When to acknowledge ATC [Archive]

Happy Dog

May 5th 05, 11:18 PM

"Andrew" > wrote in message

> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?

Yes.
>
> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?

Learn to get a quick feel for how busy they are. NYC Class B is insanely
busy and ATC there can practically tell what you mean if all you do is
grunt. Try to anticipate how important your read back will be to them.
Traffic confirmation, exact traffic confirmation, helps them immensely and
is worth the time to let them know if you're really sure you have the
traffic they're talking about. Things like radar contact and altimeter
setting only require your abbreviated call sign (assuming that's how they ID
you) as a response. Xponder code should be read back if you have the
slightest doubt you you've heard it correctly. If things are slow, read
back everything. If you can arrange it, pay a visit to a tower or ATC
facility. It's worth the time.

moo

R.L.

May 5th 05, 11:33 PM

The AIM defines the term "Roger" as, "I have received all of your last
transmission," and states that it "should not be used to answer a question
requiring a yes or no answer."

The altimeter setting is not a clearance or a question, but an advisory
transmission. ROGER fits the bill.

> wrote in message
...
> "R.L." > wrote:
> > [snip] I'd just say ROGER, thanks.
>
> My first instructor, when teaching me the radios, said: "DO *NOT* say
> 'Roger!'" Maybe it was just her pet peeve, but she insisted that it was
> more professional to acknowledge with your tail number vs. saying
> "Roger" ... i.e., "95B, thanks".

Andrew

May 5th 05, 11:36 PM

I was flying through Chicago last night, VFR outside class B. The
controller was busy. When he said "01U radar contact, xx miles from yy"
I decided to not say anything back. He was busy talking to many
airplanes. A few minutes later, he repeated the "01U radar contact, xx
miles from yy". I guess he wanted an acknowledgement, even though he
was busy.

Jim Burns

May 5th 05, 11:44 PM

I've found that in the Midwest, they like a response even if they are busy.
I've found that down south when they are busy, they want you to keep quiet.
I try to go with the flow but realize that you don't know what the flow is
on initial call up.
Jim

"Andrew" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I was flying through Chicago last night, VFR outside class B. The
> controller was busy. When he said "01U radar contact, xx miles from yy"
> I decided to not say anything back. He was busy talking to many
> airplanes. A few minutes later, he repeated the "01U radar contact, xx
> miles from yy". I guess he wanted an acknowledgement, even though he
> was busy.
>

Happy Dog

May 5th 05, 11:46 PM

"Andrew" > wrote in message

>I was flying through Chicago last night, VFR outside class B. The
> controller was busy. When he said "01U radar contact, xx miles from yy"
> I decided to not say anything back. He was busy talking to many
> airplanes. A few minutes later, he repeated the "01U radar contact, xx
> miles from yy". I guess he wanted an acknowledgement, even though he
> was busy.

He *needs* an acknowledgement.

moo

John Clonts

May 6th 05, 01:26 AM

"Andrew" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission?

Yes, "Roger, 7NZ"

How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>

Yes, "Roger, 7NZ"

ALWAYS acknowledge. Now if you were meaning "readback" when you wrote "acknowledge", thats a different
question...

> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?
>

Aha, now your talking about readback. My experience is, only readback clearances and numbers, and a few other
important items like "hold short of runway XX" :). But I don't usually read back altimeter settings.
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Al Gilson

May 6th 05, 02:07 AM

Bob Gardner: What say you?

Andrew wrote:
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>
> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?
>

kage

May 6th 05, 02:22 AM

I haven't seen Bob on the board lately. In fact, not since before I went
flying with him about 10 days ago.

Karl

"Al Gilson" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner: What say you?
>
> Andrew wrote:
>> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
>> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
>> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
>> acknowledgement?
>>
>> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
>> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
>> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
>> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
>> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
>> we shut up as much as possible?
>>

George Patterson

May 6th 05, 02:36 AM

iflyatiger

May 6th 05, 02:47 AM

The reason you need to acknowledge the altimeter setting is that it lets the
controller know that you hear him and there is 2 way communications.

Your first check in on the freq lets him hear you, the altimeter setting
lets you know you can hear him and your reply to the altimeter setting lets
him know you can hear him.

Jon

"Andrew" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>
> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?
>

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 6th 05, 03:30 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

iflyatiger > wrote:
> The reason you need to acknowledge the altimeter setting is that it lets the
> controller know that you hear him and there is 2 way communications.
>
> Your first check in on the freq lets him hear you, the altimeter setting
> lets you know you can hear him and your reply to the altimeter setting lets
> him know you can hear him.
>
> Jon

It's a bit more than that.

If you're working in any sort of Class C or D airspace, his
response to you is in fact clearance into that airspace. So if he
responds, you can fly through unless ATC tells you 'remain outside
Class x Airspace'. Then you must read back something. Class B airspace
requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
that space where he's controlling, establishes 2-way comms, in which
you need to acknowledge that he hears you whether it's a vector he's
given you, or just replying with your callsign, that is all that's
needed. You can reply back with the alt. setting, but it isn't really
necessary.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCetanyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkc2AKCK7625aF18AmeVmfXnMS KoklG68QCfVO5q
HOcNk9ZM0MRhMAqyGY0MOdQ=
=gFlV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter R.

May 6th 05, 03:54 AM

"R.L." > wrote:

> The altimeter setting is not a clearance or a question, but an advisory
> transmission. ROGER fits the bill.

Yep, I hear this all the time, especially from ATC.

"Somewhere Approach, Bonanza 123 reporting tops at 6,500."

"Bonanza 123, Roger."

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R.

May 6th 05, 03:56 AM

Newps > wrote:

>> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
>> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
>> setting.
>
> Worst of the bunch.

Tough cookies. You're getting it read back because that's my memory
aid. :)

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ron Natalie

May 6th 05, 04:21 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> If you're working in any sort of Class C or D airspace, his
> response to you is in fact clearance into that airspace.

No clearance is required.

> So if he
> responds, you can fly through unless ATC tells you 'remain outside
> Class x Airspace'. Then you must read back something.

The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If I call and he answers,
that's two-way communciation and that's all that's required.

> Class B airspace
> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
> that space where he's controlling, establishes 2-way comms, in which
> you need to acknowledge that he hears you whether it's a vector he's
> given you, or just replying with your callsign, that is all that's
> needed. You can reply back with the alt. setting, but it isn't really
> necessary.

RADAR CONTACT is not required. Altimeter setting is not required.
Readback is not required. You know he hears you because he responded
to your radio call with your call sign. I'm having a hard time
following your argument.

Chris Schmelzer

May 6th 05, 05:26 AM

In article om>,
"Andrew" > wrote:

> I was flying through Chicago last night, VFR outside class B. The
> controller was busy. When he said "01U radar contact, xx miles from yy"
> I decided to not say anything back. He was busy talking to many
> airplanes. A few minutes later, he repeated the "01U radar contact, xx
> miles from yy". I guess he wanted an acknowledgement, even though he
> was busy.

Just respond back something like 7-sierra-papa...just last of your tail#
is sufficient typically

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

Peter Duniho

May 6th 05, 06:27 AM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
>>> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
>>> setting.
>>
>> Worst of the bunch.
>
> Tough cookies. You're getting it read back because that's my memory
> aid. :)

It's better than just a memory aid (though that's useful too). A readback
of information like that is critical to air safety. No big deal if you get
the last digit wrong, but if you mess up something to the left of the
decimal, that's serious business. Best to check and make sure you heard it
right the first time.

A controller that thinks it's dumb to read back the altimeter setting is
probably not even listening to the readback. Obviously in that situation,
the readback is useless. But other controllers aren't so inconsiderate.

Of course, as the FAA has recently decided, if ATC fails to correct an
incorrect readback, the pilot is still to blame for whatever happens
subsequently. It's no wonder at least one controller has such a blasé
attitude about the issue. He's safe, dumb, and happy sitting in his chair,
while the pilot takes all the risk.

Pete

Happy Dog

May 6th 05, 08:21 AM

> wrote in message
> On 5 May 2005 14:21:41 -0700, "Andrew" >
> wrote:
>
>>ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
>>you acknowledge this transmission? Do they want read back for everything,
>>or should
>>we shut up as much as possible?
>
> The best thing to do is click your transmitter twice.

Where did you hear that? ATC does that. But there's only one of them on
the freq. Pilots shouldn't. ATC requires a verbal response.

moo

[email protected]

May 6th 05, 09:19 AM

On 5 May 2005 14:21:41 -0700, "Andrew" >
wrote:

>ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
>you acknowledge this transmission? Do they want read back for everything, or should
>we shut up as much as possible?

The best thing to do is click your transmitter twice.

And in deference to Dudley, I'm going to put a smiley here.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00

Sorry, but I just couldn't do it.

Mike Weller

Steven P. McNicoll

May 6th 05, 12:57 PM

"Andrew" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>

If you don't acknowledge them they're going to be repeated.

> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?
>

I read back control instructions; routes, headings altitudes, etc.
Everything else is just acknowledged.

OtisWinslow

May 6th 05, 01:05 PM

For me it depends on the situation and what I've been hearing
on frequency. I will most always acknowledge with something ..
it tells them I'm still with them. If they're up to their hind ends in
alligators .. then a quick acknowledgement of the last 3 letters
of my N number or just a "thanks". If I'm hearing them chit chatting
indicating they're bored silly then I might stretch it out to include "good
morning,
how's things going for you this morning"....

"Andrew" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>
> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?
>

Steven P. McNicoll

May 6th 05, 01:08 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
m...
>
> It's a bit more than that.
>
> If you're working in any sort of Class C or D airspace, his
> response to you is in fact clearance into that airspace.
>

A clearance is not required for VFR operations in Class D or Class C
airspace. If you're operating IFR you had a clearance into that airspace
prior to your call.

>
> So if he
> responds, you can fly through unless ATC tells you 'remain outside
> Class x Airspace'. Then you must read back something.
>

You can enter if he responds with your identification. If he doesn't you
have to remain outside, but you don't have to read anything back.

>
> Class B airspace
> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it.
>

Class B airspace requires a clearance to enter, the clearance does not have
to be "Cleared into Class B airspace". If you're on an IFR clearance that
penetrates Class B airspace you're good to go. If you're VFR but have been
cleared for a practice approach that requires entry of Class B airspace
you're good to go.

>
> So if ATC tells
> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
> that space where he's controlling, establishes 2-way comms, in which
> you need to acknowledge that he hears you whether it's a vector he's
> given you, or just replying with your callsign, that is all that's
> needed.
>

Say what? You might want to clean that sentence up a bit.

ram

May 6th 05, 01:09 PM

I was told under no uncertain terms by ATC one day that "Double clicking is
*NOT* an acknowledgement." On the below, ATC is not only giving information
("radar contact"), but relaying instructions ("proceed on course").
Instructions require not only acknowledgement, but readback: "Proceeding on
course, 45Q."

As far as altimeter settings, if you don't acknowledge, ATC doesn't whether
or not you heard them. If you don't read them back, they don't know whether
or not you heard them correctly. "29.92, 45Q."

> wrote in message
news:1115361381.ba8215193ce4b7d4faa4002afd3225cc@o nlynews...
> On 5 May 2005 14:21:41 -0700, "Andrew" >
> wrote:
>
>>ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
>>you acknowledge this transmission? Do they want read back for everything,
>>or should
>>we shut up as much as possible?
>
> The best thing to do is click your transmitter twice.
>
> And in deference to Dudley, I'm going to put a smiley here.
>
> 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00
>
> Sorry, but I just couldn't do it.
>
> Mike Weller
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

May 6th 05, 01:13 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's better than just a memory aid (though that's useful too). A readback
> of information like that is critical to air safety. No big deal if you
> get the last digit wrong, but if you mess up something to the left of the
> decimal, that's serious business. Best to check and make sure you heard
> it right the first time.
>

Altimeter settings don't tend to vary a great deal from one controller to
the next. If you're issued one that differs by more than a few points from
the previous then it's a good idea to check on it.

>
> Of course, as the FAA has recently decided, if ATC fails to correct an
> incorrect readback, the pilot is still to blame for whatever happens
> subsequently.
>

The FAA never made any decision like that or changed the requirements for
controllers to verify readbacks.

Jose

May 6th 05, 01:51 PM

> Class B airspace
> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
> that space where he's controlling

No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are
cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace"
or somesuch.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Natalie

May 6th 05, 02:00 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Class B airspace
>> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
>> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
>> that space where he's controlling
>
>
> No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are
> cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace"
> or somesuch.
>
Nope, you just have to have a clearance. "Cleared into/through the
[NAME] Class Bravo" is just one form of it (and the safest for VFR's).

Jose

May 6th 05, 02:23 PM

>>> Class B airspace
>>> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
>>> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
>>> that space where he's controlling
>>
>>
>>
>> No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace" or somesuch.
>>
> Nope, you just have to have a clearance. "Cleared into/through the
> [NAME] Class Bravo" is just one form of it (and the safest for VFR's).

I stand corrected (but I will still ask for the magic words rather than
risk coming to the attention of the FAA!)

In any case, "radar contact <location>, altimiter xx.xx" is not a clearance.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dylan Smith

May 6th 05, 02:28 PM

In article . com>, Andrew wrote:
> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission?

Yes, but only with my callsign (abbreviated when applicable).

> How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?

And a readback. You want to know that both you and the controller are
working off the same altimeter setting or Bad Stuff may happen. My
readback is pretty short ('two niner niner two, november four one
bravo')

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

George Patterson

May 6th 05, 05:45 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Altimeter settings don't tend to vary a great deal from one controller to
> the next. If you're issued one that differs by more than a few points from
> the previous then it's a good idea to check on it.

