Proceed Direct...

[gismo]

That case changed nothing. From JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control, Change 2, dated 3/12/2009 and valid through 8/27/09:

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure
acknowledgment by the pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other
information by using “Wilco,” “Roger,” “Affirmative,” or
other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back
by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If
incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.

Merrell in fact read back a clearance issued to another aircraft. The controller in fact did not ensure acknowledgment by Merrell of that clearance because he did not issue it to Merrell. The controller did not correct Merrell's readback because he did not receive it, it was blocked by the readback from the aircraft to which it was directed.

I've read them before, I understand them, it is you that does not.

If Merrell v. Administrator has changed things in the manner you believe, there should be cases where pilots have been violated after an incorrect readback that was acknowledged by the controller but not corrected. Do you know of any such cases?

Steven, I can see that from your perspective as a controller Merrell didn't change anything, but as a pilot it clearly changed things for me. Prior to the decision I would have expected the failure of ATC to catch a readback error from me would save me from an enforcement action but I now know this isn't true. I expect that in any such occurances in the future (that lead to a reported loss of separation etc) BOTH the controller and the pilot will be held accountable, prior to Merrell only the controller would be in trouble.

 

[poadeleted20]

That case changed nothing. From JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control, Change 2, dated 3/12/2009 and valid through 8/27/09:

Your quotation of FAA Order 7110.65 is not relevant, as it only covers controller responsibilities and does not apply to pilots. Here's the relevant portion of the Court's decision:

[Merrell] reasoned that because ATC

controllers are required to correct erroneous readbacks,

2 his

construction of ATC's silence as tacit confirmation had been
reasonable and justified. In response, the FAA again argued
that because the primary cause of the deviation had been
Merrell's misperception of a clear instruction, his actions had​

violated the safety regulations.​

IOW, while failure of the controller to correct an erroneous readback may also subject the controller to sanctions for violating 7110.65, it does not protect the pilot from sanctions for getting it wrong in the first place in violation of 14 CFR 91.123.

If Merrell v. Administrator has changed things in the manner you believe, there should be cases where pilots have been violated after an incorrect readback that was acknowledged by the controller but not corrected. Do you know of any such cases?

Unfortunately, the NTSB site just crashed, so you'll have to wait. However, only cases appealed to the NTSB get on that site, and the rest are not available on line. Since the Merrell case, it is unlikely that such a case would reach the NTSB, as the appellant would have no grounds to appeal on an issue already decided by the US Court of Appeals. But if you can find a post-Merrell case in which the FAA alleged such a violation and the case was dismissed on the grounds you state, I'd like to hear about it -- such a case would certainly reach the NTSB since the FAA would certainly appeal it.

As noted in the post immediately above, Merrell changed nothing for controllers, but it changed everything for pilots. You would be well-advised to consider that if you get active as a pilot again.
​

 

[roncachamp]

Steven, I can see that from your perspective as a controller Merrell didn't change anything, but as a pilot it clearly changed things for me. Prior to the decision I would have expected the failure of ATC to catch a readback error from me would save me from an enforcement action but I now know this isn't true. I expect that in any such occurances in the future (that lead to a reported loss of separation etc) BOTH the controller and the pilot will be held accountable, prior to Merrell only the controller would be in trouble.

My perspective is that of a pilot and a controller, perhaps that allows me to better see the big picture here. There was no ATC failure in the Merrell case. Merrell, the captain of Northwest 1024, took an altitude clearance directed to American 94. Merrell read it back but his readback was blocked by the readback from American 94. The controller cannot correct an incorrect readback if he does not receive it. Merrell's unauthorized climb caused a loss of separation. Who should be held responsible for that loss of separation if not Merrell?

 

[poadeleted20]

While I know that roncachamp holds a CP-ASEL-IA, I also know he is not an active pilot (no medical).

When viewing this thread, I suggest folks consider the potential for trouble if they erroneously read back a correctly-delivered clearance. The bottom line is that if you believe me when I tell you the FAA's position, you cannot get in trouble -- if you're the least unsure about a clearance, you'll get positive confirmation as required by 91.123(a). If you believe his interpretation, you won't worry about that after you make a readback without correction, and then you could not only get in trouble with the FAA, you could run into something hard. Choose wisely.

