ATC Readback - Hearback
04-15-2012, 06:35 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Retired
Posts: 38
Readbacks
I gotta agree with the first ATC poster:
I hear a number of crews, including our own, who will read back an altitude as "three-three-oh".
If it was Oh it would be Oscar according to ICAO standard phraseology.
Standard usage helps immensely when flying in Europe or places where English is not the primary language.
I hear a number of crews, including our own, who will read back an altitude as "three-three-oh".
If it was Oh it would be Oscar according to ICAO standard phraseology.
Standard usage helps immensely when flying in Europe or places where English is not the primary language.
04-15-2012, 08:40 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by cyras21
"COA1067 two-seven-zero"
What clearance was just issued?
Was it a heading, altitude, or speed?
What's my point? If I issue (yes I'm a controller) COA1067 cross RIDGY at Flight Level two-seven-zero and you the pilot respond with, COA 1067 two-seven-zero. What assurance do I have that you are acknowledging an altitude assignment and nothing else?
Today for 50 minuetes I logged out of 27 clearances only 3 were read back correctly. Even after asking for an altitude verification the response was numbers only.
Earlier I issued "DALXXX maintain two-six-zero knots" and the response was "DALXXX two-six-zero" and the pilot climbed into traffic.
In my opinion bad phraseology is a problem and we should be concerned. We're bad on both sides of the mic. Fundamentals are not what they used to be. Professionalism is low and complacency is high.
What's the fix? I'm fighting an uphill battle on my end. Too many young kids who know it all and an older generation just too worn out.
This is not meant to be a slam in anyway. I think this is a problem that needs correcting. Am I reading too much into this?
What clearance was just issued?
Was it a heading, altitude, or speed?
What's my point? If I issue (yes I'm a controller) COA1067 cross RIDGY at Flight Level two-seven-zero and you the pilot respond with, COA 1067 two-seven-zero. What assurance do I have that you are acknowledging an altitude assignment and nothing else?
Today for 50 minuetes I logged out of 27 clearances only 3 were read back correctly. Even after asking for an altitude verification the response was numbers only.
Earlier I issued "DALXXX maintain two-six-zero knots" and the response was "DALXXX two-six-zero" and the pilot climbed into traffic.
In my opinion bad phraseology is a problem and we should be concerned. We're bad on both sides of the mic. Fundamentals are not what they used to be. Professionalism is low and complacency is high.
What's the fix? I'm fighting an uphill battle on my end. Too many young kids who know it all and an older generation just too worn out.
This is not meant to be a slam in anyway. I think this is a problem that needs correcting. Am I reading too much into this?
04-15-2012, 03:51 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 145
This one bugs me almost as much as the pilot who makes the straight in at an uncontrolled airport....
When pilots read back their callsign first, and then the request.
Controller: "United XXX runway one zero clear for takeoff"
Pilot: "United XXX clear for takeoff runway one zero"
Sounds like two requests from ATC and if you have two aircraft with similar callsigns, then your just asking for trouble.
This is like radio communication 101.
When pilots read back their callsign first, and then the request.
Controller: "United XXX runway one zero clear for takeoff"
Pilot: "United XXX clear for takeoff runway one zero"
Sounds like two requests from ATC and if you have two aircraft with similar callsigns, then your just asking for trouble.
This is like radio communication 101.
04-16-2012, 09:17 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Furloughed RJ to KSAT Tower/Tracon
Posts: 120
Its definitely frustrating as a controller (SAT tower/tracon) when pilots use incorrect phraseology. The people who audit our sessions can split hairs like you would not believe. For example, if I call traffic, you see the traffic, I say maintain visual separation with that aircraft and you you read it all back but leave out your callsign... Its very clear to you and I that communication and understanding has been established however, now when you get within less than required separation of that aircraft, Ill be slapped with an error because I didnt ENSURE who had who in sight with lack of call sign being used. Just a silly example. If you dont use the proper call sign, as far as the "tapes" are concerned, it never happened.
04-17-2012, 05:33 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Timbo
What I don't understand is why some guys always read back the instructions first, then put their flight number at the end...ie. they read it back, backwards. I've even tried to do it, to see if it's faster, or easier, but I find it is HARDER to re-arange the instructions, and I always forget my flight number by the time I've read everything else back in front of it!
Originally Posted by mtbthis
This one bugs me almost as much as the pilot who makes the straight in at an uncontrolled airport....
When pilots read back their callsign first, and then the request.
Controller: "United XXX runway one zero clear for takeoff"
Pilot: "United XXX clear for takeoff runway one zero"
Sounds like two requests from ATC and if you have two aircraft with similar callsigns, then your just asking for trouble.
This is like radio communication 101.
When pilots read back their callsign first, and then the request.
Controller: "United XXX runway one zero clear for takeoff"
Pilot: "United XXX clear for takeoff runway one zero"
Sounds like two requests from ATC and if you have two aircraft with similar callsigns, then your just asking for trouble.
This is like radio communication 101.
04-17-2012, 07:03 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Chief Pilot
Posts: 26
I understand that while pilots are required to read back clearances, the controler is not required to correct an incorrect readback... However, the pilot is still responsible for complying with the clearance as issued by the controller.
Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
Bill
Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
Bill
04-17-2012, 07:15 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: In the TRACON
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by bbrunton
I understand that while pilots are required to read back clearances, the controler is not required to correct an incorrect readback... However, the pilot is still responsible for complying with the clearance as issued by the controller.
Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
Bill
Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
Bill
Just about 2 weeks ago we had a controller point out traffic at 7000 to an airplane that was at 8000 using correct phraseology. The pilot said, "roger, 7000" and then descended to 7000. There was a loss of separation and the controller got hit with an operational error.
Heck, I once had a 737 with a stuck mic cause a loss of separation between that 737 and a King Air. I could even hear that the 737 crew had the King Air in sight (they were talking about it). The FAA still got me with an operational error despite the stuck mic and the fact that the 737 had the conflicting aircraft in sight in VFR conditions.
04-17-2012, 05:08 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by TimboWhat
I don't understand is why some guys always read back the instructions first, then put their flight number at the end...ie. they read it back, backwards. I've even tried to do it, to see if it's faster, or easier, but I find it is HARDER to re-arange the instructions, and I always forget my flight number by the time I've read everything else back in front of it!
You say: XXX climbing to FL250 as opposed to Climb to FL250 XXX
And you don't get why?
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
...................................
04-19-2012, 07:47 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by mtbthis
This is THAT guy...Classic
Personally, I do both. If I'm not in a terminal area, I typically read back as read to me, to include callsign first. If I'm being vectored for approach and get the typically long-winded, "XX turn left heading 220, descend and maintain 1,600 until established on a segment of the approach, cleared ILS RWY XX" - I'm far more inclined to read back that mouthful and add my callsign at the end....you should know where you are and if that call was for you or not....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
