When to acknowledge ATC

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:



Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
with your identifier)..


Has 2-way communication been established?

Yes.


If ATC does not
respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.

Right.



Same happens with IFR traffic. If a Minneapolis Center tries to
hand off a flight to Denver Center, and Denver Center doesn't accept
the handoff, does the flight have permission to enter Denver's
Airspace? Absolutely not.

Wrong, it most certainly does. If a handoff is not completed for any
reason that is an ATC error. You have no way of knowing where the
airspace boundaries are.


The same applies here. If ATC does not
respond, you don't enter their space.

Right.




********. You must. But go on and believe what you believe.
I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
both ATC and pilots.

You've done no such thing. It doesn't exist.

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.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?

I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?


I'd have been happier if you had tried to learn something.

Yeah.. I've learned not to be assertive around you. Thanks for
making someone who is wanting to put his heart into this career feel
diswayed. Perhaps I'll be one less controller to replace you from
working harder than you should, or even better, thanks for putting more
burden on yourself. Don't complain if the government requires you to
stay on until you're 80, because with that attitude of yours, no-one
will love working under you. Check yourself.

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)

iD8DBQFCf8KeyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnI4AKCZ4JL2h2sgSCcoW+mnW+ IcOOf2swCeIUi9
GiQW0bndG13edGEBQIyHEr8=
=YsII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:57:34 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
wrote in
::

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

Hamish Reid wrote:

This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
-- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...

Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?

I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?

BL.


From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.

If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:08:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Let me jump in here with a confused expression.....

When they first created the alphabetic areas, I was taught that Class
B airspace required a specific clearance prior to entrance..... thus,
something like "N12345 cleared to enter Class B airspace" as opposed
to just "establishing" two-way communications as required in Class
C.... and just barging in.

That is correct (clearance req'd for B). Your example would be most
likely heard when VFR. If you're on an IFR clearance already, you
wouldn't need the VFR "magic words".


As for readbacks... As for VFR, I'd have to admit that I'm really
not
clear on the absolute requirements, though I tend to read back
everything that shouldn't be obvious or ambiguous....

Hold short instructions must be read back. Just about everything
else is optional (according to the absolute requirements).
Occasionally, I'll run across a controller that wants me to read back a
clearance and I'll certainly oblige, but there is no regulatory
requirement for me to have read it back when he gave it to me. When I
operated out of a class B primary airport, my clearance into class B
was usually tacked on to a paragraph of instructions on what I was
supposed to do once I was in the class B. Being a local, the whole
spiel was pretty standard and I usually just wilcoed the whole thing.
Given the usual lack of airtime on the class B approach freq., the
controllers were probably thankful that I didn't tie up their frequency
with a readback.

Basically, I just use my judgement when deciding what to readback.
Sometimes a complete readback is appropriate (even though not required)
and other times not.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.

If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.


I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

But you're right. I should, and will work on it.

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)

iD8DBQFCf8nMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkElAJwJjKAEmS+Dy5y04gRiFx cpMLki1ACglk0O
kDyhMWyeBWMxYIAbtzEj/+w=
=8O48
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.

No need to crawl into a hole. I'm not sure about "standing up for
what you learned" is, because if someone taught you something that
wasn't right, you shouldn't automatically "stand up" for it.

In ATC, you'll be personally responsible for knowing the rules to the
letter, regardless of what someone told you. If the day comes when an
operational error is due to a misunderstanding of a rule or reg,
"that's the way I learned it" will probably not go over very well.
Best to learn that part sooner rather than later. It will be a fact of
life in your chosen career.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

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

Hamish Reid wrote:

This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
-- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...


Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?

I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?

I'm actually indifferent. :-)

There are very good reasons to read back most clearances. The main
reason is to ensure that I got it right. However, the point was that it
isn't required, it is, however, a good practice. Lots of things that
aren't required are still good practice.


Matt

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting.

Well, "ignorant" simply means you don't know. If you're posting and defending
stuff that's simply wrong, you *are* ignorant. It's a little blunt for someone
to say so, but it's not insulting to state a fact.

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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.

If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.



I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

Being ignorant isn't a big deal. We're all ignorant in many ways. I
don't think anyone called you stupid, which would be an insult. Saying
you are ignorant is just a frank way of saying that there is a gap in
your knowledge that you need to fill. It isn't an insult, just a
statement of fact. Once you fill that gap you are now less ignorant,
and can move on to the next are for improvement.

Matt