And with that, I'm done here.

 

[RotorAndWing]

While I know that roncachamp holds a CP-ASEL-IA, I also know he is not an active pilot (no medical).

Taking a cheap shot there Ron. I know lots of pilots who no longer hold a medical with more experience than most people combined on this board.

 

[poadeleted20]

Taking a cheap shot there Ron. I know lots of pilots who no longer hold a medical with more experience than most people combined on this board.

I guess my point is that while he said he's both a pilot and a controller, the FAA's position on pilot responsibilities for some communications issues under discussion has changed, especially since the Merrell decision, and possibly since the last time he flew as a pilot, which is why he may not understand the pilot perspective on those issues.

 

[gismo]

My perspective is that of a pilot and a controller, perhaps that allows me to better see the big picture here. There was no ATC failure in the Merrell case. Merrell, the captain of Northwest 1024, took an altitude clearance directed to American 94. Merrell read it back but his readback was blocked by the readback from American 94. The controller cannot correct an incorrect readback if he does not receive it. Merrell's unauthorized climb caused a loss of separation. Who should be held responsible for that loss of separation if not Merrell?

Murphy.

 

[CJones]

Interesting.

On the way home last night from Boston, part of my filed route was: ... SAGES V408 LHY V58 FQM KUCP

After getting handed off to Wilkes-Barre Approach, while sliding down V408 between SAGES and LHY I was given "When able, direct Williamsport, direct destination." At that point, I went direct to the Williamsport VOR (FQM) and not the Williamsport airport. I didn't get any flak from the controller for doing so.

Also, when getting my clearance out of KOWD, they pulled a waypoint out of my filed plan which was just a VOR along a V-airway. During my readback, I missed that exception and simply said "Cleared as filed." The controller made it very clear "NOT cleared as filed, simply removed BAF from your planned route." I read back the amended clearance and we were on our way - even though I still flew directly over BAF VOR in my flown route, he wanted to make it very clear that BAF was not a 'formal' part of my clearance. Not sure what difference that made, though.

 

[flyersfan31]

Back to the original point.....

Matt, it's funny you ask this. I encountered that very situation one week ago. I was cleared to proceed (of all places) direct Norfolk. I had filed Vsomethingorother with an exit at ORF, final destination of KORF. I was curious about whether he meant ORF (the co-located VOR) or KORF. I mentioned this conundrum to my brother in the right seat, who is working on his IR. Good learning point for him. By the time I explained the issue, and then thought "Gee, that's worth clarifying" I started getting the expected vectors for approach, rendering the issue moot (it was a clear, sunny day, so if I suddenly went NORDO I'd just divert to a Class D or less aerodrome.)

 

[TangoWhiskey]

When viewing this thread, I suggest folks consider the potential for trouble if they erroneously read back a correctly-delivered clearance. The bottom line is that if you believe me when I tell you the FAA's position, you cannot get in trouble -- if you're the least unsure about a clearance, you'll get positive confirmation as required by 91.123(a). If you believe his interpretation, you won't worry about that after you make a readback without correction, and then you could not only get in trouble with the FAA, you could run into something hard. Choose wisely.

That advice is good, but it wouldn't have helped Merrill either. He wasn't "unsure", he read back the clearance [that he erroneously thought was for him], and there was no reply from the controller. We often think "no reply means I got the readback correct". I guess the real message here is "listen to the controller's call"; don't reply just because you "think that call was for us". A simple "was that for NW 1024" would have prevented all of this for Merrill. He screwed up. He heard the trailing "4" and thought it was for him. He needed to listen better. "American 94" isn't even close to "Northwest 1024". I bet they were discussing what to have for lunch.... did the FAA obtain hot mic transcripts? I'd be interested to know what led up to his call.

 

[flyersfan31]

BTW, it's my impression that the Ron's are talking past each other. Ron L is pointing out that ultimate responsibility for clarification lies with the pilot; Ronca is pointing out that the book still says the ATC should ensure correct readback. Yes, and yes. Two different things, but both parties share responsibility for understanding and confirming a clearance. It's just that the FAA now can whack the pilot with a stick for the failure whereas before it could not.

