fiveoboy01
Pattern Altitude
This was also on the KVGT ATIS when I flew there last month.
Communications with ATC: Required "Readback" Items?
- Thread starter mswmsw
- Start date
This was also on the KVGT ATIS when I flew there last month.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The read back hold short requirement is at EVERY facility whether it's on an ATIS or not.
fiveoboy01
Pattern Altitude
Did someone say otherwise?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
No, just clarifying. We always get the "at my airport we do this..." That's great and all but even if it's not in the ATIS doesn't take away the requirement.
Apparently a lot of people get confused whether it's required or not because I hear it almost weekly over the radio flying around CHA. Just a couple days ago" I need you to read back the hold short instructions." It's to the point now as Dave pointed out at ADS, that some towers are issuing hold short instructions when it's not even necessary. I've seen this as well at a few military facilities because bone head pilots continue to taxi onto the runway without authorization.
fiveoboy01
Pattern Altitude
Ok, wasn't sure if you thought I was implying that. I didn't mean to but post translations are funny that way.
I think it maybe comes down to being a training issue... I did my primary training out of a class C so remembering to read back isn't an issue.
Then again, I listened to a Delta pilot go back and forth with the tower 3 times the other night because the pilot didn't read the line up and wait/report departing company in sight verbatim.
I think it maybe comes down to being a training issue... I did my primary training out of a class C so remembering to read back isn't an issue.
Then again, I listened to a Delta pilot go back and forth with the tower 3 times the other night because the pilot didn't read the line up and wait/report departing company in sight verbatim.
The reason they put it in the ATIS is twofold
1. The guys who came up with the policy didn't get it in the AIM for years after it was established. Though they did get it in 7110.65.
2. 7110.65 specifically instructs those creating the ATIS to add it.
1. The guys who came up with the policy didn't get it in the AIM for years after it was established. Though they did get it in 7110.65.
2. 7110.65 specifically instructs those creating the ATIS to add it.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Correct on one but it won't necessarily be required to be on the ATIS (air traffic manager).
Jmcmanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
For visual separation, this is copied and pasted from the 7110.65. Lots of controllers have operational errors on their record because the pilot either read it back without their call sign, or the pilot didn't read back "maintain visual separation". The seemingly nit-picky controllers are the ones doing it correctly.
PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance),
(direction)-BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).
If applicable,
ON CONVERGING COURSE.
DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?
If the answer is in the affirmative,
MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.
PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance),
(direction)-BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).
If applicable,
ON CONVERGING COURSE.
DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?
If the answer is in the affirmative,
MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.
azure
Final Approach
Same here. Verbatim readback of "maintain visual separation" is something I've NEVER done or been asked to do, and never had any idea it was required.
Jmcmanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
It's probably not particularly clear, but there is a precedent set by the FAA that if a pilot does not include his call sign with a read back, we aren't allowed to assume the correct pilot read it back, even if there is only one aircraft on frequency. The maintain visual separation read back, like the hold short read back, is the only form of separation in a lot of cases, so controllers are required to get complete read backs in those situations. Taking a wrong heading isn't likely to cause a loss of separation.
Also, from my experience, if I give 2 instructions in 1 transmission (turn left heading 330 descend and maintain 3000) and the pilot doesn't read anything but their call sign, they will get one of the two instructions incorrect a pretty good amount of the time
Also, from my experience, if I give 2 instructions in 1 transmission (turn left heading 330 descend and maintain 3000) and the pilot doesn't read anything but their call sign, they will get one of the two instructions incorrect a pretty good amount of the time
Jmcmanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
Let me look in the archives....I know the FAA has issued a directive to controllers specifically on this....I will post if I can find it
Jmcmanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2012/Dec/ATSAP_Briefing_Sheet_(December_20_2012).pdf
“(Call sign) reported both aircraft in sight and I cleared him to follow the traffic to 28L and maintain visual separation with the traffic for 28R. (Call sign) read the clearance back verbatim, so I went on to the rest of my sequence and switched him to the tower. It was a week later that I was informed that because (Call sign) didn’t read back his call sign I would be hit with an error.”
There are a couple of other examples through the link
“(Call sign) reported both aircraft in sight and I cleared him to follow the traffic to 28L and maintain visual separation with the traffic for 28R. (Call sign) read the clearance back verbatim, so I went on to the rest of my sequence and switched him to the tower. It was a week later that I was informed that because (Call sign) didn’t read back his call sign I would be hit with an error.”
There are a couple of other examples through the link
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah in that case the bust was a read back without a call sign. I don't think the verbatim read back is required though. There's a NATCA letter out that directs controllers to obtain verbatim on visual sep. Not sure if that's standard across the board or what????
In the past year or so, I have noticed that Monterey Tower has been including a statement on their ATIS that pilots are required to include their call signs on all transmissions. I think that may be in the AIM, too.
denverpilot
Tied Down
denverpilot
Tied Down
Did pilots there decide controllers are just supposed to guess and memorize voices? LOL. Idiots.
Despite NATCA ass-covering, the only things that require read backs by either the AIM (the FARs are silent on this) or 7110.65 is runway hold shorts /LAHSO.
