VFR Read backs???

[rt777]

In my Private days I was always told to not be that guy who read backs VFR instructions and clearances and just annoys everyone on the frequency.

However, one of my instructors for Commercial reads back literally every single thing said to him while flying VFR, even if. And then if ATC gives me something simple like "extend your downwind, ill call your base" (which I always thought a simple Registration+ Roger/Wilco was more than sufficient for VFR?) they get mad at me for not reading back.


As far as I was aware, the only thing which you need to read back VFR are Squawk codes, and Hold Short instructions? Am I not correct as this is what ICAO says. You do not readback anything unless it is requested by ATC correct?

To also mention, they tell me to add in the "any conflicting traffic please advise" phrase, when in a practice area, which I simply refuse to do.

Am I correct here, or should I be listening to his advice?

[photofly]

See TC AIM RAC 4.2.5 and 5.2 and CAR602.31. This differs from the advice in ICAO doc 9432 section 2.8.3.

[PilotDAR]

What I do VFR, is to briefly read back the relevant content of an instruction or clearance, more to assure that it stuck in my mind. If you have read back what you thought you heard, and the controller accepts it, that is your clearance, even if you heard it incorrectly. Once you read it back the controller becomes somewhat responsible for catching your error, should you have made one. That doesn't mean you should be making and allowing mistakes, but your read back enables another "check" in the system, and another opportunity for others around you to hear too.

I never waste valuable air time with silly requests like "conflicting aircraft please advise". What foolishness. If another pilot is aware of a conflict, they are responsible to either take the necessary evasive action, or at least communicate. What defines "conflicting" anyway? 30 seconds on collision course, or 5 miles away, a thousand feet higher, headed a different direction? As said to me by a rather frustrated sounding London FSS specialist: "VFR stands for VISUAL Flight Rules, NOT VOCAL flight rules.

Just my opinion....

[dirtysidedown]

I got docked a point on my PPL flight exam (4 to a 3) because I didn't use the "if conflicting traffic please advise" statement. I always thought that this was foolish because damn right i expect someone to be vocal if we are on a collision course or will be conflicting…

I am always brief on my radio calls using my registration only for reply or reading back any pertinent information to ensure safety (hold shorts, perform this until directed by ATC, etc.)…

Super short radio calls because it frustrates me when i can't get my simple call in when other VFR flights are taking up all the airways.

[5x5]

Well, it's difficult to believe that anyone lost a mark solely due to not using the "..any conflicting..." BS phrase. If true, that PE shouldn't be allowed to conduct flight tests.

The only readback, other than one specifically requested by ATC, for VFR is hold short instructions. Otherwise a simple call-sign acknowledgement is the norm. Of course, local ATC units sometimes have their own peculiarities and it's easier to go along than argue but most would prefer you don't make up your own readback procedures. Thinking that a readback adds some sort of check on what you heard is not a good idea. It only works if the controller is actually listening to what you read back. And since there is no specified procedure to follow, how do they know what to acknowledge? Your adhoc VFR readback is likely going to be incomplete, so do they then have to repeat the original clearance and wait for you, as a VFR pilot with no process, to get it all correct?

If you aren't sure about what you heard on your clearance, simply ask "Say again" or "Confirm blah blah (i.e. left base)"

KISS - partial VFR readbacks are needless and don't accomplish anything except airspace congestion.

[rt777]

O.k that is what I thought. Both the TC AIM and CARS both say "Read-backs are required, when requested by the Controller". So therefore, other than hold short instructions, don't read anything back.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The AIM is not regulatory and in any case it does not prohibit VFR readbacks it only says when you are required to do a read back.

I teach my students to read back altitudes and routings.

Lets say the ATC instruction is "climb and maintain 2000".

Pilot A hears " climb and maintain 3000 " and responds with just his reg "ABC"

Pilot B hears " climb and maintain 3000" and responds "climb 3000 ABC"

The probable outcome is pilot A gets CADOR'd and maybe is the subject of enforcement action. Pilot B hears ATC say "NEGATIVE climb and maintain 2000". Which pilot would you rather be ?