Sound about right???

 

[poadeleted20]

It's just that the FAA now can whack the pilot with a stick for the failure whereas before it could not.

Sound about right???

Yes, and from the pilot's perspective that's the big change Merrell made, although that case changed nothing from the controller's perspective.

 

[gismo]

Back to the original point.....

Matt, it's funny you ask this. I encountered that very situation one week ago. I was cleared to proceed (of all places) direct Norfolk. I had filed Vsomethingorother with an exit at ORF, final destination of KORF. I was curious about whether he meant ORF (the co-located VOR) or KORF. I mentioned this conundrum to my brother in the right seat, who is working on his IR. Good learning point for him. By the time I explained the issue, and then thought "Gee, that's worth clarifying" I started getting the expected vectors for approach, rendering the issue moot (it was a clear, sunny day, so if I suddenly went NORDO I'd just divert to a Class D or less aerodrome.)

In this case (VOR on the field), I'd just head for the VOR. You're probably not going to get all the way there without some vectoring anyway. Either way ATC won't be able to tell which you've selected on your GPS.

 

[flyersfan31]

In this case (VOR on the field), I'd just head for the VOR. You're probably not going to get all the way there without some vectoring anyway. Either way ATC won't be able to tell which you've selected on your GPS.

That's exactly what I figured.

 

[flyersfan31]

Yes, and from the pilot's perspective that's the big change Merrell made, although that case changed nothing from the controller's perspective.

That's what I figured.

From a controller's perspective, who cares? From our perspective, obviously now we care a lot more. (Or we should care a lot more, but there are so many stupid pilots out there who probably don't even understand the issue in the first place......)

 

[PittsDriver]

Yes, and from the pilot's perspective that's the big change Merrell made, although that case changed nothing from the controller's perspective.

I'm not trying to put words in ronca's posts, but it seems to me what he's saying is that if you read back a clearance incorrectly and the controller does not correct you, then as a practical matter the FAA will not pursue action against the pilot, only the controller. That's different than what ron is saying which is that according to case he cites, the FAA can pursue it. Ronca's just saying they won't.

I have to agree with ronca though that the case cited is somewhat irrelevant for the reasons he cites. And I have to agree with ron that if you start flying around thinking you're clever with getouttajail cards, it's not a good thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not trying to put words in ronca's posts, but it seems to me what he's saying is that if you read back a clearance incorrectly and the controller does not correct you, then as a practical matter the FAA will not pursue action against the pilot, only the controller. That's different than what ron is saying which is that according to case he cites, the FAA can pursue it. Ronca's just saying they won't.

Clearly, at least in Merrell's case, they did. Further, two years after Merrell, the FAA nailed two airline pilots for much the same action -- they responded to a climb instruction for another plane, and the controller failed to catch their erroneous readback. The violation was upheld by the ALJ and NTSB.* See Administrator v. Campbell and Jones (there was no discussion either way in that order about action against the controller). So, not only can the FAA pursue it, they have. Caveat aviator.

* While there are no other cases on point on the NTSB site, that doesn't mean other enforcement actions weren't filed and decided without appeal to the NTSB. FAA enforcement cases which don't go to the NTSB are not available on line without special access which I don't have.

 

[roncachamp]

Your quotation of FAA Order 7110.65 is not relevant, as it only covers controller responsibilities and does not apply to pilots.

The appeals court must have found it relevant, they included it. The language they included was from 7110.65 pre-Merrell, the language hasn't changed.

Here's the relevant portion of the Court's decision:

[Merrell] reasoned that because ATC controllers are required
to correct erroneous readbacks, 2 his construction of ATC's
silence as tacit confirmation had been reasonable and justified.
In response, the FAA again argued that because the primary
cause of the deviation had been Merrell's misperception of a
clear instruction, his actions had violated the safety regulations.

IOW, while failure of the controller to correct an erroneous readback may also subject the controller to sanctions for violating 7110.65, it does not protect the pilot from sanctions for getting it wrong in the first place in violation of 14 CFR 91.123.

