CFII badgering me about radio communication, reading back too much

[marcoseddi]

What's the big deal anyway better safe than sorry tell him to bug off! Douche


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobmrg]

"Understand" sure but bad advice on Roger and Wlco. Both have their proper place and time and, when used properly, reduce radio traffic. Though someone saying "roger wilco" sounds like a tool IMO. :wink2:



Agree with this. LiveATC.net is a good place to start.

"Roger, WILCO" is redundant. Roger means "I have received all of your last transmission." WILCO means "I have received your message, understand it, and will comply."

Bob Gardner

 

[Velocity173]

Our instructors in the instrument examiner course used to hound us on readbacks. We'd readback our clearances on the ground and they'd ask why we're reading back everything. Their favorite saying was "show me a reference."

Thing is, if you want to readback something for mutual understanding, regardless of a requirement, it's quite alright and even says so in the AIM & the DOD GP. It really only becomes a problem in busy airspace and you're trying to get a request in while a student rambles on.

 

[Brad Z]

"5 from BECCA, fly heading 330, maintain 1600 until established on the localizer, cleared ILS Runway three zero approach" would be what you might hear from ATC. A suitable readback would be, "330 and 2000, cleared ILS 30, [callsign]"

330 and 1600 until established, cleared ILS 30 123X

I just don't think it's wise to simply blow across a runway fat and sassy if a significant amount of time has passed since a runway crossing clearance has been issued.

Always remember who dies when a controller screws up.

If the runway is nearby and I got there quickly, sure, I'll cross, but if it's 1/2 mile or farther away and it took me a significant amount of time to get there then I'm double checking.

If, as you approach the intersecting runway, you see no traffic on the runway, lined up on the runway, approaching the runway or queued up for the runway. Would you still ask? What if it was night and the runway was not lighted?

 

[kgruber]

If you want your "official" Captain America ring....

....You need to learn "Roger, Wilco, Over and Out!"

 

[bobmrg]

Hello-
I've been working on my IR, and have about 15 hours of hood time so far. In my last lesson my CFII suddenly started badgering me about repeating too much stuff to ATC. He refused to be specific about what he was talking about, and simply said I should refer to the AIM. I looked at the AIM (Chapter 4, Section 2), but it does not say what should be repeated and what should not be repeated.

I realize that certain things should be repeated, such as a clearance to take off on a certain runway, or an instruction to fly a specific heading. Other things don't need to be repeated, like a complex advisory of some kind, and in those cases, "roger" will do, or maybe a short phrase indicating the most important part.

Other areas are ambiguous, like if a controller gives you an altimeter setting, do you read back the setting, or just say "roger"?

If ground control tells you to taxi to runway 36 via A and K crossing runway 22, when you get to runway 22 do you ask for clearance to cross, or do you assume you are cleared to cross? Or do you advise him when you are about to cross, so he can confirm you are cleared? As I approach the crossing for runway 22, I say "Am I cleared to cross 22?" and then the controller would say "cleared to cross 22," and then I would repeat "cleared to cross 22," and then my CFII might yell at me for talking too much.

I figure, better safe than sorry, it's better to repeat something unnecessarily than not repeat something with should be repeated. And if my CFII yells at me, so be it.

I just wanted to vent about these things and see if ya'll want to share your thoughts.
-Scott

AIM 4-3-8 says to read back all runway crossing, hold short, and takeoff clearances unless there is some misunderstanding. IMHO when a controller sees an aircraft beginning its takeoff roll that is confirmation enough.

AIM 4-4-7 tells pilots of airborne aircraft to read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments.

In your example, as others have noted you should not assume anything. If you arrive at an intersection and have not received specific instructions (AIM 4-3-18 states that controllers will not use the word "cleared.) to cross that runway, "Ground, is 1234X cleared across B-1?" should do the trick. When the controller instructs you to cross, it is not necessary to read that back. There are airports where the folks in the tower cannot see all intersections/runway ends; at those locations, do what the locals do.

In the case of the altimeter setting, it takes only a second more to say "29.85, 34X."

Pilots in general, and pilots receiving instruction specifically, do talk too much.

Bob Gardner

 

[poadeleted20]

I just don't think it's wise to simply blow across a runway fat and sassy if a significant amount of time has passed since a runway crossing clearance has been issued.

i agree. That's why I say "look both ways before crossing." But calling Ground to check every time? If people did that at busier airports, ground control freq would be worse than a CTAF shared by four airports on a beautiful spring Saturday, and ground operations would grind to a halt.

Always remember who dies when a controller screws up.

Unless you don't look both ways, nobody is coming fast enough to nail you in the time it takes to cross even a 200-foot wide runway.

 

[poadeleted20]

Shouldn't 2200 be read as "two thousand two hundred"?

