AC 602-008

[Big Pistons Forever]

FYI especially for instructors. It's a long over due update IMO

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... no-602-008

[7ECA]

It's going to be so helpful when flying into airports where ATC hasn't updated the ATIS since first light, to repeat the altimeter setting and active runway... only to be informed that neither is current - but they're about to change the ATIS.

[digits_]

Thank god for this huge safety improvement. How else will tower know we are aware there are birds in the area?!

[Big Pistons Forever]

It's going to be so helpful when flying into airports where ATC hasn't updated the ATIS since first light, to repeat the altimeter setting and active runway... only to be informed that neither is current - but they're about to change the ATIS.

This is what the AC actually says

When received directly from ATS personnel, pilots must now readback the safety critical information listed below.
(a) runway in use or assigned runway
(b) altimeter setting
(c) transponder code

I can certainly recall times when I miss heard the altimeter setting and was corrected on the read back


And

Example of an initial contact made by a pilot after

listening to the ATIS:

Pilot: “Saskatoon tower, cessna golf juliet victor charlie with information bravo.”

So why is telling ATC the ident letter for the ATIS you have a bad idea ?

[digits_]

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but I fail to see why it deserves such importance that it's mandatory. Especially when contacting tower. If you made it to tower without needing ATIS, or even if you have the wrong ATIS information, I won't start tuning into the ATIS on final, or go around because i have the wrong information.

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know? During low vis operations the RVR might be important, but if it matters, you'll ask/get a more accurate value from tower anyway.

Not sure what problem the ATIS ident letter is trying to solve.

I think we're going to hear a lot more 'CGABC, contact tower 123.45, atis X current' from arrival and center

[‘Bob’]

When the ident letter is over two hours old.


Also… “ABC has Bravo”

“ABC, Charlie is current, altimeter 30.00”

“30.00.. we’ll pick up Charlie.”

“..SIX SIX SIX DRY DRY DRY RUNWAY TWO TWO LEFT SURFACE CONDITION CODE SIX SIX SIX DRY DRY DRY RUNWAY TWO TWO RIGHT SURFACE CONDITION CODE SIX SIX SIX DRY DRY DRY RUNWAY THREE ZERO SURFACE CONDITION CODE SIX SIX SIX DRY DRY EXTENSIVE BIRD ACTIVITY IN VICINITY OF AIRPORT INFORM ATC YOU HAVE INFORMATION BRAVO. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INFORMATION BRAVO WEATHER AT TWO THREE ZERO ZERO ZULU WIND…”

[Bede]

Not a bad change, but it would also be nice if they discouraged pilots from reading back silly information, like "check #2 for taxi behind the blue Cessna at twelve o'clock."

[‘Bob’]

That’s the real issue.

The solution is always to add more things, never to take them away.

And since this is ingrained in us as pilots from an early age.. we actually do read back absolutely everything to start.

It’s funny to hear 705 machines reading back “caution jet blast” or “traffic 11 o’clock 5 miles”.

[7ECA]

So why is telling ATC the ident letter for the ATIS you have a bad idea ?

It's not a bad idea, it's just silly to make it mandatory when it accomplishes little to nothing. As noted in the circular most pilots already relay that identifier to ATC on initial contact... only to be provided with updated information.

I understand threat and error management, but there comes a point at which TC is looking for a solution to a problem that they've yet to identify. It's not unlike certain posters who state ad nauseam that accidents would almost always be prevented by simply having more checklists, better checklists, longer checklists. If you're simply repeating an action by rote - like rattling off an acronym or just glancing at a checklist rather than actually going through it and using tactile and verbal confirmation, it's pointless.

While I agree there's a time and a place for read backs as a way to catch errors and correct them, the CADORS are littered with examples in which a clearance is issued for XYZ with ABC restriction(s) only for a pilot to provide an incorrect read back - and ATC to not catch the error. ATC tend to catch the error when a deviation occurs, and then it ends up being corrected.

But, I'm sure TC Enforcement will have a field day dinging FTUs who's students now are violating CARs subpart 602 when they forget to read back a hold short instruction when it ends up in the CADORS... instead of simply having a controller snap at them.

[digits_]

So why is telling ATC the ident letter for the ATIS you have a bad idea ?

It's not a bad idea, it's just silly to make it mandatory when it accomplishes little to nothing. As noted in the circular most pilots already relay that identifier to ATC on initial contact... only to be provided with updated information.

