Do you readback VFR clearances?

[rookiepilot]

Don't think regional preferences are likely to ever be eliminated....

If ATC gives me winds on short final I usually don't answer

[CpnCrunch]

Don't think regional preferences are likely to ever be eliminated....

If ATC gives me winds on short final I usually don't answer

I blame Ontario for all bad R/T. One pilot I know was taught to say ACTPA at a flight school in Ontario 40 years ago.

[rookiepilot]

Don't think regional preferences are likely to ever be eliminated....

If ATC gives me winds on short final I usually don't answer

I blame Ontario for all bad R/T. One pilot I know was taught to say ACPTA at a flight school in Ontario 40 years ago.

That I have heard everywhere.

[ahramin]

"Check remarks" is just added verbiage. If you drop it and refuse to say it ever again on the radio again, I promise you'll never feel like you needed it.
"Check traffic" is using non standard phraseology when you could just use standard phraseology. "Looking for traffic, Romeo Juliett Delta", or "Traffic in sight, Romeo Juliett Delta". If one of these two will not do and you really need to co-ordinate something, then "check traffic" isn't going to cut it and you'll have to say something like "Roger, joining downwind left behind the bearcat, Romeo Juliett Delta". Either the traffic advisory requires some sort of reply or it doesn't. In either case, "Check traffic" isn't the way to do it.

[ahramin]

I'll say this again: please don't use poor controllers as an excuse. Controllers are almost as guilty as pilots when it comes to non standard phraseology, and NavCanada is cracking down with good reason. Also if you are planning on flying anywhere else in the world on a regular basis, please take the NavCanada VFR Phraseology document with a grain of salt, it has a few examples of specifically ignoring ICAO standard phraseology to no purpose.

[ahramin]

Kinda reminds me of a PPC long ago with a very capable Captain who was having a very bad day. After a minor altitude clearance misunderstanding, he screwed up twice in a row intercepting the approach into Calgary and the approach controller basically lost his cool. He was making all sorts of comments as things progressed which I answered with a straight "Roger" each time. By the end of it was he berating us on frequency and finished up with "I don't know what I'm going to be able to do with you guys". My reply was pretty predictable "Roger, request ILS 34". His reply was pretty predictable as well: "Cleared ILS 34". When things are going wrong, sticking to standard phraseology can really help make a difficult situation easier.

[Lotro]

FWIW:

"check remarks" is slang as is "I check that" as it a whole host of other poor radio communication. It seems people don't understand what Roger means and so we often have "Roger, I check your remarks" or "Roger, I have your request" which is essentially the equivalent of saying roger roger.

Instructions for traffic should always be responded to with "looking for traffic" or "traffic in sight".

With regards to traffic that is too far away to be seen, "looking for traffic" is still suitable because it acknowledges that you are aware that there is traffic which may affect your flight path.

All this talk about VFR readbacks and radio work and not a line about "any conflicting..." - Well Done AVCANADA!

[rookiepilot]

Thread is good, because too much is repeated, and I've done it too. Though, I have heard controllers get irritated something was not repeated -- because "rightfully" they don't always trust VFR's, so seek assurances one understands. It's not standard for some reason, but I will report every landing and takeoff clearance as long as I'm flying. If a misunderstanding, I want it caught then if possible.

On traffic too far away to be seen, I don't even reply necessarily , nor does anything in the standard indicate I should. All for cutting radio clutter.

Ie, "XYZ, squawk 1200, go over to Unicom now, I show 3 in the circuit" Response: "XYZ". I got it, and it's not imminent traffic. No need to acknowledge in that instance.

Now if it's quiet, I'll add a "thanks for your help, or so long". Sue me.

I think ACTPA, is worse, or uhhhs, ahhhhs, and slow talk. Learn to talk quickly and clearly, I think is just as important.

Even uncontrolled, the words "this is" is redundant, as are tons of extra words. "Cessna XYZ, 5000, over somewhere lake, somespot next, or "northbound". Good. People transmit their whole itinerary including lunch menus.

[AirFrame]

Timmins Radio, Roger, straight in runway 36, golf x-ray uniform zulu.

Roger, in this case, is redundant. It's clearly an acknowledgement if you say this right after they told you the same thing.

If you really want to respond, unasked, in more detail, say either “ traffic in sight” or “negative contact”.

Or "tally one, switching to guns".

[AirFrame]

"Roger" or "Wilco" are 2 words I never use, nor ever hear ATC or the airlines use --- or almost never anyway. Too ambiguous IMO

I use them quite often, and so does ATC/FSS. Wilco is especially useful and unambiguous. Sometimes it's quicker to just say "roger" than the callsign if it's something like wind direction on final.

As with the double-click, the use of Roger and Wilco are deprecated and no longer recommended. When I went through training in the mid 1990's, Roger and Wilco were discouraged, and even then double-clicking was too, although lots of people still did it.

