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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The controller is off any hook if he issued the altimeter, a readback
or lack of one changes nothing. In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you, the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash, etc. Do your homework, it's a mean world out there... denny |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Foley wrote:
I always read back any numbers given by ATC. Altimeter, runway, heading, altitude. "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ What boots up must come down. Rodger that. I read back all numbers. It's cheap insurance. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, John Harper said:
"identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them" I've had controllers request it again after I just pushed the ident button without telling them that I was doing so. You'd think that only one VFR target would be identing when they asked, but evidently not. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Denny" wrote in message oups.com... In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you, the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash, etc. Actually, it hasn't. What the government decided was that if you read back a clearance meant for another aircraft and the controller doesn't hear your readback because your transmission was blocked by the transmission from the proper aircraft then you, the PIC, are responsible for any loss of separation, airspace bust, crash, etc., due to your error. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:32:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in et:: "Denny" wrote in message roups.com... In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you, the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash, etc. Actually, it hasn't. What the government decided was that if you read back a clearance meant for another aircraft and the controller doesn't hear your readback because your transmission was blocked by the transmission from the proper aircraft then you, the PIC, are responsible for any loss of separation, airspace bust, crash, etc., due to your error. Here's some background information on the subject: The Federal Register cite is he http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...retiverule.pdf --------------------------------------- http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...erpretive.html Regulatory Brief FAA interpretive rule places the responsibility for compliance with ATC clearances and instructions squarely on the pilot The issue: On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published what they called an "interpretive rule" in the Federal Register. The stated purpose of this interpretive rule was to "correct" the National Transportation Safety Board legal interpretation of the FAA regulations regarding communications between the pilot and air traffic control personnel. In essence the interpretive rule overturns a line of reasoning developed through a series of enforcement case appeals heard before the NTSB Administrative Law Judges. This line of decisions absolved the pilot of responsibility in certain instances where incorrect information was read back by the pilot and not caught by ATC personnel. FAA’s new interpretive rule squarely places the primary responsibility on the pilot to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably all ATC instructions and clearances. In effect, the simple act of giving a readback does not shift the primary responsibility to air traffic control and does not insulate the pilot from enforcement action in the event of error. The importance to our members: The FAA’s issuance of this interpretive rule raises several concerns. First, it shifts all responsibility for proper communication and understanding to the pilot, raising the specter of increased enforcement actions against airmen for communications deviations. Further it tampers with the notion that aviation safety requires air traffic control to function as a cooperative system, in which all participants must share the responsibility for accurate communication. The interpretive rule places the pilot and controller in an adversarial position, each trying to protect themselves from penalty or enforcement. Perhaps the greatest consequence of this interpretive rule is the precedent that it sets for the NTSB appeal process. In effect, the FAA is demonstrating a willingness to overturn any line of reasoning or decisions developed through the NTSB enforcement appeal process that do not fit the FAA’s desired interpretation. Further, they feel they can do this by publishing a simple statement in the Federal Register describing their desired interpretation. This approach sets a dangerous precedent and could be applied in the future to overturn other NTSB appellate lines of reasoning deemed to be undesirable by the FAA. Significant provisions: FAA’s general operating and flight rules require pilots to comply with the clearances and instructions of air traffic control, unless they are amended, except in an emergency or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. It has traditionally been the FAA’s view that it is the duty of pilots and controllers alike to adhere to a high standard of clear communication, attentive listening, and reasonable understanding. Given these shared responsibilities, the FAA deems responsible the participant who is the initiating or principal cause of a miscommunication or misunderstanding. NTSB case law reasoned that a pilot was absolved of responsibility if an erroneous full read back of clearances or instructions were given by the pilot and the error was not detected or corrected by the controller. FAA does not agree with the NTSB’s interpretation and believes this requires correction. FAA states that the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under §91.123. AOPA position: AOPA is strongly opposed to the issuance of this interpretive rule and believes that it undermines the free flow of information between pilots and controllers and thus hinders aviation safety. Further, we are deeply concerned with the legal precedent this sets in having the FAA overturn NTSB lines of decisions with the simple stroke of the pen. In our view, this nullifies the airman’s only right of appeal in the enforcement process. Status: AOPA is conducting a careful and