Proper response to "Altitude Indicates 3000 feet"

[Velocity173]

The controller is REQUIRED to confirm altitude and validate mode c. Usually these are some at the same time with “verify altitude” or “verify altitude leaving. On initial identification this is a must. Simply calling out your altitude as displayed DOES NOT ask for confirmation. The act of confirmation requires an overt request for information. This was briefed to all controllers as an action item about four or five years ago as mandated by AOV.

During AOV audits many controllers we stating things like “radar contact 20 miles south of XXX airport at 2500 ft”. To confirm an item the controller must ask the question...unless the item is voluntarily given. And an altitude display or confirmation is unusable if the pilot has not either been given the altimeter by the controller or volunteers that he has the numbers or ATIS code... FIRST.

In your scenario the controller did not “confirm” your altitude as required by rule. One exception to the confirmation rule would be if your scenario was a missed approach from a previous approach. In a radar environment, unless you were terminated, radar service continues at least to the threshold as does radar identity. The previously validated mode C and altitude verification would still be valid and it wouldn’t even be necessary to repeat or even mention your altitude. (Unless mode c dropped for a significAnt period of time during the approach). In that case the “at 3000” is just a superfluous waste of phraseology.

Tex

The item (3,000) was voluntarily given by the pilot. That is confirmation and validates the mode C. One could even argue that since there is no assigned altitude in this scenario that the confirmation isn’t necessary prior to assignment.

Never read in confirmation or validation in the .65 that the controller must issue the altimeter or pilot state the ATIS first. Who came up with that interpretation?

 

[Dave S.]

AOV ???

Air traffic oversight and operations safety division of the Air traffic organization. The internal affairs group, sorta. The line of business identifier is AOV.

Tex

 

[luvflyin]

Air traffic oversight and operations safety division of the Air traffic organization. The internal affairs group, sorta. The line of business identifier is AOV.

Tex

How long has that been around. Sounds like what we used to call QA

 

[Dave S.]

The item (3,000) was voluntarily given by the pilot. That is confirmation and validates the mode C. One could even argue that since there is no assigned altitude in this scenario that the confirmation isn’t necessary prior to assignment.

Never read in confirmation or validation in the .65 that the controller must issue the altimeter or pilot state the ATIS first. Who came up with that interpretation?

AOV and the service centers agreed. And I as an ATC instructor was required to emphasise the point. It’s a small but technical point. Confirmation requires an overt action to ensure and verify information. The controller merely stating a displayed altitude “confirms” nothing. It is simply a statement. No confirmation has occurred unless there is Info from the pilot about his altitude against which the controller’s display can be compared. Consider the following...


“Regional approach, Cessna 123Alpha Charlie 20 miles south of McKinney inbound to McKinney with Delta”. Note: the controller now knows the pilot has the altimeter therefore any info from the pilot regarding his altitude is usable.
“Cessna 3 Alpha Charlie sqwak 5246 and ident”.

“Cessna 3 Alpha Charlie Radar contact one five miles south of McKinney at 2400”. The pilot says roger.

This is not confirmation. The controller did not ask the pilot to Confirm his altitude but rather relied on the pilot to correct the controller if the altitude did not jibe.

That’s the first principal of altitude confirmation. The second one is this...

The pilot says the same thing as before but leaves out that he has the ATIS or gives the wrong ATIS code. This means that the pilot does not have any reliable altimeter info and therefore any altitude info he gives based on that is unreliable also. Another situation that happens all of the time is this... the pilot does not have altimetric info but gives his altitude. This renders the info unusable. So the controller gives the altimeter after that fact but doesn’t re-confirm the altitude.

This means, in this chronological order, 1) the pilot gave unreliable altitude info 2) the controller gave the correct altimeter 3) the controller did not confirm the altitude after ensuring the pilot had the correct altimeter 4) the controller continues using the unsubstantiated Mode c readout based entirely on an assumption. And what is the assumption? That the pilot will come back and NECESSARILY correct any discrepancy between the original altimeter and the new altimeter. So I this scenario...

“Regional approach, Cessna 3AC 20 miles south of McKinney inbound to McKinney with Golf (India is current).”

“Cessna 3AC Radar contact 15 miles south of McKinney at 2500 feet”. This is very wrong since the pilot is not ensured that he has his altimeter set to the correct datum.