Of course, when some sort of an half-assed read back implies that the pilot may have misunderstood the instruction, the controller is well advised to continue to correct it. I heard something along the lines of this:
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000, CLEARED MEGOPOLIS ONE ARRIVAL
1XX: CLEARED MEGOPOLIS ONE 1XX
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
1XX: DESCENDING TO 3000
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
1XX: OK CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
Of course, when some sort of an half-assed read back implies that the pilot may have misunderstood the instruction, the controller is well advised to continue to correct it. I heard something along the lines of this:
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000, CLEARED MEGOPOLIS ONE ARRIVAL
1XX: CLEARED MEGOPOLIS ONE 1XX
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
1XX: DESCENDING TO 3000
ATC: PROCEED DIRECT BOGUS, CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
1XX: OK CROSS BOGUS AT 3000
MarkZ
En-Route
I'm curious, how is NATCA engaging in an ass-covering?
ChrisK
En-Route
MarkZ
En-Route
Is there any possibility that you could see how odd it is to call people idiots for something that you can only SPECULATE that they are doing?
Not necessarily, but it was instructed in 7110.65 when the directive first came out It states when you can stop doing it.
Post #53.
AIM 4-3-18a9 excerpt:
When taxi instructions are received from the
controller, pilots should always read back:
(a) The runway assignment.
(b) Any clearance to enter a specific runway.
(c) Any instruction to hold short of a specific
runway or line up and wait....
controller, pilots should always read back:
(a) The runway assignment.
(b) Any clearance to enter a specific runway.
(c) Any instruction to hold short of a specific
runway or line up and wait....
AIM 4-4-7b excerpt:
...Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back
those parts of ATC clearances and instructions
containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway
assignments as a means of mutual verification....
those parts of ATC clearances and instructions
containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway
assignments as a means of mutual verification....
MarkZ
En-Route
I'm not aware of any letter from NATCA, unless we are referring to one of the ATSAP safety bulletins. Many controllers have had operational errors related to visual separation, due to having to meet several criterion before such a clearance is deemed valid by QA/QC. My first operational error happened to be due to "improper application of visual approach phraseology."
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Here it is on page 3. Not sure how much pull NATCA has in enforcing this nonsense. I would think it would have to be in an FAA GENOT, .65 or even the AIM to be some sort of standard.
MarkZ
En-Route
Seems like a newsletter to pilots put out by NATCA, less enforceable than the AIM. The author states that the rules regarding these separation methods are specific. Missing one item results in a loss of separation. It doesn't matter if all the players know what is going on, the FAA is very particular about visual separation. The controllers union has zero pull in the enforcement of these rules.
Fact is, if the controller isn't satisfied with the read back, the pilot can expect a restatement of the clearance.
Should is permissive.
There's a difference in the discussion between REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Is there any possibility that you could see how odd it is to call people idiots for something that you can only SPECULATE that they are doing?
I can only go on what's been posted. I'm wiling to revise the opinion.
Meanwhile I'm not a ninny who gives a crap about whether calling something stupid is being PC enough for ya. Also don't care if you agree.
Fair enough? LOL. Thought you'd perhaps like to know where I stand.
Worrying about what you think of my post on an Internet forum is waaaaaaay down my list of priorities. I think I gave more thought to feeding the dog this morning.
Especially when I suspect you don't care either.
Did someone appoint you my "life coach"? Can we watch Queen Latifa and cry together?
ROFLMAO.
Internetz is fun. I heart da internetz. Got any good cat photos?
I was just correcting a statement you made about the AIM. I'm not claiming that the AIM is mandatory.
I can only go on what's been posted. I'm wiling to revise the opinion.
Meanwhile I'm not a ninny who gives a crap about whether calling something stupid is being PC enough for ya. Also don't care if you agree.
Fair enough? LOL. Thought you'd perhaps like to know where I stand.
Worrying about what you think of my post on an Internet forum is waaaaaaay down my list of priorities. I think I gave more thought to feeding the dog this morning.
Especially when I suspect you don't care either.
Did someone appoint you my "life coach"? Can we watch Queen Latifa and cry together?
ROFLMAO.
Internetz is fun. I heart da internetz. Got any good cat photos?
Sorry if I was abrasive. It just occurred to me that we don't really know what's behind Monterey Tower's ATIS announcements. It COULD be that the pilots they deal with are worse than the rest of us, but it's also possible that it's just another bureaucratic solution to who knows what.
denverpilot
Tied Down
MarkZ
En-Route
The contents of an ATIS broadcast are selected by the ATCS personnel in the tower, or the supervisor/controller in charge of shift during time of the broadcast. Beaurocrats do not select or put out ATIS broadcasts.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
roncachamp
Final Approach
Bureaucrats have put out a full section in Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control covering ATIS procedures. Control towers commonly have site specific ATIS procedures covered in facility SOPs as well. There's not much left to the discretion of ATCS personnel in the tower.
Nothing incorrect about what I said about the AIM. I said the only things that either 7110.65 or the AIM ***REQUIRES**** as asked in the original question, are the hold short instructions.
OK. Is this better?
I was just providing additional information relative to a statement you made about the AIM. I'm not claiming that the AIM is mandatory.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Eh... Bureaucrats didn't like the non-standard procedures on the KAPA ATIS and made the tower chief change it, and the airport install specific charted run-up areas to allow the procedure to stand.