Communications with ATC: Required "Readback" Items?

mswmsw

mswmsw

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
86
Display Name
Display name:
mswmsw
Where can one find the regulatory guidance on exactly what portions of ATC communications and instructions are required to be "read back" to ATC - in an exact, verbatim manner - by the pilot receiving them? I looked in the AIM and could not find anything specifically on point, though I could have missed it. Is it somewhere else, maybe in a ATC Manual?
 
Both AIM and 7110.65.

On the ground: runway assignment / taxi onto and hold short instructions.
Some facilities might still have you read back altitude in a clearance even though the GENOT has since been cancelled.

In the air: vectors and altitude assignments. Oh yeah runway as well.

Generally numbers are good to readback for mutual verification.
 
Last edited:
In the air clearances as well (cleared to land)
 
The only strict REQUIREMENT is the runway hold short instruction (either of runways when taxiing or LAHSO). There's a requirement to have the pilot confirm the runway he's instructed to taxi to (which a read back is a way of meeting) as well.

The others, there's no requirement.

The AIM recommends reading back the entire taxi clearance. The only other statement is this:

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. The
read back of the “numbers” serves as a double check
between pilots and controllers and reduces the kinds
of communications errors that occur when a number
is either “misheard” or is incorrect.​

Still, that's only a recommendation.
 
What amazes me is how often I hear ATC say "N345, I need you to read back your hold short instructions." They'll read back an entire IFR ATC clearance to ground but the one thing that's required they won't read back.
 
I used to readback pretty much everything. I'm slowly droping the extras.
 
Thanks everyone, your responses so far are good info, but, generally, commonly known stuff. What I really need - if anyone can point it out - is where are the specific "readback" requirements spelled out? Or even where the recommended "readback" items are specifically listed?


Velocity173 said:
Both AIM and 7110.65..........
Click to expand...

......... as in what sections in these? I have looked in the AIM and can't find the section. (I'll probably feel stupid once someone points it out, but I have looked and can't find it.) And if anyone has access to the 7110.65 and can post a link to the pertinent "required readback" sections, I would really appreciate it.

This request is pursuant to a discussion I am having with another pilot, and I would really like to show him where - with references to the source document (FAA regulatory guidance info) and which section of the source - certain items are required to be read back, or even recommended to be read back. But I'm going to need to show him in writing! Thanks again everyone for your help.
 
I thought LAHSO required a read-back, too.
 
Kinda off-topic to the OP, but it seems like controllers want you read back a lot more these days than even just a few years ago. It's all about CYA for the tapes I guess.
 
If the pilot reads back an instruction incorrectly and the controller doesn't catch the incorrect read back, it's on the controller. If the pilot omits a read back and screws up, it's on the pilot, but the FAA still investigates the controller's actions into the event (i.e. you turned to the wrong heading, but the controller didn't catch it fast enough and there was a loss if separation, the controller will buy some of the responsibility. Management listens to the tapes all the time and no controller wants to be the one being reviewed....so most of us insist on good read backs.

Besides that, we can say something like "depart PLANO heading 020", and if the pilot reads back "020 heading" and turns in someone else's airspace, the controller buys the deviation because it was an incomplete read back....just because you heard your call sign and the last instruction, we can't assume you heard the part in the middle....it makes no sense, but it happens.
 
Jmcmanna said:
If the pilot reads back an instruction incorrectly and the controller doesn't catch the incorrect read back, it's on the controller.
Click to expand...

There was an incident a while back where the FAA still busted the pilot when he read back incorrectly and the controller either said read back correct, or did not correct him - I forget which. I don't know what happened to the controller. But they still violated the pilot with basically the lame excuse of "you should have heard him correctly." If that's the case WTF is a read back for then?!?!?
 
mswmsw said:
Thanks everyone, your responses so far are good info, but, generally, commonly known stuff. What I really need - if anyone can point it out - is where are the specific "readback" requirements spelled out? Or even where the recommended "readback" items are specifically listed?