You're wrong. The FAA position pre-Merrell was that even if a deviation from a clearance is initiated by an inadvertent mistake on the pilot’s part, that mistake will be excused and no violation will be found if, after the mistake, the pilot takes actions that, but for the air traffic controller would have exposed the error and allowed for it to be corrected. That is also the FAA position post-Merrell. If a pilot acknowledges receipt of a clearance with an incorrect readback of that clearance and the controller does not take action to correct the error the controller will be held responsible for any resultant deviation, not the pilot.

Unfortunately, the NTSB site just crashed, so you'll have to wait.

Site still down?

However, only cases appealed to the NTSB get on that site, and the rest are not available on line. Since the Merrell case, it is unlikely that such a case would reach the NTSB, as the appellant would have no grounds to appeal on an issue already decided by the US Court of Appeals. But if you can find a post-Merrell case in which the FAA alleged such a violation and the case was dismissed on the grounds you state, I'd like to hear about it -- such a case would certainly reach the NTSB since the FAA would certainly appeal it.

You're right that such a case is unlikely to be found but not for the reason you imagine. There wouldn't be cases where pilots have been violated after an incorrect readback that was acknowledged by the controller but not corrected because pilots aren't violated in those situations. The controller is held responsible for the deviation, the pilot isn't charged with a violation.

As noted in the post immediately above, Merrell changed nothing for controllers, but it changed everything for pilots. You would be well-advised to consider that if you get active as a pilot again.

You still don't get it. The only thing Merrell changed for pilots was for those that had previously believed that if they took a clearly transmitted clearance directed at another aircraft, read it back but the readback was not received by ATC, then acted on the clearance, the resultant deviation would be excused by the unheard readback. Why any pilot believed that pre-Merrell remains a mystery.

What makes you feel I'm not an active pilot?

 

[poadeleted20]

Site still down?

Nope -- see Administrator v. Campbell and Jones, two years after Merrell was decided, which supports what I said. There's nothing to support your argument.

What makes you feel I'm not an active pilot?

Your lack of a current medical, as shown on the FAA Registry web site. Without that, you're not acting as a required pilot crewmember in IFR flight.

 

[jmaynard]

Your lack of a current medical, as shown on the FAA Registry web site. Without that, you're not acting as a required pilot crewmember in IFR flight.

Ron, that was a cheap shot, and unbecoming of a member of the MC. Steve's credentials, or lack thereof, aren't at issue here.

 

[roncachamp]

While I know that roncachamp holds a CP-ASEL-IA, I also know he is not an active pilot (no medical).

How do you "know" I have no medical?

When viewing this thread, I suggest folks consider the potential for trouble if they erroneously read back a correctly-delivered clearance. The bottom line is that if you believe me when I tell you the FAA's position, you cannot get in trouble -- if you're the least unsure about a clearance, you'll get positive confirmation as required by 91.123(a).

Merrell must have been certain the clearance he read back was meant for him as he did not request clarification from ATC. He was wrong.

 

[roncachamp]

I guess my point is that while he said he's both a pilot and a controller, the FAA's position on pilot responsibilities for some communications issues under discussion has changed, especially since the Merrell decision, and possibly since the last time he flew as a pilot, which is why he may not understand the pilot perspective on those issues.

You keep saying Merrell marked a change in the FAA's position on pilot responsibilities for some communications issues. What do you base that on? Do you know of a case before Merrell where a pilot took a clearly transmitted clearance directed to another aircraft, and read back the clearance, but the readback was not received by ATC, the pilot then acted on the clearance and a loss of separation resulted from the deviation, and the pilot either received no violation or the violation was excused by the readback that was not received?

 

[Everskyward]

You're right that such a case is unlikely to be found but not for the reason you imagine. There wouldn't be cases where pilots have been violated after an incorrect readback that was acknowledged by the controller but not corrected because pilots aren't violated in those situations. The controller is held responsible for the deviation, the pilot isn't charged with a violation.

