Radio Read backs

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am curious what the general consensus is on reading back ATC instructions in flight training particularly for the PPL. I teach that basically all but the most minor instructions should be read back (I have mostly taught at a busy West Coast controlled airport). I do this for three reasons

1) To get good at using the radio you have to practice. While initially fairly painfull to all concerned, the student will get better, particularly if heavily coached at the begining and corrected everytime they do not get it right. Just replying "ABC" to everything will not help them when something unusaul happens and they have to actually have a conversation with ATC.

2) Most PPL's are wannebe CPL's and will go onto do their IFR. Good radio work and the abilty to concisely read back instructions without hmmms and haws will help when they start IFR training.

3) Students sometimes will just reply "ABC" when they have no idea what the tower just said, and/or just do what they would normally do at that point in the arrival or circuit or taxi. Forcing the readback makes them actually think about what ATC has just told them.

What do other instructors do ?

[Dagwood]

That's good advice.

One of my instructors said that in VFR, you only reply ABC unless you need to readback holdshorts, altitude restrictions, or squawk codes. Not sure if altitudes and codes are mandatory for readback, but ATC doesn't seem to mind.

Now that I'm instructing, I just say ABC and holdshorts are required. Keep it short and simple.

BTW, if they ask me what ATC just said, I just shrug and say I didn't hear it either

[trampbike]

A friend of mine is a FSS at Sudbury, and most of the time, he prefers when the pilots read back their clearances. Says he is often scared when he only hears an unassured pilot voice only transmitting his call sign.

[B-rad]

I agree. At the initial training level there can seam to be so many times you should read back and times you don't need to. It relieves a lot of stress if the student pilot knows and can be confident they know what is being said. A simple read back is what I would prefer to hear. It would have saved me some embarrassment when I was a student even with English being my first language.

[costermonger]

I teach them to read back instructions/restrictions that weren't otherwise obvious. On takeoff, for instance, if they're cleared normally with the logical turn in the direction they're headed, simple acknowledgement. If they're given a heading or altitude restriction, read that back. It's not required, obviously, but I know it's saved more than one of my students from doing what they *thought* they heard. And as the OP said, a bit more talking on the radio (within reason) goes a long way towards making radio work second nature as opposed to something to be afraid of.

Rarely happens in my experience, but a few times I've been in the plane or on frequency with a student who's read back an instruction they weren't required to, got it wrong, only to be corrected by the controller in a very sarcastic manner. Can't say as though I understand the point of that.

[B-rad]

Too much time on AvCanada

[paydaymayday]

Something I previously wrote pertains to this:

In Canada, readbacks are only necessary when and IFR clearance/instruction is made, when a hold short is issued, or when it is specifically requested. For most VFR pilots, one can simply acknowledge all other calls with their callsign, although I don't always consider that best practice. Reading back other important yet non-mandatory calls can increase safety and clarity in numerous ways.

By reading back a instruction or clearance, you will be better able to remember what it was. By saying "Yankee Oscar Hotel, cleared taxi Bravo Delta Fox Apron", your mind is actively processing the information it had just received. Try it sometime, you'll find that your recall rate is much better.

Readbacks also aid in maintaining other pilots' situational awareness. Every good pilot maintains an active listening watch on their frequency for every radio call, even though those calls may not be directed to them. The information about what other surrounding aircraft are doing is invaluable and allows a proactive pilot to plan ahead and make better flight decisions. Suppose an aircraft just tunes up a frequency after you have received a clearance. If you don't read back "Echo Quebec Mike, switching to right hand circuits", they would not be aware that the circuits are probably non-standard, and that there is probably a reason aircraft are changing the pattern direction.

I also vaguely recall a story where a plane was given an instruction to "descend two niner zero zero", or 2900'. They misinterpreted this as "descend to niner zero zero" - nine hundred feet. They promptly did so... straight into terrain. Which leads me to another point. Not only does reading back an instruction allow the controller to catch a mistake, but if it is read back using a certain method, these mistakes can be completely eliminated.

I always make a point to read back a clearance or instruction using a different method than by what was said.

For example, if the crew had instead read back "descend to nine-hundred feet", the controller would possibly have picked up on this error and re-issued the instruction in a more clear form. Another example:

"Speedy 823, cleared to land runway twenty-one"
"823, cleared full stop two-one"

This different method (twenty-one/two-one) can clear up any miscommunication; after all, twenty-one can sound awfully like thirty-one when its mumbled or spoken fast.

As a final point, I'd like to point out that I don't think pilots should always read back non-mandatory calls; I only do so if safety could reasonably be affected. An overly congested frequency can be a safety issue on its own - but that's another story.

[taylor498]

Relevant discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55807&start=0

Déjà vu, merge perhaps?

[Old Dog Flying]

The manditory read-backs for VFR/ab initio training are spelled out. As a retired Controller the one thing we all hated to hear was some student/instructor/driver stumbling over a clearance/instruction thereby tying up air time.

