When to acknowledge ATC

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.

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.