Reading back altimeter settings?

[Paul Tomblin]

Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
What boots up must come down.

[Steve Foley]

I always read back any numbers given by ATC. Altimeter, runway, heading,
altitude.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> What boots up must come down.

[Michael 182]

I'm usually getting the altimeter after I check in with a new controller, so
I read them as a verification that I can hear the new controller.

Michael


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> What boots up must come down.

[William W. Plummer]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>
Maybe the way to think about this is how it would affect the analysis of
an accident. Suppose you flew into a mountain, the question would be
whether you had your altimiter set correctly. So they play back the
tapes and found that you readback the setting -- that takes the
controller off the hook because he got the message through to you.
Otherwise, somebody my try to say the controller should have tried one
more time...

[Paul kgyy]

They want to know that you hear them. Sometimes I've just replied
"roger, 27D" but it's not much more of a deal to say "2994, 27D" which
I guess is what I will do from now on.

[John Harper]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>

In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.

In the UK it is mandatory and they will prompt you if you don't read
it back. I guess Canada operates to the same procedures as the UK.

US radio practice is actually quite a bit different from the
international norm, as you quickly discover when you try to fly
somewhere else!

John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maybe the way to think about this is how it would affect the analysis of
> an accident. Suppose you flew into a mountain, the question would be
> whether you had your altimiter set correctly. So they play back the
> tapes and found that you readback the setting -- that takes the controller
> off the hook because he got the message through to you. Otherwise,
> somebody my try to say the controller should have tried one more time...
>

The controller is off any hook if he issued the altimeter, a readback or
lack of one changes nothing.

[Stefan]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered

Here in ICAO country, it's mandatory to read back the altimeter setting,
as well as any clearances and assigned flight levels. It may be handled
differently in the USA.

Stefan

[Michael 182]

"John Harper" > wrote in
message
>
> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.

Really - I hear about 9 of 10 altimeters read back every time I fly.

Michael

[Peter R.]

John wrote:

> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone

> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.

No offense, John, (seriously) but do you currently fly so many hours in
so many parts of the US that you can make that broad of a statement?

I only fly about 5-7 hours per week, but in the busy Northeast US
airspace I *always* hear pilots, both GA and airline, read back
altimeter settings. Additionally, I have heard quite a few exchanges
where a controller has corrected an incorrect altimeter setting
readback.

Personally, I always read back any number given to me by ATC if for no
other reason than to aid my own memory.

--
Peter R.
(via Google Groups)

[Ross Richardson]

John Harper wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
>> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
>> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an
>> altimeter
>> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
>> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>>
>
> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.
>
> In the UK it is mandatory and they will prompt you if you don't read
> it back. I guess Canada operates to the same procedures as the UK.
>
> US radio practice is actually quite a bit different from the
> international norm, as you quickly discover when you try to fly
> somewhere else!
>
> John

That's interesting, either flying flight following or IFR I read back
altimeter readings and I generally hear most everybody do that.

Ross

[Roger]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:24:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
>altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
>several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
>setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
>didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.

I automatically read back the altimeter setting when ever given,
whether IFR or VFR. Any time I've forgotten to include it in the read
back they have given it to me again.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[John Harper]

Peter R. wrote:

> John wrote:
>
>
>>In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
>
>
>>else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.
>
>
> No offense, John, (seriously) but do you currently fly so many hours in
> so many parts of the US that you can make that broad of a statement?

I can certainly make that statement with absolute authority. Read it
again, carefully. I speak only about my own experience. I don't claim
to speak for what goes on in the rest of the US, or for the 99.99% of
the time I don't spend flying. For all I know there's some weird
conspiracy that everyone reads back altimeter settings religiously
unless I happen to be on the frequency. But it still doesn't affect
the validity of what I wrote.