thorough legal review of both the substance of the FAA’s interpretation of the rules as well as the use of an interpretive rule to overturn case law. On April 15, 1999 AOPA sent a letter to FAA Administrator Garvey outlining our concerns and urging the FAA to withdraw the interpretive rule. AOPA is awaiting a formal response to our letter from the FAA and will continue to evaluate the legal ramifications of the FAA’s abuse of its discretion in overturning NTSB case law using the interpretive rule. Related documents: FAA 14 CFR Part 91 — Pilot Responsibility for Compliance with Air Traffic Control Clearances and Instructions (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) AOPA Letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, April 15, 1999 AOPA Press Release 99-2-007, April 16, 1999 991604R1 ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../99-2-007.html AOPA implores FAA Administrator Garvey to put safety first by withdrawing readback errors interpretive rule Apr. 16, 1999 — The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is imploring FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to put safety first and withdraw an “interpretive rule” that places blame solely on the pilot for any errors in air traffic control clearance readbacks. “Fix the problem, not the blame,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer. “Just as with the ticket program, FAA is sending the message that enforcement is more important than safety.” In April, FAA issued an interpretive rule on Federal Aviation Regulation 91.123 concerning a pilot’s responsibility to understand and comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions. The rule, in effect, absolves air traffic personnel from any legal responsibility to correct misunderstandings between pilot and controller. Simply put, if a pilot reads back an ATC instruction incorrectly, the controller has no legal obligation to correct the error. FAA could then take enforcement action against the pilot for not complying with ATC instructions. “This seems contrary to the Administration’s “Safer Skies Initiative” and joint FAA-industry efforts to improve aviation safety,” Boyer told Garvey. Boyer said that pilots and controllers share responsibility for the safety and integrity of the air traffic control system. There is no evidence of pilots deliberately mishearing ATC instructions. Clearance readbacks are part of a checks and balances system that guards against miscommunication. That system depends on mutual trust between controllers and pilots. “But this interpretive rule is a classic Catch-22,” Boyer said. “The pilot honestly believes he’s doing everything right, but FAA can still hit him with an enforcement action. This rule will hinder pilot-controller communication, and that will affect safety.” Interpretive rule serves FAA legal self-interests, not safety AOPA said the interpretive rule serves only the self-interests of FAA’s legal and air traffic divisions. “FAA’s Flight Standards Division has the expertise to determine how pilots should comply with regulations and it is the only FAA division that could even remotely be considered as having pilots’ interests at heart,” Boyer said. “AOPA can’t find evidence in the rule that Flight Standards had any significant input.” FAA trying to overrule NTSB FAA issued the ruling following several enforcement cases in which the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled against FAA and in favor of the pilot. AOPA said that FAA was trying to thwart congressional intent that NTSB have authority to independently review FAA enforcement actions. “FAA didn’t like NTSB’s rulings, so FAA changed the rules,” Boyer said. “That flies in the face of fair and just principles of the law.” Boyer told Garvey the interpretive rule was an abuse of FAA’s discretionary authority and “ill conceived on many fronts.” “Most onerous, it will rupture the cooperative relationship between pilots and controllers to the detriment of aviation safety. We implore you to withdraw this interpretive rule.” A copy of AOPA President Phil Boyer’s letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is available on AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...iveletter.html. [See also AOPA's regulatory brief.] The 345,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the world’s largest civil aviation organization. More than one-half of the nation’s pilots are AOPA members. 99-2-007 ------------------------------------------- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... Here's some background information on the subject: The Federal Register cite is he http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...retiverule.pdf --------------------------------------- http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...erpretive.html Regulatory Brief FAA interpretive rule places the responsibility for compliance with ATC clearances and instructions squarely on the pilot The issue: On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published what they called an "interpretive rule" in the Federal Register. The stated purpose of this interpretive rule was to "correct" the National Transportation Safety Board legal interpretation of the FAA regulations regarding communications between the pilot and air traffic control personnel. In essence the interpretive rule overturns a line of reasoning developed through a series of enforcement case appeals heard before the NTSB Administrative Law Judges. This line of decisions absolved the pilot of responsibility in certain instances where incorrect information was read back by the pilot and not caught by ATC personnel. FAA's new interpretive rule squarely places the primary responsibility on the pilot to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably all ATC instructions and clearances. In effect, the simple act of giving a readback does not shift the primary responsibility to air traffic control and does not insulate the pilot from enforcement action in the event of error. The importance to our members: The FAA's issuance of this interpretive rule raises several concerns. First, it shifts all responsibility for proper communication and understanding to the pilot, raising the specter of increased enforcement actions against airmen for communications deviations. Further it tampers with the notion that aviation safety requires air traffic control to function as a cooperative system, in which