Do you readback VFR clearances?

[7ECA]

Clicking the mic twice to acknowledge a transmission is at most a venial sin, in the long list of annoying things pilots could do. Hardly the sort of thing that should bring out the "normalization of deviance" crowd in force.

I'm all for good radio work, lord knows we hear enough piss-poor RT in the Lower Mainland; we're looking at your Montair... Short, concise, and to the point. Hardly a macho attitude, in my humble opinion.

[ahramin]

It's strange that I've made it perfectly clear that clicking the mike twice is not the problem and yet you continue saying it's not a problem. Shall we both continue to argue to each other that following the AIM is not mandatory as well?

[AirFrame]

Airframe, when someone does you the favour of pointing out that a procedure you are using is contraindicated in the AIM - and with good reason - you would do best to leave the "too cool for school" attitude at home. Like it or not aviation is a sport that can have the gravest consequences and requires a mature attitude. The need to check ego at the door and learn what others have to offer (especially when backed up with good references) is demonstrated every year in preventable accidents. Do yourself and especially your passengers a favour, do a little soul searching, and replace the sarcasm with a mature and professional attitude. I promise you'll find you will still have just as much fun.

ahramin, please leave your "high and mighty" attitude at the door as well.

Go back and re-read posts #1 and #2, which quote the AIM (I think) and the CARs. Both of which say not to read back VFR clearances *unless requested*. Then read post #18, where we were told by NavCanada controllers that they want VFR traffic to *always* read back clearances. At CYYJ, they *never* ask VFR traffic for a readback. So that's direct conflict to the "published procedure" as it were. Point being: locally-used procedures trump the rules all the time, this isn't the only airport this happens at.

Double-clicking the mic has been used world-wide as a quick acknowledgement since the first use of radios in aircraft. No, you don't want to use it as a response to a long taxi instruction or complicated VFR arrival routing... That's why the AIM says it's a no-no. But for a quick response on a busy frequency to something that doesn't need anything more than confirmation that you heard it, and sometimes not even that, a double-click is a more efficient use of airtime. Most commonly, I use it when landing and tower tells me to exit and call ground... While i'm still in the middle of transitioning from a wheel landing to tail-down. I still can't figure out how they manage to time that so perfectly every. damn. time.

[pelmet]

Double-clicking the mic ............. No, you don't want to use it as a response to a long taxi instruction or complicated VFR arrival routing... That's why the AIM says it's a no-no.

Correct.

But for a quick response on a busy frequency to something that doesn't need anything more than confirmation that you heard it, and sometimes not even that, a double-click is a more efficient use of airtime.

I'm sorry...where does the AIM say that?

Most commonly, I use it when landing and tower tells me to exit and call ground... While i'm still in the middle of transitioning from a wheel landing to tail-down.

Typically, if I get a transmission from ATC in a critical flight situation as you describe, I just don't respond. After all, the AIM says that no readback is required unless requested. If the situation is as critical as you describe(and I do agree with you that it is), best to keep your full concentration on the landing instead of diverting attention to clicking the mic.

I still can't figure out how they manage to time that so perfectly every. damn. time.

It might help to be pro-active and call the tower by phone and explain to the supervisor about this potential hazard as another pilot might end up in a bad situation because of it.

[Beefitarian]

I like to verbally confirm I heard them but don't want to take up too much time like those people who use their registration.

[5x5]

Seems to me that a lot of people have their own, self made and self justified, style for acknowledging VFR read backs. Is it really safer to pick and chose which part of a clearance to read-back and expect a controller to correct you if it's wrong? On what basis would they do that? There are no guidelines beyond either "call-sign" or "when requested" but many of you are advocating partial read backs and expect to be corrected if you're wrong. So now controllers are supposed to listen to a partial read back and figure out if you forgot some part of it, purposely left out some of the clearance, or simply aren't that sure of your radio work and made a crappy partial read back. They may have been transitioning to another situation already since no read back is required or expected. So what do they do, give you the whole clearance again? And since there is no accepted procedure, if they simply acknowledge your transmission do you really know if they listened or not? You may think you're adding to safety but the exact opposite is happening since non-standard procedures and expectations are being introduced to the situation.

If you have the ability to listen, understand and discern what the clearance was in order to pick bits and pieces to repeat then what's the likelihood you misunderstood something? And if you aren't sure what was said, specifically ask for them to repeat the clearance or to confirm the part you weren't sure about. Then there's no guessing or assumptions regarding what was transmitted and what was understood.