John

>
> I only fly about 5-7 hours per week, but in the busy Northeast US
> airspace I *always* hear pilots, both GA and airline, read back
> altimeter settings. Additionally, I have heard quite a few exchanges
> where a controller has corrected an incorrect altimeter setting
> readback.
>
> Personally, I always read back any number given to me by ATC if for no
> other reason than to aid my own memory.
>

[John Harper]

So maybe there really is a geographic aspect to this. It's
true that my instructor taught me to minimize chit chat, and
I do. But really, honestly, in Northern CA where I do most of
my flying I rarely hear them read back, and never do it myself,
and it never seems to cause a problem. Or maybe I just filter
it out when other people do it, I don't know.

(Things that used to drive my instructor mad:

"identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them"
"taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it"
etc.....)

John

>
> I automatically read back the altimeter setting when ever given,
> whether IFR or VFR. Any time I've forgotten to include it in the read
> back they have given it to me again.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Luke]

"Michael 182" wrote:
>> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
>> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.
>
> Really - I hear about 9 of 10 altimeters read back every time I fly.

Ditto.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>

I always read it back.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Paul kgyy wrote:

> They want to know that you hear them. Sometimes I've just replied
> "roger, 27D" but it's not much more of a deal to say "2994, 27D" which
> I guess is what I will do from now on.
>

And you can drop the 2 to be even shorter. I generally just give the
last three digits as the first is obvious from the last three ... at
least at any altitude I'll ever fly at! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John Harper wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
>> altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
>> several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an
>> altimeter
>> setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
>> didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>>
>
> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.

Interesting as I've experienced just the opposite flying in the
northeast. I'd say almost all of the time they are read back.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John Harper wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
>>
>>
>>
>>> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> No offense, John, (seriously) but do you currently fly so many hours in
>> so many parts of the US that you can make that broad of a statement?
>
>
> I can certainly make that statement with absolute authority. Read it
> again, carefully. I speak only about my own experience. I don't claim
> to speak for what goes on in the rest of the US, or for the 99.99% of
> the time I don't spend flying. For all I know there's some weird
> conspiracy that everyone reads back altimeter settings religiously
> unless I happen to be on the frequency. But it still doesn't affect
> the validity of what I wrote.

It does question the effectiveness of your hearing aids though. :-)


Matt

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke Apr 7, 3:26 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: "Dan Luke" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:26:16 -0500
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2005 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: Reading back altimeter settings?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Michael 182" wrote:
>> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard
anyone
>> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.

> Really - I hear about 9 of 10 altimeters read back every time I fly.



Ditto.

************************************

Well, of course. The proper procedure is to read back the altimeter
setting. VFR or IFR.

[Denny]

>The controller is off any hook if he issued the altimeter, a readback
or
>lack of one changes nothing.


In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read
back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you,
the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash,
etc.

Do your homework, it's a mean world out there...

denny

[Ron Tock]

Steve Foley wrote:

> I always read back any numbers given by ATC. Altimeter, runway, heading,
> altitude.
>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Does anybody have a good handle on when ATC wants you to read back
>>altimeter settings? On a single IFR flight on Tuesday, I encountered
>>several controllers who I'd check in with, and they'd give me an altimeter
>>setting, and that would be it, and 2 (both in Canada, BTW) whom when I
>>didn't read back the altimeter setting gave it to me again.
>>
>>--
>>Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
>>What boots up must come down.
>

Rodger that. I read back all numbers. It's cheap insurance.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, John Harper > said:
>"identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them"

I've had controllers request it again after I just pushed the ident button
without telling them that I was doing so. You'd think that only one VFR
target would be identing when they asked, but evidently not.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read
> back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you,
> the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash,
> etc.
>

Actually, it hasn't. What the government decided was that if you read back
a clearance meant for another aircraft and the controller doesn't hear your
readback because your transmission was blocked by the transmission from the
proper aircraft then you, the PIC, are responsible for any loss of
separation, airspace bust, crash, etc., due to your error.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:32:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> In it's infinite wisdom the gov't has decided that even if you read
>> back the wrong information and the controller does not correct it you,
>> the PIC, are responsible if subsequently violate airspace, or crash,
>> etc.
>>
>
>Actually, it hasn't. What the government decided was that if you read back
>a clearance meant for another aircraft and the controller doesn't hear your
>readback because your transmission was blocked by the transmission from the
>proper aircraft then you, the PIC, are responsible for any loss of
>separation, airspace bust, crash, etc., due to your error.
>