I rarely get an altimeter setting from a controller anyway. I make a point of
picking up the setting from AWOS stations in flight and from ATIS before arrival
or departure. As long as you tell the controller you have the ATIS, about the
only time they'll give you the setting is as a gentle notice that you don't seem
to be flying at the altitude at which you're supposed to be.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 6th 05, 05:50 PM

Jose wrote:
>
> No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are
> cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace"
> or somesuch.

The last clearance I got from New York ran something like "November 3162 Kebec,
climb to 2500 feet, heading 355, stay west of the river, report at the Hudson
tunnel."

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Peter R.

May 6th 05, 06:19 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Altimeter settings don't tend to vary a great deal from one controller to
> the next. If you're issued one that differs by more than a few points from
> the previous then it's a good idea to check on it.

During my short three years in the air, I had one IFR flight about a month
ago where the pressure difference between three approach facilities
(Syracuse to Buffalo, actual distance around 150nm) was almost 3/4's of an
inch. That equated to about 700 feet difference in altitude from start to
finish.

I recall a few of the airline pilots that morning were doing double-takes
and commenting on this dropping pressure as they flew west.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Happy Dog

May 6th 05, 07:23 PM

"George Patterson" >
> Jose wrote:
>>
>> No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are
>> cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace"
>> or somesuch.
>
> The last clearance I got from New York ran something like "November 3162
> Kebec, climb to 2500 feet, heading 355, stay west of the river, report at
> the Hudson tunnel."

Ask for the clearance. You're in violation without it. ATC should know
better.

moo

Happy Dog

May 6th 05, 07:30 PM

"George Patterson" >

>> Altimeter settings don't tend to vary a great deal from one controller to
>> the next. If you're issued one that differs by more than a few points
>> from the previous then it's a good idea to check on it.
>
> I rarely get an altimeter setting from a controller anyway. I make a point
> of picking up the setting from AWOS stations in flight and from ATIS
> before arrival or departure. As long as you tell the controller you have
> the ATIS, about the only time they'll give you the setting is as a gentle
> notice that you don't seem to be flying at the altitude at which you're
> supposed to be.

No. They give you an altimeter setting almost every time you enter the
space they're working on initial contact. The point of this is that it
results in all aircraft in close proximity showing near identical altimeter
readings. You should also give the controller your altitude when you're
level after any change. Where do you fly where ATC doesn't give you the
setting on initial contact?

moo

Happy Dog

May 6th 05, 07:32 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message \

> During my short three years in the air, I had one IFR flight about a month
> ago where the pressure difference between three approach facilities
> (Syracuse to Buffalo, actual distance around 150nm) was almost 3/4's of an
> inch. That equated to about 700 feet difference in altitude from start to
> finish.
>
> I recall a few of the airline pilots that morning were doing double-takes
> and commenting on this dropping pressure as they flew west.

Funny that. I flew from Toronto to NYC around that time. Maybe the same
day. I was astounded at the rate of change in settings. Never seen that
happen before.

moo

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 6th 05, 07:57 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>> If you're working in any sort of Class C or D airspace, his
>> response to you is in fact clearance into that airspace.
>
> No clearance is required.

For Class C airspace, 2-way communication is the clearance into
that airspace. No, ATC doesn't ahve to 'clear' you into it, but the
communication is the clearance as is.

>> So if he
>> responds, you can fly through unless ATC tells you 'remain outside
>> Class x Airspace'. Then you must read back something.
>
> The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If I call and he answers,
> that's two-way communciation and that's all that's required.

If ATC tells you to remain outside a certain class airspace,
you must read that back and remain outside that airspace until he
clears you into it. Yes, it establishes communication, and normally
that is all that's needed. but ATC's actual notification of 'remain
outside Class x airspace' (where x is B, or C) overrides your clearance
into that airspace. You will need to remain outside that airspace until
told otherwise.

>> Class B airspace
>> requires ATC to tell you that you are cleared into it. So if ATC tells
>> you 'radar contact <location>, altimeter xx.xx', you're cleared through
>> that space where he's controlling, establishes 2-way comms, in which
>> you need to acknowledge that he hears you whether it's a vector he's
>> given you, or just replying with your callsign, that is all that's
>> needed. You can reply back with the alt. setting, but it isn't really
>> necessary.
>
> RADAR CONTACT is not required. Altimeter setting is not required.
> Readback is not required. You know he hears you because he responded
> to your radio call with your call sign. I'm having a hard time
> following your argument.

Actually, for Class B, it does. AIM 3-2-3.d.2 and 3-2-3.e back that:

3-2-3.e: ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is
required to enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR
pilots are provided sequencing and separation from other
aircraft while operating within Class B airspace.

For Class C, AIM 3-2-4.3 states that 2-way comms must be
established, and that is the clearance into/through Class C. But, if
ATC tells you to remain outside of it, you *MUST* remain outside of it
until told otherwise. Plus, a readback of that would be required.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCe74byBkZmuMZ8L8RAlqHAKCDiIwC/DZKvK74zjHk7smf7uxcSgCgtQUa
oAEGUuO3awcwz2HutdswmF0=
=bc9u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frank

May 6th 05, 07:59 PM

Andrew wrote:

> ATC says "radar contact, 20 miles south of XYZ, proceed on course". Do
> you acknowledge this transmission? How about when ATC says "altimeter
> setting 2992" on your first contact after a handoff? Does this require
> acknowledgement?
>
> In the past, I've acknowledged such things if the controller was not
> busy. But I've heard all kinds. Some people read back the altimeter
> setting. I've even heard people reading back the "radar contact"
> message. I feel that this is a waste of bandwidth. However, I don't
> know what ATC prefers. Do they want read back for everything, or should
> we shut up as much as possible?

I don't read back "ident" instructions, I just press the button. I
acknowledge everything else. Things like altimeter and such I just use the
(shortened) tail number. Anything that's an instruction I read back.

--
Frank....H

Steven P. McNicoll

May 6th 05, 08:12 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If ATC tells you to remain outside a certain class airspace,
> you must read that back and remain outside that airspace until he
> clears you into it.
>

If ATC tells you to remain outside you have to remain outside, whay
requires you to read it back?

>>
>> RADAR CONTACT is not required. Altimeter setting is not required.
>> Readback is not required. You know he hears you because he responded
>> to your radio call with your call sign. I'm having a hard time
>> following your argument.
>>
>
> Actually, for Class B, it does. AIM 3-2-3.d.2 and 3-2-3.e back that:
>
> 3-2-3.e: ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is
> required to enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR
> pilots are provided sequencing and separation from other
> aircraft while operating within Class B airspace.
>
> For Class C, AIM 3-2-4.3 states that 2-way comms must be
> established, and that is the clearance into/through Class C. But, if
> ATC tells you to remain outside of it, you *MUST* remain outside of it
> until told otherwise. Plus, a readback of that would be required.
>

Where's the requirement for radar contact? Where's the requirement for a
readback?

Flyin'[email protected]

May 6th 05, 08:28 PM

> but ATC's actual notification of 'remain
> outside Class x airspace' (where x is B, or C) overrides your clearance
> into that airspace. You will need to remain outside that airspace until
> told otherwise.

Wouldn't it also apply to Class D airspace?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

John Galban

May 6th 05, 08:39 PM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
<snip>
> Where do you fly where ATC doesn't give you the
> setting on initial contact?
>
Almost every class B, C or D airport that I fly into. If on my
initial call, I give them the proper ATIS code (and the setting hasn't
changed). They have no reason to tell me (and everyone else) the
altimeter setting on initial contact. That's why ATIS was invented.
It reduces frequency congestion.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Icebound

May 6th 05, 10:00 PM

> wrote in message
...
> "R.L." > wrote:
>> [snip] I'd just say ROGER, thanks.
>
> My first instructor, when teaching me the radios, said: "DO *NOT* say
> 'Roger!'" Maybe it was just her pet peeve, but she insisted that it was
> more professional to acknowledge with your tail number vs. saying
> "Roger" ... i.e., "95B, thanks".

"Roger" is definitely more professional than "Thanks". Now THAT is truly a
waste of bandwidth. Any "aviation-communication" text that I have ever
read, discourages the use of "thanks" or "thank you" etc... as being totally
redundant and useless...

If you do not intend to say "roger", then just say "niner fife bravo" and
nothing more.

Icebound

May 6th 05, 10:23 PM

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...

> What I wonder is, is it better to say your tail number first or after your
> acknowledgement or read back of instructions. I tend to flip flop.
>

Technically, you are shortcutting:

"xyz tower, this is whatever-type <...> four three lima. Roger, here is my
readback of your instructions"

you throw out the "xyx tower, this is whatever-type <...>", but your tail
number is still left in, so it is now first, as in: "four three lima....
roger, two niner, niner two."

Unfortunately, if we do not include the "roger", then "four three lima....
two niner niner two" seems clumsy and that's when we flip-flop to "two niner
niner two.... four three lima" as being somehow more natural.

But I still prefer...: "four three lima.... roger, two niner niner two" as
the most natural of all.

Of course, VFR, I would never read back anything except
runway-hold-short-or-cross instructions, unless specifically requested to do
so.... so it would only be the acknowledgement: "four three lima".

Happy Dog

May 6th 05, 11:07 PM

"John Galban" > wrote in
>> Where do you fly where ATC doesn't give you the
>> setting on initial contact?
>>
> Almost every class B, C or D airport that I fly into.

So you're speaking almost exclusively about towers? That I can see. If the
ATIS is good, no need for the altimeter setting. Other than towers, you
should almost always be getting a setting on initial contact.

moo

Ron Natalie

May 6th 05, 11:36 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>>No clearance is required.
>
>
> For Class C airspace, 2-way communication is the clearance into
> that airspace. No, ATC doesn't ahve to 'clear' you into it, but the
> communication is the clearance as is.
>
No clearance is required. Do you know what CLEARANCE means?
>
> If ATC tells you to remain outside a certain class airspace,
> you must read that back

I don't have to read back anything.

> and remain outside that airspace until he
> clears you into it

You will not EVER get a VFR clearance into class C or D airspace.

> RADAR CONTACT is not required. Altimeter setting is not required.
>> Readback is not required. You know he hears you because he responded
>> to your radio call with your call sign. I'm having a hard time
>> following your argument.
> Actually, for Class B, it does. AIM 3-2-3.d.2 and 3-2-3.e back that:
>
> 3-2-3.e: ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is
> required to enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR
> pilots are provided sequencing and separation from other
> aircraft while operating within Class B airspace.

What on earth does that passage have to do with anything? Radar
contact is NOT required, Altimeter settings are not required, Readbacks
are not required. A clearance is required.
>
> For Class C, AIM 3-2-4.3 states that 2-way comms must be
> established, and that is the clearance into/through Class C. But, if
> ATC tells you to remain outside of it, you *MUST* remain outside of it
> until told otherwise. Plus, a readback of that would be required.
>
It says nothing about clearances. You're making things up again.

Ron Natalie

May 6th 05, 11:37 PM

wrote:
>>but ATC's actual notification of 'remain
>>outside Class x airspace' (where x is B, or C) overrides your clearance
>>into that airspace. You will need to remain outside that airspace until
>>told otherwise.
>
>
> Wouldn't it also apply to Class D airspace?
>
Wouldn't it also apply to any airspace. If ATC tells me to stay clear
of the town of Pinkneyville, I'm inclined to oblige (though I may ask
them later when I'm on the ground).

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 6th 05, 11:46 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> If ATC tells you to remain outside a certain class airspace,
>> you must read that back and remain outside that airspace until he
>> clears you into it.
>>
>
> If ATC tells you to remain outside you have to remain outside, whay
> requires you to read it back?

Because if you don't read it back, they have no way to know
that you have acknowledged their call to you. Would you want ATC to
keep repeating the same call to you, adding more radio congestion to a
frequency they are already busy on? If they're trying to provide
separation that your jaunt through their airspace could jeopardize,
they're bloody well are goign to look for hearing a readback from you
on it, and make sure that you are still outside their airspace.

>>>
>>> RADAR CONTACT is not required. Altimeter setting is not required.
>>> Readback is not required. You know he hears you because he responded
>>> to your radio call with your call sign. I'm having a hard time
>>> following your argument.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, for Class B, it does. AIM 3-2-3.d.2 and 3-2-3.e back that:
>>
>> 3-2-3.e: ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is
>> required to enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR
>> pilots are provided sequencing and separation from other
>> aircraft while operating within Class B airspace.
>>
>> For Class C, AIM 3-2-4.3 states that 2-way comms must be
>> established, and that is the clearance into/through Class C. But, if
>> ATC tells you to remain outside of it, you *MUST* remain outside of it
>> until told otherwise. Plus, a readback of that would be required.
>>
>
> Where's the requirement for radar contact? Where's the requirement for a
> readback?

For class C, they will always tell you 'radar contact
<location>, say altitude'. Class B, they'll tell you 'radar contact
<location>, cleared through/into xxx Class B airspace' along with an
altimeter setting for the major airport in their area. That is a
requirement for ATC to give you when entering Class B or C airspace.
See the 7110.65, sections 5-3-1 through 5-3-6. There's the requirement.
If they tell you to remain outside a given airspace, you had best
readback that you are remaining outside that airspace. 7-9-2 gives
leeway for the readback.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCe/PGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgXEAKDRqFO8uFqW9JnKp9islutOlzKfIACg n7i8
9Yt/ya39wYpK1n3Jypc1j0E=
=PIJy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 7th 05, 01:26 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>>>No clearance is required.
>>
>>
>> For Class C airspace, 2-way communication is the clearance into
>> that airspace. No, ATC doesn't ahve to 'clear' you into it, but the
>> communication is the clearance as is.
>>
> No clearance is required. Do you know what CLEARANCE means?