That was going to be my thought too although Ron has come up with a couple examples. However, I'm thinking that if pilots were regularly violated for mishearing a clearance there would be hundreds of examples rather than just a couple. I'm wondering if most of these cases never get past the first conversation with the inspector assigned to the PD so there is no record of violation. Maybe in the cases cited there were extenuating circumstances or an overzealous inspector.

On a practical note, I don't see how this would change the way pilots operate. Of course if you are unsure of your clearance, or if in fact that it's really for you, you should ask for clarification. However, if you don't realize that you have misheard something, like in the Merrill case, then there's no real solution. What should Merrill have done?

 

[roncachamp]

Back to the original point.....

Matt, it's funny you ask this. I encountered that very situation one week ago. I was cleared to proceed (of all places) direct Norfolk. I had filed Vsomethingorother with an exit at ORF, final destination of KORF. I was curious about whether he meant ORF (the co-located VOR) or KORF. I mentioned this conundrum to my brother in the right seat, who is working on his IR. Good learning point for him. By the time I explained the issue, and then thought "Gee, that's worth clarifying" I started getting the expected vectors for approach, rendering the issue moot (it was a clear, sunny day, so if I suddenly went NORDO I'd just divert to a Class D or less aerodrome.)

Why do you feel that it was worth clarifying, given that the VOR is located on the field?

Why divert to an airport in Class D airspace if you suddenly went NORDO? Class D airspace requires radio communications.

 

[roncachamp]

That advice is good, but it wouldn't have helped Merrill either. He wasn't "unsure", he read back the clearance [that he erroneously thought was for him], and there was no reply from the controller. We often think "no reply means I got the readback correct". I guess the real message here is "listen to the controller's call"; don't reply just because you "think that call was for us". A simple "was that for NW 1024" would have prevented all of this for Merrill. He screwed up. He heard the trailing "4" and thought it was for him. He needed to listen better. "American 94" isn't even close to "Northwest 1024". I bet they were discussing what to have for lunch.... did the FAA obtain hot mic transcripts? I'd be interested to know what led up to his call.

'Zackly. Merrell stated in his ASRS report, "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 shared just one digit, the last one. He heard a "four" and gambled with one in ten odds.

 

[roncachamp]

BTW, it's my impression that the Ron's are talking past each other. Ron L is pointing out that ultimate responsibility for clarification lies with the pilot; Ronca is pointing out that the book still says the ATC should ensure correct readback. Yes, and yes. Two different things, but both parties share responsibility for understanding and confirming a clearance. It's just that the FAA now can whack the pilot with a stick for the failure whereas before it could not.

The controller did ensure a correct readback in the Merrell case. He got a correct readback from American 94 and not a word from Northwest 1024.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, and from the pilot's perspective that's the big change Merrell made, although that case changed nothing from the controller's perspective.

So, pre-Merrell, it was the pilot's perspective that taking a clearly transmitted clearance directed to another aircraft, and reading back that clearance but having your readback blocked by the aircraft to which the clearance was intended reading back the clearance at the same time, acting on that clearance with a resulting loss of separation, would excuse the pilot from any enforcement action? Is that what you're saying?

 

[roncachamp]

From a controller's perspective, who cares? From our perspective, obviously now we care a lot more. (Or we should care a lot more, but there are so many stupid pilots out there who probably don't even understand the issue in the first place......)

Some pilots still don't understand the issue.

 

[roncachamp]

Further, two years after Merrell, the FAA nailed two airline pilots for much the same action -- they responded to a climb instruction for another plane, and the controller failed to catch their erroneous readback. The violation was upheld by the ALJ and NTSB.* See Administrator v. Campbell and Jones (there was no discussion either way in that order about action against the controller).

"Respondents responded to ATC by saying that Flight 1476 was
leaving 310 for 330, and they received no immediate response​

correcting their error."

There's nothing there that indicates the response was received by ATC.

 

[roncachamp]

Nope -- see Administrator v. Campbell and Jones, two years after Merrell was decided, which supports what I said. There's nothing to support your argument.

Well, my argument is that a pilot that acknowledges a clearance directed to him with an incorrect readback will not be violated for any resultant deviation. No violation, no case to review.