Here's some background information on the subject:


The Federal Register cite is here:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiverule.pdf

---------------------------------------
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/reginterpretive.html

Regulatory Brief
FAA interpretive rule places the responsibility for compliance with
ATC clearances and instructions squarely on the pilot
The issue:
On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published what
they called an "interpretive rule" in the Federal Register. The stated
purpose of this interpretive rule was to "correct" the National
Transportation Safety Board legal interpretation of the FAA
regulations regarding communications between the pilot and air traffic
control personnel. In essence the interpretive rule overturns a line
of reasoning developed through a series of enforcement case appeals
heard before the NTSB Administrative Law Judges. This line of
decisions absolved the pilot of responsibility in certain instances
where incorrect information was read back by the pilot and not caught
by ATC personnel. FAA’s new interpretive rule squarely places the
primary responsibility on the pilot to listen attentively, to hear
accurately, and to construe reasonably all ATC instructions and
clearances. In effect, the simple act of giving a readback does not
shift the primary responsibility to air traffic control and does not
insulate the pilot from enforcement action in the event of error.

The importance to our members:
The FAA’s issuance of this interpretive rule raises several concerns.
First, it shifts all responsibility for proper communication and
understanding to the pilot, raising the specter of increased
enforcement actions against airmen for communications deviations.
Further it tampers with the notion that aviation safety requires air
traffic control to function as a cooperative system, in which all
participants must share the responsibility for accurate communication.
The interpretive rule places the pilot and controller in an
adversarial position, each trying to protect themselves from penalty
or enforcement. Perhaps the greatest consequence of this interpretive
rule is the precedent that it sets for the NTSB appeal process. In
effect, the FAA is demonstrating a willingness to overturn any line of
reasoning or decisions developed through the NTSB enforcement appeal
process that do not fit the FAA’s desired interpretation. Further,
they feel they can do this by publishing a simple statement in the
Federal Register describing their desired interpretation. This
approach sets a dangerous precedent and could be applied in the future
to overturn other NTSB appellate lines of reasoning deemed to be
undesirable by the FAA.

Significant provisions:
FAA’s general operating and flight rules require pilots to comply with
the clearances and instructions of air traffic control, unless they
are amended, except in an emergency or in response to a traffic alert
and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.
It has traditionally been the FAA’s view that it is the duty of pilots
and controllers alike to adhere to a high standard of clear
communication, attentive listening, and reasonable understanding.
Given these shared responsibilities, the FAA deems responsible the
participant who is the initiating or principal cause of a
miscommunication or misunderstanding.
NTSB case law reasoned that a pilot was absolved of responsibility if
an erroneous full read back of clearances or instructions were given
by the pilot and the error was not detected or corrected by the
controller.
FAA does not agree with the NTSB’s interpretation and believes this
requires correction.
FAA states that the simple act of giving a readback does not shift
full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots
from their primary responsibility under §91.123.
AOPA position:
AOPA is strongly opposed to the issuance of this interpretive rule and
believes that it undermines the free flow of information between
pilots and controllers and thus hinders aviation safety. Further, we
are deeply concerned with the legal precedent this sets in having the
FAA overturn NTSB lines of decisions with the simple stroke of the
pen. In our view, this nullifies the airman’s only right of appeal in
the enforcement process.

Status:
AOPA is conducting a careful and thorough legal review of both the
substance of the FAA’s interpretation of the rules as well as the use
of an interpretive rule to overturn case law. On April 15, 1999 AOPA
sent a letter to FAA Administrator Garvey outlining our concerns and
urging the FAA to withdraw the interpretive rule. AOPA is awaiting a
formal response to our letter from the FAA and will continue to
evaluate the legal ramifications of the FAA’s abuse of its discretion
in overturning NTSB case law using the interpretive rule.