Adding that simple "climb 3000 " adds one second to your transmission but IMO significantly enhances safety. Anyone who has not at some point got a altitude or routing change wrong has either almost no experience or is a far far better pilot than the rest of us.

But that doesn't mean that you read back everything. That is why I tell my students to concentrate read backs on routes and altitudes. If you want to acknowledge informational or routine isntructions than "check remarks" is another one second transmission that will tell ATC you understand what they want/have told you.

[Colonel Sanders]

As VFR, I would more likely have said,

"two thousand ABC".

If I'm at 1000 feet, it's pretty obvious what I have
to do, to get to 2000 feet

If the freq is very very busy, it's just "ABC".

Excessive verbosity is fine when the freq is dead.
You and the controller can shoot the sh1t if you
want to.

But when it's busy, time to conserve the syllables.

A good example of that is Oshkosh. It's simply too
busy for pilot posturing and puffery on the radio. ATC
talks non-stop as fast as he can, and you do what
you're told.

[5x5]

So BPF, are you recommending that every instructor starts to teach their own version of VFR readbacks based on their individual criteria? That's what causes the problem in the first place as there is no prescribed procedure for VFR readback other than acknowledgement (call sign) and readback of hold short instructions. Students get a lot of different direction depending on what instructor they fly with. The result is a wide, wide variety of communication structure with no standard pattern.

And since readback of VFR clearances are not required, counting on ATC to monitor and correct is false security as I said before due to the very same lack of standard protocol. Running scared of the possibility of getting a cadors or, heaven forbid, enforcement action doesn't justify making up adhoc procedures, in my opinion.

[photofly]

Students get a lot of different direction depending on what instructor they fly with.

Students need to learn that instructors, like the wider flying population, come with a wide variety of opinions and abilities. Students also need to learn how to look up regulations and advice in the AIM for themselves and to come to their own conclusions about things.

[Colonel Sanders]

PF: pilots learning to read is a wonderful ideal, but
as many generations have proved over and over
again, will never happen.

When a pilot wants to know something, he asks
another pilot, who in turn asks another pilot. This
goes on until quite possibly the original pilot is asked
his own question.

I refer to this as the "circle of idiocy" because no
new information is added to the loop.

You can see evidence of this all the time on AvCan.

Pilots too lazy to punch a few words into Google will
post a question here that has been asked and answered
many times before.

I worry that you are far too intelligent to be a pilot.
You will never, ever see "intelligent" listed as a requirement
in the job ads for pilots. Go take a look. Experience, yes.
Brains, no. In fact, it's a disqualifying condition, like diabetes
or a concussion or other similar mental disorder. No one
above two sigma, please.

[Rookie50]

I generally agree with BPF, both because a one second addition of the altitude being cleared to enhances safety, and Toronto terminal here appreciates the clarity that you are following the instruction for headings and altitudes. The same guy is handling both IFR and VFR traffic, so I think consistency for them enhances safety.

That being said, a life story is not required, nor on every instruction or information call. It really is some form of common sense that depends on the situation.

For headings and altitudes, "5000 for ABC" or " 070, ABC" is fine most of the time.

For a standard instruction almost every VFR aircraft headed towards the CN tower gets, like " ABC, turn left, follow the lakeshore, not above 2000'", I think a simple callsign acknowledgement is usually fine, if no chance of confusion, and it's your home area. If I'd never been there before, I'd repeat it all back to ensure I got it right.

Be good to hear from a terminal controller on this thread.

Oshkosh is a special case, both due to the volume, but every light VFR plane is following the same precise path, speed and altitude all based on the Notam. Or should be.

[YCR_09]

You're right, its a "foolish" example, as the Colonel calls it "the circle of idiocy as seen on avcanada".

When I first arrived in Canada I was shocked to hear the verbal garbage such as "conflicting traffic please advise".

I previously flew at one of the most crowded areas in the world and if anyone had been so "foolish" as to use such a radio call, they would have been given a talking to.

Transport Canada have promoted this nonsense for decades. If someone provides a radio report, it should be assumed that anyone in conflict would "advise".

It makes about as much sense as someone getting on the radio and announcing "I'm a pilot and like talking on the radio to impress myself and convince myself that only I, gods gift to aviation, can simple command all thee other pilots to look out for me because I'm busy talking on the radio...