If it's sooooo busy that you can't get in seven syllables then perhaps you're too busy for safe operations and you need to relax just a bit and better assess what you're trying to do. You may to delay your response a moment or two, but I've never seen a procedure required in any aircraft that can't be accomplished while including at some point a call-sign response.

And as for doing it to have a recording to prove you were right, the tape would have the timing of the original clearance and the departure of the other aircraft whether it was read back or not. I hate the CYA attitude that some people adopt and promote.

[AirFrame]

But for a quick response on a busy frequency to something that doesn't need anything more than confirmation that you heard it, and sometimes not even that, a double-click is a more efficient use of airtime.

I'm sorry...where does the AIM say that?

It doesn't, nor did I suggest it did. But it's known to be an acknowledgement everywhere on the planet. Where did it say to do that originally? I haven't a clue. But people did it for a long time, and to acknowledge much longer transmissions, before someone decided it was a bad idea and that we should read back things instead.

Typically, if I get a transmission from ATC in a critical flight situation as you describe, I just don't respond. After all, the AIM says that no readback is required unless requested. If the situation is as critical as you describe(and I do agree with you that it is), best to keep your full concentration on the landing instead of diverting attention to clicking the mic.

I agree with you, however I was conditioned by impatient controllers as a student, who would take the time to berate you on-frequency if you didn't reply immediately when they talked to you. As a result my instinctive response is to give them a reply when they contact me. I'm working on ignoring them completely on rollout, but about half the time instinct takes over.

It might help to be pro-active and call the tower by phone and explain to the supervisor about this potential hazard as another pilot might end up in a bad situation because of it.

They have been called before by others for the same issue. It stops for a while, then gradually starts again.

[pelmet]

But for a quick response on a busy frequency to something that doesn't need anything more than confirmation that you heard it, and sometimes not even that, a double-click is a more efficient use of airtime.

I'm sorry...where does the AIM say that?

It doesn't, nor did I suggest it did. But it's known to be an acknowledgement everywhere on the planet. Where did it say to do that originally? I haven't a clue. But people did it for a long time, and to acknowledge much longer transmissions, before someone decided it was a bad idea and that we should read back things instead.

Actually, I fly to quite a few countries and don't remember hearing this in a long time. Where did you get your information about it being done 'everywhere' on the planet. Or perhaps the better question might be, what other countries/continents have you heard it in?

It might help to be pro-active and call the tower by phone and explain to the supervisor about this potential hazard as another pilot might end up in a bad situation because of it.

They have been called before by others for the same issue. It stops for a while, then gradually starts again.

Then perhaps call again.

[CpnCrunch]

I've never heard the double click around here, including at YYJ. (Unless someone did it and I just didn't notice).

[Lotro]

The only required VFR read back is a hold short instruction. Hold short instructions must be read back with your Aircraft/Vehicle Identification, the words "HOLD SHORT" (not "holding short") and the location of the hold short.

For example:

TOWER: GOLF ALPHA BRAVO CHARLIE, tower, taxi via ALPHA, BRAVO, hold short RUNWAY ZERO NINE.
GABC: Tower, GOLF ALPHA BRAVO CHARLIE, roger, hold short runway zero nine.

If the readback is anything different than the above, and there is a runway incursion, when the tapes are pulled it won't hold up to scrutiny. Some controllers will accept variations on the above language aware of the risks (holding short is often accepted).

Different towers/controllers may have different attitudes regarding other readbacks based on experience. I typically ask that any restriction be read back to confirm that the pilot understood and accepted the directions. For example (in the zone): altitude restrictions, headings, geographical restrictions, verification that traffic is in sight etc.

Unfortunately for controllers, NavCanada Tower eMATS (MANOPS replacement) says:

Identify and correct any errors in readbacks, clearances, or instructions. If a misunderstanding is possible, restate the message, clearance, or instruction in full.

Which means that by rule, if we issue a full taxi clearance and a pilot reads it back wrong, we're obliged to correct the bad readback. Student pilots at the airports I've worked, have a tendency to read back everything, which, when they get it all wrong, can be somewhat frustrating. Just your callsign will do unless you're confused, and don't worry, controllers are (or should be) monitoring your taxi progress to ensure your compliance.

[rookiepilot]

"Check remarks" -- is perhaps a phrase that could be taught to be used, more often.

[CpnCrunch]

"Check remarks" -- is perhaps a phrase that could be taught to be used, more often.

Why? It's non standard, non obvious and confusing to people who haven't heard it. Just use your callsign, or "roger".

If I want to tell FSS that I've heard and understood the traffic, I add the non-standard "copy the traffic", which seems to be more widely used and is more obvious.

[photofly]

Right back at you.

