Standby
ATC is down their for your benefit, you are not up there for theirs
Agree 100%!! You shoulda seen the YMMB circuit traffic this morning on 35R! After the usual peak hour traffic on Alpha and after the 3 balloons landed in turn, with six in the circuit (that's full) plus a couple of choppers crossing to arrive and depart (4 maybe? dunno, I lost count), everyone else wanting to join was sent overhead to 35L and apart from a few misspeaks ("follow the Cessna, sorry Cherokee on base") somehow it all worked out. Our ATC guys and gals are awesome.
Agree 100%!! You shoulda seen the YMMB circuit traffic this morning on 35R! After the usual peak hour traffic on Alpha and after the 3 balloons landed in turn, with six in the circuit (that's full) plus a couple of choppers crossing to arrive and depart (4 maybe? dunno, I lost count), everyone else wanting to join was sent overhead to 35L and apart from a few misspeaks ("follow the Cessna, sorry Cherokee on base") somehow it all worked out. Our ATC guys and gals are awesome.
If only that was "it all".
One of the unsolved mysteries of readback requirements is why, on each occasion I am granted an inbound clearance by e.g. YSCB APP, I am given and expected to readback the QNH and am prompted to do so if I don't. Bear in mind that, in order to get the clearance, I had to ask for it and that request always includes "with Golf" - or whatever the ATIS code happens to be current - and, of course, the ATIS includes QNH. And on each occasion that I'm prompted to readback the QNH, the QNH is the same as broadcast by ATIS!
WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements?
cogwheel nailed a substantial part of the problem: inadequate ongoing education. Everyone's just doing their own thing. Don't forget the most important rule here: When in doubt, talk.
The proper use of the word "Roger" is a lost art. When I was taught to fly, the instructor drummed in to me that when ATC/S gives you a bunch of information, only part of which had to be readback, the proper response was the (a) the readback item, (b) the word "Roger" and, (c) callsign. The word "Roger" denotes that the whole of the message has been received. I rarely hear it used any more.
Ground: "ABC, cross runway 35, the aircraft on final for 17 will be holding short 30 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie will be vacating the taxiway at the fire station.
ABC: "Cross runway 35, Roger, Alpha Bravo Charlie.
One of the unsolved mysteries of readback requirements is why, on each occasion I am granted an inbound clearance by e.g. YSCB APP, I am given and expected to readback the QNH and am prompted to do so if I don't. Bear in mind that, in order to get the clearance, I had to ask for it and that request always includes "with Golf" - or whatever the ATIS code happens to be current - and, of course, the ATIS includes QNH. And on each occasion that I'm prompted to readback the QNH, the QNH is the same as broadcast by ATIS!
WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements?
cogwheel nailed a substantial part of the problem: inadequate ongoing education. Everyone's just doing their own thing. Don't forget the most important rule here: When in doubt, talk.
The proper use of the word "Roger" is a lost art. When I was taught to fly, the instructor drummed in to me that when ATC/S gives you a bunch of information, only part of which had to be readback, the proper response was the (a) the readback item, (b) the word "Roger" and, (c) callsign. The word "Roger" denotes that the whole of the message has been received. I rarely hear it used any more.
Ground: "ABC, cross runway 35, the aircraft on final for 17 will be holding short 30 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie will be vacating the taxiway at the fire station.
ABC: "Cross runway 35, Roger, Alpha Bravo Charlie.
If only that was "it all".
One of the unsolved mysteries of readback requirements is why, on each occasion I am granted an inbound clearance by e.g. YSCB APP, I am given and expected to readback the QNH and am prompted to do so if I don't. Bear in mind that, in order to get the clearance, I had to ask for it and that request always includes "with Golf" - or whatever the ATIS code happens to be current - and, of course, the ATIS includes QNH. And on each occasion that I'm prompted to readback the QNH, the QNH is the same as broadcast by ATIS!
WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements?
cogwheel nailed a substantial part of the problem: inadequate ongoing education. Everyone's just doing their own thing. Don't forget the most important rule here: When in doubt, talk.