all participants must share the responsibility for accurate communication. The interpretive rule places the pilot and controller in an adversarial position, each trying to protect themselves from penalty or enforcement. Perhaps the greatest consequence of this interpretive rule is the precedent that it sets for the NTSB appeal process. In effect, the FAA is demonstrating a willingness to overturn any line of reasoning or decisions developed through the NTSB enforcement appeal process that do not fit the FAA's desired interpretation. Further, they feel they can do this by publishing a simple statement in the Federal Register describing their desired interpretation. This approach sets a dangerous precedent and could be applied in the future to overturn other NTSB appellate lines of reasoning deemed to be undesirable by the FAA. Significant provisions: FAA's general operating and flight rules require pilots to comply with the clearances and instructions of air traffic control, unless they are amended, except in an emergency or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. It has traditionally been the FAA's view that it is the duty of pilots and controllers alike to adhere to a high standard of clear communication, attentive listening, and reasonable understanding. Given these shared responsibilities, the FAA deems responsible the participant who is the initiating or principal cause of a miscommunication or misunderstanding. NTSB case law reasoned that a pilot was absolved of responsibility if an erroneous full read back of clearances or instructions were given by the pilot and the error was not detected or corrected by the controller. FAA does not agree with the NTSB's interpretation and believes this requires correction. FAA states that the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under §91.123. AOPA position: AOPA is strongly opposed to the issuance of this interpretive rule and believes that it undermines the free flow of information between pilots and controllers and thus hinders aviation safety. Further, we are deeply concerned with the legal precedent this sets in having the FAA overturn NTSB lines of decisions with the simple stroke of the pen. In our view, this nullifies the airman's only right of appeal in the enforcement process. Status: AOPA is conducting a careful and thorough legal review of both the substance of the FAA's interpretation of the rules as well as the use of an interpretive rule to overturn case law. On April 15, 1999 AOPA sent a letter to FAA Administrator Garvey outlining our concerns and urging the FAA to withdraw the interpretive rule. AOPA is awaiting a formal response to our letter from the FAA and will continue to evaluate the legal ramifications of the FAA's abuse of its discretion in overturning NTSB case law using the interpretive rule. Related documents: FAA 14 CFR Part 91 - Pilot Responsibility for Compliance with Air Traffic Control Clearances and Instructions (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) AOPA Letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, April 15, 1999 AOPA Press Release 99-2-007, April 16, 1999 991604R1 ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../99-2-007.html AOPA implores FAA Administrator Garvey to put safety first by withdrawing readback errors interpretive rule Apr. 16, 1999 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is imploring FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to put safety first and withdraw an "interpretive rule" that places blame solely on the pilot for any errors in air traffic control clearance readbacks. "Fix the problem, not the blame," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Just as with the ticket program, FAA is sending the message that enforcement is more important than safety." In April, FAA issued an interpretive rule on Federal Aviation Regulation 91.123 concerning a pilot's responsibility to understand and comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions. The rule, in effect, absolves air traffic personnel from any legal responsibility to correct misunderstandings between pilot and controller. Simply put, if a pilot reads back an ATC instruction incorrectly, the controller has no legal obligation to correct the error. FAA could then take enforcement action against the pilot for not complying with ATC instructions. "This seems contrary to the Administration's "Safer Skies Initiative" and joint FAA-industry efforts to improve aviation safety," Boyer told Garvey. Boyer said that pilots and controllers share responsibility for the safety and integrity of the air traffic control system. There is no evidence of pilots deliberately mishearing ATC instructions. Clearance readbacks are part of a checks and balances system that guards against miscommunication. That system depends on mutual trust between controllers and pilots. "But this interpretive rule is a classic Catch-22," Boyer said. "The pilot honestly believes he's doing everything right, but FAA can still hit him with an enforcement action. This rule will hinder pilot-controller communication, and that will affect safety." Interpretive rule serves FAA legal self-interests, not safety AOPA said the interpretive rule serves only the self-interests of FAA's legal and air traffic divisions. "FAA's Flight Standards Division has the expertise to determine how pilots should comply with regulations and it is the only FAA division that could even remotely be considered as having pilots' interests at heart," Boyer said. "AOPA can't find evidence in the rule that Flight Standards had any significant input." FAA trying to overrule NTSB FAA issued the ruling following several enforcement cases in which the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled against FAA and in favor of the pilot. AOPA said that FAA was trying to thwart congressional intent that NTSB have authority to independently review FAA enforcement actions. "FAA didn't like NTSB's rulings, so FAA changed the rules," Boyer said. "That flies in the face of fair and just principles of the law." Boyer told Garvey the interpretive rule was an abuse of FAA's discretionary authority and "ill conceived on many fronts." "Most onerous, it will rupture the cooperative relationship between pilots and controllers to the detriment of aviation safety. We implore you to withdraw this interpretive rule." A copy of AOPA President Phil Boyer's letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is available on AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...iveletter.html. [See also AOPA's regulatory brief.] The 345,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the world's largest civil aviation organization. More than one-half of the nation's pilots are AOPA members. 