This kind of ATC Generationally handed down presumptness and imprecision is one reason they created AOV in the first place.

So the “interpreted” practice of confirmation has been dealt with internally. The same practice is also good to adopt as a pilot. Don’t assume anything.

Now, if the pilot has said he had the correct ATIS and given his altitude without the controller asking for it and it matched (within 200 feet) the ARTS display then the verification has occurred and nothing else is required as far as confirmation is concerned.

Tex

 

[Velocity173]

AOV and the service areas agreed. And I as an ATC instructor was required to emphasise the point. It’s a small but technical point. Confirmation requires an overt action to ensure and verify information. The controller merely stating a displayed altitude “confirms” nothing. It is simply a statement. No confirmation has occurred unless there is Info from the pilot about his altitude against which the controller’s display can be compared. Consider the following...


“Regional approach, Cessna 123Alpha Charlie 20 miles south of McKinney inbound to McKinney with Delta”. Note: the controller now knows the pilot has the altimeter therefore any info from the pilot regarding his altitude is usable.
“Cessna 3 Alpha Charlie sqwak 5246 and ident”.

“Cessna 3 Alpha Charlie Radar contact one five miles south of McKinney at 2400”. The pilot says roger.

This is not confirmation. The controller did not ask the pilot to Confirm his altitude but rather relied on the pilot to correct the controller if the altitude did not jibe.

That’s the first principal of altitude confirmation. The second one is this...

The pilot says the same thing as before but leaves out that he has the ATIS or gives the wrong ATIS code. This means that the pilot does not have any reliable altimeter info and therefore any altitude info he gives based on that is unreliable also. Another situation that happens all of the time is this... the pilot does not have altimetric info but gives his altitude. This renders the info unusable. So the controller gives the altimeter after that fact but doesn’t re-confirm the altitude.

This means, in this chronological order, 1) the pilot gave unreliable altitude info 2) the controller gave the correct altimeter 3) the controller did not confirm the altitude after ensuring the pilot had the correct altimeter 4) the controller continues using the unsubstantiated Mode c readout based entirely on an assumption. And what is the assumption? That the pilot will come back and NECESSARILY correct any discrepancy between the original altimeter and the new altimeter. So I this scenario...

“Regional approach, Cessna 3AC 20 miles south of McKinney inbound to McKinney with Golf (India is current).”

“Cessna 3AC Radar contact 15 miles south of McKinney at 2500 feet”. This is very wrong since the pilot is not ensured that he has his altimeter set to the correct datum.

This kind of ATC Generationally handed down presumptness and imprecision is one reason they created AOV in the first place.

So the “interpreted” practice of confirmation has been dealt with internally. The same practice is also good to adopt as a pilot. Don’t assume anything.

Now, if the pilot has said he had the correct ATIS and given his altitude without the controller asking for it and it matched (within 200 feet) the ARTS display then the verification has occurred and nothing else is required as far as confirmation is concerned.

Tex

And again, the example you quoted earlier, the pilot stated the altitude already. That valids the mode C and if necessary, confirms an assigned altitude as well. In this case, it’s not even needed as a confirmation because he hadn’t been assigned an altitude. Confirmation in the .65 was written for an aircraft checking in after an interfacility handoff, on an assigned altitude by ATC.

Now, if AOV is saying that the reported altitude must be based on that particular controller’s setting or ATIS, so be it. Not sure where they come to that conclusion since it doesn’t specify that in either the validation or the confirmation sections of the .65. There’s no way to even ensure that that particular aircraft is using that controller’s setting or that it’s from the ATIS. The controller’s job, or ATIS is simply to issue the altimeter, the pilot can use any current setting within 100 miles (91.121) to be legal. That doesn’t have to have to be the destination. It doesn’t even have to be the closest setting. Now, you have some issues with IAPs because they’re based on the pilot using the destination setting but that’s an entirely different thing.

 

[Luis Escobar]

Me: Columbus Approach, Cessna 1234A

ATC: Cessna 1234A, Columbus Approach

Me: Columbus Approach, 34A, just off the ABC airport, currently at 3000 ft, requesting radar vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

ATC: Cessna 1234A, squawk 5313

Me: 5313

ATC: Cessna 34A, radar contact, 4 miles south of ABC, altitude indicates 3000 feet. Fly heading of 270 for vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

Me: 270 for vectors, 34A.