The proper use of the word "Roger" is a lost art. When I was taught to fly, the instructor drummed in to me that when ATC/S gives you a bunch of information, only part of which had to be readback, the proper response was the (a) the readback item, (b) the word "Roger" and, (c) callsign. The word "Roger" denotes that the whole of the message has been received. I rarely hear it used any more.
Ground: "ABC, cross runway 35, the aircraft on final for 17 will be holding short 30 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie will be vacating the taxiway at the fire station.
ABC: "Cross runway 35, Roger, Alpha Bravo Charlie.
One of the unsolved mysteries of readback requirements is why, on each occasion I am granted an inbound clearance by e.g. YSCB APP, I am given and expected to readback the QNH and am prompted to do so if I don't. Bear in mind that, in order to get the clearance, I had to ask for it and that request always includes "with Golf" - or whatever the ATIS code happens to be current - and, of course, the ATIS includes QNH. And on each occasion that I'm prompted to readback the QNH, the QNH is the same as broadcast by ATIS!
WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements?
cogwheel nailed a substantial part of the problem: inadequate ongoing education. Everyone's just doing their own thing. Don't forget the most important rule here: When in doubt, talk.
The proper use of the word "Roger" is a lost art. When I was taught to fly, the instructor drummed in to me that when ATC/S gives you a bunch of information, only part of which had to be readback, the proper response was the (a) the readback item, (b) the word "Roger" and, (c) callsign. The word "Roger" denotes that the whole of the message has been received. I rarely hear it used any more.
Ground: "ABC, cross runway 35, the aircraft on final for 17 will be holding short 30 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie will be vacating the taxiway at the fire station.
ABC: "Cross runway 35, Roger, Alpha Bravo Charlie.
Whereas if CB TWR broadcasted All stations information Golf current, QNH 1015 then you wouldn't read that back.
Maybe the use of roger has changed since you were taught? Seems that it should not be used as part of a readback:
AIP GEN 3.4
I ask again: WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information (e.g.) Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements? Aviation activity in Australia every day demonstrates why counter-intuitive rules cause confusion.
And please read what you've posted about our mate Roger. In the example I gave I was not asked a question. The example I gave was and remains exactly the kind of circumstance in which Roger is the right word to include in the response (rather than readback everything including the aircraft on short final to 17 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie, which is what is now increasingly happening).
I get it that "Roger" is not the correct response to: "Do you have Black Mountain in sight?" or "Confirm you are on assigned heading zero one zero".
And please read what you've posted about our mate Roger. In the example I gave I was not asked a question. The example I gave was and remains exactly the kind of circumstance in which Roger is the right word to include in the response (rather than readback everything including the aircraft on short final to 17 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie, which is what is now increasingly happening).
I get it that "Roger" is not the correct response to: "Do you have Black Mountain in sight?" or "Confirm you are on assigned heading zero one zero".
I ask again: WTF is the point of reporting the ATIS code received if 'the system' is going to second guess whether I've actually received all of information (e.g.) Golf? And if 'the system' is 'worried' that I don't 'really' have the QNH element of Golf, why isn't 'the system' 'worried' that I don't 'really' have other of the elements? Aviation activity in Australia every day demonstrates why counter-intuitive rules cause confusion.
And please read what you've posted about our mate Roger. In the example I gave I was not asked a question. The example I gave was and remains exactly the kind of circumstance in which Roger is the right word to include in the response (rather than readback everything including the aircraft on short final to 17 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie, which is what is now increasingly happening).
I get it that "Roger" is not the correct response to: "Do you have Black Mountain in sight?" or "Confirm you are on assigned heading zero one zero".
And please read what you've posted about our mate Roger. In the example I gave I was not asked a question. The example I gave was and remains exactly the kind of circumstance in which Roger is the right word to include in the response (rather than readback everything including the aircraft on short final to 17 and the vehicle on taxiway Charlie, which is what is now increasingly happening).
I get it that "Roger" is not the correct response to: "Do you have Black Mountain in sight?" or "Confirm you are on assigned heading zero one zero".
You're probably right as well about point 2. I was more thinking about circumstances I've heard e.g. Jizzler 700 confirm you have information Golf? in which case it seems Roger would not be the appropriate readback.