Yes, it should.

 

[jesse]

Shouldn't 2200 be read as "two thousand two hundred"?

It should be and that is what I would actually say. No idea why I wrote it above incorrectly.

 

[jordane93]

Common issues I hear in our environment (which is full of IFR student pilots) is verbatim readbacks of instructions...literally word for word.

some students read back the WHOLE thing...slowly, and with breaks, often forgetting the altitude by the time they eventually get there.

Yep. I only use necessary words, short and sweet. If approach tells me turn right heading 220, I'll say 220 and omit the words "turn right heading" Its unnecessary. SImilar with climb to XXXX. I'll just say the altitude. I was flying with a new-ish PPL and doing an IFR x country. Whenever we would get handed off, Approach would say, Cessna 12345 contact NY approach on 123.45. The Pilot would literally read back "contact NY approach on 123.45. I told him later its ok just to read back the frequency. As for approaches, I'll say 220, 2000 until established cleared ILS XX, Cessna 12345.

 

[bobmrg]

From the controller's handbook, Chapter 3, section 7:

b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short restrictions when an aircraft will be required to hold short of a runway or other points along the taxi route.

c. Aircraft/vehicles must receive a clearance for each runway their route crosses. An aircraft/vehicle must have crossed a previous runway before another runway crossing clearance may be issued.

No conjecturing, just the facts.

Bob Gardner

 

[timwinters]

"Roger, WILCO" is redundant. Roger means "I have received all of your last transmission." WILCO means "I have received your message, understand it, and will comply."

Bob Gardner

Agreed, I wasn't referring to both at the same time, but rather each one separately.

 

[GCA319]

Without reading any of the 3 pages of responses, there is one rule that applies to reading back clearances: Think about what you would want the tapes to indicate if you were being investigated for a possible pilot deviation. You're CFI is an idiot if he is truley getting on you for reading back clearances. In short, don't be stupid and do what you have to do to cover your own ass.

 

[Henning]

My favorite is always "over & out" "Well, which is it?"

 

[bobmrg]

"Cessna 123AB, taxi to runway 14 via alapha, cleared to cross runway 5" was a very, very common taxi clearance when I was in and out of KRAP a lot. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1402/00877AD.PDF and repating "32 via alpha cross 5, 3AB" was always enough. I have a feeling though your CFI is talking about more than ground comms and is talking about things like "Extended your downwind, I'll call your base" where one should be saying "Wilco" one ends up saying "OK, I'll extended downwind, you call my base 3AB". In another example you don't need to respond to things like "Ident" because identing is a response, and if you get traffic called at 2 o'clock "3AB, traffic 2 o'clock, 3 miles a Cessna altitude indicates 2,100" you really, really don't need to say "looking for traffic at 2 oclock in three miles at 2,100" a simple "no contact" or "searching for traffic" will work. And yes, I know the latter isn't "official" but comeon do we need to be official 100% of the time?

I used to think/teach that identing was sufficient response until a controller pointed out how long it takes for a Center radar to complete a sweep (terminal radar is faster). If a pilot does not acknowledge the squawk right away the controller has to wait an appreciable amount of time before the ident shows up. 99% of the time it doesn't make a bit of difference...it's that 1% that makes controllers antsy.

Bob Gardner

 

[alfadog]

I used to think/teach that identing was sufficient response until a controller pointed out how long it takes for a Center radar to complete a sweep (terminal radar is faster). If a pilot does not acknowledge the squawk right away the controller has to wait an appreciable amount of time before the ident shows up. 99% of the time it doesn't make a bit of difference...it's that 1% that makes controllers antsy.

Bob Gardner

Even if he is not giving you a squawk code? I never deal with center but just about every time I call up a tower VFR and give my location and intentions, they ask for a squawk. I see little point in responding with more than hitting ident.

 

[Johann]

I used to think/teach that identing was sufficient response until a controller pointed out how long it takes for a Center radar to complete a sweep (terminal radar is faster). If a pilot does not acknowledge the squawk right away the controller has to wait an appreciable amount of time before the ident shows up. 99% of the time it doesn't make a bit of difference...it's that 1% that makes controllers antsy.

Bob Gardner

If they say "12A ident", would you suggest replying with "ident 12A"?
That's what I have done, but I think my instructor said to just hit ident.

 

[Clark1961]

If they say "12A ident", would you suggest replying with "ident 12A"?
That's what I have done, but I think my instructor said to just hit ident.

I've had a couple transponder failures which means that I know the darn thing may not do what I tell it to do - you bet I tell them I'm identing.

 

[mtuomi]

Whats the correct intrepretation for takeoff clearance containing "on course, right turn", assuming VFR?
Do you turn, as instructed, on course or do you follow a "normal" for example downwind departure?