I never said that they will *CLEAR* you into Class C airspace;
but that the 2-way communication *IS* the clearance. Class B is another
story.

>> If ATC tells you to remain outside a certain class airspace,
>> you must read that back
>
> I don't have to read back anything.

>> and remain outside that airspace until he
>> clears you into it
>
> You will not EVER get a VFR clearance into class C or D airspace.

I never said you would get a 'clearance' into Class C or D. See
above. But if you're checking in:

Norcal Approach Cessna 343CM with you, out of Placerville,
3500, flight following to Marysville.

And you hear:

Cessna 343CM, Norcal Approach, squawk 4206.

There's your clearance through/into Class C. Not that ATC will
*CLEAR* you, but if they respond to your call, and that Approach
controller is operating Class C airspace, their call back to you *IS*
your clearance into or through that Class C airspace. Yes, They will
have you at Radar contact after you squawk the xpdr setting, but that
doesn't require any readback. But you asked about clearance, so there
you have it.

> It says nothing about clearances. You're making things up again.

Alternately, for Class B, if you're checking in:

Las Vegas Approach, KingAir 385GT with you, 20 south of BLD,
8500, full stop at Las Vegas McCarran.

And you hear:

KingAir 356GT, Las Vegas Approach, squawk 5133.

You squawk 5133, and later you hear:

King Air 6GT, radar contact 18nm south of BLD, cleared into
Class Bravo Airspace, maintain VFR at or below 8500, Las Vegas
altimeter xx.xx

You then are cleared into Class B.

Read the documents yourself, if you don't believe me. Better
yet, call the ATC when they chastise you for not reading back anything that
tells you to remain outside of a given airspace for a reason.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfAs1yBkZmuMZ8L8RApy7AJ4gGHCpB7zKFcngAKRCtk/cyeG2IgCgyLiI
IUuAONcrsvNln1RlUwDoaCw=
=Im5w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Patterson

May 7th 05, 01:59 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> Where do you fly where ATC doesn't give you the
> setting on initial contact?

I can't recall getting one from TYS anytime I've mentioned having listened to
the ATIS.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 7th 05, 02:02 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> So you're speaking almost exclusively about towers? That I can see. If the
> ATIS is good, no need for the altimeter setting. Other than towers, you
> should almost always be getting a setting on initial contact.

Uh .... Just where do you fly that has an ATIS and *doesn't* have a tower?

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 7th 05, 02:05 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
> "George Patterson" >
>
>>The last clearance I got from New York ran something like "November 3162
>>Kebec, climb to 2500 feet, heading 355, stay west of the river, report at
>>the Hudson tunnel."
>
> Ask for the clearance. You're in violation without it.

The instruction to climb *was* the clearance.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 02:06 AM

"George Patterson" <
>> Where do you fly where ATC doesn't give you the
>> setting on initial contact?
>
> I can't recall getting one from TYS anytime I've mentioned having listened
> to the ATIS.

As I clarified in another post, other than towers.

moo

A Lieberman

May 7th 05, 02:28 AM

On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:05:33 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

> The instruction to climb *was* the clearance.

Hi George,

I have to respectfully disagree.

You must hear the words cleared through Bravo on a VFR flight.

See http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0709.html

Allen

Peter Duniho

May 7th 05, 02:30 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:1tUee.52$N_5.11@trndny09...
> Uh .... Just where do you fly that has an ATIS and *doesn't* have a tower?

I think his point is that one can receive an altimeter setting from ATC at
times other than dealing with an arrival in or flight through airspace
related to a towered airport (and thus at times other than when an ATIS is
available to provide the altimeter setting).

Pete

George Patterson

May 7th 05, 03:01 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I think his point is that one can receive an altimeter setting from ATC at
> times other than dealing with an arrival in or flight through airspace
> related to a towered airport (and thus at times other than when an ATIS is
> available to provide the altimeter setting).

In that case, he can say so instead of claiming that I'm wrong when I say that I
don't do this. The only times I talk to ATC are when I intend to takeoff or land
from a controlled field.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 7th 05, 03:02 AM

A Lieberman wrote:
>
> You must hear the words cleared through Bravo on a VFR flight.

New York ATC disagrees with you.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

A Lieberman

May 7th 05, 03:15 AM

On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:02:40 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

> A Lieberman wrote:
>>
>> You must hear the words cleared through Bravo on a VFR flight.
>
> New York ATC disagrees with you.

New York doesn't disagree with me.

I would suspect they disagree with
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0709.html which is the controlling
factor of VFR flight into Bravo airspace.

Since I am quoting the regulations, I'd suspect that your New York ATC
folks may want to take a look at the above ATC chapter.

Climbing instructions you received is clearly not a clearance into Bravo
airspace. You absolutely must hear the words Cleared into Bravo. It's
required that ATC clears you AND you are required to read back this
clearance.

FYI. This is one of the benefits of IFR flights. All airspace is
transparent, and you are cleared into Bravo once you receive your
clearance.

Lets put it another way. If my ticket is on the line, you can bet I will
be hearing those magic words before entering Bravo on a VFR flight.

But then again, if I am going near Bravo airspace, I will be filing IFR
anyway, so that I don't have to worry about it.

Allen

iflyatiger

May 7th 05, 03:19 AM

Every time I fly through the NY class B ( at least once or more a month) vfr
I hear the words
" cleared into the class bravo" if I dont hear it I ask them to please
confirm "cleared into the class bravo" They will then speak the full cleared
into the class bravo statment.

Jon

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:4lVee.642$14.38@trndny03...
> A Lieberman wrote:
> >
> > You must hear the words cleared through Bravo on a VFR flight.
>
> New York ATC disagrees with you.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Peter Duniho

May 7th 05, 04:35 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dkVee.641$14.196@trndny03...
> [...]
> In that case, he can say so instead of claiming that I'm wrong when
> I say that I don't do this.

I suspect he misunderstood that you were referring to ONLY your own
experience. An understandable mistake given the sub-thread, IMHO. After
all, a single individual's experience has very little bearing on the overall
wisdom of reading back altimeter settings.

Yes, you specifically said "*I* rarely get..." but in context, that can
easily be interpreted as implying a general case, rather than being meant
for only the specific case.

Looking back over the past several posts in this sub-thread, it certainly
appears that there's a fair amount of mixed signals. Maybe someone
should've read back a post or two. :)

Pete

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 05:00 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Read the documents yourself, if you don't believe me. Better
> yet, call the ATC when they chastise you for not reading back anything
> that
> tells you to remain outside of a given airspace for a reason.
>

ATC isn't going to do that.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 05:09 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because if you don't read it back, they have no way to know
> that you have acknowledged their call to you.
>

They know I've acknowledged their call when I respond with "Roger."

>
> Would you want ATC to
> keep repeating the same call to you, adding more radio congestion to a
> frequency they are already busy on?
>

Why would they repeat a call that I've acknowledged?

>
> If they're trying to provide
> separation that your jaunt through their airspace could jeopardize,
> they're bloody well are goign to look for hearing a readback from you
> on it, and make sure that you are still outside their airspace.
>

No they're not. All they want is acknowledgement. Why do you want to
increase frequency congestion with unnecessary readbacks? Do you understand
the difference between acknowledgement and a readback?

>
> For class C, they will always tell you 'radar contact
> <location>, say altitude'. Class B, they'll tell you 'radar contact
> <location>, cleared through/into xxx Class B airspace' along with an
> altimeter setting for the major airport in their area. That is a
> requirement for ATC to give you when entering Class B or C airspace.
> See the 7110.65, sections 5-3-1 through 5-3-6. There's the requirement.
> If they tell you to remain outside a given airspace, you had best
> readback that you are remaining outside that airspace. 7-9-2 gives
> leeway for the readback.
>

The controller is required to inform you that you're in radar contact once
radar contact has been established, but there's no requirement to establish
radar contact prior to entry in Class B or Class C airspace.

aaronw

May 7th 05, 05:56 AM

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:50:22 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>>
>> No. As you said, Class B airspace requires ATC to tell you you are
>> cleared into it. You need to hear "Cleared through the Bravo airspace"
>> or somesuch.
>
>The last clearance I got from New York ran something like "November 3162 Kebec,
>climb to 2500 feet, heading 355, stay west of the river, report at the Hudson
>tunnel."

When I've asked for a Bravo clearance, and they have to check with
another controller, they'll sometimes come back with something like
the above... Just directions that would be take me into the Bravo
without the explicit 'cleared into the bravo'. I'll usually read
those back with 'understand cleared into the bravo' appended to the
end so there is no mistaking things.

aw

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:10 AM

"George Patterson" >
>> "George Patterson" >
>>
>>>The last clearance I got from New York ran something like "November 3162
>>>Kebec, climb to 2500 feet, heading 355, stay west of the river, report at
>>>the Hudson tunnel."
>>
>> Ask for the clearance. You're in violation without it.
>
> The instruction to climb *was* the clearance.

If you were outside Class B, bull****. That area, above 1000' is class B
airspace or a control zone. Nothing but the word "cleared" is a clearance.
It may have happened. But you were in violation because the controller,
whatever he meant, didn't clear you into Class B.

moo

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:23 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message

>> I think his point is that one can receive an altimeter setting from ATC
>> at times other than dealing with an arrival in or flight through airspace
>> related to a towered airport (and thus at times other than when an ATIS
>> is available to provide the altimeter setting).
>
> In that case, he can say so instead of claiming that I'm wrong when I say
> that I don't do this. The only times I talk to ATC are when I intend to
> takeoff or land from a controlled field.

As I tried to make clear, a tower may not give you an altimeter setting
because you're supposed to listen to the ATIS. Granted. You used NYC
airspace as an example. How do you get into Class B without first talking
to Center, Departure or Approach? (All of them will set you up on contact.)
New York Centre won't hand you off to a tower 30 miles away and 20 miles
outside Class B. If you try to get a clearance from, say, La Guardia Tower
when you're 30 miles back, they won't give it to you. They will become
unhappy and tell you to contact approach. Approach isn't interested in
which ATIS you've been listening to. And, in NYC airspace, they're deeply
uninterested in you at all. They will give you an altimeter setting. Do
you really fly this airspace? Tell us the procedure you use for VFR into
NYC.

moo

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:26 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:4lVee.642$14.38@trndny03...
>A Lieberman wrote:
>>
>> You must hear the words cleared through Bravo on a VFR flight.
>
> New York ATC disagrees with you.

Ahh, good. Got a cite for this? Did nobody tell you that you're not
cleared unless you hear the good word? (Yes, I know they sometimes forget.
And it's *your* problem, pas question.)

moo

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:34 AM

"George Patterson" >
> Happy Dog wrote:
> >
>> So you're speaking almost exclusively about towers? That I can see. If
>> the ATIS is good, no need for the altimeter setting. Other than towers,
>> you should almost always be getting a setting on initial contact.
>
> Uh .... Just where do you fly that has an ATIS and *doesn't* have a tower?

Above, I said "other than towers". I've corrected the ambiguity of my
initial statement. Again:

"Other than towers, you should almost always be getting a setting on
initial contact."

Do you only talk to towers? Possible. But tricky in some places. Anyway,
are you saying you almost always stay below Class Bravo? Another post
indicated you don't. So what are you talking about?

moo

[email protected]

May 7th 05, 01:40 PM

By regulation, Air Force pilots read back all altimeter settings. I
think its a good practice and continue to do so although not required
by civil regs. The only time I don't is when ATC blanket broadcasts a
new setting to all airplanes on freq.

Matt Whiting

May 7th 05, 03:54 PM

wrote:
> By regulation, Air Force pilots read back all altimeter settings. I
> think its a good practice and continue to do so although not required
> by civil regs. The only time I don't is when ATC blanket broadcasts a
> new setting to all airplanes on freq.
>

I agree and do that also ... even though I never benefited from Air
Force training. :-)

Matt

Ron Natalie

May 7th 05, 03:55 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>>If ATC tells you to remain outside you have to remain outside, whay
>>requires you to read it back?
>
>
> Because if you don't read it back, they have no way to know
> that you have acknowledged their call to you.

Believe me, if ATC gives me an instruction and unless I respond to
the contrary they assume that I've heard and will comply. The sole
exception to this is runway hold-short/crossing restrictions.

>>
>>Where's the requirement for radar contact? Where's the requirement for a
>>readback?
>
>
> For class C, they will always tell you 'radar contact
> <location>, say altitude'

No they won't. Not in any stretch. They'll only tell you radar
contact if you are indeed in radar contact. This usually happens
after a transponder code is issued etc.... None of this has anything
to do with your operating in class C airspace.

> Class B, they'll tell you 'radar contact
> <location>, cleared through/into xxx Class B airspace' along with an
> altimeter setting for the major airport in their area.

Again, RADAR CONTACT is a different concept from either the clearance
or the altimeter setting. The altimeter setting will be that of what
they are using (which may or may not be associated with an airport).

> That is a
> requirement for ATC to give you when entering Class B or C airspace.
> See the 7110.65, sections 5-3-1 through 5-3-6. There's the requirement.
> If they tell you to remain outside a given airspace, you had best
> readback that you are remaining outside that airspace. 7-9-2 gives
> leeway for the readback.

No, those sections don't have anything to do with entering airspace.
This is again a fundamental issue you seem to fail to want to
understand. Radar service is a service. The airspace indicates
where you might expect to find it, but the authorization to operate
in any given airspace is NOT dependent on RADAR SERVICES being offered.
I've operated out of the primary airport of a CLASS B airspace with
NO RADAR SERVICE POSSIBLE (my transponder was out and their primary
radar was out at the same time).

