When to acknowledge ATC

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Exactly what I've been saying.


Yeah, you're both wrong.


You haven't provided anything to say otherwise. Now, your turn.
Put up docs to prove your side, or shut up.


I never said you had to readback
a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.


It SHOULD be read back? Are you sure? Previously you claimed it MUST be
read back. Which is it?


Damn it, Ron, you're trolling now.

It has to be read back. Like any call/acknowledgment. a simple
'roger' or ignoring it doesn't work. Read it back. Save your ass a
request to call the facility, let alone another checkride because
you've mucked things up, and read it back.

That was Steve, (pay attention to the conversation). But Steve's
right and you're still wrong.

LET ME SAY THIS AS DISTINCTLY AS POSSIBLE. You can read the AIM,
7110.65, and the FAR's and it comes down to this. READBACKS are
not required with the exception of the special band-aid put in
to the controller handback back when Runway Incursion was a hot
issue.

Happy Dog wrote:


What if they don't give a reason? They often don't.

"NY departure this is N123XX."

"VFR aircraft stay clear of Class Bravo airspace."

"N123XX wilco."

You are just wasting airtime with that last transmission.


See? Now you know something new.


ATC is going to expect a readback.


Is that only if they give you a reason?

They aren't expecting and don't really want a readback.
If they're so busy that they tell everybody to standby and
remain clear the last thing they need is some clown continuing
to talk.

This is like Homer Simpson who where it was written do not write
below this line, wrote "OK."

"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.

"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.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in
His location does not necessarily mean he's speaking about Canadian
procedures. Many Canadian pilots operate in the US regularly. He
entered a discussion where US procedures were being discussed and spoke
of Canadian procedures without identifying his comments as such. Bad
form.

Especially when he was quoting from the US AIM and controllers handbook
to make his half-assed assertions.

Adorable. Show where I "quoted from the US AIM and controllers handbook" or
shove that up your pitot. I corrected my error at least twice in the same
thread. Yet there's been a half dozen posts about this insignificant
mistake. WTF do you want?

le moo

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

Cub Driver wrote:
I often listen to the tower at Pease tradeport (and National Guard
base) across the bay. Professional pilots regularly thank the tower,
and routinely say "G'day" upon departing the Delta airspace.

I noticed the same behaviour consistently at TYS and erratically elsewhere in
the eastern U.S..

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"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

Happy Dog wrote:

Lordy, why? VFR in low ceilings means that almost everyone is flying just
below the clouds. Why wouldn't you want to have flight following in those
conditions? It's free. What's the issue?

I do not hear well. This is the result of early use of firearms and a lifetime
of working with power tools. To some extent that is taken care of by a decent
radio, excellent intercom, and a set of Bose-X headsets, but, in addition to
that, I don't "snap to attention" when someone addresses me. I'm typically
thinking, sightseeing, or daydreaming. I also spend a fair amount of any long
flight listening to music (though not when I'm near something like class-D
airspace).

That creates a cycle in which I get little practice in talking to ATC, so my
communications are awkward. So I avoid situtations in which I have to talk with
them, so I get less practice. The first time I enter controlled airspace each
season is certainly entertaining for any outsider on the channel, and the last
few years I've not had occassion to speak to ATC at all.

The result is that I find keeping an erratic conversation going with ATC to be a
lot of unpleasant work. As I said, that's a personal decision. I would never
recommend against using flight following, I just prefer to avoid it myself. If
I'm close to a major airport (for example, passing Roanoke on a Tennessee run),
I'll be listening but not talking to them.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Larry Dighera wrote:

The thought of ATC's intrusion into the reverie of our aerial
operations is displeasing. But anyone who fails to avail themselves
of Radar Traffic Advisory Service in the Los Angeles basin just
doesn't appreciate the magnitude of aerial congestion in the vicinity.

And I might use flight following there. I didn't lose anything on the shaky
side, however.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.