Reading Back Every Word: Good Idea, or Going Too Far?

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,440
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Palm
Lately I have noticed that many pilots at Palo Alto Airport (PAO) have been reading back nearly every word of ATC transmissions. This differs from the way I was taught, and seems like it could lead to unnecessary frequency congestion. (PAO is a very busy GA airport, especially on weekends.) It also seems like it could distract the pilot from flying the airplane, looking for traffic, etc., especially in single pilot operations. However, I'm wondering what others think of this practice. How much do you read back and why? Does your readback practice differ depending on whether you're flying IFR or VFR?
 
The thread titled "Communication with ATC: Required 'Readback' items?" Covered the subject in depth.
 
I notice this a lot also. A lot of pilots say WAY more than they need to. Especially IFR. I omit words like turn, descend, climb, right, left, etc. For instance, "Cessna 12345 turn right heading 270, descend and maintain 3000. "270, 3000, Cessna 12345."
 
"Cessna 4948T five miles from the final approach fix turn right heading 340 to intercept the localizer. Maintain 5,400 until established on the final approach course, cleared ILS runway 35 approach. Contact [Some random tower] on 123.45 Goodday."

"Right heading 340, 5,400 until established cleared ILS. Contact tower. 48T, cya"
 
Velocity173 said:
The thread titled "Communication with ATC: Required 'Readback' items?" Covered the subject in depth.
Click to expand...

No fair referencing a thread and not including a link
th_pokingsmiley.gif
 
AggieMike88 said:
No fair referencing a thread and not including a link
th_poke-vi.gif
Click to expand...

Sorry. On my phone and not sure how to link the thread. Just a search for ATC will bring it up.

I'm all about dialogue but it seems these days on POA we're rehashing the same stuff we just talked about a month ago. How many times do I have to hear Ron give guidance on the legalities of a straight in, the requirement to excecute a HILPT or when you can log PIC. :) It's all searchable. Just revive the old thread.
 
Last edited:
jordane93 said:
I notice this a lot also. A lot of pilots say WAY more than they need to. Especially IFR. I omit words like turn, descend, climb, right, left, etc. For instance, "Cessna 12345 turn right heading 270, descend and maintain 3000. "270, 3000, Cessna 12345."
Click to expand...

Left and right can be important. In certain (although rare) cases you'd be going 360 and ATC would want you to make a right turn to 270.
 
MachFly said:
Left and right can be important. In certain (although rare) cases you'd be going 360 and ATC would want you to make a right turn to 270.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If that situation ever happens I would say "right." But ATC will most likely if not all the time give you a vector and turn that will take the least amount of time unless there is traffic or terrain
 
jordane93 said:
I notice this a lot also. A lot of pilots say WAY more than they need to. Especially IFR. I omit words like turn, descend, climb, right, left, etc. For instance, "Cessna 12345 turn right heading 270, descend and maintain 3000. "270, 3000, Cessna 12345."
Click to expand...

Vacating an assigned altitude is a required report even in radar coverage.

"Cessna 12345 turning right 270, leaving 5,000 for 3,000"
 
I'd consider you a student pilot if you read back everything the controller says.
 
Reading back everything is going way too far. That's acceptable for students and somewhat new pilots, but you should think about what you're saying and how you're saying it. Don't tie up the freq with extra wordage that's not informative to anyone. Certain parts in clearances have to be read back, but, leave all the rest of the filler out.
Get your message across while being clear and concise. Be a pilot, not a parrot.

Don't even get me started on pilots who say "with you" after getting handed off to the next center.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Vacating an assigned altitude is a required report even in radar coverage.

"Cessna 12345 turning right 270, leaving 5,000 for 3,000"
Click to expand...
Woops, forgot to add the descending 3000 part. Yes you are correct. I find a lot of pilots say a bunch of unecessary stuff on initial contact with ground
 
champ driver said:
Don't even get me started on pilots who say "with you" after getting handed off to the next center.
Click to expand...

jordane93 said:
I don't get it either:dunno:
Click to expand...

Cpt_Kirk said:
It doesn't bug me. It only seems pilot's have an issue with this one.
Click to expand...

The practice of a pilot replying "with you" has been around long before most of you became pilots, or for that matter were even born.

Funny how that little phrase doesn't bother the majority of the pilots or controllers operating in the ATC system.:rolleyes:
 
AIM 4-4-7 limits readbacks to those portions of clearances relating to headings and/or altitudes.

Bob Gardner
 
hook_dupin said:
"This is..." gets me. I don't know why.
Click to expand...

That often comes from folks who are used to talking on non-aviation radios.

Saying 'this is' is standard marine radio speak. Along with saying 'out' or 'over' at the end of each transmission. I used to do that alot as a student pilot.
 
To quote the top of the section Bob referenced...
Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification.
Click to expand...
Now, how should you do that? IMO, you're never wrong reading it back word-for-word. OTOH, you don't have to do that if you think what you read back suffices to let the controller know you have all the important elements -- see the example above in post #3. How much of the verbiage you can skip is going to be a matter for the pilot to decide based on experience, so an inexperienced pilot (e.g., one who feels it necessary to ask this question) would be well-advised to err on the side of verbosity -- just to be sure. With experience, you'll get a better feel for this and then you can start shortening up your readbacks.
 