K.I.S.S.! It may sound "cool" to do all the read back crap but you are just wasting time and plugging up the frequency.

I also instructed at Blunder Bay and used the K.I.S.S. principle worked just great for all concerned!

And the only "clearances" issued by an FSS are IFR which require a read-back.

[hairdo]

I teach to read back what you need to (ie restrictions), and non-standard clearances. If you don't know what they said, then ask them to "Say again." Where I fly, frequency congestion can be a major problem, and that's made worse by people who read back every single (unnecessary) detail. When you're short final and need that landing clearance, the last thing you want to hear is some person blundering along on the radio... Maybe we should just go back to light signals for landing clearances

Old Dog Flying, I must say that I find it very "uncool" when people read back everything. It sounds very unprofessional to me, as a professional pilot should know what they need to say and get it over with.

And Dagwood, squawk codes readbacks aren't mandatory for VFR.

[gaamin]

Edit

[SAR_YQQ]

A friend of mine is a FSS at Sudbury, and most of the time, he prefers when the pilots read back their clearances. Says he is often scared when he only hears an unassured pilot voice only transmitting his call sign.

I can only assume your FSS friend is giving IFR clearances, which he should demand be read back. Anything else that comes out of his mouth is simply traffic awareness.

[B-rad]

When you're short final and need that landing clearance, the last thing you want to hear is some person blundering along on the radio... It sounds very unprofessional to me, as a professional pilot should know what they need to say and get it over with.

I think you're looking too deep into this now. We're talking about training and you're talking about a trained pilot. I would hope too that an employed Pilot knows the difference of when they need and don't need to read back. And really, does it congest the frequency that much for you when a student pilot reads back

"ABC cleared to land rwy 27"
"Cleared to land 27 ABC"

Ya, I can see how that must bother you..all that blundering.... It's not like these students are getting elaborate IFR clearances given to them but my feeling is I'd rather have my student read back so it is in their head because they have a lot to think about. It's a new thing for them learning to fly and they feel eyes are watching them, you can forget things under stress.

It's much better to have them read back a "cleared to position and hold" rather then just acknowledge and then be sitting on the runway thinking.. "did he clear me to take off or hold...seams like there is no problem with taking off... I don't see anything in front of me". That causes more frequency congestion when they have to ask again or worse go on guessing.

Remember we're talking students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

B-rad said "remember we are talking students"

Exactly. We should be training the student to be able to fly the airplane and talk concisely and competantly on the radio at the same time. This skill requires training , supervised practice and immediate feedback/correction , so bad habits are not developed. Replying "ABC" to everything, is absolutely permitted and will make the instructors life a bit easier, but will IMO ultimately short change the student of the opportunity to become comfortable talking on the radio. But and this is a big but, the instructor has to set an impecable example. I have had to give myself a big slap upside the head when I have been with a student and started to get a bit too casual on the radio.

One pet peeve is why so few instructors are not teaching the generally accepted procedure of putting the airplane call sign at the end of the transmission , not at the front, when replying to ATC.

[trampbike]

A friend of mine is a FSS at Sudbury, and most of the time, he prefers when the pilots read back their clearances. Says he is often scared when he only hears an unassured pilot voice only transmitting his call sign.

I can only assume your FSS friend is giving IFR clearances, which he should demand be read back. Anything else that comes out of his mouth is simply traffic awareness.

Yet, he prefers a readback from VFR aircrafts when he feels the pilot may have not understood everything. I should not have used the word clearances... It obviously is not the good term given the rules, but it has almost the same practical implications, given Sudbury is a pretty busy airport.

[hairdo]

"ABC cleared to land rwy 27"
"Cleared to land 27 ABC"

Ya, I can see how that must bother you..all that blundering.... It's not like these students are getting elaborate IFR clearances given to them but my feeling is I'd rather have my student read back so it is in their head because they have a lot to think about. It's a new thing for them learning to fly and they feel eyes are watching them, you can forget things under stress.

It's much better to have them read back a "cleared to position and hold" rather then just acknowledge and then be sitting on the runway thinking.. "did he clear me to take off or hold...seams like there is no problem with taking off... I don't see anything in front of me". That causes more frequency congestion when they have to ask again or worse go on guessing.

Remember we're talking students.

I think you missed my point. I said nothing about there being anything wrong with reading back a landing clearance. That's not long (or at least shouldn't be). What I mean is that someone making a call to ATC and saying more than is needed. ie: instead of "ABC requesting runway XX for landing," "Tower, ABC, just wondering, could we have runway XX for landing if that would work with you?" That's what I would call blundering. Concise doesn't mean you have to omit things. Concise doesn't mean that you respond with "ABC" to everything. But concise does mean that the student pilot may have to think about what they are going to say.

Remember, the student pilot you are training is generally going to become a "professional pilot", so you may as well teach them how to use the radio like a professional as well.