Related documents:
FAA 14 CFR Part 91 — Pilot Responsibility for Compliance with Air
Traffic Control Clearances and Instructions (requires Adobe Acrobat
Reader)

AOPA Letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, April 15, 1999

AOPA Press Release 99-2-007, April 16, 1999

991604R1




-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/99-2-007.html

AOPA implores FAA Administrator Garvey to put safety first by
withdrawing readback errors interpretive rule
Apr. 16, 1999 — The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is
imploring FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to put safety first and
withdraw an “interpretive rule” that places blame solely on the pilot
for any errors in air traffic control clearance readbacks.
“Fix the problem, not the blame,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer.
“Just as with the ticket program, FAA is sending the message that
enforcement is more important than safety.”

In April, FAA issued an interpretive rule on Federal Aviation
Regulation 91.123 concerning a pilot’s responsibility to understand
and comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions.

The rule, in effect, absolves air traffic personnel from any legal
responsibility to correct misunderstandings between pilot and
controller. Simply put, if a pilot reads back an ATC instruction
incorrectly, the controller has no legal obligation to correct the
error. FAA could then take enforcement action against the pilot for
not complying with ATC instructions.

“This seems contrary to the Administration’s “Safer Skies Initiative”
and joint FAA-industry efforts to improve aviation safety,” Boyer told
Garvey.

Boyer said that pilots and controllers share responsibility for the
safety and integrity of the air traffic control system. There is no
evidence of pilots deliberately mishearing ATC instructions. Clearance
readbacks are part of a checks and balances system that guards against
miscommunication. That system depends on mutual trust between
controllers and pilots.

“But this interpretive rule is a classic Catch-22,” Boyer said. “The
pilot honestly believes he’s doing everything right, but FAA can still
hit him with an enforcement action. This rule will hinder
pilot-controller communication, and that will affect safety.”

Interpretive rule serves FAA legal self-interests, not safety
AOPA said the interpretive rule serves only the self-interests of
FAA’s legal and air traffic divisions.
“FAA’s Flight Standards Division has the expertise to determine how
pilots should comply with regulations and it is the only FAA division
that could even remotely be considered as having pilots’ interests at
heart,” Boyer said. “AOPA can’t find evidence in the rule that Flight
Standards had any significant input.”

FAA trying to overrule NTSB
FAA issued the ruling following several enforcement cases in which the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled against FAA and in
favor of the pilot. AOPA said that FAA was trying to thwart
congressional intent that NTSB have authority to independently review
FAA enforcement actions.
“FAA didn’t like NTSB’s rulings, so FAA changed the rules,” Boyer
said. “That flies in the face of fair and just principles of the law.”

Boyer told Garvey the interpretive rule was an abuse of FAA’s
discretionary authority and “ill conceived on many fronts.”

“Most onerous, it will rupture the cooperative relationship between
pilots and controllers to the detriment of aviation safety. We implore
you to withdraw this interpretive rule.”

A copy of AOPA President Phil Boyer’s letter to FAA Administrator Jane
Garvey is available on AOPA Online at
www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiveletter.html. [See also
AOPA's regulatory brief.]

The 345,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the
world’s largest civil aviation organization. More than one-half of the
nation’s pilots are AOPA members.