The CFI I was flying with was saying that ATC is expecting me to confirm the "altitude indicates 3000 ft" statement. I remember being told (a long time ago) that there was no need to confirm that unless there is a disagreement in the altitude. Additionally, I did say my altitude in the initial call up. He was saying that what I said on initial call does not matter, and ATC wants confirmation of the altitude after the radar contact. What do you guys think?

You do not need to reply with your altitude.

 

[Dave S.]

How long has that been around. Sounds like what we used to call QA

Ever since the air traffic division was reorganize into the Air Traffic Organization.
AOV is independent and answers only to the administrator.

Quality assurance is still there along with quality control and plans and procedures.

Tex

 

[Dave S.]

I think we’re getting two things confused here. Two things must happen for every aircraft that makes contact with ATC, Mode C and altitude verification. There are ATC rules concerning both. Those rules fall into two categories. The first is the absolute rule that every aircraft must have both his mode c and his altitude verified. The secondary category of rules are the exceptions to the first which state under which set of circumstances you can consider mode c verified and when you must verify altitude and when altitude is already considered verified.

The confusion comes in because you can do one verification for one and accomplish the verification for the other. For example, a departure is asked to say altitude leaving and assigned altitude when checking in with departure if the pilot doesn’t volunteer it. Why? The altitude leaving verifies move c and the assigned altitude is an altitude verification requirement.

Once mode c is verified there are only a few situations when altitude verification is necessary. Very seldom do you you need to verify altitude as a separate operation once mode c is verified.

Tex

 

[Dave S.]

You do not need to reply with your altitude.

The controller does not require nor expect nor desire for you to waste precious radio time confirming the confirmation.

Stop doing that. If every pilot did that we couldn’t get anything done.

You do not need to reply with your altitude.

Something in your story is being left out. Nowhere you you say if you stated that you have that atis or the numbers. You don’t say if the controller gave you the altimeter. “Altitude indicates” is not the proper way to state altitude. “Altitude indicates” is used when insuing traffic on aircraft not in contact with ATC so if the controller said that, he was improper. If you said on your initial transmission that you had the ATIS or the numbers and state your altitude at 3000 the controller has what he needs and no further confirmation is necessary ( as long as the mode c matches with 200 feet).

Tex

 

[Velocity173]

I think we’re getting two things confused here. Two things must happen for every aircraft that makes contact with ATC, Mode C and altitude verification. There are ATC rules concerning both. Those rules fall into two categories. The first is the absolute rule that every aircraft must have both his mode c and his altitude verified. The secondary category of rules are the exceptions to the first which state under which set of circumstances you can consider mode c verified and when you must verify altitude and when altitude is already considered verified.

The confusion comes in because you can do one verification for one and accomplish the verification for the other. For example, a departure is asked to say altitude leaving and assigned altitude when checking in with departure if the pilot doesn’t volunteer it. Why? The altitude leaving verifies move c and the assigned altitude is an altitude verification requirement.

Once mode c is verified there are only a few situations when altitude verification is necessary. Very seldom do you you need to verify altitude as a separate operation once mode c is verified.

Tex

I’m aware of the two differences. I’m disputing two things you said. The first is, that the controller in the OP’s case didn’t confirm the OP’s altitude. The controller just didn’t call out the altitude on his display as you said. The altitude was confirmed because the OP stated the “assigned altitude” IAW 5-2-18a. That is a confirmation.

Then second part is you said the altitude displayed or the confirmation is unusable unless the pilot is given the altimeter by the controller or stated the ATIS FIRST. No where is that written under validation or confirmation in the .65. If that’s an AOV interpretation, well they’re coming up with things that don’t jive with the regs. Pilots are bound by 91.121. They don’t even need ATC to comply with 91.121. 91.121 doesn’t say they’re required to use THAT particular controller’s altimeter setting or even THAT facilities ATIS altimeter. He could be on the previous controller’s setting within 100 miles of his flight and be legal. As long as the pilot states the assigned altitude (confirmation) and it’s less than 300 ft of displayed (validation) it is “usable” IAW the .65.

 

[Dave S.]

I must not be making myself clear. I’m sorry.

If a pilot just out of the blue tells you he is at 2500 feet, like a pilot just comes on your frequency and says hey approach this is so and so out here flying around and I’m at 2500 feet. What does the controller know? Nothing. That altitude is meaningless. Why? Because the controller does now know if the pilot has the correct altimeter or any altimeter.