I understand threat and error management, but there comes a point at which TC is looking for a solution to a problem that they've yet to identify. It's not unlike certain posters who state ad nauseam that accidents would almost always be prevented by simply having more checklists, better checklists, longer checklists. If you're simply repeating an action by rote - like rattling off an acronym or just glancing at a checklist rather than actually going through it and using tactile and verbal confirmation, it's pointless.

While I agree there's a time and a place for read backs as a way to catch errors and correct them, the CADORS are littered with examples in which a clearance is issued for XYZ with ABC restriction(s) only for a pilot to provide an incorrect read back - and ATC to not catch the error. ATC tend to catch the error when a deviation occurs, and then it ends up being corrected.

But, I'm sure TC Enforcement will have a field day dinging FTUs who's students now are violating CARs subpart 602 when they forget to read back a hold short instruction when it ends up in the CADORS... instead of simply having a controller snap at them.

Makes me wonder if the obvious solution to avoid the legal issues would be to always say you don't have any ATIS information?

[LeftRudder]

This is just an ICAO alignment aka a make-work project for a TC aparachik.

It's a great memory exercise for pilots: can you readback all 10 digits all in one go (and a neat challenge for ATC to try to work out what the hell you're talking about):
"golf alpha bravo charlie two niner six seven five seven zero one two four."

Also - as somebody else pointed out - there's no rule that says you have to get the ATIS at all, so just don't fess up to having listened to it.

[‘Bob’]

It’s also rather interesting as we have a ton of technology that makes all of this—even clearance readbacks—redundant.

Do you know where readbacks came from? The railroads. They’d issue train orders by telephone or telegraph and they had to be read or transmitted back. This was mostly because of how easy it was to miss a letter or mis hear a word.

But today? We have PDC and CPDLC that does it all digitally. We have ADS-B where ATC can see our altitude selector. Hold short? Ever hear of a stop bar?

[172DDriver]

But today? We have PDC and CPDLC that does it all digitally. We have ADS-B where ATC can see our altitude selector. Hold short? Ever hear of a stop bar?

You are aware that not every airport in the country has these things? Not every airport is YYZ and not all planes have an FMS with PDC or CPDLC.

[digits_]

But today? We have PDC and CPDLC that does it all digitally. We have ADS-B where ATC can see our altitude selector. Hold short? Ever hear of a stop bar?

You are aware that not every airport in the country has these things? Not every airport is YYZ and not all planes have an FMS with PDC or CPDLC.

Not every airport has ATIS either. What's your point?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know? During low vis operations the RVR might be important, but if it matters, you'll ask/get a more accurate value from tower anyway.

It's explicitly stated in our Manual of Air Traffic Services that we don't report the RVR on the ATIS.

That’s the real issue.

The solution is always to add more things, never to take them away.

Actually, in the ATC world, we do have unnecessary rules that get taken away. Take an RSC for example. When the change occurred where we had to start reporting the condition code and contaminants, we had to give each third individually even if all thirds of a runway were the same percentage of contamination. Now, if all thirds are the same, we can say "All thirds reported as..." Same with CRFI. If all thirds are the same, we can now say "All thirds reported as..." instead of reading each CRFI individually.

We also don't have to report the RSC if the entirety of the runway is dry. On some digital ATIS's, that may be reported automatically and can't be changed. At my tower, we still issue the ATIS by voice, and so we don't state the RSC/CRFI anymore if the runway is dry. It's funny though, that pilots will still ask for the RSC/CRFI in winter even if we don't report it on the ATIS. So it seems that for every pilot complaining that we might include 100% dry on the ATIS, there is a pilot wondering if we forgot to include the RSC on the ATIS and will ask us for it anyways. If there was a recent snow/ice event but the runway is dry, I'll actually put that on the ATIS to keep pilots asking me unnecessarily.

Lastly, I can't count the number of times pilots have requested things that they are obviously unable to do (Wanting to do a practice ILS but the ILS is down, request an intersection takeoff but that taxiway is closed, not submitting a flow time request when I've specifically stated on the ATIS that flow is in effect). The pilot usually checks in with them saying they "have the information" or "the numbers" or just "the ATIS." It's obvious to the controller that the pilot didn't listen to the ATIS.

[pelmet]

So why is telling ATC the ident letter for the ATIS you have a bad idea ?

It's not a bad idea, it's just silly to make it mandatory when it accomplishes little to nothing. As noted in the circular most pilots already relay that identifier to ATC on initial contact... only to be provided with updated information.