......... as in what sections in these? I have looked in the AIM and can't find the section. (I'll probably feel stupid once someone points it out, but I have looked and can't find it.) And if anyone has access to the 7110.65 and can post a link to the pertinent "required readback" sections, I would really appreciate it.

This request is pursuant to a discussion I am having with another pilot, and I would really like to show him where - with references to the source document (FAA regulatory guidance info) and which section of the source - certain items are required to be read back, or even recommended to be read back. But I'm going to need to show him in writing! Thanks again everyone for your help.
Click to expand...

The AIM has basic guidance in 4-4-7b. This is guidance though and not regulatory.

In the 7110.65 2-4-3 there is a paragraph there on acknowledgment / readback. Almost all clearances and instructions can simply be achnowledged with a "roger." Also says that IF a pilot does read back an altitude, vector, or other information, the controller needs to confirm that it's correct. A few years ago an FAA GENOT was sent out to ATC to have pilots read back altitude assignments but that has since been canceled.

3-7-2 of the .65 talks of runway assigment and hold short instructions read back. That's probably one of the few times you'll hear controllers tell a pilot to read back instructions.

As I said a popular misconception is read back of an IFR clearance. Years ago when I did ATC at Miramar, all the pilots were complaining that we were having them read back their IFR clearance on the ground. One day our ATCFO stormed into radar and asked what part of an IFR clearance is required to be read back. We all just kinda looked at each other. None of us really knew. We thought everything. Later on when I was attending the instrument examiner course in the Army the instructors beat it into our heads again. "What part of that clearance is required to be read back?" They were hounding us because we were reading back everything. I continued to read back everything and used the excuse of mutual understanding to reduce confusion. They accepted that response because it is in the DOD General Planning manual.

When it comes to all the read back nonsense, it doesn't matter what's required. If you want to read it back for yourself, then by all means do it. Also, just because it's not required doesn't mean ATC won't instruct you to read it back as well. A roger may suffice but some might want verbatim. In Germany for instance, verbatim is required. So, just use common sense, use brevity and read back what you feel comfortable with.

Oh yeah, we talked about altimeter settings on another thread. That's a DOD requirement and not civilian.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The AIM has basic guidance in 4-4-7b. This is guidance though and not regulatory.

In the 7110.65 2-4-3 there is a paragraph there on acknowledgment / readback.............

3-7-2 of the .65 talks of runway assigment and hold short instructions read back. That's probably one of the few times you'll hear controllers tell a pilot to read back instructions. ............
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you! I thought it was in the AIM but I just could not find it, so I really appreciate the "point out". And I am going to Google those sections of the 7110.65 and review them. Really appreciate the info.
 
SoloEqs said:
It seems to be the law that everyone respond to "Any aircraft in the pattern, please advise" . . .
Click to expand...

And it seems to be getting more and more popular. I just ignore them and do my normal pattern reporting.
 
EdFred said:
There was an incident a while back where the FAA still busted the pilot when he read back incorrectly and the controller either said read back correct, or did not correct him - I forget which. I don't know what happened to the controller. But they still violated the pilot with basically the lame excuse of "you should have heard him correctly." If that's the case WTF is a read back for then?!?!?
Click to expand...

You may be thinking of Captain Merrell, perhaps ten years ago. Merrell took an altitude change that was issued to another aircraft. He read back the clearance, but the controller didn't receive his readback because it was blocked by the readback from the correct aircraft. A loss of separation between Captain Merrell's aircraft and another followed. Captain Merrell received a violation and attempted to use the uncorrected readback in his defense. The controller can't correct an incorrect readback that isn't received.
 
Is it now a rule to read back "vacating (altitude)", following a PD descent clearance?

Seemed like it was never required....then something changed and although it wasn't required, they wanted it so we did it; is it now a required readback?

Not a bad idea or difficult to do - just seems like if they are going to the trouble to clear that airspace and tell you you can descend at will, why do we need to discuss it yet again?
 