It's confusing, and as a weekend warrior I daresay the AIP or VFRG isn't laid out best to help educate pilots on the proper radio phraseology.
It is also a subject matter that is seemingly entirely absent from the PPL/CPL syllabus - at least in the theory exams, not the flight tests.
I was more thinking about circumstances I've heard e.g. Jizzler 700 confirm you have information Golf? in which case it seems Roger would not be the appropriate readback.
It's confusing, and as a weekend warrior I daresay the AIP or VFRG isn't laid out best to help educate pilots on the proper radio phraseology.
It is also a subject matter that is seemingly entirely absent from the PPL/CPL syllabus - at least in the theory exams, not the flight tests.
It is also a subject matter that is seemingly entirely absent from the PPL/CPL syllabus - at least in the theory exams, not the flight tests.
(I do hope someone 'in the know' at YSCB can explain why I have to readback a QNH that is already contained in ATIS information which I've already reported as having received.)
Re the QNH read back, perhaps have a look at the report on the recent A320 incident at Paris with heading:
Incorrect QNH information, RNP approach with LNAV/VNAV minima conducted below the descent profile, near CFIT, go-around performed at low height before the runway without visual references, second approach performed below descent profile
Link to BEA preliminary report:
https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_uplo...N_finalise.pdf
Incorrect QNH information, RNP approach with LNAV/VNAV minima conducted below the descent profile, near CFIT, go-around performed at low height before the runway without visual references, second approach performed below descent profile
Link to BEA preliminary report:
https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_uplo...N_finalise.pdf
I'll admit to being quite surprised to find upon commencing my flying training, that a reply of "Roger, wilco" was actually a thing.. I've been waiting for an opportunity to use it in talking with ATC, but no luck thus far!
Errrrrm, I'm not sure that a controller giving a pilot the wrong QNH and expecting a readback of that wrong QNH is a justification for any ATC to give and expect a readback of QNH after the pilot has reported receipt of ATIS that includes the correct QNH.
Conversely, if the QNH in the ATIS broadcast is wrong, one would expect ATC to give and require a readback of the correct QNH.
Am I reading that preliminary report wrongly?
Conversely, if the QNH in the ATIS broadcast is wrong, one would expect ATC to give and require a readback of the correct QNH.
Am I reading that preliminary report wrongly?
Some phrase not being in AIP is of no consequence in Australian aviation RT these days. The pilot of so many ABCs - across the spectrum of operations - tell us that: “Alpha Bravo Charlie turns base”, which is like telling us that the pilot of ABC “likes seafood” and “thinks positively”.
Precision of communication continues to be important. In aviation, it helps others to know what you are doing NOW. When you broadcast: “I’m turnING base”; “I’m joinING downwind”; “I’m scratchING my arse”, others interpret that to mean you’re doing that thing NOW.
That’s why broadcasting: “ABC Joining Downwind” isn’t a good idea unless ABC is actually joining downwind when you tell the world you are, as demonstrated by the circumstances which led to this ATSB investigation and report.
Precision of communication continues to be important. In aviation, it helps others to know what you are doing NOW. When you broadcast: “I’m turnING base”; “I’m joinING downwind”; “I’m scratchING my arse”, others interpret that to mean you’re doing that thing NOW.
That’s why broadcasting: “ABC Joining Downwind” isn’t a good idea unless ABC is actually joining downwind when you tell the world you are, as demonstrated by the circumstances which led to this ATSB investigation and report.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 18th Aug 2022 at 11:49.
Don't go by what they say in the films or on telly
PS, I am not upset if ATC double-checks that I have the correct QNH/QFE. A mistake could kill (me), so I certainly don't object to someone checking twice.
I would just be happy if people actually were where they say they are on the radio.
Example 1: DEPARTED (location) (time in minutes) TRACKING [TO INTERCEPT] (track) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)
Example 2: (location) PASSING (current level) CLIMBING TO (intended level) ESTIMATING (first reporting point) AT (time)
ATC use the instruction "CLIMB TO" a lot... Perhaps "on climb" has come from watching too many Youtube videos??
Only nine posts in and I've learnt something here already!
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Alpha Bravo Charlie, climbing to 5000". Is it 5000 or 25000?