The reason they want pilots to mention they have ATIS information and which ATIS information is to save a lot of air time. Otherwise, the controller will have to pass along information that the pilot could have gotten by the ATIS(or sometimes will). Instead, the controller is now aware of what airport information the pilot has. Then the controller can easily identify which pilots need to be provided updated information. Seeing as only 'most' pilots already relay that identifier to ATC, this will make it more likely that even more pilots will(as good piloting will be turned into a requirement). Therefore.....not silly at all.

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know?

Notams

[‘Bob’]

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know? During low vis operations the RVR might be important, but if it matters, you'll ask/get a more accurate value from tower anyway.

It's explicitly stated in our Manual of Air Traffic Services that we don't report the RVR on the ATIS.

That’s the real issue.

The solution is always to add more things, never to take them away.

Actually, in the ATC world, we do have unnecessary rules that get taken away. Take an RSC for example. When the change occurred where we had to start reporting the condition code and contaminants, we had to give each third individually even if all thirds of a runway were the same percentage of contamination. Now, if all thirds are the same, we can say "All thirds reported as..." Same with CRFI. If all thirds are the same, we can now say "All thirds reported as..." instead of reading each CRFI individually.

We also don't have to report the RSC if the entirety of the runway is dry. On some digital ATIS's, that may be reported automatically and can't be changed. At my tower, we still issue the ATIS by voice, and so we don't state the RSC/CRFI anymore if the runway is dry. It's funny though, that pilots will still ask for the RSC/CRFI in winter even if we don't report it on the ATIS. So it seems that for every pilot complaining that we might include 100% dry on the ATIS, there is a pilot wondering if we forgot to include the RSC on the ATIS and will ask us for it anyways. If there was a recent snow/ice event but the runway is dry, I'll actually put that on the ATIS to keep pilots asking me unnecessarily.

Lastly, I can't count the number of times pilots have requested things that they are obviously unable to do (Wanting to do a practice ILS but the ILS is down, request an intersection takeoff but that taxiway is closed, not submitting a flow time request when I've specifically stated on the ATIS that flow is in effect). The pilot usually checks in with them saying they "have the information" or "the numbers" or just "the ATIS." It's obvious to the controller that the pilot didn't listen to the ATIS.

So the now mandatory reading of the ATIS identifier back has zero effect on receipt or comprehension. Got it.

And the flip side is having equipment outages or runway closures that were neither on ATIS or NOTAM.

An example was this month when they closed the south runway in YVR for 30 minutes for snow removal training.

[digits_]

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know?

Notams

That's true.

Have you ever encountered a notam on the ATIS that affected you and ATC didn't mention it in some other way?

Will this new regulation affect which NOTAMS ATC will tell you about? Something along the lines of "ah he has information P so he already knows about the displaced threshold we put up an hour ago" or "he knows exit D is unavailable due to a disabled aircraft"?

[pelmet]

Today, tower already gives you an updated wind and altimeter setting when needed, what else is on the ATIS that you must know?

Notams

That's true.

Have you ever encountered a notam on the ATIS that affected you and ATC didn't mention it in some other way?

Will this new regulation affect which NOTAMS ATC will tell you about? Something along the lines of "ah he has information P so he already knows about the displaced threshold we put up an hour ago" or "he knows exit D is unavailable due to a disabled aircraft"?

Instead of trying to find any excuse to not simply agree that it is best to get pilots to mention the specific ATIS they have.....try understanding that just because I may not have had a notam on an ATIS that affected me(and basing your argument on a millionth percent of flights), doesn't mean that none of the tens of thousands of flights that happen every day don't occasionally encounter such a situation.

TC wants to ensure that pilots and controllers are on the same understanding level as to what information the pilot has. On occasion, things change quickly and it is busy and at these times, simply saying ATIS T as part of your initial contact can save significant air time when things are very busy.

I remember checking out a pilot quite a few years ago who didn't think it was necessary to get the ATIS as that pilot did not get it at two airports. When questioned, the answer was that the weather had not changed, since we departed. That pilot later became a controller and I suspect she subsequently felt differently once on the other end of the microphone.

[digits_]

On occasion, things change quickly and it is busy and at these times, simply saying ATIS T as part of your initial contact can save significant air time when things are very busy.

But what time is being saved? From reading the document it is my understanding that alimeter, wind and runway in use will still be communicated anyways.

ATIS has its uses, and can help to plan an approach and get updated weather if you're low on fuel etc. But once you're on tower frequency (when you would have to report the ATIS according to the document) it's served its usefulness and I can't imagine anything in there affecting the remainder of the flight.

[pelmet]

On occasion, things change quickly and it is busy and at these times, simply saying ATIS T as part of your initial contact can save significant air time when things are very busy.