>

Ron Natalie

May 7th 05, 03:58 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No clearance is required.
>>>
>>>
>>> For Class C airspace, 2-way communication is the clearance into
>>>that airspace. No, ATC doesn't ahve to 'clear' you into it, but the
>>>communication is the clearance as is.
>>>
>>
>>No clearance is required. Do you know what CLEARANCE means?
>
>
> I never said that they will *CLEAR* you into Class C airspace;
> but that the 2-way communication *IS* the clearance. Class B is another
> story.

Again I state, you don't seem to understand what a clearance is.
No clearance is required and none is given in a class C. 2 Way
communication is NEVER a clearance.

> There's your clearance through/into Class C. Not that ATC will
> *CLEAR* you, but if they respond to your call, and that Approach
> controller is operating Class C airspace, their call back to you *IS*
> your clearance into or through that Class C airspace. Yes, They will
> have you at Radar contact after you squawk the xpdr setting, but that
> doesn't require any readback. But you asked about clearance, so there
> you have it.

No readbacks here are required at all and no clearance is involved.
of BLD, cleared into
> Class Bravo Airspace, maintain VFR at or below 8500, Las Vegas
> altimeter xx.xx
>
> You then are cleared into Class B.
>
> Read the documents yourself, if you don't believe me. Better
> yet, call the ATC when they chastise you for not reading back anything that
> tells you to remain outside of a given airspace for a reason.
>
I have read the documents, I know what they say. RADAR CONTACT and all
that ather crap, readbacks, and 90% of your other assertions have
nothing to do with authorization to operate in any airspace. The
only restriction is two way comms for class C and D and a clearance
for B. The rest, while it is frequently coincident with operation in
these airspaces are NOT PART OF ANY ATC OR PILOT REQUIREMENT.

Ron Natalie

May 7th 05, 04:01 PM

Happy Dog wrote:

> If you were outside Class B, bull****. That area, above 1000' is class B
> airspace or a control zone. Nothing but the word "cleared" is a clearance.
> It may have happened. But you were in violation because the controller,
> whatever he meant, didn't clear you into Class B.

Control Zones haven't existed in a decade.

Peter R.

May 7th 05, 04:07 PM

Happy Dog > wrote:

> Funny that. I flew from Toronto to NYC around that time. Maybe the same
> day. I was astounded at the rate of change in settings. Never seen that
> happen before.

Maybe you were one of the airline pilots I heard commenting on it. :)

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R.

May 7th 05, 07:29 PM

Icebound > wrote:

> "Roger" is definitely more professional than "Thanks". Now THAT is truly a
> waste of bandwidth. Any "aviation-communication" text that I have ever
> read, discourages the use of "thanks" or "thank you" etc... as being totally
> redundant and useless...

There's the text and then there is the reality, a difference that someone
who only reads about aviation most likely misses. A small thank you is not
redundant and useless, especially if the controller really did do something
that made your flying just a bit easier. After all, we are still civilized
human beings.

For example, when I am approaching my class C airport from the opposite end
of the active runway, I will often request a straight-in to the opposite
runway (winds depending). A move like this will shave off perhaps ten
minutes of vectors and after a long flight, this might mean the difference
between a properly emptied bladder and an improperly emptied bladder. :)

Often times ATC will go out of their way to accommodate this request,
including slowing up an aircraft being vectored for an approach to the
active runway. Keep in mind that ATC has absolutely no obligation to do
this and a "thank you" from me hopefully demonstrates to him/her that
his/her efforts were appreciated.

Conversely, I have been thanked many times by ATC after doing something
that made their work a little easier, such as 360s, S-turns, not
complaining when being vectored through the localizer to join on the other
side, or going around. I certainly like to hear those words.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:38 PM

"Ron Natalie" >
>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>>>If ATC tells you to remain outside you have to remain outside, whay
>>>requires you to read it back?
>>
>> Because if you don't read it back, they have no way to know
>> that you have acknowledged their call to you.
>
> Believe me, if ATC gives me an instruction and unless I respond to
> the contrary they assume that I've heard and will comply. The sole
> exception to this is runway hold-short/crossing restrictions.

I assume you mean that you only acknowledge the transmission. Or are you
saying that an instruction to change heading, climb, descend etc. won't
provoke a followup response of you don't respond? Traffic alerts? I hear
ATC say the call sign and their facility name all the time to pilots who
don't respond to transmissions quire frequently.
>
>>>
>>>Where's the requirement for radar contact? Where's the requirement for a
>>>readback?

>> Class B, they'll tell you 'radar contact
>> <location>, cleared through/into xxx Class B airspace' along with an
>> altimeter setting for the major airport in their area.
>
> Again, RADAR CONTACT is a different concept from either the clearance
> or the altimeter setting. The altimeter setting will be that of what
> they are using (which may or may not be associated with an airport).

Of course. What's the "major airport" in NYC airspace?
>
>> That is a
>> requirement for ATC to give you when entering Class B or C airspace.
>> See the 7110.65, sections 5-3-1 through 5-3-6. There's the requirement.
>> If they tell you to remain outside a given airspace, you had best
>> readback that you are remaining outside that airspace. 7-9-2 gives
>> leeway for the readback.
>
> No, those sections don't have anything to do with entering airspace.
> This is again a fundamental issue you seem to fail to want to understand.
> Radar service is a service. The airspace indicates
> where you might expect to find it, but the authorization to operate
> in any given airspace is NOT dependent on RADAR SERVICES being offered.
> I've operated out of the primary airport of a CLASS B airspace with
> NO RADAR SERVICE POSSIBLE (my transponder was out and their primary radar
> was out at the same time).

Correct, unless otherwise indicated. Some control zones require Mode C.

moo

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 08:40 PM

"Ron Natalie" >

>> If you were outside Class B, bull****. That area, above 1000' is class B
>> airspace or a control zone. Nothing but the word "cleared" is a
>> clearance. It may have happened. But you were in violation because the
>> controller, whatever he meant, didn't clear you into Class B.
>
> Control Zones haven't existed in a decade.

Oops! I'm from Canada. We still have them.

moo

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 09:48 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Correct, unless otherwise indicated. Some control zones require Mode C.
>

We don't have control zones in the US, haven't had them for almost twelve
years now. When we did have them none of them required Mode C.

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 10:05 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> Correct, unless otherwise indicated. Some control zones require Mode C.
>>
> We don't have control zones in the US, haven't had them for almost twelve
> years now. When we did have them none of them required Mode C.

As I said in a previous post, I'm from Canada. We have them and some
require Mode C.

moo

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 10:11 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vaNee.26$Ws6.6@trndny07...
>
> I rarely get an altimeter setting from a controller anyway. I make a point
> of picking up the setting from AWOS stations in flight and from ATIS
> before arrival or departure. As long as you tell the controller you have
> the ATIS, about the only time they'll give you the setting is as a gentle
> notice that you don't seem to be flying at the altitude at which you're
> supposed to be.
>

Yup, if you choose not to talk to controllers you won't be getting altimeter
settings from them. But if you fly IFR or use flight following you'll get
an altimeter setting when you check in with a new controller.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 10:21 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Ask for the clearance. You're in violation without it. ATC should know
> better.
>

Yeah, you're in violation of the letter of the law and ATC should know
better. But the controller you're talking to is pretty much the only person
that's in a position to file a violation, and controllers tend to dislike
paperwork. Pressing the issue doesn't seem worth the frequency clutter to
me.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 10:23 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> As I said in a previous post, I'm from Canada.

You'd probably do well to make that distinction when you post.

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 11:33 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" >
>> Ask for the clearance. You're in violation without it. ATC should know
>> better.
>
> Yeah, you're in violation of the letter of the law and ATC should know
> better. But the controller you're talking to is pretty much the only
> person that's in a position to file a violation, and controllers tend to
> dislike paperwork. Pressing the issue doesn't seem worth the frequency
> clutter to me.

I'm not normally paranoid, but I always ask for a stated clearance even when
I'm sure the controller just forgot to say the words. I've asked for SVFR
before and the controller missed it even though it was obvious I wanted it.
The controller asked me to re-state the request. It was a very similar
situation to what we're talking about. Something like:

CXXX tower this is GXXX with information X

GXXX, CXXX tower, go ahead

GXXX is 7 nm NE, inbound landing, requesting SVFR please.

GXXX, visibility is 3 miles, SVFR is required

I understand and I've requested it.

please repeat the request.

CXXX tower, GXXX requests SVFR.

SVFR granted. Call left base for runway XX.

I think clearance procedures should be held to the highest standard.

moo

Happy Dog

May 7th 05, 11:36 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in

>> As I said in a previous post, I'm from Canada.
>
> You'd probably do well to make that distinction when you post.

Why? Is this an exclusively US NG? Is it assumed that people are posting
from the USA unless they make it known otherwise?

moo

Steven P. McNicoll

May 7th 05, 11:58 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why?
>

For clarity.

>
> Is this an exclusively US NG?
>

Nope.

>
> Is it assumed that people are posting from the USA unless they make it
> known otherwise?
>

Pretty much, yup. Especially when the quoted material in a message includes
US publications as yours did.

George Patterson

May 8th 05, 03:13 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Looking back over the past several posts in this sub-thread, it certainly
> appears that there's a fair amount of mixed signals. Maybe someone
> should've read back a post or two. :)

Agree. I overreacted.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 8th 05, 03:23 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> Tell us the procedure you use for VFR into NYC.

I stay under it for the most part. The one time I had to go through was when
they had that 1 mile TFR around the WTC site. I departed 3N6 to the north and
called Kennedy approach as soon as I passed 1,000'. They told me to stay clear
of the B and call Newark. I reached Newark approach over the Raritan bay and
they gave me a vector and altitude with a further report point. No altimeter
setting as I remember.

Going into or over other controlled fields like Trenton, Knoxville, Roanoke,
Raleigh, and Norfolk, I've never been given an altimeter setting when I told
them I had the ATIS information. I've been into each of the first four fields
quite a few times.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 8th 05, 03:28 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> Do you only talk to towers? Possible. But tricky in some places. Anyway,
> are you saying you almost always stay below Class Bravo?

Yes, the only time I talk with controllers is when I am entering the airspace of
a controlled field. When possible, I stay under or over class B airspace. I have
gone through Newark once and Orlando once, but generally I avoid the Bs one way
or another.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Happy Dog

May 8th 05, 03:31 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in
>> Do you only talk to towers? Possible. But tricky in some places.
>> Anyway, are you saying you almost always stay below Class Bravo?
>
> Yes, the only time I talk with controllers is when I am entering the
> airspace of a controlled field. When possible, I stay under or over class
> B airspace. I have gone through Newark once and Orlando once, but
> generally I avoid the Bs one way or another.

OK. Then, FYI, expect an altimeter setting whenever you contact approach,
departure, terminal or center. I guess I'm just used to almost always
talking to some facility when I'm travelling.

moo

George Patterson

May 8th 05, 03:32 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> But if you fly IFR or use flight following you'll get
> an altimeter setting when you check in with a new controller.

Understood. I don't have an instrument rating and didn't get far enough on that
training to have run into this. I have a personal dislike of flight following,
so I don't take advantage of this service.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 8th 05, 03:36 AM

aaronw wrote:
>
> When I've asked for a Bravo clearance, and they have to check with
> another controller, they'll sometimes come back with something like
> the above... Just directions that would be take me into the Bravo
> without the explicit 'cleared into the bravo'. I'll usually read
> those back with 'understand cleared into the bravo' appended to the
> end so there is no mistaking things.

Good idea. I'll remember that if I get in that situation again.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 06:46 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Lieberman > wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:02:40 GMT, George Patterson wrote:
>
> Since I am quoting the regulations, I'd suspect that your New York ATC
> folks may want to take a look at the above ATC chapter.
>
> Climbing instructions you received is clearly not a clearance into Bravo
> airspace. You absolutely must hear the words Cleared into Bravo. It's
> required that ATC clears you AND you are required to read back this
> clearance.

Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
into it. Even the FARs state it:

Sec. 91.131 - Operations in Class B airspace.

(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
airspace area except in compliance with ?91.129 and the following
rules:

(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that
area.

Some people just fail to understand that.

Even more than that, if they tell you to remain outside of
Bravo airspace, or any airspace, and give you a reason, pilots are
requested to read that back. ATC is going to expect a readback. If not,
they will repeat it. If no readback is given, they aren't going to
*ASSUME* anything. They aren't going to think 'oh, he heard it, let me
worry about separating my aircraft flying into JFK, LAS', or any major
field, they are going to get that readback from you, or send up the
F18s to escort you down/shoot you down, depending on how grave the
situation is.

Class C, on the other hand, requires 2-way comunication. When
that is established, unless told otherwise, you have clearance through
Class C airspace. If ATC tells you to not enter it, for whatever
reason, you don't enter it. In short, once again, if the 2-way
communication is established between pilot and ATC, the clearance
into/through Class C airspace is implied, and pilots may fly through.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfaenyBkZmuMZ8L8RAo8mAJ0YD2GknK74PvdX7Cm/K8rJKChdewCfabzG
jEXlfKI0s5Qsa7EN0TXr5I0=
=g9hJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Happy Dog

May 8th 05, 08:21 AM

"George Patterson" >

> Understood. I don't have an instrument rating and didn't get far enough on
> that training to have run into this. I have a personal dislike of flight
> following, so I don't take advantage of this service.

