CFII badgering me about radio communication, reading back too much

[ScottVal]

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

 

[dmspilot]

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.

You should have said, "that's a great idea. I guess I will get my instrument rating from a book, too. Guess I won't be needing you anymore."

Well, not really, but sounds like he or she is a jerk or was in a bad mood.

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?

If ground told you "taxi via A and K, cross runway 22" that is exactly what you do. They already gave you permission to cross runway 22.

Even without such an instruction, you are used to be automatically allowed to cross any runway enroute to your assigned runway (except the assigned runway itself) unless explicitly told to hold short somewhere. However, now ATC is required to explicitly state one way or the other whether you can cross or not.

 

[Henning]

You NEVER assume you are cleared across a runway. I read back any numbers given.

 

[Johann]

I'm far from IR, but in your particular example about taxi instructions, you are required to repeat runway cross clearances.
If they tell you to taxi via A and K crossing runway 22, that's a clearance to cross the runway. You then read back "taxi to 36 via A K cross runway 22", and you are good to go. No need to repeat or confirm when you get to 22, just cross it, you have the clearance.

If this is the kind of stuff your CFII is getting annoyed about, then I guess it's because this is part of the PP training. I heard good things about the book "Say Again, Please: Guide to Radio Communications" by Bob Gardner (who's a regular on this forum and might be able to give you some pointers). Haven't read it myself yet, but you might want to look into it if you feel you are behind on ATC communication.

 

[Johann]

Even without such an instruction, you are automatically allowed to cross any runway enroute to your assigned runway (except the assigned runway itself) unless explicitly told to hold short somewhere.

My understanding is you never cross a runway unless they give you the clearance.
If they say taxi to 36 via A K, and I have to cross 22 to get to 36, I have to hold short and ask for clearance.
In my experience they always give me the cross clearance with the taxi instructions, but if they didn't I would not cross.

 

[timwinters]

If they tell you to taxi via A and K crossing runway 22, that's a clearance to cross the runway. You then read back "taxi to 36 via A K cross runway 22", and you are good to go. No need to repeat or confirm when you get to 22, just cross it, you have the clearance.

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this one, but when I get to runway 22, especially if it was a relatively long taxi to get there, I stop, look, and confirm that I'm cleared to cross. Things may have changed in the 10 minutes it took me to get there. The controller may have forgotten about me, ground and tower may not be adequately communicating with each other, etc.

"57D confirming cleared to cross 22."

 

[Henning]

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this one, but when I get to runway 22, especially if it was a relatively long taxi to get there, I stop, look, and confirm that I'm cleared to cross. Things may have changed in the 10 minutes it took me to get there. The controller may have forgotten about me, ground and tower may not be adequately communicating with each other, etc.

"57D confirming cleared to cross 22."

Might be minority, but not unique. If it's a long taxi I'll check in before I cross as well, I've never heard a complaint or even a testy response.

 

[dmspilot]

My understanding is you never cross a runway unless they give you the clearance.
If they say taxi to 36 via A K, and I have to cross 22 to get to 36, I have to hold short and ask for clearance.
In my experience they always give me the cross clearance with the taxi instructions, but if they didn't I would not cross.

It changed a couple years ago, ATC is now required to tell you one way or the other--either that you can cross or that you have to hold short. So you are right, if they left out the crossing instruction, the controller screwed up and you should ask.

 

[asgcpa]

Better to be safe than sorry

 

[david0tey]

...sounds like your instructor is an ass.

 

[timwinters]

A hint: curtail your use of the words understand, roger and wilco. While not incorrect if used properly, using them is kind of a rookie move.

"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:

If possible, listen to approach control near a busy airport and you will be able to pick up on how approach and landing clearances are read back. You'll notice the pros use only the minimum needed and keep the freq clear.

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

 

[Kelvin]

Live ATC is chock full of lazy pilots...like your CFII...