Your lack of a current medical, as shown on the FAA Registry web site. Without that, you're not acting as a required pilot crewmember in IFR flight.

My, how clever of you. If you were just a bit more clever it might have occurred to you that the registry site must be incomplete as every controller makes an annual trip to an AME for a Class II physical.

 

[RotorAndWing]

My, how clever of you. If you were just a bit more clever it might have occurred to you that the registry site must be incomplete as every controller makes an annual trip to an AME for a Class II physical.

Doh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[poadeleted20]

That was going to be my thought too although Ron has come up with a couple examples. However, I'm thinking that if pilots were regularly violated for mishearing a clearance there would be hundreds of examples rather than just a couple.

I think the trigger for the FAA deciding to take enforcement action is when the deviation results in a loss of separation. That puts in motion a bunch of things which cannot be stopped.

On a practical note, I don't see how this would change the way pilots operate. Of course if you are unsure of your clearance, or if in fact that it's really for you, you should ask for clarification. However, if you don't realize that you have misheard something, like in the Merrill case, then there's no real solution. What should Merrill have done?

According to the FAA's position in his case, what he should have done is correctly hear what the controller said. It is their opinion that mishearing is your fault, and you are responsible for the consequences even if the controller doesn't catch (or even hear) the error in your readback. Both the NTSB and I believe that's an impossible burden for the pilot, but that's the FAA's position, and as the Court of Appeals said, that FAA position is the law, and the NTSB is required to act accordingly. Caveat aviator: listen up, and unless the controller acknowledges your readback, make sure you know you got it right!

 

[Everskyward]

I think the trigger for the FAA deciding to take enforcement action is when the deviation results in a loss of separation. That puts in motion a bunch of things which cannot be stopped.

I have been told that if there is a loss of separation with either another airplane or terrain that is is either a pilot deviation or a controller deviation and the FAA will investigate. However, even if it is found to be a pilot deviation that does not mean that they will go on and try to pursue a violation. If the inspector thinks it is minor enough and unintentional it will be over at that level. I have personal knowledge of at least a few of these cases, one of them recent.

According to the FAA's position in his case, what he should have done is correctly hear what the controller said. It is their opinion that mishearing is your fault, and you are responsible for the consequences even if the controller doesn't catch (or even hear) the error in your readback. Both the NTSB and I believe that's an impossible burden for the pilot, but that's the FAA's position, and as the Court of Appeals said, that FAA position is the law, and the NTSB is required to act accordingly. Caveat aviator: listen up, and unless the controller acknowledges your readback, make sure you know you got it right!

You can say "listen up" all you want, but people are not infallible and they hear things wrong. So operationally, there isn't really much you can do besides what I assume people are already doing which is questioning clearances when they aren't sure.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

It is their [the FAA's] opinion that mishearing is your fault, and you are responsible for the consequences even if the controller doesn't catch (or even hear) the error in your readback.

If it's not your fault that you misheard something, whose is it?

I agree that "listen up" is important here. Make sure the transmission is for you before you read it back. You say here:

Caveat aviator: listen up, and unless the controller acknowledges your readback, make sure you know you got it right!

The only case I know of where the controller acknowledges your readback is when you readback an IFR clearance. I don't think I've ever heard ATC say "[aircraft id], readback correct" on a heading change, altitude change, or other clearance.

Maybe that's a hole in the system, but with already busy airwaves, the burden is on the pilot to, as you say, "listen up", to make sure the clearance is FOR HIM before he reads it back. Again, a simple "Was that for Nxxxx" before reading back covers you. Don't comply with what you're not sure was for you.

The Campbell and Jones case you site was exactly the same as the previous case you cited--the pilots acknowledged and followed a clearance for another aircraft. I can see how that might be seen as an "incorrect readback", but lacking an additional confirmation after readback, this is a no-win scenario for the pilot that reads back an instruction not intended for him--ATC will never hear it [and thus, correct it] if he steps on the pilot for whom the clearance was properly intended.

Caveat aviator, indeed: LISTEN before you reply. Don't reply if you didn't listen first or if you didn't hear the ENTIRE transmission. Don't ASSUME it was for you.