For the controller to have an altitude that doesn’t require an assumption on his part he has to ask the pilot if he has a particular ATIS or if he has the numbers to a particular airport or something like that. Usually we will just manually give the altimeter to avoid the 20 questions. In other words, altitude from a pilot is only usable if the controller knows it is based on some properly selected altimeter source. Until that is assured the altitude report is unusable for any meaningful purpose except maybe as info passed along with a traffic call. In which case the controller will say “ pilot reports altitude as” or some such. The only way the controller can use altitude info from the pilot for any of his controlling needs is to be sure that altitude report is based on correct altimetery. And to do that the controller has to know that the pilot has that altimetey even if it means giving it to the pilot manually. He has to know that before accepting the pilots altitude report as usable. That’s why ATC has the altimeter rules it has. And I don’t want to hear about how the pilot has to follow the fars vs the .65. It all works together.

My point was that when a controller simply says “Radar contact 20 south at 2500”...first that mode c he’s using to say that is useless unless he know the pilot has received the correct altimeter info from somewhere and simply making a statement about what he shows on his scope with no input from the pilot (usually in response to a query from the controller but can be volunteered by the pilot without query) is not a confirmation of the pilots altitude.

There is a trend throughout the country of many controllers doing just that and it logically wrong, AOV thinks it’s wrong and at least the
Central service area thinks it’s wrong and required a briefing and renewed traning on what should be obvious. In other words, controllers improperly applying procedures.

That happens all the time. Controllers sometimes tend to move away from the proper application of procedures because they see others do it, they pick up the bad habits, they pass that on to their impressionable trainees and before long AOV or an incident investigation by the QA office catches it and the training administrator like myself has to
Get everybody back to basics. Usually under a mandate.

Tex

 

[Velocity173]

I must not be making myself clear. I’m sorry.

If a pilot just out of the blue tells you he is at 2500 feet, like a pilot just comes on your frequency and says hey approach this is so and so out here flying around and I’m at 2500 feet. What does the controller know? Nothing. That altitude is meaningless. Why? Because the controller does now know if the pilot has the correct altimeter or any altimeter.

For the controller to have an altitude that doesn’t require an assumption on his part he has to ask the pilot if he has a particular ATIS or if he has the numbers to a particular airport or something like that. Usually we will just manually give the altimeter to avoid the 20 questions. In other words, altitude from a pilot is only usable if the controller knows it is based on some properly selected altimeter source. Until that is assured the altitude report is unusable for any meaningful purpose except maybe as info passed along with a traffic call. In which case the controller will say “ pilot reports altitude as” or some such. The only way the controller can use altitude info from the pilot for any of his controlling needs is to be sure that altitude report is based on correct altimetery. And to do that the controller has to know that the pilot has that altimetey even if it means giving it to the pilot manually. He has to know that before accepting the pilots altitude report as usable. That’s why ATC has the altimeter rules it has. And I don’t want to hear about how the pilot has to follow the fars vs the .65. It all works together.

My point was that when a controller simply says “Radar contact 20 south at 2500”...first that mode c he’s using to say that is useless unless he know the pilot has received the correct altimeter info from somewhere and simply making a statement about what he shows on his scope with no input from the pilot (usually in response to a query from the controller but can be volunteered by the pilot without query) is not a confirmation of the pilots altitude.

There is a trend throughout the country of many controllers doing just that and it logically wrong, AOV thinks it’s wrong and at least the
Central service area thinks it’s wrong and required a briefing and renewed traning on what should be obvious. In other words, controllers improperly applying procedures.

That happens all the time. Controllers sometimes tend to move away from the proper application of procedures because they see others do it, they pick up the bad habits, they pass that on to their impressionable trainees and before long AOV or an incident investigation by the QA office catches it and the training administrator like myself has to
Get everybody back to basics. Usually under a mandate.

Tex

No you’re making yourself clear but what you’re saying isn’t backed up with any regulatory reference other than what AOV wants. If that’s what is being put out as policy, then they have a warped interpretation of the .65 and not an understanding of the FARs. The controller’s job is to issue the altimeter setting, not make sure that’s the actual setting the pilot put in the window. It is information, not an instruction. Outside of IAPs (97.20), the regs don’t require the destination facility altimeter setting to be set.