At the center, I did this often. I'd give "descend at pilot discretion, maintain 11,000. Report leaving FL230." Once the pilot reported out of FL230, I'd switch the aircraft to approach. It was a way for me to know the pilot is starting down, and assuming the aircraft is clean from other aircraft, I can get rid of it well before the aircraft has to level off. To answer your question, no it is not a rule. If a controller needs it, they'll ask for it. While flying IFR I made it a practice to report initially leaving an altitude if given a crossing or a simple pilot discretion descent, barring frequency congestion of course.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Is it now a rule to read back "vacating (altitude)", following a PD descent clearance?
Click to expand...

I think you mean "report", not "read back". There's no such rule and that report would serve no purpose.

Not a bad idea or difficult to do - just seems like if they are going to the trouble to clear that airspace and tell you you can descend at will, why do we need to discuss it yet again?
Click to expand...

It's not difficult to do but it is a bad idea because the report provides no useful information.
 
roncachamp said:
You may be thinking of Captain Merrell, perhaps ten years ago. Merrell took an altitude change that was issued to another aircraft. He read back the clearance, but the controller didn't receive his readback because it was blocked by the readback from the correct aircraft. A loss of separation between Captain Merrell's aircraft and another followed. Captain Merrell received a violation and attempted to use the uncorrected readback in his defense. The controller can't correct an incorrect readback that isn't received.
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar, but I thought there was one where the readback was heard but uncorrected. Was Merrell's readback caught on tape, or was it one of those no witness type events?
 
EdFred said:
Sounds familiar, but I thought there was one where the readback was heard but uncorrected. Was Merrell's readback caught on tape, or was it one of those no witness type events?
Click to expand...

IIRC the readback from the intended aircraft was on the tape, intelligible, but with some interference noise. No doubt from Merrell's "readback".

Merrell was the captain of Northwest 1024, he took an altitude clearance directed to American 94. In his ASRS report, Merrell stated; "SIMILARITY OF CALL SIGNS AND SIMULTANEOUS XMISSION OF READBACKS, IN MY VIEW, CAUSED THE INCIDENT IN THAT I RESPONDED TO THE WRONG CALL SIGN AND WAS UNAWARE THAT I HAD DONE SO AS WE HEARD NO CORRECTION FROM ATC (BECAUSE ATC DID NOT HEAR US)." The call signs weren't very similar, they shared just one digit. He heard a "four" and gambled with one in ten odds.
 
Keep in mind, some folks need to read back things not in the AIM because of op specs; so, because they do, doesn't mean you must.

Best,

Dave
 
EdFred said:
There was an incident a while back where the FAA still busted the pilot when he read back incorrectly and the controller either said read back correct, or did not correct him - I forget which. I don't know what happened to the controller. But they still violated the pilot with basically the lame excuse of "you should have heard him correctly." If that's the case WTF is a read back for then?!?!?
Click to expand...
It provides one last chance to get it right. While every week I probably hear one controller miss an incorrect readback, I probably hear ten pilots get an incorrect readback corrected by an alert controller -- and that could save either their ticket or their life. I'll take those odds, and keep reading back every instruction.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds familiar, but I thought there was one where the readback was heard but uncorrected. Was Merrell's readback caught on tape, or was it one of those no witness type events?
Click to expand...
It was caught on his CVR, but only his CVR.
 
mswmsw said:
Where can one find the regulatory guidance on exactly what portions of ATC communications and instructions are required to be "read back" to ATC - in an exact, verbatim manner - by the pilot receiving them? I looked in the AIM and could not find anything specifically on point, though I could have missed it. Is it somewhere else, maybe in a ATC Manual?
Click to expand...

One thing not mentioned here or in the AIM is a read back of visual separation. While this one won't be hung on the pilot, a poor read back near verbatim will count as an error for the controller. Proper read back should be "Maintain visual separation from the (Piper, Cessna, Boeing 737, American) and your full or properly abbreviated call sign in proper NATO alpha phonetics.

They started this up about 3 years ago when they first put in TARP (ie snitch patch) in the first approach controls. I believe Dallas TRACON got rung up for nearly 100 errors in a month for read backs like "don't hit the Airbus" or "Six Sugga Pop"

I played nice up until they rang up a co worker for an error when a maneuvering VFR Cessna in the Bravo called IFR traffic in sight, gave a (to us) non compliant read back and maneuvered to within 1.499 miles of the IFR. See and avoid went out the window.