99-2-007
-------------------------------------------

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's some background information on the subject:
>
>
> The Federal Register cite is here:
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiverule.pdf
>
> ---------------------------------------
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/reginterpretive.html
>
> Regulatory Brief
> FAA interpretive rule places the responsibility for compliance with
> ATC clearances and instructions squarely on the pilot
> The issue:
> On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published what
> they called an "interpretive rule" in the Federal Register. The stated
> purpose of this interpretive rule was to "correct" the National
> Transportation Safety Board legal interpretation of the FAA
> regulations regarding communications between the pilot and air traffic
> control personnel. In essence the interpretive rule overturns a line
> of reasoning developed through a series of enforcement case appeals
> heard before the NTSB Administrative Law Judges. This line of
> decisions absolved the pilot of responsibility in certain instances
> where incorrect information was read back by the pilot and not caught
> by ATC personnel. FAA's new interpretive rule squarely places the
> primary responsibility on the pilot to listen attentively, to hear
> accurately, and to construe reasonably all ATC instructions and
> clearances. In effect, the simple act of giving a readback does not
> shift the primary responsibility to air traffic control and does not
> insulate the pilot from enforcement action in the event of error.
>
> The importance to our members:
> The FAA's issuance of this interpretive rule raises several concerns.
> First, it shifts all responsibility for proper communication and
> understanding to the pilot, raising the specter of increased
> enforcement actions against airmen for communications deviations.
> Further it tampers with the notion that aviation safety requires air
> traffic control to function as a cooperative system, in which all
> participants must share the responsibility for accurate communication.
> The interpretive rule places the pilot and controller in an
> adversarial position, each trying to protect themselves from penalty
> or enforcement. Perhaps the greatest consequence of this interpretive
> rule is the precedent that it sets for the NTSB appeal process. In
> effect, the FAA is demonstrating a willingness to overturn any line of
> reasoning or decisions developed through the NTSB enforcement appeal
> process that do not fit the FAA's desired interpretation. Further,
> they feel they can do this by publishing a simple statement in the
> Federal Register describing their desired interpretation. This
> approach sets a dangerous precedent and could be applied in the future
> to overturn other NTSB appellate lines of reasoning deemed to be
> undesirable by the FAA.
>
> Significant provisions:
> FAA's general operating and flight rules require pilots to comply with
> the clearances and instructions of air traffic control, unless they
> are amended, except in an emergency or in response to a traffic alert
> and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.
> It has traditionally been the FAA's view that it is the duty of pilots
> and controllers alike to adhere to a high standard of clear
> communication, attentive listening, and reasonable understanding.
> Given these shared responsibilities, the FAA deems responsible the
> participant who is the initiating or principal cause of a
> miscommunication or misunderstanding.
> NTSB case law reasoned that a pilot was absolved of responsibility if
> an erroneous full read back of clearances or instructions were given
> by the pilot and the error was not detected or corrected by the
> controller.
> FAA does not agree with the NTSB's interpretation and believes this
> requires correction.
> FAA states that the simple act of giving a readback does not shift
> full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots
> from their primary responsibility under §91.123.
> AOPA position:
> AOPA is strongly opposed to the issuance of this interpretive rule and
> believes that it undermines the free flow of information between
> pilots and controllers and thus hinders aviation safety. Further, we
> are deeply concerned with the legal precedent this sets in having the
> FAA overturn NTSB lines of decisions with the simple stroke of the
> pen. In our view, this nullifies the airman's only right of appeal in
> the enforcement process.
>
> Status:
> AOPA is conducting a careful and thorough legal review of both the
> substance of the FAA's interpretation of the rules as well as the use
> of an interpretive rule to overturn case law. On April 15, 1999 AOPA
> sent a letter to FAA Administrator Garvey outlining our concerns and
> urging the FAA to withdraw the interpretive rule. AOPA is awaiting a
> formal response to our letter from the FAA and will continue to
> evaluate the legal ramifications of the FAA's abuse of its discretion
> in overturning NTSB case law using the interpretive rule.
>
> Related documents:
> FAA 14 CFR Part 91 - Pilot Responsibility for Compliance with Air
> Traffic Control Clearances and Instructions (requires Adobe Acrobat
> Reader)
>
> AOPA Letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, April 15, 1999
>
> AOPA Press Release 99-2-007, April 16, 1999
>
> 991604R1
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/99-2-007.html
>
> AOPA implores FAA Administrator Garvey to put safety first by
> withdrawing readback errors interpretive rule
> Apr. 16, 1999 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is
> imploring FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to put safety first and
> withdraw an "interpretive rule" that places blame solely on the pilot
> for any errors in air traffic control clearance readbacks.
> "Fix the problem, not the blame," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.
> "Just as with the ticket program, FAA is sending the message that
> enforcement is more important than safety."
>
> In April, FAA issued an interpretive rule on Federal Aviation
> Regulation 91.123 concerning a pilot's responsibility to understand
> and comply with air traffic control clearances and instructions.
>
> The rule, in effect, absolves air traffic personnel from any legal
> responsibility to correct misunderstandings between pilot and
> controller. Simply put, if a pilot reads back an ATC instruction
> incorrectly, the controller has no legal obligation to correct the
> error. FAA could then take enforcement action against the pilot for
> not complying with ATC instructions.
>
> "This seems contrary to the Administration's "Safer Skies Initiative"
> and joint FAA-industry efforts to improve aviation safety," Boyer told
> Garvey.
>
> Boyer said that pilots and controllers share responsibility for the
> safety and integrity of the air traffic control system. There is no
> evidence of pilots deliberately mishearing ATC instructions. Clearance
> readbacks are part of a checks and balances system that guards against
> miscommunication. That system depends on mutual trust between
> controllers and pilots.
>
> "But this interpretive rule is a classic Catch-22," Boyer said. "The
> pilot honestly believes he's doing everything right, but FAA can still
> hit him with an enforcement action. This rule will hinder
> pilot-controller communication, and that will affect safety."
>
> Interpretive rule serves FAA legal self-interests, not safety
> AOPA said the interpretive rule serves only the self-interests of
> FAA's legal and air traffic divisions.
> "FAA's Flight Standards Division has the expertise to determine how
> pilots should comply with regulations and it is the only FAA division
> that could even remotely be considered as having pilots' interests at
> heart," Boyer said. "AOPA can't find evidence in the rule that Flight
> Standards had any significant input."
>
> FAA trying to overrule NTSB
> FAA issued the ruling following several enforcement cases in which the
> National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled against FAA and in
> favor of the pilot. AOPA said that FAA was trying to thwart
> congressional intent that NTSB have authority to independently review
> FAA enforcement actions.
> "FAA didn't like NTSB's rulings, so FAA changed the rules," Boyer
> said. "That flies in the face of fair and just principles of the law."
>
> Boyer told Garvey the interpretive rule was an abuse of FAA's
> discretionary authority and "ill conceived on many fronts."
>
> "Most onerous, it will rupture the cooperative relationship between
> pilots and controllers to the detriment of aviation safety. We implore
> you to withdraw this interpretive rule."
>
> A copy of AOPA President Phil Boyer's letter to FAA Administrator Jane
> Garvey is available on AOPA Online at
> www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiveletter.html. [See also
> AOPA's regulatory brief.]
>
> The 345,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the
> world's largest civil aviation organization. More than one-half of the
> nation's pilots are AOPA members.
>
> 99-2-007
> -------------------------------------------
>