But what time is being saved? From reading the document it is my understanding that alimeter, wind and runway in use will still be communicated anyways.

ATIS has its uses, and can help to plan an approach and get updated weather if you're low on fuel etc. But once you're on tower frequency (when you would have to report the ATIS according to the document) it's served its usefulness and I can't imagine anything in there affecting the remainder of the flight.

I’ll leave the specifics to that question to a controller on this forum to answer. I can only make a guess that it will either be the time-consuming questioning as to whether or not the pilot has the appropriate ATIS information or perhaps the weather conditions and remarks. I certainly have heard ATC in the US on a busy frequency asking for confirmation that someone has a particular ATIS.

It would not surprise me that an element of this has stemmed from several actual occurrences, although I do see a global harmonization mention, something that has resulted in quite a few changes over the years in this country. Remember the good old days of the old weather reports?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

But what time is being saved? From reading the document it is my understanding that alimeter, wind and runway in use will still be communicated anyways.

ATIS has its uses, and can help to plan an approach and get updated weather if you're low on fuel etc. But once you're on tower frequency (when you would have to report the ATIS according to the document) it's served its usefulness and I can't imagine anything in there affecting the remainder of the flight.

I've already given you several examples: A pilot requesting to do a practice ILS but the ILS is down for maintenance, requesting an intersection takeoff but that taxiway is closed due to snow or ice coverage, airlines requesting to taxi without requesting a flow time, requesting practice approaches butdue to a RADAR failure the ATIS states that practice approaches will not be authorized... the list goes on and on.

By requesting these things, it obviously shows the pilot did not listen to the ATIS, and now I need to explain to the pilot why their request can't be accommodated, or explain to the airliner that they'll be delayed for taxi because they didn't request a flow time. The point is to avoid these unnecessary conversations BEFORE you check on with tower. Don't check on asking for a practice ILS and then I say "Did you not get the current ATIS? The ILS has been NOTAM'd U/S on the ATIS for the past 2 days." There's always a period of silence from the pilot when they've been caught.

And for the record, I'm a former 705 pilot who is now on the other side of the microphone. Maybe I would have agreed with you if I was still flying, but now that I'm controlling, NOT listening to the ATIS has become a pet-peeve of mine.

Lastly, as controllers, with these new changes we'll probably be required to verify you have the correct ATIS if you don't check in advising you have it, so you'll need to eventually say you have it anyways. So just get used to it, say it on initial contact, and make everybody's lives easier. It's definitely a first-world problem if all you've got to complain about is the need to advise you have the ATIS to make sure everybody's on the same page. It literally takes an extra second, but can save many seconds of unnecessary back-and-forth communication.

[digits_]

But what time is being saved? From reading the document it is my understanding that alimeter, wind and runway in use will still be communicated anyways.

ATIS has its uses, and can help to plan an approach and get updated weather if you're low on fuel etc. But once you're on tower frequency (when you would have to report the ATIS according to the document) it's served its usefulness and I can't imagine anything in there affecting the remainder of the flight.

I've already given you several examples: A pilot requesting to do a practice ILS but the ILS is down for maintenance, requesting an intersection takeoff but that taxiway is closed due to snow or ice coverage, airlines requesting to taxi without requesting a flow time, requesting practice approaches butdue to a RADAR failure the ATIS states that practice approaches will not be authorized... the list goes on and on.

To be honest, I've requested to do very similar things even though I knew it was on the ATIS. I've also been cleared for an approach into a runway that was supposedly closed on the ATIS. It's not often treated with a lot of respect by ATC, which make me very weary of really trusting that the information on it is correct.

But even if it is, wouldn't this serve a purpose when you make contact with arrival or ask for a specific approach on center? Once you make it to the tower, isn't it too late? Unless I"m misunderstanding the document, that's when the phraseology changes: when contacting tower.

If it would be a requirement when contacting arrival, I would better understand its purpose. If you need to report it to tower, you might be on an approach and runway that's not in use according to the ATIS, with a different altimiter setting, but you're reporting that you have that ATIS information which you're not using. If anything, it could easily add confusion.

It's definitely a first-world problem if all you've got to complain about is the need to advise you have the ATIS to make sure everybody's on the same page. It literally takes an extra second, but can save many seconds of unnecessary back-and-forth communication.

Sure, it's a first world problem, but if somebody feels strongly enough to develop a new rule for it, don't be surprised when other people feel strongly and find it silly

[DHC-1 Jockey]

To be honest, I've requested to do very similar things even though I knew it was on the ATIS. I've also been cleared for an approach into a runway that was supposedly closed on the ATIS. It's not often treated with a lot of respect by ATC, which make me very weary of really trusting that the information on it is correct.

