ATC Readback - Hearback
 

"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?

A recent issue of NASA Callback dealt with precisely this issue.

Huh... I know when I'm on the radio, you're gonna get pretty standard terminology out of me, especially when it comes to the 150-360 number range. It ain't that hard to slap a "flight level" or a "heading" to the front end of three numbers or a "knots" to the tail end. I figure it's like a seat belt - Don't cost me nothin', but it could save my life :)

It's funny, we're got a couple page thread of how good the XJT crew did in Denver. Over on pprune the thread is twice as long going on about how their non-standard radio procedures almost caused a disaster.

This is my biggest pet peeve of guys I fly with. Drives me crazy. Just like reading back the flight number without the callsign or reading back a hold short without saying the runway or callsign.

FAR-AIM discipline.

I'm a guilty party, that was trained using bad phraseology. After getting my instrument, I finally realized why controllers always made me read back a lot. So I started to read the ICAO guide for phraseology, and I actually get compliments on correct read-backs. However, I am still fighting bad habits and trying to switch over to "negative contact".

I have noticed about 70% of pilots and 20% of controllers use incorrect phraseology. Sometimes it drives me nuts when the controller does it. The pilots outnumber the controllers though, and the professionalism is down. I would actually recommend for everyone to read the ICAO standardized phraseology guide. Eventually, we will all have to switch over anyway. Someday...

This discussion has gone much better then I anticipated. I've tried having similar discussions with my fellow controllers and it's like I punked a jock in a locker room in front of his crew. They want no part of it, fine with using bad techniques because it's worked before.

I fear if we, controllers and pilots, don't start turning around complacency in the workplace one of these days we'll have a perfect storm and the outcome is going to be disastrous.

Impressionable
 

Poor technique is also contagious. Heard a airline guy read back a frequency hand off as "127 point flat". Someone in my bug smasher did the same response when given the same freq :o

I've never been too bright, and I'm lazy, so I just repeat what was said to me, exactly as it was said to me, word for word, just like a Parrot (head). I was taught to do this at a very early stage in my flying life, and have never had a problem.

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!

SO, I try to keep it simple (stupid) and just read it back exactly as it came to me, Flight number first, then intstructions, word for word. If a Contoller throws me a curve ball ie. not 'standard' phrasology, I'll ask him to clarify it, rather than -ass-u-me- to know what he meant.

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.

Keep fighting your are right! Proper read back of clearances make it safer for all of us and is required.

Thank you for bringing this up. I do my best to be standard, at minimum giving the controllers a clear understanding of my understanding. I agree with the post suggesting a read of the ICAO guide.

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.

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.

................................... :D

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

Actually, the opposite is true. If a pilot incorrectly reads back a clearance and the controller missed the bad read-back and a loss of separation ensures, the controller will get hit with the deal.

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.

So when a controller says: XXX climb to FL250

You say: XXX climbing to FL250 as opposed to Climb to FL250 XXX

And you don't get why?

This is THAT guy...Classic :cool:

Nope...just pointing out two different opinions on the thread within a post or two of each other. Both seem passionate. Opinions are like....err...ummm...noses (yeah, that's it, noses) - everyone has one and they all smell. ;)

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....

And all of the above are perfectly fine per the AIM.

I fly straight in approaches more often than not, simply because it's generally easier for smaller traffic to sequence with my arrival (In a large cabin jet). Even if I flew a pattern, turning a 3 mile base, is still essentially "straight in".

Jets making a straight in is fine - when the call it out. You can't expect a bigger jet to make a tight pattern like that of a smaller a/c.

What grinds my gears, is the Piper Warrior pilot that calls out a 3 mile final. Nothing else. While I am calling my 45, downwind, base, and final.

So now I am on base turning final, this genius is on a 3 mile final coming in hot, and now one of us has to do something. Kills me.

Back on topic though. Do I put my callsign first sometimes? Yes, when I am rushed and it makes sense. do I do it all the time. No.