If you want to REALLY know how to communicate, what should and shouldn't be read back...Comm1 and Bob Gardner's book Say it Again Please are both the cat's meow.

http://www.asa2fly.com/Communications-Trainer-Say-Again-Please-P264.aspx
http://www.comm1.com/home.html

 

[flyingron]

The AIM is the way to do it. Any instructor who says otherwise is an idiot.

There's a good book written by a fellow board member here called "Say Again, Please" which provides more prosaic explanation of how to do it.

 

[timwinters]

Live ATC is chock full of lazy pilots...like your CFII

Meh...

Listen to a class bravo approach frequency where a large percentage of the pilots are professional and you will get a really good feel for proper communication.

Reading about it doesn't drive it home for me nearly as well as listening to it. But different people learn differently.

 

[Kelvin]

Meh...

Listen to a class bravo approach frequency where a large percentage of the pilots are professional and you will get a really good feel for proper communication.

Reading about it doesn't drive it home for me nearly as well as listening to it. But different people learn differently.

I FLY in Bravo routinely and hear lazy 121 pilots every time I fly.

Both of the links above have DVD/CDR to allow a student to listen to examples, record and playback a student's effort and compare it to "standard phraseology".

I wholeheartedly agree that reading along will leave holes..

 

[MyassisDragon]

"Am I cleared to cross 22?" and then the controller would say "cleared to cross 22,"

I have been thanked twice at MDW (Chicago midway) when I confirmed before entering the runway crossing if I was cleared to cross.

There was alot of radio traffic, but they still made time for a thank you so i figure this is as important to them as it is to me.

And the one time you repeat the instruction after a long day of flying and hear a "Negative" back then you will be thanking the system, but kicking yourself for getting it wrong.

 

[eman1200]

I fly out of a rinky dink uncontrolled strip with no taxiways so clearly I'm no professional with this scenario. however, I have tried to practice and mentally prepare myself for when I'm in this specific situation. I've always thought that my response to this instruction:

"taxi to runway 36 via A and K crossing runway 22"

would be this:

"taxi to rwy 36 via A and K, cleared to cross rwy 22"

and btw, it does kinda sound like ur instructor is being a lil dooshy.

 

[Z06_Mir]

"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?

 

[flyingron]

The words for traffic calls are "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT."

ATC assumes you'll "look" for traffic, or else they wouldn't bother to have given it to you.
The only thing that matters to them is you have it in sight (so even while NEGATIVE CONTACT is in the AIM it really conveys little info to ATC).

 

[jaybee]

No Joy and Tally Ho ! but I like to keep the controllers on their toes

 

[jordane93]

For altimeter settings, I'll read back the altimeter setting they gave. As for the taxi issue, they gave you a clearance to taxi to 36, via A and K cross 22. You did the right thing by clarifying things.

 

[poadeleted20]

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?

First, you should never hear " taxi to runway 36 via A and K crossing runway 22." The phraseology and regulation were changed several years ago, so what you should be hearing if you're assigned runway 36 and your taxi route will cross runway 22 is either "Cessna 123, runway 36, taxi via A and K, cross runway 22" or "Cessna 123, runway 36, taxi via A and K, hold short of runway 22." Under the current rules, you should never come to an intersecting runway during taxi without having been told either to cross it or hold short of it, and you should never have to assume anything about a runway crossing during taxi. If you do come to a runway without such instructions during taxi, either you or the controller made a mistake, and you should stop right there and obtain clarification before moving further.

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.

If you and the controller did it right on your initial taxi instruction, you should already know if you were cleared to cross 22 or not, and there is no need to re-confirm what you already have been told and acknowledged.

I figure, better safe than sorry, it's better to repeat something unnecessarily than not repeat something with should be repeated.

Personally, I write down all taxi instructions when I get them so there will be no forgetful doubt in my mind during taxi. But if you really have forgotten whether you are cleared across or not, then yes, you stop and obtain clarification as required by 14 CFR 91.123.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

And if my CFII yells at me, so be it.

