Do you readback VFR clearances?

[youhavecontrol]

Correct or not, I hear this reply all the time from ATC when I request something:

"[callsign] request a power-off 180, full-stop." [callsign], tower, check the request."

[photofly]

Yes, so do I. And "check remarks" when pilots pass information to the tower.

[CpnCrunch]

Once again, the “your made-up jargon is confusing and you should stop using it, while mine is clear concise and everyone should adopt it” game is unproductive.

That's not what I said. I was simply pointing out that foreign pilots are confused by it because it's only used in Canada, and it's confusing to me. Also, your example is confusing to me. According to your link the CAP says that "check" means that you're asking the other party to check something. 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.

[photofly]

I'm not advocating using "check remarks", either. There is a standard way of saying exactly what that is intended to convey, which is to say "Roger".

[digits_]

As for “check remarks”... CAP413 advises:

CHECK: Examine a system or procedure. (Not to be used in any other context. No answer is normally expected.)

So “check remarks” would be the pilot asking the controller to check his remarks system, in parallel to “check undercarriage” or something.

I've heard "check remarks" from both controllers and airline pilots, (overhead me) to multiple pieces of info on one call, (IFR ops) An example, if memory serves:

"AC 123, descend 1- 5000, expect Rwy 05, altimeter 2992, ATIS Bravo, reported light chop in the descent"
response:
"Cleared 1-5000 (15000), check remarks, AC 123".

Makes sense to me.

I've had ATC use that with me when asking "how will you cancel your IFR"?

I tell them, "will cancel in the circuit", TML says, "OK XYZ, check remarks, 10 miles back, no reported traffic, over to Unicom now"

Yes, both sides make mistakes and use unnecessary phraseology, partially caused by everyone else using incorrect phraseology as well. So stick to the standard as much as possible. You are not only doing this for yourself, but to make yourself understandable to international pilots and pilots that fly in different regions of the country and are not necessarily familiar with the local ATC dialect.

Same goes for "cancelling IFR", which should be just that: cancelling ifr, not cancelling alerting services. But because people start assuming it also closes alerting, ATC sometimes interprets it like that as well, which just propagates errors.

What about "with you", a completely unnecessary piece of phraseology that adds absolutely nothing to the radio transmissions.

[CpnCrunch]

I'm not advocating using "check remarks", either. There is a standard way of saying exactly what that is intended to convey, which is to say "Roger".

That isn't recommended for traffic:

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publi ... eology.pdf

However, the case I'm talking about (traffic 5 miles away) isn't covered in the above. The options are:

"Roger, joining overhead XY"
"Copy the traffic, will join overhead for XY"
"Check remarks, joining overhead XY"

So you're saying that the first option is best. I usually use the first or second, and I don't think it's a major sin to use the second. I guess with traffic far away FSS doesn't really care too much whether you heard it or not, so roger is probably fine.

[photofly]

That document also says:

CHECK: Examine a system or procedure

That isn't recommended for traffic:

I can't see anything in it that suggests ROGER isn't an appropriate response to a traffic point-out .. which part of that document do you have in mind?


Apropos of nothing, just while browsing it, I see it says

"SQUAWK MODE CHARLIE : Ensure MODE C function is selected
STOP SQUAWK MODE CHARLIE: Turn off MODE C function"

I thought the standard for those was SQUAWK ALTITUDE / STOP SQUAWK ALTITUDE ...

[rookiepilot]

Yes, so do I. And "check remarks" when pilots pass information to the tower.

....and is often the response when a request cannot immediately be granted:

"Toronto, request direct xyz Vor, G-ABC". (Or often for a descent)
"GABC, check your request, maintain current heading for now"

Very clear.

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

[CpnCrunch]

I can't see anything in it that suggests ROGER isn't an appropriate response to a traffic point-out .. which part of that document do you have in mind?

"Use the phrase LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC if you do not see the traffic. Use the
phrase TRAFFIC IN SIGHT only if you see the traffic. "

Also: from experience I know that FSS/ATC will ask you if you see the traffic, so "roger" is just a waste of time. (Not necessarily the case with far away traffic though).

[CpnCrunch]

"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.

[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.