Proper response to "Altitude Indicates 3000 feet"

sarangan

sarangan

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,896
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Me: Columbus Approach, Cessna 1234A

ATC: Cessna 1234A, Columbus Approach

Me: Columbus Approach, 34A, just off the ABC airport, currently at 3000 ft, requesting radar vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

ATC: Cessna 1234A, squawk 5313

Me: 5313

ATC: Cessna 34A, radar contact, 4 miles south of ABC, altitude indicates 3000 feet. Fly heading of 270 for vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

Me: 270 for vectors, 34A.

The CFI I was flying with was saying that ATC is expecting me to confirm the "altitude indicates 3000 ft" statement. I remember being told (a long time ago) that there was no need to confirm that unless there is a disagreement in the altitude. Additionally, I did say my altitude in the initial call up. He was saying that what I said on initial call does not matter, and ATC wants confirmation of the altitude after the radar contact. What do you guys think?
 
You don’t need to confirm your altitude after they ping you. The CFI is incorrect.

My response back to ATC would basically be the same as what you said— “Heading 270, 34A.”

Nothing else is needed until further instruction is given.
 
Ryanb said:
You don’t need to confirm your altitude after they ping you.

My response back to ATC would basically be the same as what you said— “Heading 270, 34A.”

Nothing else is needed until further instruction is given.
Click to expand...
Concur.
 
I got money on a puppy mill cfi. Or his cfi was a puppy mill cfi.
 
Yup, you said 3000, controller said you indicate 3000, that is confirmed

image.gif
 
Shawn said:
Think about that for a second. You state “3000”, controller confirms “3000”...your CFI is advocating for you to confirm the confirmation?
Click to expand...

mscard88 said:
Yup, you said 3000, controller said you indicate 3000, that is confirmed

View attachment 64586
Click to expand...


nooooooooooope! now u gotta add 'position checks'........confirmation of the confirmation that you learned to fly from youtube!
 
sarangan said:
The CFI I was flying with was saying that ATC is expecting me to confirm the "altitude indicates 3000 ft" statement. I remember being told (a long time ago) that there was no need to confirm that unless there is a disagreement in the altitude. Additionally, I did say my altitude in the initial call up. He was saying that what I said on initial call does not matter, and ATC wants confirmation of the altitude after the radar contact. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

No no, you're supposed to say "position checks, altitude checks".
 
I disagree.

Pilot: 3000 ft
ATC: altitude indicates 3000 ft
Pilot: indication correct, 3000 ft
ATC: roger on the indication confirmation. 3000 ft
Pilot: "click click" 3000 ft
ATC: "click click" "3K"
Pilot: 3K
ATC: tally ho 3K
Pilot: you hang up first
ATC: nooooooo. You hang up first
Pilot: I love you
ATC: I love you more
Pilot: no. I love you more
ATC: are you still there?
Pilot: you got me I pretended to hang up so you would hang up first.
ATC: OK. On a count of three let's both hang up.
Pilot & ATC: 1 2 3


.
.
.
ATC: you still there?
.
.
.
Pilot: yeeeeeeeeeessssss.
ATC: contact center in 124.75

Pilot: center, 34A with you at 3000 ft
Center: altitude indicates 3000 ft
 
For good measure, call them Dayton approach too.
:ohsnap:
 
Not sure why the controller confirmed 3,000 anyway. I would’ve first gotten radar contact, cleared you to the airport if you hadn’t been already, then “fly heading 270, maintain 3,000, vectors localizer runway 24 approach.”
 
Velocity173 said:
Not sure why the controller confirmed 3,000 anyway. I would’ve first gotten radar contact, cleared you to the airport if you hadn’t been already, then “fly heading 270, maintain 3,000, vectors localizer runway 24 approach.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like this was a VFR practice approach. Maybe the controller just did not want to assign an altitude. The "altitude indicates" is not an assignment and does not require a readback vfr. No response is required by the OP.

However when IFR a readback of any assigned altitude should be done and maybe this was an effort by the OP's CFI to get him in the habit? After an initial call-up for a clearance you expect to get an altitude assignment, even if it is the same altitude you are at, you should confirm it.