Lordy, why? VFR in low ceilings means that almost everyone is flying just
below the clouds. Why wouldn't you want to have flight following in those
conditions? It's free. What's the issue?

moo

Cub Driver

May 8th 05, 11:42 AM

I often listen to the tower at Pease tradeport (and National Guard
base) across the bay. Professional pilots regularly thank the tower,
and routinely say "G'day" upon departing the Delta airspace.

If I am flying through the airspace low and slow for a tour of Great
Bay, I call upon leaving the Class D to give my position and altitude
and to say "Thank you Pease!"

Perhaps things are more formal in Charlie airspace; I don't know.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

May 8th 05, 11:45 AM

On Sat, 07 May 2005 20:48:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> Correct, unless otherwise indicated. Some control zones require Mode C.
>>
>
>We don't have control zones in the US, haven't had them for almost twelve
>years now. When we did have them none of them required Mode C.

Well, we have Mode C zones! There's a big ring around Boston that I
generally avoid, though I am legal to fly through it without a
transponder.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Larry Dighera

May 8th 05, 02:35 PM

On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:23:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> As I said in a previous post, I'm from Canada.
>
>You'd probably do well to make that distinction when you post.
>

Mr. Dog does make his location reasonably known. If you look at the
'From' header of his articles:

From: "Happy Dog" >

You'll note the domain of his e-mail address is: sympatico.ca

You're probably aware that '.ca' domain names indicate their location
to be Canada.

Larry Dighera

May 8th 05, 03:03 PM

On Sun, 08 May 2005 02:32:08 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <ISefe.3205$EC6.1616@trndny06>:

>I have a personal dislike of flight following, so I don't take
>advantage of this service.

The thought of ATC's intrusion into the reverie of our aerial
operations is displeasing. But anyone who fails to avail themselves
of Radar Traffic Advisory Service in the Los Angeles basin just
doesn't appreciate the magnitude of aerial congestion in the vicinity.

I have a personal dislike for scanning for traffic, but it is
preferable to a MAC.

Ron Natalie

May 8th 05, 03:10 PM

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 20:48:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Correct, unless otherwise indicated. Some control zones require Mode C.
>>>
>>
>>We don't have control zones in the US, haven't had them for almost twelve
>>years now. When we did have them none of them required Mode C.
>
>
> Well, we have Mode C zones! There's a big ring around Boston that I
> generally avoid, though I am legal to fly through it without a
> transponder.
>
The Mode C veil existed at the same time control zones existed. When
the airspace was "alphabetized" the term control zone was deleted in
lieu of the term "surface area of controlled airspace designated for
an airport" (which is pretty close to the old definition of the control
zone with a lot of the flaky differences removed).

John T

May 8th 05, 04:07 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> Altimeter settings don't tend to vary a great deal from one
> controller to the next. If you're issued one that differs by more
> than a few points from the previous then it's a good idea to check on
> it.

This is true. However, one of the exceptions I remember was back when the
remains of hurricane/tropical storm Ivan were rumbling around my flight
path. The low pressure system definitely caused a very significant change
in altimeter settings from one sector to the next - so much so that I
thought I misunderstood her call the first time. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Happy Dog

May 8th 05, 04:27 PM

"Larry Dighera" >
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 02:32:08 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <ISefe.3205$EC6.1616@trndny06>:
>
>>I have a personal dislike of flight following, so I don't take
>>advantage of this service.
>
> The thought of ATC's intrusion into the reverie of our aerial
> operations is displeasing. But anyone who fails to avail themselves
> of Radar Traffic Advisory Service in the Los Angeles basin just
> doesn't appreciate the magnitude of aerial congestion in the vicinity.

The first time you see an in-cockpit traffic display, it's pretty sobering.
It's not as lonely out there as it appears!

moo

A Lieberman

May 8th 05, 05:42 PM

On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:46:16 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> Class C, on the other hand, requires 2-way comunication. When
> that is established, unless told otherwise, you have clearance through
> Class C airspace. If ATC tells you to not enter it, for whatever
> reason, you don't enter it. In short, once again, if the 2-way
> communication is established between pilot and ATC, the clearance
> into/through Class C airspace is implied, and pilots may fly through.

Brad,

There is no such thing as "implied clearance" through class C as you state
above. Please see http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html. Note
7-8-4.

Clearances MUST be read back. When you contact ATC in Charlie airspace,
you do not have to read back your "permission to enter" Charlie airspace.

Typical transmission would be:

ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's).

JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.

ME 34L squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.

Note, at this point, I have been given PERMISSION to enter Charlie
airspace.

I did not have to read back the "permission" where as Class Bravo, I must
not only hear the magic words cleared into Bravo, I MUST read back that
clearance.

You will NEVER hear the words, cleared into Charlie.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Allen

Larry Dighera

May 8th 05, 06:40 PM

On Sun, 8 May 2005 11:27:10 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>It's not as lonely out there as it appears!

Right. The Big Sky Theory belongs right up there with the Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, and other childish notions. Just because you
can't see 'em, doesn't mean they're not there.

Newps

May 8th 05, 07:38 PM

A Lieberman wrote:

>
> Clearances MUST be read back.

No, they do not have to be.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 07:54 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I often listen to the tower at Pease tradeport (and National Guard
> base) across the bay. Professional pilots regularly thank the tower,
> and routinely say "G'day" upon departing the Delta airspace.
>
> If I am flying through the airspace low and slow for a tour of Great
> Bay, I call upon leaving the Class D to give my position and altitude
> and to say "Thank you Pease!"
>
> Perhaps things are more formal in Charlie airspace; I don't know.
>

They're not.

Ron Natalie

May 8th 05, 08:48 PM

A Lieberman wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:46:16 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote

> Clearances MUST be read back.

Nonsense. The only requirement for a readback is runway hold-short
and crossing instructions (technically even then it's not on the pilot
to give the readback, but ATC in soliciting one).

> When you contact ATC in Charlie airspace,
> you do not have to read back your "permission to enter" Charlie airspace.

You
>
> Typical transmission would be:
>
> ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's).
>
> JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> ME 34L squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> Note, at this point, I have been given PERMISSION to enter Charlie
> airspace.
>
Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
with your identifier)..

> I did not have to read back the "permission" where as Class Bravo, I must
> not only hear the magic words cleared into Bravo, I MUST read back that
> clearance.

You're not required to readback in either case.

>
> You will NEVER hear the words, cleared into Charlie.
>
True.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 09:13 PM

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> You absolutely must hear the words Cleared into Bravo.
>

You have to have a clearance to enter Class B airspace, but it doesn't have
to take the form "Cleared into Bravo". An IFR clearance will suffice as
well as a clearance for a practice approach while VFR.

>
> It's required that ATC clears you AND you are required to read back this
> clearance.
>

Please cite the FAR that requires that clearance to be read back.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 09:26 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
> along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
> Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
> into it. Even the FARs state it:
>
> Sec. 91.131 - Operations in Class B airspace.
>
> (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
> airspace area except in compliance with ?91.129 and the following
> rules:
>
> (1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
> having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that
> area.
>
> Some people just fail to understand that.
>

The regulation says the operator must receive an ATC clearance, it does not
state he *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace' to be allowed to
enter Bravo airspace.

>
> Even more than that, if they tell you to remain outside of
> Bravo airspace, or any airspace, and give you a reason, pilots are
> requested to read that back.
>

Previously you said it MUST be read back, now you say it's a REQUEST. What
caused you to change your mind? Where does ATC make this request known to
pilots?

>
> ATC is going to expect a readback.
>

What makes you think that?

>
> If not, they will repeat it.
>

What makes you think that?

>
> If no readback is given, they aren't going to *ASSUME* anything.
>

If there's no response they're going to assume the message was not received
and repeat it. If the message is acknowledged but not read back they're
going to conclude the message was received and understood by the pilot and
that particular little matter is then closed. If the message is read back
they're going to conclude the message was received and understood by the
pilot and that particular little matter is then closed.

>
> They aren't going to think 'oh, he heard it, let me
> worry about separating my aircraft flying into JFK, LAS', or any major
> field, they are going to get that readback from you, or send up the
> F18s to escort you down/shoot you down, depending on how grave the
> situation is.
>

What makes you think you know what ATC thinks?

>
> Class C, on the other hand, requires 2-way comunication. When
> that is established, unless told otherwise, you have clearance through
> Class C airspace. If ATC tells you to not enter it, for whatever
> reason, you don't enter it. In short, once again, if the 2-way
> communication is established between pilot and ATC, the clearance
> into/through Class C airspace is implied, and pilots may fly through.
>

So it no longer requires radar contact prior to entry?

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 09:31 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mr. Dog does make his location reasonably known. If you look at the
> 'From' header of his articles:
>
> From: "Happy Dog" >
>
> You'll note the domain of his e-mail address is: sympatico.ca
>
> You're probably aware that '.ca' domain names indicate their location
> to be Canada.
>

His location does not necessarily mean he's speaking about Canadian
procedures. Many Canadian pilots operate in the US regularly. He entered a
discussion where US procedures were being discussed and spoke of Canadian
procedures without identifying his comments as such. Bad form.

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 09:33 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Lieberman > wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:46:16 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>> Class C, on the other hand, requires 2-way comunication. When
>> that is established, unless told otherwise, you have clearance through
>> Class C airspace. If ATC tells you to not enter it, for whatever
>> reason, you don't enter it. In short, once again, if the 2-way
>> communication is established between pilot and ATC, the clearance
>> into/through Class C airspace is implied, and pilots may fly through.
>
> Brad,
>
> There is no such thing as "implied clearance" through class C as you state
> above. Please see http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html. Note
> 7-8-4.
>
> Clearances MUST be read back. When you contact ATC in Charlie airspace,
> you do not have to read back your "permission to enter" Charlie airspace.
>
> Typical transmission would be:
>
> ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's).
>
> JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> ME 34L squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> Note, at this point, I have been given PERMISSION to enter Charlie
> airspace.

Exactly what I've been saying. I never said you had to readback
a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.

> I did not have to read back the "permission" where as Class Bravo, I must
> not only hear the magic words cleared into Bravo, I MUST read back that
> clearance.
>
> You will NEVER hear the words, cleared into Charlie.
>
> Hope this clears it up for you.

I agree, but I never said you'd hear 'cleared into class C'.
Just that if they tell you to remain outside of it, that should be read
back, and sometime along the way, ATC should be able to either a) tell
you when you will be able to transition it, or b) work you around their
airspace, either via different suggested routing (note, not giving vectors),
different altitudes (possibly dropping you into class D, should that
area exist near/around there), or handing off to another controller who
can get you back on your course.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfne0yBkZmuMZ8L8RAroKAKCVMpk9XGdMTMtyopuN1u yEQAFWbgCfXIzU
PuwKA1FQsC7v7TL0o74/ZSY=
=39PT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 09:46 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
> with your identifier)..

Has 2-way communication been established? If ATC does not
respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.

Same happens with IFR traffic. If a Minneapolis Center tries to
hand off a flight to Denver Center, and Denver Center doesn't accept
the handoff, does the flight have permission to enter Denver's
Airspace? Absolutely not. The same applies here. If ATC does not
respond, you don't enter their space.

>> I did not have to read back the "permission" where as Class Bravo, I must
>> not only hear the magic words cleared into Bravo, I MUST read back that
>> clearance.
>
> You're not required to readback in either case.

********. You must. But go on and believe what you believe.
I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
both ATC and pilots. If you want to go on flying like an idiot, I hope
I'm not controlling you (and as I'm more than likely getting the call
to start at NCT in Sacramento (well what do ya know, Class C!)), you'll
resent me, because if I ask you to remain outside of Class C for a
reason, I'm expecting that readback.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfnqyyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnYVAKC4DAMFlS49FfnaUOiRX5 4jDuMV5wCggkAm
aXxVWJg7LRxi9NRB1w57g7M=
=IX9U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 09:51 PM

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clearances MUST be read back. When you contact ATC in Charlie airspace,
> you do not have to read back your "permission to enter" Charlie airspace.
>

Please cite the FAR that requires clearances be read back.

>
> Typical transmission would be:
>
> ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's).
>
> JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> ME 34L squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89.
>
> Note, at this point, I have been given PERMISSION to enter Charlie
> airspace.
>

No, not at that point, you had permission to enter at the point ATC said,
"Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."

>
> I did not have to read back the "permission" where as Class Bravo, I must
> not only hear the magic words cleared into Bravo, I MUST read back that
> clearance.
>

Please cite the FAR that requires you to read back that clearance.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 10:01 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Has 2-way communication been established?
>

Yes.

>
> If ATC does not
> respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.
>

ATC had responded.

>
> ********. You must.
>

You keep saying that but you offer no supporting documentation. Please
provide some.

>
> But go on and believe what you believe.
> I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
> both ATC and pilots.
>

There is nothing in any of the documentation you provided that supports your
position.

>
> If you want to go on flying like an idiot, I hope
> I'm not controlling you (and as I'm more than likely getting the call
> to start at NCT in Sacramento (well what do ya know, Class C!)), you'll
> resent me, because if I ask you to remain outside of Class C for a
> reason, I'm expecting that readback.
>

What are you going to do if you don't get that readback?

If you don't change your attitude you'll not be able to learn the procedures
and won't check out, so it'll never be an issue.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 10:05 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Exactly what I've been saying.
>

Yeah, you're both wrong.

>
> I never said you had to readback
> a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
> whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.
>

It SHOULD be read back? Are you sure? Previously you claimed it MUST be
read back. Which is it?

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 10:05 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
>> along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
>> Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
>> into it. Even the FARs state it:
>>
>> Sec. 91.131 - Operations in Class B airspace.
>>
>> (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
>> airspace area except in compliance with ?91.129 and the following
>> rules:
>>
>> (1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
>> having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that
>> area.
>>
>> Some people just fail to understand that.
>>
>
> The regulation says the operator must receive an ATC clearance, it does not
> state he *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace' to be allowed to
> enter Bravo airspace.