I want an error as much as any pilot on these boards wants a deviation. It wasn't long after that I had a Challenger pilot give me three folksy read backs to maintain visual with a 737. He saw the traffic, I was bending over backwards to apologize for needing him to say the specific magic words (and lets be clear, I was saving him 8 miles by running the pair).

I finally asked him to please just give me your full tail number and that you will maintain visual separation from the B737. The pilot on a base heading launched into a 90 second tirade in which I'm sure he included everything up to and including his SSN and mother's maiden name.

I don't blame him for being hacked off, but we got close to an RJ on that one with my freqs jammed up with his tirade. I didn't use visual for about a year after that.
 
Seems kind of nuts for FAA management to be holding controllers responsible for the fact that pilots are not giving a readback that's not mentioned in the AIM. Maybe the controllers' union ought to be raising a stink about that.
 
It's part of our job, and has always been (at least as long as I've been working). We have to ensure proper read back of clearances, or it is not a proper clearance.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Which "OpSpec" requires the read back of clearances?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm repeating the wrong term. I know several 135 guys here that say their firm has policies that set out what they read back. They call them op specs, is that incorrect? I have a friend at Delta that said the same.

Best,

Dave
 
MarkZ said:
It's part of our job, and has always been (at least as long as I've been working). We have to ensure proper read back of clearances, or it is not a proper clearance.
Click to expand...

OK, but if controllers are having to tie up the frequency explaining a requirement that's not in the AIM, that seems rather sub-optimal. If the FAA wants pilots to read back visual separation instructions verbatim as Approach_controller said, they ought to put it in the AIM, in the interest of both safety and efficiency.
 
I agree Richard. I've also found, different controllers seem to have different standards at times; especially towers. Here at Addison, they have a unique instruction to hold short of the runway before departure where one must repeat they will hold short with runway and N number. If one doesn't repeat all that, they will ask you to. Tower specifically says, Nxxxx, hold short of runway xxx: do not cross the hold short line. This was implemented after they had several hold short violations. Of course, it's non-standard phraseology.I departed another field Monday where I was to hold for clearance and Wilco was fine. Several other cases of which I'm aware. In some cases Wilco is not accepted by controllers even though a published term.

Interesting conversation passing Atlanta.
Controller: airline xxx cross Dirty at 10,000 maintain 300 or better to Dirty.
RJ: cross Dirty at 10,000 unable on the speed; we can only do 310!
Controller repeats the same instruction emphasizing 300 or better.
RJ: repeats unable on the speed (g).
Controller says 310 is better than 300
RJ:says it will do 310.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
OK, but if controllers are having to tie up the frequency explaining a requirement that's not in the AIM, that seems rather sub-optimal. If the FAA wants pilots to read back visual separation instructions verbatim as Approach_controller said, they ought to put it in the AIM, in the interest of both safety and efficiency.
Click to expand...

I've acknowledged visual sep several times just over the last year with "(callsign), wilco" and have yet to be told to read back verbatim.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Maybe I'm repeating the wrong term. I know several 135 guys here that say their firm has policies that set out what they read back. They call them op specs, is that incorrect? I have a friend at Delta that said the same.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that any ops spec (which are more like modifications to the regs) would address what pilots say on the radio. Ops specs are canned, they have a reference number, and a company can apply for any number of them. Maybe you are thinking about what companies have in their SOPs. I can see that some companies might do that, ours does not.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I agree Richard. I've also found, different controllers seem to have different standards at times; especially towers. Here at Addison, they have a unique instruction to hold short of the runway before departure where one must repeat they will hold short with runway and N number. If one doesn't repeat all that, they will ask you to. Tower specifically says, Nxxxx, hold short of runway xxx: do not cross the hold short line. This was implemented after they had several hold short violations. Of course, it's non-standard phraseology.I departed another field Monday where I was to hold for clearance and Wilco was fine. Several other cases of which I'm aware. In some cases Wilco is not accepted by controllers even though a published term.

