If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
When to acknowledge ATC
ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require acknowledgement? In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact" message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should we shut up as much as possible? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 May 2005 14:21:41 -0700, Andrew wrote:
ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do you acknowledge this transmission? Yes. I read back all instructions. So, I would acknowledge the initial contact: proceed on course, 43 Lima. No need to repeat the location as that is what I believe ATC's verification of your position. How about when ATC says "altimeter setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require acknowledgement? I don't think altimeter readings are "required", however, if anything, from what I understand it helps ATC to see that you hear them. So, I would read 29.92, 43 lima What I wonder is, is it better to say your tail number first or after your acknowledgement or read back of instructions. I tend to flip flop. Allen |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"A Lieberman" wrote in message ... What I wonder is, is it better to say your tail number first or after your acknowledgement or read back of instructions. I tend to flip flop. Technically, you are shortcutting: "xyz tower, this is whatever-type ... four three lima. Roger, here is my readback of your instructions" you throw out the "xyx tower, this is whatever-type ...", but your tail number is still left in, so it is now first, as in: "four three lima.... roger, two niner, niner two." Unfortunately, if we do not include the "roger", then "four three lima.... two niner niner two" seems clumsy and that's when we flip-flop to "two niner niner two.... four three lima" as being somehow more natural. But I still prefer...: "four three lima.... roger, two niner niner two" as the most natural of all. Of course, VFR, I would never read back anything except runway-hold-short-or-cross instructions, unless specifically requested to do so.... so it would only be the acknowledgement: "four three lima". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Depends on the context. Is "proceed on course" a clearance into Class B?
I'd WILCO it generally. The altimeter setting is another story. I'd just say ROGER, thanks. "Andrew" wrote in message oups.com... ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require acknowledgement? In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact" message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should we shut up as much as possible? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"R.L." wrote:
[snip] I'd just say ROGER, thanks. My first instructor, when teaching me the radios, said: "DO *NOT* say 'Roger!'" Maybe it was just her pet peeve, but she insisted that it was more professional to acknowledge with your tail number vs. saying "Roger" ... i.e., "95B, thanks". |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The AIM defines the term "Roger" as, "I have received all of your last transmission," and states that it "should not be used to answer a question requiring a yes or no answer." The altimeter setting is not a clearance or a question, but an advisory transmission. ROGER fits the bill. wrote in message ... "R.L." wrote: [snip] I'd just say ROGER, thanks. My first instructor, when teaching me the radios, said: "DO *NOT* say 'Roger!'" Maybe it was just her pet peeve, but she insisted that it was more professional to acknowledge with your tail number vs. saying "Roger" ... i.e., "95B, thanks". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"R.L." wrote:
The altimeter setting is not a clearance or a question, but an advisory transmission. ROGER fits the bill. Yep, I hear this all the time, especially from ATC. "Somewhere Approach, Bonanza 123 reporting tops at 6,500." "Bonanza 123, Roger." -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... "R.L." wrote: [snip] I'd just say ROGER, thanks. My first instructor, when teaching me the radios, said: "DO *NOT* say 'Roger!'" Maybe it was just her pet peeve, but she insisted that it was more professional to acknowledge with your tail number vs. saying "Roger" ... i.e., "95B, thanks". "Roger" is definitely more professional than "Thanks". Now THAT is truly a waste of bandwidth. Any "aviation-communication" text that I have ever read, discourages the use of "thanks" or "thank you" etc... as being totally redundant and useless... If you do not intend to say "roger", then just say "niner fife bravo" and nothing more. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Icebound wrote:
"Roger" is definitely more professional than "Thanks". Now THAT is truly a waste of bandwidth. Any "aviation-communication" text that I have ever read, discourages the use of "thanks" or "thank you" etc... as being totally redundant and useless... There's the text and then there is the reality, a difference that someone who only reads about aviation most likely misses. A small thank you is not redundant and useless, especially if the controller really did do something that made your flying just a bit easier. After all, we are still civilized human beings. For example, when I am approaching my class C airport from the opposite end of the active runway, I will often request a straight-in to the opposite runway (winds depending). A move like this will shave off perhaps ten minutes of vectors and after a long flight, this might mean the difference between a properly emptied bladder and an improperly emptied bladder. Often times ATC will go out of their way to accommodate this request, including slowing up an aircraft being vectored for an approach to the active runway. Keep in mind that ATC has absolutely no obligation to do this and a "thank you" from me hopefully demonstrates to him/her that his/her efforts were appreciated. Conversely, I have been thanked many times by ATC after doing something that made their work a little easier, such as 360s, S-turns, not complaining when being vectored through the localizer to join on the other side, or going around. I certainly like to hear those words. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. If I am flying through the airspace low and slow for a tour of Great Bay, I call upon leaving the Class D to give my position and altitude and to say "Thank you Pease!" Perhaps things are more formal in Charlie airspace; I don't know. -- all the best, Dan Ford email (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com the blog: www.danford.net In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 101 | March 5th 06 03:13 AM |