Abrupt Controller

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:07:57 -0400, "Kobra" wrote:

Where was your readback?


I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while
I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and
head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took
place.

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. Now, were it me:

1) File an ASRS form, now.

2) WRT the instruction, I would have thought the prefered method would
have been "aircraft, unable Smyrna." As you mention, "Smyrna
unable" is confusing. In fact, if I read the 7110.65 right, he wasn't
in compliance with the approved terminology in 2-1-18(c):

2-1-18: Operational requests
c. State the word “UNABLE” and, time permitting,
a reason.
PHRASEOLOGY-
UNABLE (requested operation).
and when necessary,
(reason and/or additional instructions.)

3) Never get into an on-air discussion. Just shush and go on to the
next sector. It's not worth the airtime, regardless of what the guy
on the ground is doing. You have better things to be doing, like
flying the aircraft. If you want to get into it later after you
landed, ask for the controller's initials, note the time, and then
call his facility and ask for the supervisor or QA guy. They'll take
the information and pull the tapes.

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.



Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the
pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by
using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure
the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
changed. It was widely misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.


It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was never
heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
changed. It was widely misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.


It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was
never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated even though his readback
error was not caught. The controller was charged with an error as well.
This is no doubt the exception as usually the controller buys the error
exclusively.

Mike wrote:

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated

Speaking of questionable phraseology.

Who is "violating" all these pilots.

And what is the manner in which they are "violated".

sounds painful

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in message
news:88f9980d2063f@uwe...
Mike wrote:

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated

Speaking of questionable phraseology.

Who is "violating" all these pilots.

And what is the manner in which they are "violated".

sounds painful

Nobody does for phraseology.

Peter Clark writes:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.

If ATC isn't supposed to correct an incorrect readback, why have readbacks?
Or is that not what you mean?