Interesting conversation passing Atlanta.
Controller: airline xxx cross Dirty at 10,000 maintain 300 or better to Dirty.
RJ: cross Dirty at 10,000 unable on the speed; we can only do 310!
Controller repeats the same instruction emphasizing 300 or better.
RJ: repeats unable on the speed (g).
Controller says 310 is better than 300
RJ:says it will do 310.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of removing the "taxi to" phraseology a few years ago. Pilots were confusing it to mean taxi onto the runway. Of course specific instructions to proceed across intersecting runways and taxiways was added to that as well. If ADS ground is saying "N12345, rwy 15 taxi via alpha." I'm not reading back a hold short of the runway instruction. It's not required. Now, If they're having to put "hold short" in that instruction because they still have pilots causing runway incursions, then I'd say you have some dense pilots there.
 
Velocity173 said:
What amazes me is how often I hear ATC say "N345, I need you to read back your hold short instructions." They'll read back an entire IFR ATC clearance to ground but the one thing that's required they won't read back.
Click to expand...

Is that because reading back hold short instructions is a new thing and reading back the IFR clearance is an old thing? Law of Primacy says we remember best what we learned first.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
...Here at Addison, they have a unique instruction to hold short of the runway before departure where one must repeat they will hold short with runway and N number...
Click to expand...

At Palo Alto, they put that readback requirement on the ATIS, so at least pilots have a way of knowing about it without tying up the tower frequency.
 
Velocity173 said:
I've acknowledged visual sep several times just over the last year with "(callsign), wilco" and have yet to be told to read back verbatim.
Click to expand...

My experience is the same as yours. Apparently some facilities ask for it and some don't.
 
Palmpilot said:
At Palo Alto, they put that readback requirement on the ATIS, so at least pilots have a way of knowing about it without tying up the tower frequency.
Click to expand...

It was on the ATIS at IAD and also it was printed on the airport diagram in the approach plates.

What I always found humorous was the announcement said "READBACK ALL HOLDSHORT AND CROSSING INSTRUCTIONS."

Prior to them building the new west runway at Dulles, there was no taxiways that 'crossed" a runway. If you went off the runway opposite the side with the taxiway you'd be in the weeds.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Is that because reading back hold short instructions is a new thing and reading back the IFR clearance is an old thing? Law of Primacy says we remember best what we learned first.
Click to expand...

I'd say primacy is part of it. That and the fact the rules are always changing.

Sometimes it's just doing something because we're parroting what we've heard on the radio. We've all heard "any traffic in the area, please advise." Despite the AIM's guidance on not to say a statement like that on CTAF, most people do it because they heard others do it.

I think the read back of IFR clearances really isn't an old thing though. I'd say most do just for safety. To me it's not hard to use the CRAFT format and read it back. In my experience in military ATC I saw a variety of practices. if a fighter guy was going on a SID that they've done a hundred times, usually we just got a squawk read back. Not really sure where the squawk thing came from but years ago that was common. A King Air doing a long cross country, you might get a full read back. As I said, when I was in the Army instrument examiner course as a pilot, they hounded us on phraseology. "stop reading back that clearance! What's required to be read back?" There, it was about getting rid of techniques and adhering to a standard. The motto of the course was "SHOW ME A REFERENCE." Still, it's inevitable that people are going to teach certain techniques when it comes to radio phraseology.

When I used to teach, I tried to stick to teaching a standard based on actual references (even the AIM). However, I also didn't mind techniques while keeping within the standard. If they knew something wasn't a required read back (frequency / altimeter setting) but they chose to read it back for positive verification, I had no problem with that. Problems arise when they're clueless in what's required so they just try and repeat everything ATC says. They spend the majority of the flight looking inside the cockpit, trying to scribble notes on a kneeboard and stuttering and stammering on the radio. When you know the meat and potatoes of what's required to say over the radio, your transmissions become so much more concise and have a smoother flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top