I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
will hear that. Going from the opposite direction, you will hear
something from Clearance Delivery, stating:

Mooney 64B, cleared out of Las Vegas Class Bravo Airspace. On
departure, turn left heading 160, climb/maintain 5000, departure
frequency 118.4, squawk 0633.

There's your clearance out of Bravo. If you're VFR, you'll hear
'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace'. That's ATC regulations there, and
ATC are to adhere to that.

>>
>> Even more than that, if they tell you to remain outside of
>> Bravo airspace, or any airspace, and give you a reason, pilots are
>> requested to read that back.
>>
>
> Previously you said it MUST be read back, now you say it's a REQUEST. What
> caused you to change your mind? Where does ATC make this request known to
> pilots?

I'll say request, because even a 'roger' is acknowledgment. But
if ATC must get a readback that the pilot acknowledges and knows he
must tay outside of that airspace. Apparently, for as much a love you
have for aviation, your lack of knowledge of the regulation
documentation really disturbs me, as an ATC. Call your local TRACON or
center facility, and ask them about Class Bravo airspace and readbacks
regarding entering and leaving it.

>>
>> ATC is going to expect a readback.
>>
>
> What makes you think that?

Because they will.

>>
>> If not, they will repeat it.
>>
>
> What makes you think that?

Because you hadn't read anything back.

>> If no readback is given, they aren't going to *ASSUME* anything.
>>
>
> If there's no response they're going to assume the message was not received
> and repeat it. If the message is acknowledged but not read back they're
> going to conclude the message was received and understood by the pilot and
> that particular little matter is then closed. If the message is read back
> they're going to conclude the message was received and understood by the
> pilot and that particular little matter is then closed.

No response = no confirmation that their call was received.
That could mean lost communications, which ATC has another set of
regulations to follow, to find out your situation.

>> They aren't going to think 'oh, he heard it, let me
>> worry about separating my aircraft flying into JFK, LAS', or any major
>> field, they are going to get that readback from you, or send up the
>> F18s to escort you down/shoot you down, depending on how grave the
>> situation is.
>>
>
> What makes you think you know what ATC thinks?

I'm training for ATC. We're supposed to keep separation of
aircraft, as well as the pilots of those aircrafts safe. That requires
communication. Communication is two-sided. If ATC is trying to
communicate, and doesn't hear the other side acknowledging, ATC isn't
going to assume everything is hunky-dory, and go about his other
business, especially in Class Bravo. He's going to want acknowledgment
that his call was heard and understood.

>>
>> Class C, on the other hand, requires 2-way comunication. When
>> that is established, unless told otherwise, you have clearance through
>> Class C airspace. If ATC tells you to not enter it, for whatever
>> reason, you don't enter it. In short, once again, if the 2-way
>> communication is established between pilot and ATC, the clearance
>> into/through Class C airspace is implied, and pilots may fly through.
>>
>
> So it no longer requires radar contact prior to entry?

If requiring flight following, yes. Either the controller
handing the pilot off to an Approach/Departure controller operating
class C will have already made radar contact, or if the pilot contacts
the Approach/Departure controller and requests flight following, they
will be given a transponder code and radar identified. Otherwise there
is no flight following.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfn8eyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlklAJ0bzd4LdL9mPl/PiAYDwNbrKhRPkACcCxCp
PtAWQHDATYjdAaVnt/7no2Q=
=uJha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 10:24 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Has 2-way communication been established?
>>
>
> Yes.

How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)

>>
>> If ATC does not
>> respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.
>>
>
> ATC had responded.

Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
would you do?

>>
>> ********. You must.
>>
>
> You keep saying that but you offer no supporting documentation. Please
> provide some.

Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
clearance from delivery.

>>
>> But go on and believe what you believe.
>> I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
>> both ATC and pilots.
>>
>
> There is nothing in any of the documentation you provided that supports your
> position.

Once again, the 7110.65P supports what ATC will say, and expect
to be heard back. Read it. Then read it again.

>>
>> If you want to go on flying like an idiot, I hope
>> I'm not controlling you (and as I'm more than likely getting the call
>> to start at NCT in Sacramento (well what do ya know, Class C!)), you'll
>> resent me, because if I ask you to remain outside of Class C for a
>> reason, I'm expecting that readback.
>>
>
> What are you going to do if you don't get that readback?
>
> If you don't change your attitude you'll not be able to learn the procedures
> and won't check out, so it'll never be an issue.

If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
concept of communications and readbacks.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfoN3yBkZmuMZ8L8RAnd/AKDzVmYIUBA0YuCJaurbZKlhAe2ZJQCcCScs
ESRDILzv+e3nW7hiV50XOhM=
=rtQt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 10:27 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Exactly what I've been saying.
>>
>
> Yeah, you're both wrong.

You haven't provided anything to say otherwise. Now, your turn.
Put up docs to prove your side, or shut up.

>>
>> I never said you had to readback
>> a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
>> whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.
>>
>
> It SHOULD be read back? Are you sure? Previously you claimed it MUST be
> read back. Which is it?

Damn it, Ron, you're trolling now.

It has to be read back. Like any call/acknowledgment. a simple
'roger' or ignoring it doesn't work. Read it back. Save your ass a
request to call the facility, let alone another checkride because
you've mucked things up, and read it back.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfoQnyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnOtAJ0T8/0yjLlMEJmy5aR9EGx3fAOLVACeJ4Rz
CjWhS9hYQMJukSThUxdK4Fk=
=rzdc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 8th 05, 10:27 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry about my last post, Steve. It's directed towards you, not
Ron.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfoRMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsibAJ9IXbqKZDFYnPR4MdKEIe kWAjPfBACggbpZ
uWWXkFydqHkC1HG1LkpKqPk=
=9rb2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 10:38 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
> will hear that.
>

You're not in a position to tell me anything on this subject and FAAO
7110.65 does NOT use that phrase.

>
> I'll say request, because even a 'roger' is acknowledgment.
>

Are you saying your original statement was wrong?

>
> But if ATC must get a readback that the pilot acknowledges and knows he
> must tay outside of that airspace.
>

There is no requirement for ATC to get that readback.

>
> Apparently, for as much a love you
> have for aviation, your lack of knowledge of the regulation
> documentation really disturbs me, as an ATC.
>

I know everything about these requirements, and you're not an ATC.

>
> Call your local TRACON or
> center facility, and ask them about Class Bravo airspace and readbacks
> regarding entering and leaving it.
>

When my local TRACON gets such questions there frequently directed to me for
the answer.

>
> Because they will.
>

You think they will because they will? That's not an answer. Something
caused you to posess this erroneous belief, what was it? Did it come to you
in a dream?

>
> Because you hadn't read anything back.
>

There's no need to, and there's no reason for ATC to desire one. How could
they require a readback?

>
> No response = no confirmation that their call was received.
> That could mean lost communications, which ATC has another set of
> regulations to follow, to find out your situation.
>

Do you understand that acknowledgement IS a response?

>
> I'm training for ATC.
>

Really. You must be very early in the program. I teach ATC.

>
> We're supposed to keep separation of
> aircraft, as well as the pilots of those aircrafts safe. That requires
> communication. Communication is two-sided. If ATC is trying to
> communicate, and doesn't hear the other side acknowledging, ATC isn't
> going to assume everything is hunky-dory, and go about his other
> business, especially in Class Bravo. He's going to want acknowledgment
> that his call was heard and understood.
>

That's true, but your position has been that mere acknowledgement is not
sufficient, that the pilot MUST provide a readback. I and a few others have
been trying to explain to you that a readback is NOT required.

>
> If requiring flight following, yes. Either the controller
> handing the pilot off to an Approach/Departure controller operating
> class C will have already made radar contact, or if the pilot contacts
> the Approach/Departure controller and requests flight following, they
> will be given a transponder code and radar identified. Otherwise there
> is no flight following.
>

No, is it still your position that there must be radar contact prior to
entry?

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 10:50 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
> communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
> airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
> do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
> pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)
>

Here's the exchange again:

"ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."

"JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."

Jackson approach responded to the pilot's transmission with his callsign,
two-way radio communications have been established.

>
> Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
> would you do?
>

Well, once again, they had.

>
> Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
> clearance from delivery.
>

Please cite the general requirement for clearances to be read back.

>
> Once again, the 7110.65P supports what ATC will say, and expect
> to be heard back. Read it. Then read it again.
>

I have read it, many times. You'll likely never encounter anyone more
familiar with it than I. It does NOT use the phrase you quoted.

>
> If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
> a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
> concept of communications and readbacks.
>

That is extremely unlikely, but if it ever does happen, then they will be a
bit more knowledgeable about ATC after the call.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 8th 05, 10:57 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> You haven't provided anything to say otherwise. Now, your turn.
> Put up docs to prove your side, or shut up.
>

It doesn't work that way. It's my position that there's no requirement to
read back the instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace. I can say
that with confidence because I'm intimately familiar with the procedures.
It isn't possible to provide documemtation that there's no such requirement.
You're asking me to prove a negative, that's not possible. That's why the
burden of proof is on you. It's your position that a readback is required.
If it is, it should be a simple matter for you to provide the documentation
supporting your position and proving me wrong. Please cite that
documentation.

>
> It has to be read back. Like any call/acknowledgment. a simple
> 'roger' or ignoring it doesn't work. Read it back. Save your ass a
> request to call the facility, let alone another checkride because
> you've mucked things up, and read it back.
>

That's simply not the way it is. Are you a pilot?

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 12:34 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message

>> How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
>> communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
>> airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
>> do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
>> pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)
>>
>
> Here's the exchange again:
>
> "ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing
> through
> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."
>
> "JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."
>
> Jackson approach responded to the pilot's transmission with his callsign,
> two-way radio communications have been established.

Correct. Even if ATC responds with "S34L, standby" you can enter. (But, if
you don't hear back fairly soon, try again. You may have been forgotton.
It's happened to me before.
>
>> Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
>> clearance from delivery.
>>
> Please cite the general requirement for clearances to be read back.

Yeah. I'd like to see this. I usually read back clearances JIC unless it's
really busy. But there's no requirement that taxiing, landing and airspace
clearances be read back. I wonder who this guy's instructor was.
>
moo
moo

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 9th 05, 12:36 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
>> communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
>> airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
>> do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
>> pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)
>>
>
> Here's the exchange again:
>
> "ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing through
> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."
>
> "JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."
----------------------------------------------------

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
communication has been established. Your previous *5* posts had said
otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
thread has done gets it into your head.

> Jackson approach responded to the pilot's transmission with his callsign,
> two-way radio communications have been established.

See above.

>>
>> Once again, they hadn't. And if they don't respond, again, what
>> would you do?
>>
>
> Well, once again, they had.

Ahh well.. err... yeah. Now you backtrack.

>>
>> Clearances must be read back. Just like receiving your
>> clearance from delivery.
>>
>
> Please cite the general requirement for clearances to be read back.

Fine. Once again. AIM, section 5-5-2:

5-5-2. Air Traffic Clearance

a. Pilot.

1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of an ATC clearance.

3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a
clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a
safety standpoint.

4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except
as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible
and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.

I omitted #2 from that, as it deals with runway instructions.
Note here that ATC clearance does not only mean clearances on the
ground. As Clearance into Class B airspace is a CLEARANCE, you *MUST*
acknowledge receipt of that clearance. If you don't, see #4.

>
> I have read it, many times. You'll likely never encounter anyone more
> familiar with it than I. It does NOT use the phrase you quoted.

What makes you so familiar with it? Credentials, please?
>>
>> If you don't change yours, your stubborness will gift you with
>> a request to call the TRACON facility handling you regarding the
>> concept of communications and readbacks.
>>
>
> That is extremely unlikely, but if it ever does happen, then they will be a
> bit more knowledgeable about ATC after the call.

I doubt it. You're not doing their job.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfqKGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkcWAKCw1MPLPBleqrlTqjWYIL jvJExbXACeIcTt
iQXP3pOeTLEfCkWJE5AWI9o=
=eEXn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 12:45 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in
>>It's not as lonely out there as it appears!
>
> Right. The Big Sky Theory belongs right up there with the Tooth
> Fairy, Easter Bunny, and other childish notions. Just because you
> can't see 'em, doesn't mean they're not there.

When I flew the SR22, the Traffic Display was almost disorienting. I was in
a training area beneath the arrival path of Pearson Intl. There were at
least a dozen planes within 15 nm. At one point, it appeared that I was
being shadowed by a target with a transponder but no Mode C (altitude)
information. It was like I couldn't get away from it. Maybe it was some
kind of artefact. Dunno. I'm going to ask my ATC pal. The whole thing was
mildly confusing and, I thought, influenced me to spend too much time
looking at it instead of out the window. But I expect that, like anything,
it just takes a bit of getting used to.

moo

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 12:46 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" >
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message

> You haven't provided anything to say otherwise. Now, your turn.
> Put up docs to prove your side, or shut up.

Since, pretty much, nobody is agreeing with you, you might want to
recinsider this request.
>
>>>
>>> I never said you had to readback
>>> a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
>>> whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.

>> It SHOULD be read back? Are you sure? Previously you claimed it MUST be
>> read back. Which is it?
>
> Damn it, Ron, you're trolling now.

Hardly. You're becomeing obtuse, inaccurate and slightly hyperbolic. And,
still, wrong.

moo

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 9th 05, 12:48 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
>> will hear that.
>>
>
> You're not in a position to tell me anything on this subject and FAAO
> 7110.65 does NOT use that phrase.

