulation
documentation really disturbs me, as an ATC.


I know everything about these requirements, and you're not an ATC.

So you say. So you say. but you haven't shown anything to back
yourself. So why should we believe you? Unless you wrote the FARs, the
AIM, and the .65, which I know you haven't, you are in no position to
tell us what is right or wrong.


Call your local TRACON or
center facility, and ask them about Class Bravo airspace and readbacks
regarding entering and leaving it.


When my local TRACON gets such questions there frequently directed to me for
the answer.

Do tell. Which TRACON?

There's no need to, and there's no reason for ATC to desire one. How could
they require a readback?



No response = no confirmation that their call was received.
That could mean lost communications, which ATC has another set of
regulations to follow, to find out your situation.


Do you understand that acknowledgement IS a response?

Did I not mention that an acknowledgement is a response now
*10* posts ago, in which you tried to tell me that pilots didn't need
to respond? Yodaspeak, you are talking.


I'm training for ATC.


Really. You must be very early in the program. I teach ATC.

Still, you post no credentials. I wouldn't believe it if my
grandmother came up to me and told me she taught ATC without anything
to back it up.


We're supposed to keep separation of
aircraft, as well as the pilots of those aircrafts safe. That requires
communication. Communication is two-sided. If ATC is trying to
communicate, and doesn't hear the other side acknowledging, ATC isn't
going to assume everything is hunky-dory, and go about his other
business, especially in Class Bravo. He's going to want acknowledgment
that his call was heard and understood.


That's true, but your position has been that mere acknowledgement is not
sufficient, that the pilot MUST provide a readback. I and a few others have
been trying to explain to you that a readback is NOT required.

Then prove to me that it is not required. Where does it say
that pilot readback is not required? If a controller tells you:

N123AB, cleared into Class B airspace, maintain VFR at or below
8500 for traffic.

And you are at 10,500, You are telling me you are not going to
readback that you are cleared into the B airspace (AIM 5-5-2.a.1) and
descend to 8500 to maintain VFR (reading back what ATC has told you)?


If requiring flight following, yes. Either the controller
handing the pilot off to an Approach/Departure controller operating
class C will have already made radar contact, or if the pilot contacts
the Approach/Departure controller and requests flight following, they
will be given a transponder code and radar identified. Otherwise there
is no flight following.


No, is it still your position that there must be radar contact prior to
entry?

To Class B, yes. To Class C, it is debatable. I have heard
Class C controllers radar identify VFR traffic in Class C both within
and prior to entering Class C airspace.

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)

iD8DBQFCfqVfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtWQAJsFFoLNXPN0dVegCLY6YB LsIJe5hQCgl+v+
TCwZjzXIuGcbA9Ueuk5SzOA=
=D0uG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Nor are you in any position to tell me anything on this subject
either.


Yes I am. I'm an experienced pilot and controller and it's pretty clear
you're neither.



So quit trying to make yourself sound better than anyone else
here. So far, you've said that I'm wrong, others are wrong, but you
haven't backed up with anything to substantiate anything you're saying
as being RIGHT. Like I said before, put up, or shut up.


Why doesn't that apply to you? Despite repeated requests you've provided
nothing that supports your position. You've quoted material that you claim
supports your position but doesn't even mention readbacks. Why don't you
put up or shut up?

I've explained why you have the burden of proof on this issue. You claim
the readback requirement exists, so it's up to you to cite that requirement.
I and others claim there is no such requirement, but none of us can prove
something does not exist.



You're trolling again.


I'm asking for clarification because you've made contradictory statements.



blah blah. I've heared this before. back up what you're saying.


How do I do that? Do you expect me to produce a regulation that says a
readback of in instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is not
required? Is that how you concluded it was required, by the absence of any
such regulation?



So you say. So you say. but you haven't shown anything to back
yourself. So why should we believe you? Unless you wrote the FARs, the
AIM, and the .65, which I know you haven't, you are in no position to
tell us what is right or wrong.


Why am I held to a much higher standard than you? You haven't shown
anything to back yourself. So why should we believe you? All you've done is
demonstrate that you're not familiar with the FARs, the AIM, and FAAO
7110.65. What makes you think you're in a position to tell us what is right
or wrong?



Do tell. Which TRACON?


Green Bay, WI.



Did I not mention that an acknowledgement is a response now
*10* posts ago, in which you tried to tell me that pilots didn't need
to respond?


No.



Still, you post no credentials. I wouldn't believe it if my
grandmother came up to me and told me she taught ATC without anything
to back it up.


What do you expect me to present here as proof? What will you post as proof
that you're training for ATC? I don't believe that you are in ATC training.



Then prove to me that it is not required.


You're asking me to prove a negative. That isn't possible.



Where does it say that pilot readback is not required?


It doesn't say that anywhere, it's not required because nowhere does it say
that a pilot readback is required.



If a controller tells you:

N123AB, cleared into Class B airspace, maintain VFR at or below
8500 for traffic.

And you are at 10,500, You are telling me you are not going to
readback that you are cleared into the B airspace (AIM 5-5-2.a.1) and
descend to 8500 to maintain VFR (reading back what ATC has told you)?


That's right, I'm not. I'm going to acknowledge by saying, "N123AB
descending to 8,500."



To Class B, yes. To Class C, it is debatable. I have heard
Class C controllers radar identify VFR traffic in Class C both within
and prior to entering Class C airspace.


Wrong and wrong.