There is nothing worse than verbosia on the radio.

Then you have "training area chatter", yeah, I'm 15 miles to the north of you so I'll stay north of
the lake for you".... It boggles the brain who they would ever cope with many of the training areas in the world where
you actually have to look out for other aircraft.

As it appears, Canada can expect to have an endless series of air to air collisions by those who think
of the sky as an empty space.


[quote=the "circle of idiocy" because no
new information is added to the loop.

You can see evidence of this all the time on AvCan.
[/quote]

I got docked a point on my PPL flight exam (4 to a 3) because I didn't use the "if conflicting traffic please advise" statement. I always thought that this was foolish because damn right i expect someone to be vocal if we are on a collision course or will be conflicting…

I am always brief on my radio calls using my registration only for reply or reading back any pertinent information to ensure safety (hold shorts, perform this until directed by ATC, etc.)…

Super short radio calls because it frustrates me when i can't get my simple call in when other VFR flights are taking up all the airways.

[Colonel Sanders]

"5000 for ABC" ... is fine most of the time

No, it isn't. Avoid use of the word "for" because of
the possible confusion with the number "four". Similarly
don't use the word "to" because it can be confused
with the number "two".

Oshkosh is a special case

Maybe for VFR, but not for IFR. I've been around
large international airports in the USA when it got
busy, and ATC talked non-stop and all you do is
squawk ident to acknowledge your clearance.

No time for pilots to practice their drawl.

[AOW]

I see my ACTPA rant disappeared in the server upgrade. That's probably not a bad thing. My offer still stands: refer any instructor who insists you say it to me, and we can have an intelligent discussion (or fatal beating).

[Rookie50]

I see my ACTPA rant disappeared in the server upgrade. That's probably not a bad thing. My offer still stands: refer any instructor who insists you say it to me, and we can have an intelligent discussion (or fatal beating).

Agree with that. That phrase should die a slow and painful death. Also, if you announce on 126.70 position and intentions, please be reasonably close with your actual position, not 10 miles away.

[photofly]

I see my ACTPA rant disappeared in the server upgrade. That's probably not a bad thing. My offer still stands: refer any instructor who insists you say it to me, and we can have an intelligent discussion (or fatal beating).

Agree with that. That phrase should die a slow and painful death. Also, if you announce on 126.70 position and intentions, please be reasonably close with your actual position, not 10 miles away.

As in, please tell me what you're flying over, not what you see out of the windies ahead of you.

[kev994]

"currently overhead the smallest f***ing town I could find on the map..."

[AOW]

"currently overhead the smallest f***ing town I could find on the map..."

better than "some trees" or "a lake"!

[HHI]

ABC 5000 implies being level at 5000.

ABC climbing 5000 or ABC descending 5000 leaves no doubt that ABC is not presently at 5000.

Especially important in countries where English is not the first language of the controller, works here in North America as well.

Henry

[Colonel Sanders]

Must be nice to fly an aircraft with a climb
rate in excess of 100,000 fpm.

What type is it?

[HHI]

Must be nice to fly an aircraft with a climb
rate in excess of 100,000 fpm.

What type is it?

Type of aircraft doesn't matter.

5000 is 5000 ft in any aircraft (FL 350 is FL 350) in any aircraft.

But I'm pretty sure that was not the point you were trying to make.

[Colonel Sanders]

Type of aircraft doesn't matter

Sure does, since you're claiming that you can
climb thousands of feet in less than the second
that it takes before you read back the new altitude.

Very impressive. Do tell. I'm guessing Saturn V?

[sidestick stirrer]

I thought by now someone would have mentioned the "double click" as a form of acknowledgement.
Used for decades at a certain point in telecommunications as it was very short, very unambiguous and thus very effective.
And now, illegal too.
Brings a little smile to my wrinkled visage when I use it, scratches that pesky anti-authority itch just enough to satisfy it until next time:)

[Colonel Sanders]

"double click" ... now, illegal

Not sure I agree with that. If one dared to risk
the wrath of the COM Nazis and dared to double
click, what specific CAR would be contravened?