I don't think you have a lot to fear (enforcement wise) if you give a full,
but incorrect, readback of an air traffic control transmission when the air
traffic controller, under the circumstances, reasonably should have
corrected your error but did not. Controllers are still required to ensure
that read backs are correct, that has not changed and no change in that
requirement was ever proposed.


From FAA Order 7110.65, "Air Traffic Control"; Chapter 2. GENERAL CONTROL;
Section 4. RADIO AND INTERPHONE COMMUNICATIONS:


2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the
pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by
using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Contact Procedures, Para 4-2-3.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure
the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.


When this was announced pilots formed opinions on it based solely on what
had been written about the interpretive rule, not on what is actually in the
document.
All the FAA really did was to declare that the act of giving a readback does
not shift full responsibility for readback/hearback errors to Air Traffic
Control and does not insulate pilots from their responsibility under FAR
91.123 and related regulations to listen attentively and to hear accurately
in the first place. That's paraphrased from the Federal Register, the
complete document can be seen at http://www.avweb.com/other/faa9914.pdf

Basically, the FAA felt the NTSB had been inconsistent. The NTSB had
concluded that an air traffic controller's failure to identify and to
correct a
pilot's erroneous readback warranted a mitigation of a regulatory violation.
That is not what the FAA was objecting to. The NTSB had also excused
pilots even when the pilot was the initiating or principal cause of the
miscommunication. Pilots had given partial readbacks of clearances where
the error was in the portion not read back.