Last edited:
Over time you'll develop your own way of doing it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That often comes from folks who are used to talking on non-aviation radios.

Saying 'this is' is standard marine radio speak. Along with saying 'out' or 'over' at the end of each transmission. I used to do that alot as a student pilot.
Click to expand...

I get where it comes from. Many of my Army students do it. I don't understand why it bothers me so much....

...humans are funny creatures.
 
jordane93 said:
I used to use "for." Cessna 12345 3400 for 5000. I like to say climbing or descending now just so I won't cause confusion
Click to expand...
I try to say "leaving 3400, climbing 5000". Sometimes I forget, and when the frequency is very busy, I opt for fewer syllables. But I think avoiding "to" and "for" is good practice.
 
jordane93 said:
I used to use "for." Cessna 12345 3400 for 5000. I like to say climbing or descending now just so I won't cause confusion
Click to expand...

There's no such altitude as four five thousand, so I don't see where the confusion would be. Same with two five thousand, and "to" is actually recommended in the AIM.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That often comes from folks who are used to talking on non-aviation radios.

Saying 'this is' is standard marine radio speak. Along with saying 'out' or 'over' at the end of each transmission. I used to do that alot as a student pilot.
Click to expand...

hook_dupin said:
I get where it comes from. Many of my Army students do it. I don't understand why it bothers me so much....

...humans are funny creatures.
Click to expand...

It took me a while to get used to it as well. A very short while, though. Aviation communications is really just an abbreviated form of military communications. To the extent that "repeat" is still a taboo word to use on the radio.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's no such altitude as four five thousand, so I don't see where the confusion would be. Same with two five thousand, and "to" is actually recommended in the AIM.
Click to expand...
I just try to avoid words that sound like numbers just in case someone gets confused
 
Controllers aren't stupid.

Using the word "to" isn't going to confuse him if you are saying you are going "to" an altitude he just told you.
 
Z06_Mir said:
"Cessna 4948T five miles from the final approach fix turn right heading 340 to intercept the localizer. Maintain 5,400 until established on the final approach course, cleared ILS runway 35 approach. Contact [Some random tower] on 123.45 Goodday."

"Right heading 340, 5,400 until established cleared ILS. Contact tower. 48T, cya"
Click to expand...

I'd make that "...cleared ILS 35, 123.45".
 
Palmpilot said:
"Climbing 3000" could be confused with increasing your altitude by 3000 feet.
Click to expand...
You would say, "Cessna 12345 1200 climbing 3000." The controller assumes you are at 1200 ft and you are climbing and maintaing 3000 ft. I think the AIM recommends you say, "Cessna 12345 1200 climbing and maintaining 3000" or someting similar to that
 
Captain said:
Vacating an assigned altitude is a required report even in radar coverage.
Click to expand...

Where in the CFRs is that requirement stated?

I know AIM 5-3-3-a.1(a) recommends it, but that doesn't make it a requirement. (It is nonetheless a good idea.)
 
Bonchie said:
Controllers aren't stupid.

Using the word "to" isn't going to confuse him if you are saying you are going "to" an altitude he just told you.
Click to expand...

The controller might not know what altitude the previous controller assigned on a handoff, but he/she does know that everything above 17,999 feet is stated as a flight level.
 
I always try the pattern:

level <alt>
leaving <alt> [climbing|descending] <new-alt>
passing <alt> [climbing|descending] <new-alt>

level <alt> can often just be "<alt>":

"SoCal Approach Cessna 12345 3,500"
"SoCal Approach Cessna 12345 passing 4,200 climbing 5,500"
 
jordane93 said:
You would say, "Cessna 12345 1200 climbing 3000." The controller assumes you are at 1200 ft and you are climbing and maintaing 3000 ft. I think the AIM recommends you say, "Cessna 12345 1200 climbing and maintaining 3000" or someting similar to that
Click to expand...

The AIM recommends saying "climbing to" and "descending to." For examples, see 4-1-9g6(b), 4-4-7b1, and 5-3-1b2(a).
 
Fearless Tower said:
Saying 'this is' is standard marine radio speak. Along with saying 'out' or 'over' at the end of each transmission. I used to do that alot as a student pilot.
Click to expand...

It's standard everything-but-aviation radio speak.

I'm sure you know this, but it's over OR out. Never both. Over means a response is expected. Out means it isn't.

It gets real fun with CAP, where the AM radio is the same as we use as private pilots, and the FM radio is tactical. You need to use the prowords on the tactical radio, though a lot of us pilots screw that up.

I don't know why aviation is so different. It's not like the tactical radios don't get congested. If anything, it's worse because the repeaters have a huge range.
 
Timmer said:
"SoCal Approach Cessna 12345 passing 4,200 climbing 5,500"
Click to expand...

What if the pilot says "passing 4,000 climbing 5,500"?

Is the destination altitude 5,500, or is it 4,000 + 5,500 = 9,500?

You and I know that people usually mean 5,500, but unless and until they remove the "to" from the AIM, the above form of report introduces an ambiguity.
 
There's only one way to interpret those numbers, AFAIK. You mention altitudes, not amount of change. I have never seen that mentioned in the AIM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top