Nor are you in any position to tell me anything on this subject
either. So quit trying to make yourself sound better than anyone else
here. So far, you've said that I'm wrong, others are wrong, but you
haven't backed up with anything to substantiate anything you're saying
as being RIGHT. Like I said before, put up, or shut up.

>>
>> I'll say request, because even a 'roger' is acknowledgment.
>>
>
> Are you saying your original statement was wrong?

You're trolling again.

>>
>> But if ATC must get a readback that the pilot acknowledges and knows he
>> must tay outside of that airspace.
>>
>
> There is no requirement for ATC to get that readback.

blah blah. I've heared this before. back up what you're saying.
>>
>> Apparently, for as much a love you
>> have for aviation, your lack of knowledge of the regulation
>> documentation really disturbs me, as an ATC.
>>
>
> I know everything about these requirements, and you're not an ATC.

So you say. So you say. but you haven't shown anything to back
yourself. So why should we believe you? Unless you wrote the FARs, the
AIM, and the .65, which I know you haven't, you are in no position to
tell us what is right or wrong.

>>
>> Call your local TRACON or
>> center facility, and ask them about Class Bravo airspace and readbacks
>> regarding entering and leaving it.
>>
>
> When my local TRACON gets such questions there frequently directed to me for
> the answer.

Do tell. Which TRACON?
>
> There's no need to, and there's no reason for ATC to desire one. How could
> they require a readback?
>
>
>>
>> No response = no confirmation that their call was received.
>> That could mean lost communications, which ATC has another set of
>> regulations to follow, to find out your situation.
>>
>
> Do you understand that acknowledgement IS a response?

Did I not mention that an acknowledgement is a response now
*10* posts ago, in which you tried to tell me that pilots didn't need
to respond? Yodaspeak, you are talking.

>>
>> I'm training for ATC.
>>
>
> Really. You must be very early in the program. I teach ATC.

Still, you post no credentials. I wouldn't believe it if my
grandmother came up to me and told me she taught ATC without anything
to back it up.

>>
>> We're supposed to keep separation of
>> aircraft, as well as the pilots of those aircrafts safe. That requires
>> communication. Communication is two-sided. If ATC is trying to
>> communicate, and doesn't hear the other side acknowledging, ATC isn't
>> going to assume everything is hunky-dory, and go about his other
>> business, especially in Class Bravo. He's going to want acknowledgment
>> that his call was heard and understood.
>>
>
> That's true, but your position has been that mere acknowledgement is not
> sufficient, that the pilot MUST provide a readback. I and a few others have
> been trying to explain to you that a readback is NOT required.

Then prove to me that it is not required. Where does it say
that pilot readback is not required? If a controller tells you:

N123AB, cleared into Class B airspace, maintain VFR at or below
8500 for traffic.

And you are at 10,500, You are telling me you are not going to
readback that you are cleared into the B airspace (AIM 5-5-2.a.1) and
descend to 8500 to maintain VFR (reading back what ATC has told you)?

>>
>> If requiring flight following, yes. Either the controller
>> handing the pilot off to an Approach/Departure controller operating
>> class C will have already made radar contact, or if the pilot contacts
>> the Approach/Departure controller and requests flight following, they
>> will be given a transponder code and radar identified. Otherwise there
>> is no flight following.
>>
>
> No, is it still your position that there must be radar contact prior to
> entry?

To Class B, yes. To Class C, it is debatable. I have heard
Class C controllers radar identify VFR traffic in Class C both within
and prior to entering Class C airspace.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCfqVfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtWQAJsFFoLNXPN0dVegCLY6YB LsIJe5hQCgl+v+
TCwZjzXIuGcbA9Ueuk5SzOA=
=D0uG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 01:01 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" >

> Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
> along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
> Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
> into it. Even the FARs state it:

I gotta ask: Are you a pilot? Your musings on this are incorrect and
increasingly of no interest to those who are trained in these procedures.
You don't know the full definition of "clearance". You are playing with
people who actually use this knowledge on a regular basis. By your
misunderstanding, we'd all have lost our tickets years ago.
>
> Sec. 91.131 - Operations in Class B airspace.
>
> (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
> airspace area except in compliance with ?91.129 and the following
> rules:
> (1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
> having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that
> area.
> Some people just fail to understand that.

Godlike. One day you will feel a) stuipd or b) spanked. Maybe both.
>
> Even more than that, if they tell you to remain outside of
> Bravo airspace, or any airspace, and give you a reason, pilots are
> requested to read that back.

What if they don't give a reason? They often don't.

"NY departure this is N123XX."

"VFR aircraft stay clear of Class Bravo airspace."

"N123XX wilco."

See? Now you know something new.

> ATC is going to expect a readback.

Is that only if they give you a reason?

moo

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 01:02 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" >
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Mr. Dog does make his location reasonably known. If you look at the
>> 'From' header of his articles:
>>
>> From: "Happy Dog" >
>>
>> You'll note the domain of his e-mail address is: sympatico.ca
>>
>> You're probably aware that '.ca' domain names indicate their location
>> to be Canada.
>
> His location does not necessarily mean he's speaking about Canadian
> procedures. Many Canadian pilots operate in the US regularly. He entered
> a discussion where US procedures were being discussed and spoke of
> Canadian procedures without identifying his comments as such. Bad form.

Yeah. I should never have expected you to figure that out.

moo

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 01:23 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mr. Dog does make his location reasonably known. If you look at the
>>'From' header of his articles:
>>
>> From: "Happy Dog" >
>>
>>You'll note the domain of his e-mail address is: sympatico.ca
>>
>>You're probably aware that '.ca' domain names indicate their location
>>to be Canada.
>>
>
>
> His location does not necessarily mean he's speaking about Canadian
> procedures. Many Canadian pilots operate in the US regularly. He entered a
> discussion where US procedures were being discussed and spoke of Canadian
> procedures without identifying his comments as such. Bad form.
>
>

Especially when he was quoting from the US AIM and controllers handbook
to make his half-assed assertions.
]

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 01:32 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>>The regulation says the operator must receive an ATC clearance, it does not
>>state he *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace' to be allowed to
>>enter Bravo airspace.
>
>
> I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
> will hear that. Going from the opposite direction, you will hear
> something from Clearance Delivery, stating:
>

That's just one case of a clearance issuance in 7110.65P, you seem to
not be able to read the words OR in the appropriate passage for VFR's
(and then there's IFR).

>
> I'll say request, because even a 'roger' is acknowledgment. But
> if ATC must get a readback that the pilot acknowledges and knows he
> must tay outside of that airspace.

ATC does not need any such thing. ATC assumes if you acknowledge you
have heard, understood, and will comply. The ONLY time a readback is
required by ATC is for runway crossing/hold-short instructions.

>>What makes you think that?
>
>
> Because they will.

You keep asserting this, but there is nothing in the AIM, Controller's
Handbook, or in real life practice that indicates this. I've been told
to remain clear, remain VFR, remain all sorts of things and I've never
had to read it back. The only time it's an issue is if they tell me to
hold-short of the runway.
>
>
>
> I'm training for ATC. '

Keep training.

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 01:34 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>>"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>Exactly what I've been saying.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, you're both wrong.
>
>
> You haven't provided anything to say otherwise. Now, your turn.
> Put up docs to prove your side, or shut up.
>
>
>>>I never said you had to readback
>>>a clearance INTO Class C, but that if a controller tells you for
>>>whatever reason to remain OUTSIDE of Class C, that should be read back.
>>>
>>
>>It SHOULD be read back? Are you sure? Previously you claimed it MUST be
>>read back. Which is it?
>
>
> Damn it, Ron, you're trolling now.
>
> It has to be read back. Like any call/acknowledgment. a simple
> 'roger' or ignoring it doesn't work. Read it back. Save your ass a
> request to call the facility, let alone another checkride because
> you've mucked things up, and read it back.
>
That was Steve, (pay attention to the conversation). But Steve's
right and you're still wrong.

LET ME SAY THIS AS DISTINCTLY AS POSSIBLE. You can read the AIM,
7110.65, and the FAR's and it comes down to this. READBACKS are
not required with the exception of the special band-aid put in
to the controller handback back when Runway Incursion was a hot
issue.

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 01:37 AM

Happy Dog wrote:

>
> What if they don't give a reason? They often don't.
>
> "NY departure this is N123XX."
>
> "VFR aircraft stay clear of Class Bravo airspace."
>
> "N123XX wilco."

You are just wasting airtime with that last transmission.

>
> See? Now you know something new.
>
>
>>ATC is going to expect a readback.
>
>
> Is that only if they give you a reason?
>
They aren't expecting and don't really want a readback.
If they're so busy that they tell everybody to standby and
remain clear the last thing they need is some clown continuing
to talk.

This is like Homer Simpson who where it was written do not write
below this line, wrote "OK."

Steven P. McNicoll

May 9th 05, 02:39 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
> has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
> communication has been established.
>

No you didn't. You said ATC hadn't responded. You said it twice.

>
> Your previous *5* posts had said
> otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
> thread has done gets it into your head.
>

I never said anything at all like that.

>
> Ahh well.. err... yeah. Now you backtrack.
>

How so?

>
> Fine. Once again. AIM, section 5-5-2:
>
> 5-5-2. Air Traffic Clearance
>
> a. Pilot.
>
> 1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of an ATC clearance.
>
> 3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a
> clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a
> safety standpoint.
>
> 4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except
> as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible
> and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.
>
> I omitted #2 from that, as it deals with runway instructions.
> Note here that ATC clearance does not only mean clearances on the
> ground. As Clearance into Class B airspace is a CLEARANCE, you *MUST*
> acknowledge receipt of that clearance. If you don't, see #4.
>

Irrelevant. Your task is to prove that a READBACK is required. The
material you quoted says nothing at all about readbacks and acknowledgement
is not a readback. Even if it did say a readback is required it wouldn't be
as the AIM is not regulatory. To support your position you must cite an FAR
that requires a readback. Good luck.

>
> What makes you so familiar with it? Credentials, please?
>

I've been a controller for 22 years, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and 13
years at Green Bay ATCT/TRACON which has jurisdiction over Class C airspace.

What are your credentials?

>
> I doubt it. You're not doing their job.
>

Actually, I am.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 9th 05, 03:08 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Nor are you in any position to tell me anything on this subject
> either.
>

Yes I am. I'm an experienced pilot and controller and it's pretty clear
you're neither.

>
> So quit trying to make yourself sound better than anyone else
> here. So far, you've said that I'm wrong, others are wrong, but you
> haven't backed up with anything to substantiate anything you're saying
> as being RIGHT. Like I said before, put up, or shut up.
>

Why doesn't that apply to you? Despite repeated requests you've provided
nothing that supports your position. You've quoted material that you claim
supports your position but doesn't even mention readbacks. Why don't you
put up or shut up?

I've explained why you have the burden of proof on this issue. You claim
the readback requirement exists, so it's up to you to cite that requirement.
I and others claim there is no such requirement, but none of us can prove
something does not exist.

>
> You're trolling again.
>

I'm asking for clarification because you've made contradictory statements.

>
> blah blah. I've heared this before. back up what you're saying.
>

How do I do that? Do you expect me to produce a regulation that says a
readback of in instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is not
required? Is that how you concluded it was required, by the absence of any
such regulation?

>
> So you say. So you say. but you haven't shown anything to back
> yourself. So why should we believe you? Unless you wrote the FARs, the
> AIM, and the .65, which I know you haven't, you are in no position to
> tell us what is right or wrong.
>

Why am I held to a much higher standard than you? You haven't shown
anything to back yourself. So why should we believe you? All you've done is
demonstrate that you're not familiar with the FARs, the AIM, and FAAO
7110.65. What makes you think you're in a position to tell us what is right
or wrong?

>
> Do tell. Which TRACON?
>

Green Bay, WI.

>
> Did I not mention that an acknowledgement is a response now
> *10* posts ago, in which you tried to tell me that pilots didn't need
> to respond?
>

No.

>
> Still, you post no credentials. I wouldn't believe it if my
> grandmother came up to me and told me she taught ATC without anything
> to back it up.
>

What do you expect me to present here as proof? What will you post as proof
that you're training for ATC? I don't believe that you are in ATC training.

>
> Then prove to me that it is not required.
>

You're asking me to prove a negative. That isn't possible.

>
> Where does it say that pilot readback is not required?
>

It doesn't say that anywhere, it's not required because nowhere does it say
that a pilot readback is required.

>
> If a controller tells you:
>
> N123AB, cleared into Class B airspace, maintain VFR at or below
> 8500 for traffic.
>
> And you are at 10,500, You are telling me you are not going to
> readback that you are cleared into the B airspace (AIM 5-5-2.a.1) and
> descend to 8500 to maintain VFR (reading back what ATC has told you)?
>

That's right, I'm not. I'm going to acknowledge by saying, "N123AB
descending to 8,500."

>
> To Class B, yes. To Class C, it is debatable. I have heard
> Class C controllers radar identify VFR traffic in Class C both within
> and prior to entering Class C airspace.
>

Wrong and wrong.

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 03:20 AM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
>> His location does not necessarily mean he's speaking about Canadian
>> procedures. Many Canadian pilots operate in the US regularly. He
>> entered a discussion where US procedures were being discussed and spoke
>> of Canadian procedures without identifying his comments as such. Bad
>> form.

> Especially when he was quoting from the US AIM and controllers handbook
> to make his half-assed assertions.