If I were your instructor, and you got to a runway on taxi without being able to remember whether you'd been cleared across or not, I might be unhappy with you, but it would be for not writing down your taxi instructions when you received them, not for stopping and calling because you were uncertain. Of course, I may also criticize you if you don't look both ways as you approach every runway or taxiway intersection (stopping not required), but that's another story related to protecting yourself from other people's errors.

And instructors shouldn't yell at their trainees unless there's an immediate threat to life and limb and the trainee isn't responding to any other communication.

BTW, for anyone else not up to speed on the taxi instruction rule changes of 2010, attached is a briefing on point.

 

[DrMack]

...so even while NEGATIVE CONTACT is in the AIM it really conveys little info to ATC.

If you are IFR, ATC is obligated to inform you of traffic in your vicinity if it meets certain separation criteria with you. By responding "negative contact" you are communicating two very important pieces of information to the controller:

1. You acknowledge receipt of the mandatory advisory so the controller does not have to immediately repeat it; and

2. You do not have eyes on the traffic and the controller must retain responsibility for further advisories if the separation decreases to some degree.

Often you will hear pilots respond by informing the controller that they are IMC, almost with a tone of annoyance. Such a response is not found in the AIM and Pilot-Controller Glossary and I would suggest is less professional than the "negative contact" reply to the advisory.

 

[flyingron]

Acknowledgement of the transmission would suffice for #1
#2 must be done up until the time I say TRAFFIC IN SIGHT and they can tell me to maintain visual separation.

NEGATIVE CONTACT is just one of these reinforcement things, but it does NOT convey information in itself (it's just defined to make it clear that I'm not answering in the affirmative having seen the traffic).

Yep, I've been guilty of adding, NEGATIVE CONTACT, in IMC (I caught this from Paul Bertorelli). It's more of a "I don't have him, and I'm not going to be able to have him" other than an annoyance.

I've had traffic called out to me while I was in the soup and ATC adds "I'm not talking to him." I was in the middle of an instrument approach so I offered to make another loop in the Hold-in-the-loo until they moved off.

 

[dmspilot]

I fly out of a rinky dink uncontrolled strip with no taxiways so clearly I'm no professional with this scenario. however, I have tried to practice and mentally prepare myself for when I'm in this specific situation. I've always thought that my response to this instruction:

"taxi to runway 36 via A and K crossing runway 22"

would be this:

"taxi to rwy 36 via A and K, cleared to cross rwy 22"

and btw, it does kinda sound like ur instructor is being a lil dooshy.

ATC does not use the word "cleared" in taxi instructions. See Ron's post for what it's supposed to sound like.

 

[rbridges]

great job of your CFII not to give you examples.

 

[Brad Z]

Yep, I've been guilty of adding, NEGATIVE CONTACT, in IMC (I caught this from Paul Bertorelli). It's more of a "I don't have him, and I'm not going to be able to have him" other than an annoyance.

Yep, I've been guilty of responding that I was in IMC. Technically, it doesn't really matter to the controller since he or she still has to provide traffic call outs. I guess in my mind it was more like a mini pirep.

I've had traffic called out to me while I was in the soup and ATC adds "I'm not talking to him." I was in the middle of an instrument approach so I offered to make another loop in the Hold-in-the-loo until they moved off.

Oh, the folks scooting along in the clag squawking VFR. I've seen one or two of them in the past ten years. My first though was ADS-B would probably put a stop to these guys, until I thought about it a little bit more and realized that they'll just turn their boxes off to not be detected.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

DITO ---

Don't sweat this stuff, as you get more time and practice with the radios you will naturally absorb how much you need to say on the radio. Make sure you know the mandatory information you are required to read back such as runway, takeoff, landing clearances plus clearance limits.