[B208]

However "check remarks" is a reply, it's not asking anyone to check anything. If you can explain the logic behind "check remarks", I'll consider using it.

It's a spill over from SOP calls. In many SOPs when one pilot makes an obligatory call out, i.e. "9000 climbing 10000" the other pilot acknowledges with "Checked" meaning that he has verified what the first pilot said is correct. "Checked" got shortened to "Check". The whole phraseology spilled over into general aviation with the meaning "I heard you".

[CpnCrunch]

With regards to traffic that is too far away to be seen, "looking for traffic" is still suitable because it acknowledges that you are aware that there is traffic which may affect your flight path.

The case being discussed is when FSS gives you the position of 4 planes 5+ miles away. In that case "looking for traffic" doesn't seem appropriate.

[CpnCrunch]

As with the double-click, the use of Roger and Wilco are deprecated and no longer recommended.

Do you have a reference for that (other than your instructor)? ICAO and Nav Canada seem to disagree with you:

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... rrent.aspx

https://www.icao.int/safety/acp/Inactiv ... c3_wp7.doc (from 2001, can't find a newer one)

Even the latest CPDLC implementation has wilco, which would be odd if it was being deprecated:

https://www.icao.int/WACAF/Documents/AP ... p_a_en.pdf

[ahramin]

Exactly CpnCrunch. Unfortunately in North America we are still firmly in the realm of claiming that proper phraseology is whatever our 200 hour instructor taught us or what we heard from some controller somewhere. Neither is an appropriate reference.

[digits_]

If people doubt the value of standard phraseology, they should definitely listen to a new french fo speaking on the radio to a chinese ppl student, both trying to be cool by using as much fluff on the frequency as possible.

[rookiepilot]

I'll say this again: please don't use poor controllers as an excuse. Controllers are almost as guilty as pilots when it comes to non standard phraseology, and NavCanada is cracking down with good reason. Also if you are planning on flying anywhere else in the world on a regular basis, please take the NavCanada VFR Phraseology document with a grain of salt, it has a few examples of specifically ignoring ICAO standard phraseology to no purpose.

A, I think some of us (GA pilots) aren't willfully ignoring the standard to be "cool". Personally, I think its a genuine effort to fit into the normal language TML here uses every day, and their clear expectations in a response, and it's clear what they want to hear, in certain situations from VFR's. IE, along the lakeshore, where it is very busy and opposing traffic will be 500 below, they prefer to hear the altitude repeated. I know this -- it's not standard or required, but why omit it (information) unless the radio is nuts? They will call again -- for sure. It's almost never too nuts. New York approach is nuts, by comparison.

Fly enough around here, it's not hard to tell what the normal flow sounds like. Maybe that's the wrong approach, I admit. ie, I don't think I use "check remarks", but every terminal controller uses it.

If you are flying out west, ask for lower, and they aren't ready to say yes -- very common in the US too -- how do they answer you? "I have your request" is another way, that's even longer. "Stand by" ? That can be ambiguous too.

[ahramin]

Standby would be the correct phraseology. I can't see why you wouldn't use it in that case.

[dpm]

Back to the original question: I read them back only when I need to be 100% sure we've understood each-other: eg a taxi clearance that includes crossing an active runway at a busy airport, or a land and hold short clearance. Otherwise, no—it just adds to the radio congestion.

[AirFrame]

Exactly CpnCrunch. Unfortunately in North America we are still firmly in the realm of claiming that proper phraseology is whatever our 200 hour instructor taught us or what we heard from some controller somewhere. Neither is an appropriate reference.

Well, people are also asking for advice from an internet forum full of armchair experts, rather than going and reading the standards, regulations, etc. themselves. So what they're asking is "what do people actually do?" not "what do the rules say?"

Do you have a reference for that (other than your instructor)?

Not a 200 hr flight instructor... The ground school course taught to a room full of us by the school owner who had 1000's of hours (i'd assume). Deprecated was the wrong word to use, I should have said discouraged. Discouraged because Roger and Wilco are ambiguous, and convey less information than just acknowledging with your call sign.

[CpnCrunch]

Not a 200 hr flight instructor... The ground school course taught to a room full of us by the school owner who had 1000's of hours (i'd assume).

CFIs don't always have all the correct info either. I've discovered this on a number of occasions, when getting both my instrument rating and my CPL signed off.

I should have said discouraged. Discouraged because Roger and Wilco are ambiguous, and convey less information than just acknowledging with your call sign.

Wilco conveys more info than your callsign, as it tells the other party that you're going to comply with their request. Your callsign is the same as Roger, it just means you heard the message. Sometimes I use roger instead of my callsign when replying to info, as it's a bit quicker. ATC/FSS does that too.