For example:

Me: Columbus Approach, 34A, 5 miles south of ABC airport, 3000, looking for IFR clearance, request radar vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

ATC: Cessna 1234A, squawk 5313

Me: 5313

ATC: Cessna 34A, radar contact, 4 miles south of ABC, altitude indicates 3000 feet. Fly heading of 270 for vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ, maintain 3000

Me: 270 for vectors, 3000, 34A.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Sounds like this was a VFR practice approach. Maybe the controller just did not want to assign an altitude. The "altitude indicates" is not an assignment and does not require a readback vfr. So technically no response is required by the OP.

However when IFR a readback of any assigned altitude should be done and maybe this was an effort by the OP's CFI to get him in the habit? After an initial call-up for a clearance you expect to get an altitude assignment, even if it is the same altitude you are at, you should confirm it.

For example:

Me: Columbus Approach, 34A, 5 miles south of ABC airport, 3000, looking for IFR clearance, request radar vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

ATC: Cessna 1234A, squawk 5313

Me: 5313

ATC: Cessna 34A, radar contact, 4 miles south of ABC, altitude indicates 3000 feet. Fly heading of 270 for vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ, maintain 3000

Me: 270 for vectors, 3000, 34A.
Click to expand...

If it’s an assigned altitude, sure I’m gonna read it back. Not enough info from the OP if IFR or VFR. Two seperate situations with for IFR practice approach and VFR practice approach.
 
Unless he says, “confirm”, then no need to respond with more than assigned heading and call sign.

A lot of times I’m still in a climb and I’ll hear, “verify climbing through 4200”.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I disagree.

Pilot: 3000 ft
ATC: altitude indicates 3000 ft
Pilot: indication correct, 3000 ft
ATC: roger on the indication confirmation. 3000 ft
Pilot: "click click" 3000 ft
ATC: "click click" "3K"
Pilot: 3K
ATC: tally ho 3K
Pilot: you hang up first
ATC: nooooooo. You hang up first
Pilot: I love you
ATC: I love you more
Pilot: no. I love you more
ATC: are you still there?
Pilot: you got me I pretended to hang up so you would hang up first.
ATC: OK. On a count of three let's both hang up.
Pilot & ATC: 1 2 3


.
.
.
ATC: you still there?
.
.
.
Pilot: yeeeeeeeeeessssss.
ATC: contact center in 124.75

Pilot: center, 34A with you at 3000 ft
Center: altitude indicates 3000 ft
Click to expand...

LMAO. I have sent this in for a Pulitzer nomination
 
EdFred said:
No need to bring someone's personal life into it.
Click to expand...
Lol. Why does this remind me off the Ink Blot Test thing where the shrink tells the patient what’s the first thing that comes to mind when you see this. After a few of them with the patient saying things like it looks like two people[insert expletive deleted of your choice] the shrink says you seem to be obsessed with sex. Patient says huh, you’re the one showing me all the dirty pictures
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Lol. Why does this remind me off the Ink Blot Text thing where the shrink tells the patient what’s the first thing that comes to mind when you see this. After a few of them with the patient saying things like it looks like two people[insert expletive deleted of your choice] the shrink says you seem to be obsessed with sex. Patient says huh, you’re the one showing me all the dirty pictures
Click to expand...

Was also in the movie What About Bob?
 
Just add a ''last call' when he hands you to TWR and it's all good.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ATITPPA.....:confused:
Click to expand...

Is it me or are corporate pilots just the worst at that...

Yesterday some guy asked three times on his way in (no one in pattern, I was on the ground), without even giving his position, type of aircraft or callsign. After his third try he finally made a position call ... 15 miles out!
 
dell30rb said:
Is it me or are corporate pilots just the worst at that...

Yesterday some guy asked three times on his way in (no one in pattern, I was on the ground), without even giving his position, type of aircraft or callsign. After his third try he finally made a position call ... 15 miles out!
Click to expand...

Did he hurt anything or anybody?
 
mscard88 said:
Did he hurt anything or anybody?
Click to expand...

I understand this is a rhetorical question. I'm also not a big stickler for the "any traffic please advise" thing. Its just something that people do, usually completely harmless and preceded by an aircraft type, callsign, position and intentions which is correct information to be giving over the CTAF.