 

[Henning]

Whats the correct intrepretation for takeoff clearance containing "on course, right turn", assuming VFR?
Do you turn, as instructed, on course or do you follow a "normal" for example downwind departure?

It's up to you to do what you consider safe.

 

[Johann]

Whats the correct intrepretation for takeoff clearance containing "on course, right turn", assuming VFR?
Do you turn, as instructed, on course or do you follow a "normal" for example downwind departure?

What exactly did you ask for?

Say I'm departing runway 36, and I request an eastbound departure. They usually say something like "cleared for takeoff runway 36, right turn approved". In that case I just climb to safe altitude straight ahead and then turn east.
If they wanted me to depart from downwind (never happened) I guess they would say that (something like make right traffic, depart midfield downwind to the east). I'm sure I'm off with the phraseology, but if you ask for a direction of flight and they tell you to turn right, I would think it's on the departure leg.

 

[mtuomi]

What exactly did you ask for?

Say I'm departing runway 36, and I request an eastbound departure. They usually say something like "cleared for takeoff runway 36, right turn approved". In that case I just climb to safe altitude straight ahead and then turn east.
If they wanted me to depart from downwind (never happened) I guess they would say that (something like make right traffic, depart midfield downwind to the east). I'm sure I'm off with the phraseology, but if you ask for a direction of flight and they tell you to turn right, I would think it's on the departure leg.

I requested a departure towards a VRP nearby. What happened was, that the on course departure also put me in a direct course towards an acft turning final. We saw each other and had no problem maintaining separation, but the controller then gave me stick for "not using a standard departure pattern". I replied that I disagree with his comments and I was following instructions given on the takeoff clearance.
No phone number to call on landing, so I guess it wasn't that serious. Just left me thinking what would have been the correct procedure.

 

[bobmrg]

Even if he is not giving you a squawk code? I never deal with center but just about every time I call up a tower VFR and give my location and intentions, they ask for a squawk. I see little point in responding with more than hitting ident.

Whether you have been given a new code is immaterial...the fact is that you have been given an instruction and the controller does not know that you have received it until you acknowledge verbally or your data block comes up on the next sweep.Many towers have a repeater off of the terminal radar, so they get the advantage of the faster sweep. When you start dealing with Center on a regular basis, remember my advice.

Bob

 

[MarkZ]

Whether you have been given a new code is immaterial...the fact is that you have been given an instruction and the controller does not know that you have received it until you acknowledge verbally or your data block comes up on the next sweep.Many towers have a repeater off of the terminal radar, so they get the advantage of the faster sweep. When you start dealing with Center on a regular basis, remember my advice.

Bob

Exactly. If I issue something to do, like a squawk code, I expect pilots to read it back. An ident is not a read back (unless the controller requests it).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[alfadog]

Whether you have been given a new code is immaterial...the fact is that you have been given an instruction and the controller does not know that you have received it until you acknowledge verbally or your data block comes up on the next sweep.Many towers have a repeater off of the terminal radar, so they get the advantage of the faster sweep. When you start dealing with Center on a regular basis, remember my advice.

Bob

Exactly. If I issue something to do, like a squawk code, I expect pilots to read it back. An ident is not a read back (unless the controller requests it).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Wilco.

 

[coma24]

I go with "ident, [callsign]".

Wilco is just as effective, but 'ident' is a tiny bit more specific, and the same number of syllables.

Agreed that there should be a verbal response. This allows the controller to move on instantly to the next set of instructions he might want to issue to someone else, rather than waiting for an arbitrary amount of time to pass before he decides, "oh, he's not going to read anything back..."

 

[skynewbie]

Get a new CFII.

 

[poadeleted20]

Whats the correct intrepretation for takeoff clearance containing "on course, right turn", assuming VFR?
Do you turn, as instructed, on course or do you follow a "normal" for example downwind departure?

You turn right on course as instructed unless you consider that unsafe, in which case you notify the controller immediately and exercise your emergency authority to maintain safety. See 91.123 and the Chief Counsel's Karas letter: "Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b). ATC instructions include headings, turns, altitude instructions and general directions."

 

[poadeleted20]

I requested a departure towards a VRP nearby. What happened was, that the on course departure also put me in a direct course towards an acft turning final. We saw each other and had no problem maintaining separation, but the controller then gave me stick for "not using a standard departure pattern". I replied that I disagree with his comments and I was following instructions given on the takeoff clearance.
No phone number to call on landing, so I guess it wasn't that serious. Just left me thinking what would have been the correct procedure.

Just what you did. If the tower wanted you to follow "a standard departure pattern," s/he should not have said "on course" but rather "make left downwind departure" or similar.