But even if it is, wouldn't this serve a purpose when you make contact with arrival or ask for a specific approach on center? Once you make it to the tower, isn't it too late? Unless I"m misunderstanding the document, that's when the phraseology changes: when contacting tower.

I gave the example of a practice ILS. If the aircraft is VFR and doing simulated practice approaches, they won't ever talk to the center. They'll only talk to the tower. It's embarassing when a pilot calls up on ground asking to depart and shoot a simulated ILS when the ILS is NOTAM'd U/S on the ATIS.

You can also be cleared for an approach to a runway that is closed. The NOTAM closure of a runway (for runway painting for example) doesn't preclude you doing a simulated or even actual IFR practice approach to said closed runway, as long as you don't land on the closed runway. Our ILS runway was closed for several days last year for painting and we routinely allowed both IFR and VFR aircraft to shoot approaches to that runway. We just instructed the aircraft to expect an overshoot and/or we gave "not below 500' AGL" to provide adequate obstacle clearance over the workers.

I remembered your handle now and it seems we've gotten into arguments before. You've questioned the need of controller's stating the phrase "Cleared to land" and griped about the need for controllers to issue "Balance unchanged" when relaying a changed IFR clearance. There are much bigger things to worry about than questioning obviously well-established and reasonable rules. I also know there's no changing your mind once you've picked your side, regardless of any counter-points made by any ATC's, so I'll move on from this conversation. Enjoy stating the ATIS letter when the new rules come into effect. It'll be the rule, so just get used to it.

[digits_]

To be honest, I've requested to do very similar things even though I knew it was on the ATIS. I've also been cleared for an approach into a runway that was supposedly closed on the ATIS. It's not often treated with a lot of respect by ATC, which make me very weary of really trusting that the information on it is correct.

But even if it is, wouldn't this serve a purpose when you make contact with arrival or ask for a specific approach on center? Once you make it to the tower, isn't it too late? Unless I"m misunderstanding the document, that's when the phraseology changes: when contacting tower.

I gave the example of a practice ILS. If the aircraft is VFR and doing simulated practice approaches, they won't ever talk to the center. They'll only talk to the tower. It's embarassing when a pilot calls up on ground asking to depart and shoot a simulated ILS when the ILS is NOTAM'd U/S on the ATIS.

You can also be cleared for an approach to a runway that is closed. The NOTAM closure of a runway (for runway painting for example) doesn't preclude you doing a simulated or even actual IFR practice approach to said closed runway, as long as you don't land on the closed runway. Our ILS runway was closed for several days last year for painting and we routinely allowed both IFR and VFR aircraft to shoot approaches to that runway. We just instructed the aircraft to expect an overshoot and/or we gave "not below 500' AGL" to provide adequate obstacle clearance over the workers.

In my encounter the runway was closed on the ATIS but was actually operational and I was cleared to land on that runway. Similar things happened regularly. Different runways or different approaches in use than what was on the ATIS.

Anyway, I think we're getting sidetracked with edge cases and my main point has not been addressed yet. It's been stated that this new reporting of ATIS information on tower frequency will save time. If we consider the majority of the flights at ATIS airports, which are likely IFR commercial operations, then the majority of flights will deal with center and arrival before contacting the tower.

Once an aircraft talks to center, then to arrival, and gets switched over to tower, what advantage is there at that time to report the ATIS the pilot has been using on the tower frequency? The altimeter likely changed, the latest wind is likely different, the runway he's on final for may or may not be the same. It can also easily be a very busy moment as you're anticipating a landing clearance any moment.

As a controller, how would you react if an aircraft on final would check in with information D, but F is active by now? Would this not create *more* radio chatter for something that just doesn't matter anymore at that time?

I can see the logic behind mentioning the ATIS on arrival, or if you are VFR and are looking to enter the TWR's airspace for the first time.

It's embarassing when a pilot calls up on ground asking to depart and shoot a simulated ILS when the ILS is NOTAM'd U/S on the ATIS.

You likely won't believe it, but I've done that as well, even though I had listend to the ATIS. As a pilot, we don't know why the ILS is U/S. Is it actually broken, or is there traffic in the protected area that might prevent its actual use, but would be fine for training flights? The space on an ATIS message is (hopefully) limited and almost never tells the full picture.

There are much bigger things to worry about than questioning obviously well-established and reasonable rules.

I'm actually questioning the *new* rules. Not the established one.