But you have to agree its not professional to hop on a ctaf from 25-30 miles out and ask three times if there is any traffic in the pattern without even giving your position, aircraft type or callsign.
 
dell30rb said:
I understand this is a rhetorical question. I'm also not a big stickler for the "any traffic please advise" thing. Its just something that people do, usually completely harmless and preceded by an aircraft type, callsign, position and intentions which is correct information to be giving over the CTAF.

But you have to agree its not professional to hop on a ctaf from 25-30 miles out and ask three times if there is any traffic in the pattern without even giving your position, aircraft type or callsign.
Click to expand...

I've been flying a long time, and that was fairly common years ago. Probably did it myself, maybe not beyond once perhaps. I understand some have heartburn with it, as "last call" that some transmit now to me seems ridiculous. So, maybe that pilot has been doing it that way for 30-40 years, I dunno.

I don't do it now, and certainly don't teach it to my students. But in the end, it doesn't really hurt anything IMO, knowing many pilots have a problem with it. I'm also aware the FAA specifically mentions it in the AIM and AC.
 
CFI Was anal retentive nut job, over-analyzing everything he could see/hear. More concerned with his endorsement than the performance of the pilot in the air.
 
dell30rb said:
Sounds like this was a VFR practice approach. Maybe the controller just did not want to assign an altitude. The "altitude indicates" is not an assignment and does not require a readback vfr. No response is required by the OP.

However when IFR a readback of any assigned altitude should be done and maybe this was an effort by the OP's CFI to get him in the habit? After an initial call-up for a clearance you expect to get an altitude assignment, even if it is the same altitude you are at, you should confirm it.

For example:

Me: Columbus Approach, 34A, 5 miles south of ABC airport, 3000, looking for IFR clearance, request radar vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ.

ATC: Cessna 1234A, squawk 5313

Me: 5313

ATC: Cessna 34A, radar contact, 4 miles south of ABC, altitude indicates 3000 feet. Fly heading of 270 for vectors to the Localizer 24 Approach at XYZ, maintain 3000

Me: 270 for vectors, 3000, 34A.
Click to expand...

The controller is REQUIRED to confirm altitude and validate mode c. Usually these are some at the same time with “verify altitude” or “verify altitude leaving. On initial identification this is a must. Simply calling out your altitude as displayed DOES NOT ask for confirmation. The act of confirmation requires an overt request for information. This was briefed to all controllers as an action item about four or five years ago as mandated by AOV.

During AOV audits many controllers we stating things like “radar contact 20 miles south of XXX airport at 2500 ft”. To confirm an item the controller must ask the question...unless the item is voluntarily given. And an altitude display or confirmation is unusable if the pilot has not either been given the altimeter by the controller or volunteers that he has the numbers or ATIS code... FIRST.

In your scenario the controller did not “confirm” your altitude as required by rule. One exception to the confirmation rule would be if your scenario was a missed approach from a previous approach. In a radar environment, unless you were terminated, radar service continues at least to the threshold as does radar identity. The previously validated mode C and altitude verification would still be valid and it wouldn’t even be necessary to repeat or even mention your altitude. (Unless mode c dropped for a significAnt period of time during the approach). In that case the “at 3000” is just a superfluous waste of phraseology.

Tex
 
Dave S. said:
The controller is REQUIRED to confirm altitude and validate mode c. Usually these are some at the same time with “verify altitude” or “verify altitude leaving. On initial identification this is a must. Simply calling out your altitude as displayed DOES NOT ask for confirmation. The act of confirmation requires an overt request for information. This was briefed to all controllers as an action item about four or five years ago as mandated by AOV.

During AOV audits many controllers we stating things like “radar contact 20 miles south of XXX airport at 2500 ft”. To confirm an item the controller must ask the question...unless the item is voluntarily given. And an altitude display or confirmation is unusable if the pilot has not either been given the altimeter by the controller or volunteers that he has the numbers or ATIS code... FIRST.

In your scenario the controller did not “confirm” your altitude as required by rule. One exception to the confirmation rule would be if your scenario was a missed approach from a previous approach. In a radar environment, unless you were terminated, radar service continues at least to the threshold as does radar identity. The previously validated mode C and altitude verification would still be valid and it wouldn’t even be necessary to repeat or even mention your altitude. (Unless mode c dropped for a significAnt period of time during the approach). In that case the “at 3000” is just a superfluous waste of phraseology.

Tex
Click to expand...

AOV ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top