The lesson to me is: don't assume an uncorrected readback means it WAS for you. If you're not SURE it was for you, ask.

Caveat: We don't know, but Merrill and Campbell/Jones might very well have thought for SURE it was for them... a case of "hearing what you expect to hear". Not sure how you can "fix" that, but it's interesting that in both cases it was two-pilot crews--and neither of them caught it.

LISTEN WITH INTENT TO COMMIT PRECISE AVIATION.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."
N123 readback "Direct XYZ airport, N123."

??????????????????????????????

And here I thought that reading back exactly what you thought the controller meant was a sensible thing to do.

 

[roncachamp]

That was going to be my thought too although Ron has come up with a couple examples.

Administrator v. Campbell and Jones? That's another case of a pilot reading back and acting on a clearance directed to another aircraft. It's stated in the appeal, "Respondents responded to ATC by saying that Flight 1476 was leaving 310 for 330, and they received no immediate response correcting their error." There's no indication their readback was received by ATC.

However, I'm thinking that if pilots were regularly violated for mishearing a clearance there would be hundreds of examples rather than just a couple. I'm wondering if most of these cases never get past the first conversation with the inspector assigned to the PD so there is no record of violation. Maybe in the cases cited there were extenuating circumstances or an overzealous inspector.

If a pilot mishears a clearance intended for him, reads back what he heard and the controller does not correct the error, there will not be a Pilot Deviation. The controller is required to obtain acknowledgment of the clearance, if the pilot acknowledges with a readback the controller is required to ensure the readback is correct. If the controller fails to do that and a loss of separation results the controller is charged with an Operational Error.

On a practical note, I don't see how this would change the way pilots operate. Of course if you are unsure of your clearance, or if in fact that it's really for you, you should ask for clarification. However, if you don't realize that you have misheard something, like in the Merrill case, then there's no real solution. What should Merrill have done?

Merrell heard what he expected to hear, a common error in communications. He had been stopped at 17,000 so he was expecting a further clearance to FL 230 because that's the top of the low altitude sector. Then he heard, "...four, climb and maintain Flight Level two three zero." He read back what he thought he heard, ATC said nothing, so he started climbing.

Merrell "misheard" a clear transmission, he admitted that when he later listened to the tape. Instead of reading back the clearance and relying on controller silence for verification he should have recognized the situation as being ripe for that common communications error and asked for clarification.

 

[roncachamp]

According to the FAA's position in his case, what he should have done is correctly hear what the controller said. It is their opinion that mishearing is your fault, ...

And you feel mishearing a clear transmission from ATC is the controller's fault?

...and you are responsible for the consequences even if the controller doesn't catch (or even hear) the error in your readback.

And you feel you shouldn't be held responsible for your erroneous readbacks?

Both the NTSB and I believe that's an impossible burden for the pilot, but that's the FAA's position, and as the Court of Appeals said, that FAA position is the law, and the NTSB is required to act accordingly. Caveat aviator: listen up, and unless the controller acknowledges your readback, make sure you know you got it right!

Here's better advice; make sure what you're reading back was intended for you. If you limit your readbacks to transmissions directed to you then you're clean with regard to any enforcement action. If your readback was correct there's no problem. If your readback was incorrect the controller must correct it. If the controller corrects it, no problem. If the controller doesn't correct it he's got a problem, you don't.

 

[roncachamp]

The only case I know of where the controller acknowledges your readback is when you readback an IFR clearance. I don't think I've ever heard ATC say "[aircraft id], readback correct" on a heading change, altitude change, or other clearance.

I tend to give a "readback correct" to readbacks of new routes, but not to headings, altitudes, approach clearances, etc.

 

[roncachamp]

Murphy.

Please explain why.

 

[ghogue]

I am posting the website for an FAA Interpretive Rule, published in the Federal Register, in response to Merrell and other cases. It's here for anyone interested in reading it. It's title is:

14 CFR Part 91
Pilot Responsibility for Compliance With Air Traffic Control Clearances
and Instructions; Rule

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/advanced.html

edit: Changed link. See post #83, below.