If I want to tell FSS that I've heard and understood the traffic, I add the non-standard "copy the traffic", which seems to be more widely used and is more obvious.

Why? It’s non standard, non obvious, and confusing to people who haven’t heard it. It’s definitely not used around here. Do you write the traffic down?

[CpnCrunch]

Why? It’s non standard, non obvious, and confusing to people who haven’t heard it. It’s definitely not used around here. Do you write the traffic down?

Because "copy" is more obvious than "check remarks", and is a widely understood radio phrase (unlike "check remarks").

Why use non-standard? In this case there is no standard way of saying it, so it makes sense to shorten the phrase "I've noted the traffic in the circuit you just told me about, which is too far away to be visual with right now, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it later"

[rookiepilot]

I would say "copy the traffic" for traffic. I was referring to other instructions that don't require a readback. It's hard to create rules that cover all of common sense communication.

Some of this is local. If I hear YYZ terminal happy -- or apparently happy -- with other aircraft's communication, I suppose I would infer that's how they like it.

[digits_]

Why? It’s non standard, non obvious, and confusing to people who haven’t heard it. It’s definitely not used around here. Do you write the traffic down?

Because "copy" is more obvious than "check remarks", and is a widely understood radio phrase (unlike "check remarks").

Why use non-standard? In this case there is no standard way of saying it, so it makes sense to shorten the phrase "I've noted the traffic in the circuit you just told me about, which is too far away to be visual with right now, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it later"

Yes there is: "Roger"

[CpnCrunch]

Yes there is: "Roger"

The case I was referring to was when you are telling FSS how you're going to join the circuit, and you want to tell them you've copied the traffic. Roger won't work in that situation

[youhavecontrol]

My 2 cents:

The reason I don't care for the mic click thing is that it could have come from anyone on the frequency, or even from static... and personally, I have rarely heard ATC use it where I fly, so I don't either. I always just say my callsign for a quick reply, but I read-back most instructions if the situation allows for it. It's all about the situation you are in, really.

I've heard many ATC calls using "check remarks"... but it's' mainly used after someone gives a request or info about their flight situation.. so I don't use it myself.
If ATC gives me sequence, my reply is, "#2, traffic in sight" or "#2, looking."

I like to use my callsign instead of just "roger" or "check" because the callsign confirms that it was ME replying, and nobody else getting confused and calling for me. ...extremely important in a busy training environment.

Our controllers sometimes get testy if we don't read-back enough because we're a training airport and a lot of students get clearances a bit mixed up. Even on landing, I've had a controller rattle off taxi instructions while we were still in the flare... if able, a simple "landing, stand-by" or after landing, "sorry, say again, we were still landing" have been well understood. Our controllers are really good, but sometimes forget what we're dealing with teaching in the cockpit, especially ones that are newly trained.

Not every situation, airspace, airport is the same, so it's good to learn and adapt. We have an excellent relationship with our controllers and regularly take students up to the tower for a tour, where they get to ask the controllers questions (and so do we!). Good communication is important. We regularly check-up with the controllers to see if there's anything we could change, and they do the same with us. Some of the controllers have even gone up for flights with us, so they could see what we do from our perspective.

Sometimes what works for one location might be impractical somewhere else, and it totally depends on the type of flight you are doing. Flying into Oshkosh or flying into Winnipeg require entirely different rules for communication. There's many different answers, depending on your frame of reference.

[photofly]

Why use non-standard? In this case there is no standard way of saying it

Sure. there is . “Roger”.

You’re falling into the trap of assuming something in the controller’s head. That he or she cares whether you’ve noted the traffic for the future, or not. He or she didn’t ask, so no need to volunteer it.

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

I’m just amused that a pilot chewing someone out for using non standard phraseology thinks it’s ok ... when it makes sense to him.

[CpnCrunch]

Sure. there is . “Roger”.

See my last comment. You can't use "roger" in the middle of a readback.

You’re falling into the trap of assuming something in the controller’s head. That he or she cares whether you’ve noted the traffic for the future, or not. He or she didn’t ask, so no need to volunteer it.

Generally they do want to know that you got the traffic.

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

That doesn't make sense when the traffic is miles away.

I’m just amused that a pilot chewing someone out for using non standard phraseology thinks it’s ok ... when it makes sense to him.

Yeah, I was more criticizing something that is inherently confusing, rather than the non-standard aspect. And "copy" is actually a standard radio telephony phrase, unlike "check remarks", it's just not used much as part of aviation phraseology (having been mostly replaced by "roger"). You can use copy alongside things like "copy the traffic", which you can't do with "roger".