 

[Palmpilot]

Get a new CFII.

Over that?

 

[teethdoc]

WTH does he think you are paying him for? I would find a new instructor who's not an ass. It's your money.

 

[pilotx86]

Headings, altitudes, speeds, specific ATC clearances (holding, takeoff, landing, approach). Keep it short and sweet and concise and read back your call sign.

Fire your CFI-I. That's a sign of laziness and incompetence.

 

[alfadog]

I requested a departure towards a VRP nearby. What happened was, that the on course departure also put me in a direct course towards an acft turning final. We saw each other and had no problem maintaining separation, but the controller then gave me stick for "not using a standard departure pattern". I replied that I disagree with his comments and I was following instructions given on the takeoff clearance.
No phone number to call on landing, so I guess it wasn't that serious. Just left me thinking what would have been the correct procedure.

They would have expected you to climb to the appropriate altitude to initiate a turn and then turn and fly direct to the VRP. That is what you asked for and that is what you were cleared to fly. If you had to do something different to avoid traffic, I would aviate, navigate, communicate. The controller probably gave you flak because he was not aware of what you were dealing with because you did not tell them or you did something weird in your avoidance.

 

[fiveoboy01]

If your OP is accurate, I'd get a new CFI. You're paying him to teach you, not tell you that you're doing something wrong and then refuse to elaborate.

 

[Palmpilot]

If your OP is accurate, I'd get a new CFI. You're paying him to teach you, not tell you that you're doing something wrong and then refuse to elaborate.

Personally, I don't expect CFIs to be perfect in every way. For me, it would depend on how good the instructor was at teaching other aspects of flying.

 

[alfadog]

Might be a personality mismatch between CFI and student.

 

[mtuomi]

They would have expected you to climb to the appropriate altitude to initiate a turn and then turn and fly direct to the VRP. That is what you asked for and that is what you were cleared to fly. If you had to do something different to avoid traffic, I would aviate, navigate, communicate. The controller probably gave you flak because he was not aware of what you were dealing with because you did not tell them or you did something weird in your avoidance.

That is what I did. The RT was roughly something like
"8VT, where are you going?"
"Towards Captree Bridge, as instructed"
"That puts you flying straight against oncoming traffic, traffic 11 o'clock a cessna, why are you not departing from downwind?"
"traffic in sight, because you told me to turn straight on course"
"yes but all departures have to be from standard pattern"

I decided tower freq is not the right place to argue with someone clearly having a bad day, so I ended up with "request early frequency change to talk to Kennedy", and got no answer...

I believe the controller was wrong with his statement. Just like Ron said, I need to do just as I am told. I cannot assume "on course" means "right downwind departure then on course".

No avoiding was needed, I had traffic in sight and it was not a factor, I kept flying a straight line.

 

[TommyG]

If you feel the need to clarify with ATC with a read back, you are free to do so. Your CFII should not be badgering you about radio contact unless you are making horrible mistakes on the radio.

 

[kgruber]

I'd like to hear from the CFI.

 

[Doggtyred]

Hello-
I've been working on my IR, and have about 15 hours of hood time so far. In my last lesson my CFII suddenly started badgering me about repeating too much stuff to ATC. He refused to be specific about what he was talking about, and simply said I should refer to the AIM. I looked at the AIM (Chapter 4, Section 2), but it does not say what should be repeated and what should not be repeated.

I realize that certain things should be repeated, such as a clearance to take off on a certain runway, or an instruction to fly a specific heading. Other things don't need to be repeated, like a complex advisory of some kind, and in those cases, "roger" will do, or maybe a short phrase indicating the most important part.

Other areas are ambiguous, like if a controller gives you an altimeter setting, do you read back the setting, or just say "roger"?

If ground control tells you to taxi to runway 36 via A and K crossing runway 22, when you get to runway 22 do you ask for clearance to cross, or do you assume you are cleared to cross? Or do you advise him when you are about to cross, so he can confirm you are cleared? As I approach the crossing for runway 22, I say "Am I cleared to cross 22?" and then the controller would say "cleared to cross 22," and then I would repeat "cleared to cross 22," and then my CFII might yell at me for talking too much.

I figure, better safe than sorry, it's better to repeat something unnecessarily than not repeat something with should be repeated. And if my CFII yells at me, so be it.

I just wanted to vent about these things and see if ya'll want to share your thoughts.
-Scott

Its not called badgering. Its called feedback. And rather than just simply GIVING you the answer he is wanting you to teach yourself by reading the AIM. As an adult you should be capable of this. He is telling you where the information is, which is more valuable than simply getting the answer spoon fed to you.

Sometimes you need a specific short answer given to you, but this should be the exception, not the rule. You need to be doing your homework.