If a pilot checking in with you at 2,500 is ”meaningless” then why does the AIM tell pilots with a mode C transponder that they should report their altitude on initial contact then? The pilot that reports level at 2,500 is based on them following 91.121 rules.They’re not making up their own setting. If they are, then they shouldn’t be reporting an altitude at all. The controller’s job isn’t to ensure the pilot is complying with 91.121, only that they issue the altimeter setting on initial contact. If the report matches the scope, doesn’t matter where the setting came from, it’s valid. If it doesn’t match, then issue your local setting and reaffirm the reported altitude IAW 5-2-17c.

 

[dmspilot]

Two things must happen for every aircraft that makes contact with ATC, Mode C and altitude verification.

Really, I talked to ATC today and neither of us said anything related to altitude.

 

[Dave S.]

No you’re making yourself clear but what you’re saying isn’t backed up with any regulatory reference other than what AOV wants. If that’s what is being put out as policy, then they have a warped interpretation of the .65 and not an understanding of the FARs. The controller’s job is to issue the altimeter setting, not make sure that’s the actual setting the pilot put in the window. It is information, not an instruction. Outside of IAPs (97.20), the regs don’t require the destination facility altimeter setting to be set.

If a pilot checking in with you at 2,500 is ”meaningless” then why does the AIM tell pilots with a mode C transponder that they should report their altitude on initial contact then? The pilot that reports level at 2,500 is based on them following 91.121 rules.They’re not making up their own setting. If they are, then they shouldn’t be reporting an altitude at all. The controller’s job isn’t to ensure the pilot is complying with 91.121, only that they issue the altimeter setting on initial contact. If the report matches the scope, doesn’t matter where the setting came from, it’s valid. If it doesn’t match, then issue your local setting and reaffirm the reported altitude IAW 5-2-17c.

A controller must issue the altimeter unless the pilot says he has the ATIS, the numbers or o few other items required by rule. I’m all of those cases the pilot ends up with the altimeter. In those cases the controller knows any alt info from the pilot is based on that altimeter. Until then the info from the pilot FOR ATC PURPOSES is not usable. That’s why we have rules about altimeters!

We are clearly talking about at least three different things. All of them have to do with ATC procedures and how they are required to be implemented. I’m advising you what a controller must do and how those procedures are taught and put into use and how they are sometimes misused...to the confusion of many well meaning pilots (and I am a CFII, MEI as well as an previous ATC controller, instructor, cadre instructor, training administrator, designated examiner and a few other items I could pile on). This is only to say that I’m not pulling this stuff out of the thin air. Any confusion is either due to me not being able to explain it well or maybe you not reading carefully each detail of what I said.

It’s probably my fault.

And by the way, this has all been to explain why you don’t need to confirm the confirmation as asked in the op. It was to point out that in the seemingly incomplete scenario given there was never a legitimate, by the book, confirmation by the controller in the first place. At least based on the scenRio given.

Tex

 

[Velocity173]

A controller must issue the altimeter unless the pilot says he has the ATIS, the numbers or o few other items required by rule. I’m all of those cases the pilot ends up with the altimeter. In those cases the controller knows any alt info from the pilot is based on that altimeter. Until then the info from the pilot FOR ATC PURPOSES is not usable. That’s why we have rules about altimeters!

We are clearly talking about at least three different things. All of them have to do with ATC procedures and how they are required to be implemented. I’m advising you what a controller must do and how those procedures are taught and put into use and how they are sometimes misused...to the confusion of many well meaning pilots (and I am a CFII, MEI as well as an previous ATC controller, instructor, cadre instructor, training administrator, designated examiner and a few other items I could pile on). This is only to say that I’m not pulling this stuff out of the thin air. Any confusion is either due to me not being able to explain it well or maybe you not reading carefully each detail of what I said.

It’s probably my fault.

And by the way, this has all been to explain why you don’t need to confirm the confirmation as asked in the op. It was to point out that in the seemingly incomplete scenario given there was never a legitimate, by the book, confirmation by the controller in the first place. At least based on the scenRio given.

Tex

Well, now you’re going on a completely different tangent. I never said the controller wasn’t responsible for issuing the altimeter. That’s the only thing in the OP’s scenario that the controller failed to do...if indeed that’s how it went down.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Thank you.

That’s my normal response.