When to acknowledge ATC

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

"Newps" wrote in message
news


wrote:




If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come up
with (or for no reason at all).
It's life in the FAA.

It's life in the Centers. Out here in the towers we are normal.

Actually, out there in the towers you are, well, out there...

Chip, ZTL

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 May 2005 21:05:46 -0700, Antoñio
wrote in
::


Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "

Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.

Yah, but you'll never get him to see it. :-)


He sees it. You'll never get him to admit he sees it.

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

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

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.


The only messages in this thread that contain the word "insulting" are
your message above and the responses to it.


Oops! That should have been; "The only messages in this thread that contain
the word 'ignorant' are your message above and the responses to it."

"Antoñio" wrote in message
...

A *fact* which not all of us share; therefore, a self-proclaimed one.


A fact doesn't have to be shared to be factual.



While it may be true that the majority here are from the USA, that still
does not make this a "USA group".


I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from the
US.



That's a *fact* you appear to have missed for some, not unknown, reason.


No, that's just a misinterpretation on your part.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Whatever. You did, but you're too busy being the kettle and calling all
the other pots black to notice. Probably has something to do with YOUR
monumental ego.

For giggles, let's assume you didn't misread my post. I suppose you were
just reiterating the same point I'd already made then?

What other reason would you have for posting the reply to my post that you
did? I wrote that the previous poster was incorrect, then you replied
saying exactly that. Is that the new Usenet standard now? To just go
around quoting articles and restating what's already been written?


But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote, "Not
that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those statements are
not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous poster is
correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

I didn't misinterpret your post, you simply misspoke.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
.net...

"Newps" wrote in message
news
If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come
up
with (or for no reason at all).
It's life in the FAA.

It's life in the Centers. Out here in the towers we are normal.

Actually, out there in the towers you are, well, out there...


Snob! :~)

"Steven P. McNicoll"

I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from the
US.

Define "overwhelming". Then back your claim with figures. Even if it's
90%, that's no excuse for the intellectual laziness of "reasonable
assumption" and it hardly makes it incumbent on any non-US participant to
make an overt reference to their non-US status. Your suggestion is idiotic,
unnecessary and recommended by nobody but you. Your lack of presumption is
touching, though.

moo

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote,
"Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those
statements are not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous
poster is correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

It's not saying that he is correct either. Even ignoring your absurd
equivocation over what "not that" means and your egotistical refusal to
properly interpret my statement, there was no need for your reply.

As usual, since you're willing to take the most ridiculous stance and carry
it to genuinely silly extremes, you once again get the last word. I'm not
wasting any more time on your idiotic "no I didn't"s. I hope at least you
get as much satisfaction from your empty last word as I do from knowing
that, while you are compelled to respond with ever-increasing foolishness,
no matter how far it takes you, that I am able to resist replying to your
foolishness.

And just because I can...

WHATever.

Pete

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
"Steven P. McNicoll"

I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from
the US.

Define "overwhelming". Then back your claim with figures. Even if it's
90%, that's no excuse for the intellectual laziness of "reasonable
assumption" and it hardly makes it incumbent on any non-US participant to
make an overt reference to their non-US status. Your suggestion is
idiotic, unnecessary and recommended by nobody but you. Your lack of
presumption is touching, though.

moo


It's not snobbery but rather history that makes Steven's claim true.

Go Google this group and you'll see that an "overwhelming" number of posts
discuss flying in the US, by US pilots at US airports under US regulations.

I don't think it's unfair to ask non-US pilots to mention the fact that
their stories, comments and/or critiques are based on non-US regulations,
laws or customs.

I see it like this: We all speak "aviation" here, but Canadian and European
pilots have an accent.

FWIW,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