If possible, listen to approach control near a busy airport and you will be able to pick up on how approach and landing clearances are read back. You'll notice the pros use only the minimum needed and keep the freq clear.

A hint: curtail your use of the words understand, roger and wilco. While not incorrect if used properly, using them is kind of a rookie move.

 

[coma24]

ANY ambiguity about runway crossings should be a thing of the past with the not-so-new taxi phraseology, as Ron pointed out. Either ATC isn't issuing instructions correctly, or your recollection of the instructions is incorrect.

Regarding verbose readbacks, I agree, get your instructor to give more detailed feedback and some examples.

Common issues I hear in our environment (which is full of IFR student pilots) is verbatim readbacks of instructions...literally word for word. An example would be an approach clearance with vectors to final...

"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]"

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

How are you checking in with radar controllers enroute? If you're saying anything more than your current altitude and the altitude climbing/descending to, you're probably saying too much.

Those are the ones that stand out as potential candidates with most ppl that I hear.

 

[Palmpilot]

BTW, for anyone else not up to speed on the taxi instruction rule changes of 2010, attached is a briefing on point.

Excellent write-up!

 

[timwinters]

If you and the controller did it right on your initial taxi instruction, you should already know if you were cleared to cross 22 or not, and there is no need to re-confirm what you already have been told and acknowledged.

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.

Some controllers don't like it and that's fine. They don't die.

But that's just me.

 

[tehmightypirate]

I didn't see anyone who addressed your altimeter setting question OP.

The two methods I've heard of (and used) are if ATC gives you a number of any kind you read it back (or part of it) followed by your call sign. The other method is simply "roger" and the call sign, as you're not required to read back many things, but probably should.

I'd say it mostly depends on pilot and controller workload which method I use.

 

[Henning]

I didn't see anyone who addressed your altimeter setting question OP.

The two methods I've heard of (and used) are if ATC gives you a number of any kind you read it back (or part of it) followed by your call sign. The other method is simply "roger" and the call sign, as you're not required to read back many things, but probably should.

I'd say it mostly depends on pilot and controller workload which method I use.

I read back altimeter settings, gives them a chance to catch my mistake before it matters.

 

[alfadog]

Since your CFII is taking such an odd approach to instruction, i.e. "I won't tell you what you are doing wrong, figure it out by yourself", I wonder if he is referring to when ATC clears you for the approach. "Cessna 123AB, five miles from BIGGIM, turn heading 130, maintain 2200 until established, cleared RNAV approach Runway 10 Big City." How much of that do you think you need to repeat back?

 

[jesse]

Since your CFII is taking such an odd approach to instruction, i.e. "I won't tell you what you are doing wrong, figure it out by yourself", I wonder if he is referring to when ATC clears you for the approach. "Cessna 123AB, five miles from BIGGIM, turn heading 130, maintain 2200 until established, cleared RNAV approach Runway 10 Big City." How much of that do you think you need to repeat back?

I would go with "one three zero, twenty two hundred until established, cleared rnav one zero, three alpha bravo"

 

[cdahl]

.....when "readback is correct"........communication has been established, understood and on the same page.

 

[Henning]

Since your CFII is taking such an odd approach to instruction, i.e. "I won't tell you what you are doing wrong, figure it out by yourself", I wonder if he is referring to when ATC clears you for the approach. "Cessna 123AB, five miles from BIGGIM, turn heading 130, maintain 2200 until established, cleared RNAV approach Runway 10 Big City." How much of that do you think you need to repeat back?

"That's heading 130, two two hundred until established, RNAV 10 Big City for 123AB"

 

[alfadog]

Well since the old hands are answering up, my understanding is all that you are REQUIRED to read back is "Cleared RNAV RW 10 Big City, 123AB."

 

[Johann]

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

 

[noobJohn]

I think that sums it up nicely. You're not paying $??/hour to play guessing games. I'd insist on specific feedback.

...sounds like your instructor is an ass.