The NTSB excused a miscommunication for which the pilot was the initiating
and principal cause. The pilot took a clearance meant for another aircraft
and a loss of separation between two air carrier flights resulted. The NTSB
agreed that the pilot's error caused the miscommunication and that there was
no prior or subsequent air traffic control contribution to the
miscommunication.
But the NTSB excused the pilot's error based on his readback, even though
the
pilot's readback was blocked by another radio transmission and could not
have
been received, acknowledged, or corrected by ATC.

How can ATC correct a readback that they don't receive? The pilot should
not have complied with the clearance until he received a "readback correct"
(or words to that effect) from ATC. Had the pilot done that in this case
there would have been no loss of separation. There was nothing the
controller could have done differently.

[HankC]

In 2003, I had an interesting experience at a small airport...

I was inbound, 15 miles out, above pattern altitude and descending.

I called the field to get runway in use and wind. He also gave me
altimeter, which I started to dial in, and in and in...

I slowly realized this was not right by a long shot.

I vaguely remembered the previous setting, set it back and put her
down.

Turns out that *someone* had set the field altimeter to field elevation

(600 feet) but had dialed it in BACKWARDS past zero to basically -400
feet! The reading was an historic 'hurricane low' pressure, perhaps
only seen before in Death Valley.

Since then, when changing the altimeter, I announce 'off of 2992 for
????'...


HankC


John Harper wrote:
> So maybe there really is a geographic aspect to this. It's
> true that my instructor taught me to minimize chit chat, and
> I do. But really, honestly, in Northern CA where I do most of
> my flying I rarely hear them read back, and never do it myself,
> and it never seems to cause a problem. Or maybe I just filter
> it out when other people do it, I don't know.
>
> (Things that used to drive my instructor mad:
>
> "identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell
them"
> "taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it"
> etc.....)
>
> John
>
> >
> > I automatically read back the altimeter setting when ever given,
> > whether IFR or VFR. Any time I've forgotten to include it in the
read
> > back they have given it to me again.
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com

[Icebound]

"John Harper" > wrote in
message news:1112895851.557572@sj-nntpcache-3...


> In the UK it is mandatory and they will prompt you if you don't read
> it back. I guess Canada operates to the same procedures as the UK.
>

I realize that I have not completed training yet... but in Canada, under
VFR, my understanding is that pretty much NOTHING needs to be read back
EXCEPT:

....instructions to hold-short (or cross) runways during taxi (must be
specifically itemized in the taxi instructions, and must be read back)
....LAHSO clearances.
....anything else only whenever read-back requested by ATC.

Maybe my training will uncover more, as it progresses, but to date (and from
what I have read), those are the only MANDATORY requirements.

Where I fly (busy satellite within major class C area), you pretty much
never hear an altimeter (or even a landing clearance) read back. Always
acknowledged..., but rarely read back.

[Joe Johnson]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" wrote:
> >> In the US I've never read back an altimeter, I've rarely heard anyone
> >> else do it, and I've never heard anyone questioned for it.
> >
> > Really - I hear about 9 of 10 altimeters read back every time I fly.
>
> Ditto.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
Me three...

[aaronw]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:06:30 -0700, John Harper
> wrote:


>"identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them"
>"taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it"
>etc.....)

I waffle on saying 'identing' when asked to ident. I think nowadays
I've settled on just reading back my tail number when asked for an
ident (with, of course, pushing the button).

aw

[Clay]

I always read back the altimeter setting.
Could you imagine if a pilot was off by 1" in busy airspace?
>From the time I was a student pilot in 1984 reading the altimeter
setting has been part of my normal actions.
Reading back altimeter settings is something which comes natually even
on check rides for various ratings, BFR's, 135 check rides and aircraft
check outs.
I have had feds and DE's tell me that it is important to read back the
settings.
Little details can help keep you alive.

[Matt Barrow]

"aaronw" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:06:30 -0700, John Harper
> > wrote:
>
>
> >"identing" - "they can see it on the screen, you don't need to tell them"
> >"taxiing into position" - "how else are you going to do it"
> >etc.....)
>
> I waffle on saying 'identing' when asked to ident. I think nowadays
> I've settled on just reading back my tail number when asked for an
> ident (with, of course, pushing the button).
>

I give them my tail number and what I'm identing.