99-2-007 ------------------------------------------- I don't think you have a lot to fear (enforcement wise) if you give a full, but incorrect, readback of an air traffic control transmission when the air traffic controller, under the circumstances, reasonably should have corrected your error but did not. Controllers are still required to ensure that read backs are correct, that has not changed and no change in that requirement was ever proposed. From FAA Order 7110.65, "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, Contact Procedures, Para 4-2-3. 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. When this was announced pilots formed opinions on it based solely on what had been written about the interpretive rule, not on what is actually in the document. All the FAA really did was to declare that the act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility for readback/hearback errors to Air Traffic Control and does not insulate pilots from their responsibility under FAR 91.123 and related regulations to listen attentively and to hear accurately in the first place. That's paraphrased from the Federal Register, the complete document can be seen at http://www.avweb.com/other/faa9914.pdf Basically, the FAA felt the NTSB had been inconsistent. The NTSB had concluded that an air traffic controller's failure to identify and to correct a pilot's erroneous readback warranted a mitigation of a regulatory violation. That is not what the FAA was objecting to. The NTSB had also excused pilots even when the pilot was the initiating or principal cause of the miscommunication. Pilots had given partial readbacks of clearances where the error was in the portion not read back. The NTSB excused a miscommunication for which the pilot was the initiating and principal cause. The pilot took a clearance meant for another aircraft and a loss of separation between two air carrier flights resulted. The NTSB agreed that the pilot's error caused the miscommunication and that there was no prior or subsequent air traffic control contribution to the miscommunication. But the NTSB excused the pilot's error based on his readback, even though the pilot's readback was blocked by another radio transmission and could not have been received, acknowledged, or corrected by ATC. How can ATC correct a readback that they don't receive? The pilot should not have complied with the clearance until he received a "readback correct" (or words to that effect) from ATC. Had the pilot done that in this case there would have been no loss of separation. There was nothing the controller could have done differently. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In 2003, I had an interesting experience at a small airport... I was inbound, 15 miles out, above pattern altitude and descending. I called the field to get runway in use and wind. He also gave me altimeter, which I started to dial in, and in and in... I slowly realized this was not right by a long shot. I vaguely remembered the previous setting, set it back and put her down. Turns out that *someone* had set the field altimeter to field elevation (600 feet) but had dialed it in BACKWARDS past zero to basically -400 feet! The reading was an historic 'hurricane low' pressure, perhaps only seen before in Death Valley. Since then, when changing the altimeter, I announce 'off of 2992 for ????'... HankC John Harper wrote: So maybe there really is a geographic aspect to this. It's true that my instructor taught me to minimize chit chat, and I do. But really, honestly, in Northern CA where I do most of my flying I rarely hear them read back, and never do it myself, and it never seems to cause a problem. Or maybe I just filter it out when other people do it, I don't know. (Things that used to drive my instructor mad: "identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them" "taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it" etc.....) John I automatically read back the altimeter setting when ever given, whether IFR or VFR. Any time I've forgotten to include it in the read back they have given it to me again. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"John Harper" wrote in message news:1112895851.557572@sj-nntpcache-3... In the UK it is mandatory and they will prompt you if you don't read it back. I guess Canada operates to the same procedures as the UK. I realize that I have not completed training yet... but in Canada, under VFR, my understanding is that pretty much NOTHING needs to be read back EXCEPT: ....instructions to hold-short (or cross) runways during taxi (must be specifically itemized in the taxi instructions, and must be read back) ....LAHSO clearances. ....anything else only whenever read-back requested by ATC. Maybe my training will uncover more, as it progresses, but to date (and from what I have read), those are the only MANDATORY requirements. Where I fly (busy satellite within major class C area), you pretty much never hear an altimeter (or even a landing clearance) read back. Always acknowledged..., but rarely read back. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Michael 182" wrote: In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it. Really - I hear about 9 of 10 altimeters read back every time I fly. Ditto. -- Dan C172RG at BFM Me three... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:06:30 -0700, John Harper
wrote: "identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them" "taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it" etc.....) I waffle on saying 'identing' when asked to ident. I think nowadays I've settled on just reading back my tail number when asked for an ident (with, of course, pushing the button). aw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how much money have you lost on the lottery? NOW GET THAT MONEY BACK! | shane | Home Built | 0 | February 5th 05 07:54 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
high copper reading in oil analysis | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | March 26th 04 03:32 PM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Tony | Naval Aviation | 290 | March 7th 04 07:58 PM |