Adorable. Show where I "quoted from the US AIM and controllers handbook" or
shove that up your pitot. I corrected my error at least twice in the same
thread. Yet there's been a half dozen posts about this insignificant
mistake. WTF do you want?

le moo

A Lieberman

May 9th 05, 03:42 AM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:39:05 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Irrelevant. Your task is to prove that a READBACK is required. The
> material you quoted says nothing at all about readbacks and acknowledgement
> is not a readback.

Crap, didn't mean to cause such a storm.....

I was always taught that clearances required a readback I.E the following
situations (not all inclusive). I had three instructors that were very
consistent about this.

Sundowner 1234L, cleared as filed to Tupelo, climb and maintain 2000,
expect 6000 in 5 minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I reply
34L cleared as filed to TUP, climb and maintain 2000, expect 6000 in 5
minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I wouldn't reply roger?

Sundowner 34L cleared for the ILS approach 16 right. I reply 34L cleared
for the ILS 16 right. I wouldn't reply roger?

Sundowner 1234L cleared to land 16 right, contact tower point niner. I
reply 34 Lima cleared to land 16 right contact tower point niner. I
wouldn't reply roger?

The above three scenarios are clearances?????

If so, I would be required to read back??? If not, why not say "roger 34L"
to acknowledge cleared to land, or "roger 34L" to cleared for the
approaches if I am not required to readback???

I had an ILS approach canceled on me. Was I not required to read back that
cancellation of a clearance. Saying "roger 34L" in the clag I don't think
is enough???

I bring these three scenarios up, as I never have heard anything different
then read back the clearances as noted above.

If it truly is not required, then why does the airlines, spam cans tie up
the frequency with reading back the clearances.

How would you Stephen, having been on the ATC side, feel about the above
scenarios and responses?

I changed the subject line so I can pick up on this thread on Friday when I
return from out of town. The original thread is going nuts.....

Allen

George Patterson

May 9th 05, 03:45 AM

Cub Driver wrote:
> I often listen to the tower at Pease tradeport (and National Guard
> base) across the bay. Professional pilots regularly thank the tower,
> and routinely say "G'day" upon departing the Delta airspace.

I noticed the same behaviour consistently at TYS and erratically elsewhere in
the eastern U.S..

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Happy Dog

May 9th 05, 03:45 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" >
>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>> How? ATC hadn't responded to you. that is not 2-way
>>> communication. If ATC doesn't respond, what do YOU do? violate their
>>> airspace? I know what knowledgable pilots will do, but what would YOU
>>> do? (watch your answer here. it's the difference between getting your
>>> pilot's license suspended, and doing the right thing.)
>>
>> Here's the exchange again:
>>
>> "ME Jackson Approach (JAN) Sundowner 1234L out of Madison, climbing
>> through
>> 500, headed to Covington LA. (Note the three W's)."
>>
>> "JAN Sundowner 1234L, squawk 0103, altimeter 29.89."
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at, that you said
> has not been there. When ATC RESPONDS to the pilot's call, the 2-way
> communication has been established. Your previous *5* posts had said
> otherwise. I guess repeating the same thing almost 120 times as this
> thread has done gets it into your head.

For your sake, you had better hope that your examiners or future superiors
aren't reading this. You're way over your head.

The original exchange was:
*******
Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
> with your identifier)..

Has 2-way communication been established?
*********

You ask this right after the poster *told* you that communication has been
established. Idiot. Unlike you, the other poster displays a working
familiarity with comm procs.

> If ATC does not respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.

This was never an issue. It's a Red Herring. Nobody ever disagreed with
you or made a statement indicating they believed otherwise. This sort of
ranting makes you look crazy and qualified for armchair ATC positions only.

It doesn't bother you that every pilot here is disagreeing with you on a
basic issue. If we're all wrong about readback procedures, we would have
had our tickets suspended long ago. These errors in basic logic are akin to
those made by kooks who demand that others prove their crazy beliefs wrong.
When a poster tells you that they have the occupational authority to
unerringly state the facts they've graced you with (free education) look up
their posting history before you dismiss them as unqualified. Too late for
that now. Nobodys get away with claiming to have qualifications they don't
for very long on an NG like this.

moo

George Patterson

May 9th 05, 04:04 AM

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> Lordy, why? VFR in low ceilings means that almost everyone is flying just
> below the clouds. Why wouldn't you want to have flight following in those
> conditions? It's free. What's the issue?

I do not hear well. This is the result of early use of firearms and a lifetime
of working with power tools. To some extent that is taken care of by a decent
radio, excellent intercom, and a set of Bose-X headsets, but, in addition to
that, I don't "snap to attention" when someone addresses me. I'm typically
thinking, sightseeing, or daydreaming. I also spend a fair amount of any long
flight listening to music (though not when I'm near something like class-D
airspace).

That creates a cycle in which I get little practice in talking to ATC, so my
communications are awkward. So I avoid situtations in which I have to talk with
them, so I get less practice. The first time I enter controlled airspace each
season is certainly entertaining for any outsider on the channel, and the last
few years I've not had occassion to speak to ATC at all.

The result is that I find keeping an erratic conversation going with ATC to be a
lot of unpleasant work. As I said, that's a personal decision. I would never
recommend against using flight following, I just prefer to avoid it myself. If
I'm close to a major airport (for example, passing Roanoke on a Tennessee run),
I'll be listening but not talking to them.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 9th 05, 04:06 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> The thought of ATC's intrusion into the reverie of our aerial
> operations is displeasing. But anyone who fails to avail themselves
> of Radar Traffic Advisory Service in the Los Angeles basin just
> doesn't appreciate the magnitude of aerial congestion in the vicinity.

And I might use flight following there. I didn't lose anything on the shaky
side, however.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

May 9th 05, 04:35 AM

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> This is like Homer Simpson who where it was written do not write
> below this line, wrote "OK."

When I was younger, a number of people I knew would write "Please" under such a
line. Some of the forms in the Atlanta area actually got changed as a result of
this.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Hamish Reid

May 9th 05, 07:20 AM

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> > "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >>
> >> Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
> >> along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
> >> Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
> >> into it. Even the FARs state it:
> >>
> >> Sec. 91.131 - Operations in Class B airspace.
> >>
> >> (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
> >> airspace area except in compliance with ?91.129 and the following
> >> rules:
> >>
> >> (1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
> >> having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that
> >> area.
> >>
> >> Some people just fail to understand that.

> > The regulation says the operator must receive an ATC clearance, it does not
> > state he *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace' to be allowed to
> > enter Bravo airspace.
>
> I'm telling you, as well as the 7110.65P tells you, that you
> will hear that. Going from the opposite direction, you will hear
> something from Clearance Delivery, stating:
>
> Mooney 64B, cleared out of Las Vegas Class Bravo Airspace. On
> departure, turn left heading 160, climb/maintain 5000, departure
> frequency 118.4, squawk 0633.
>
> There's your clearance out of Bravo. If you're VFR, you'll hear
> 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace'. That's ATC regulations there, and
> ATC are to adhere to that.

Funny. I flew KOAK / KMRY yesterday IFR on a routing that took me deep
into KSFO's Class B airspace and never *once* heard that magic phrase
"Cleared into Class Bravo...", on the ground or in the air, not even
when returning KMRY / KOAK through the Class B. Were NorCal -- or
Oakland and Monterey clearances -- wrong to not use that phrase (a
phrase I've yet to hear while flying IFR, despite having been in and out
of the KSFO Class B on a regular basis)? Will you be telling them
they're wrong next time you see them?

Is there some reason you think that the clearance I *did* get from
Oakland clearance -- "November XYZ, cleared to Monterey airport via the
NUEV0 5 departure, SHOEY transition, MUNSO, direct [then altitude and
frequency stuff, etc.]" wasn't sufficient to allow me to enter the KSFO
class B airspace? At what point am I supposed to hear the magic phrase
on a flight like this?

This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
-- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...

Hamish

Larry Dighera

May 9th 05, 07:52 AM

On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:42:33 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote in >::

>If so, I would be required to read back???

There is no FAA regulation *requiring* reed back of a clearance.
Subsequent to 'rogering' your clearance, you may detect a bit of
consternation in the controller's voice if you are in contact with
her, but that's about it.

Larry Dighera

May 9th 05, 07:59 AM

On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:33:57 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote in
>::

>I agree, but I never said you'd hear 'cleared into class C'.
>Just that if they tell you to remain outside of it, that should be read
>back,

Right, but answering 'roger' or 'wilco' will not result in a pilot
violation of FAA regulations.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 9th 05, 12:33 PM

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Crap, didn't mean to cause such a storm.....
>
> I was always taught that clearances required a readback I.E the following
> situations (not all inclusive). I had three instructors that were very
> consistent about this.
>

An instructor is free to require his students to read back clearances.
There is no regulation that requires clearances be read back.

>
> Sundowner 1234L, cleared as filed to Tupelo, climb and maintain 2000,
> expect 6000 in 5 minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I
> reply 34L cleared as filed to TUP, climb and maintain 2000, expect 6000 in
> 5
> minutes, squawk 0177, departure frequency 123.90. I wouldn't reply roger?
>

You can reply "roger", you can read back all of it or part of it, you can
say, "got it, thanks". All are done regularly.

>
> Sundowner 34L cleared for the ILS approach 16 right. I reply 34L cleared
> for the ILS 16 right. I wouldn't reply roger?
>

You could.

>
> Sundowner 1234L cleared to land 16 right, contact tower point niner. I
> reply 34 Lima cleared to land 16 right contact tower point niner. I
> wouldn't reply roger?
>

You could, although "cleared to land" tends to come AFTER contact is made
with the tower.

>
> The above three scenarios are clearances?????
>

Yup. Keep in mind that nobody's saying it's wrong to read back a clearance,
it's just that it's not required.

>
> If so, I would be required to read back???
>

No.

>
> If not, why not say "roger
> 34L" to acknowledge cleared to land, or "roger 34L" to cleared for the
> approaches if I am not required to readback???
>

Go ahead, many do.

>
> I had an ILS approach canceled on me. Was I not required to read back
> that cancellation of a clearance.
>

No.

>
> Saying "roger 34L" in the clag I don't think
> is enough???
>

Why not?

>
> I bring these three scenarios up, as I never have heard anything different
> then read back the clearances as noted above.
>
> If it truly is not required, then why does the airlines, spam cans tie up
> the frequency with reading back the clearances.
>

It's considered a good practice, it's just not REQUIRED.

Peter Duniho

May 9th 05, 07:37 PM

"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> There's your clearance out of Bravo. If you're VFR, you'll hear
>> 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace'. That's ATC regulations there, and
>> ATC are to adhere to that.
>
> Funny. I flew KOAK / KMRY yesterday IFR on a routing that took me deep
> into KSFO's Class B airspace and never *once* heard that magic phrase
> "Cleared into Class Bravo..."

Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says, but how does your
IFR flight relate to his claim regarding VFR flight?

Steven P. McNicoll

May 9th 05, 07:50 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says, but how does your
> IFR flight relate to his claim regarding VFR flight?

The previous poster is incorrect in what he says, the phrase "Cleared into
Class Bravo Airspace" is not mandated and does not appear in FAAO 7110.65P.

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 07:53 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>
>>>There's your clearance out of Bravo. If you're VFR, you'll hear
>>>'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace'. That's ATC regulations there, and
>>>ATC are to adhere to that.
>>
>>Funny. I flew KOAK / KMRY yesterday IFR on a routing that took me deep
>>into KSFO's Class B airspace and never *once* heard that magic phrase
>>"Cleared into Class Bravo..."
>
>
> Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says, but how does your
> IFR flight relate to his claim regarding VFR flight?
>
>
It's not required for VFR either. All is requried is you get some
clearance. Even the controllers handbook which espouses the
"proper phraseology" for controllers to give such clearances
doesn't reuqire "CLEARED TO ENTER THE CLASS BRAVO." He even
quoted the appropratie section and didn't note the that there
were multiple versions of the clearance in the example.

Yes, you want to hear the word "CLEARED", no it doesn't have to
be word for word "CLEARED INTO THE CLASS BRAVO.

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 9th 05, 07:57 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
> This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
> watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
> -- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...

Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?

I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf7KeyBkZmuMZ8L8RApK0AJ0eNz9sszowu6fE8Yn8BF aCutkPyQCfXC+X
L58GX2sj6WqvZteLYuyu6gU=
=iq1d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steven P. McNicoll

May 9th 05, 08:08 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
> need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?
>
> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
> Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?
>

I'd have been happier if you had tried to learn something.

Newps

May 9th 05, 08:17 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>
>>Nope, you had permission after the first exchange (where called you back
>>with your identifier)..
>
>
> Has 2-way communication been established?

Yes.

If ATC does not
> respond, you MAY NOT ENTER THEIR AIRSPACE.

Right.

>
> Same happens with IFR traffic. If a Minneapolis Center tries to
> hand off a flight to Denver Center, and Denver Center doesn't accept
> the handoff, does the flight have permission to enter Denver's
> Airspace? Absolutely not.

Wrong, it most certainly does. If a handoff is not completed for any
reason that is an ATC error. You have no way of knowing where the
airspace boundaries are.

The same applies here. If ATC does not
> respond, you don't enter their space.

Right.

>
>
> ********. You must. But go on and believe what you believe.
> I've posted references to documentation stating opposite your case, for
> both ATC and pilots.

You've done no such thing. It doesn't exist.

Newps

May 9th 05, 08:25 PM

A Lieberman wrote:

> Sundowner 34L cleared for the ILS approach 16 right. I reply 34L cleared
> for the ILS 16 right. I wouldn't reply roger?

Most pilots read back IFR clearances. Some just respond with the
transponder code, some say "Roger". Either way it doesn't matter.

>
> Sundowner 1234L cleared to land 16 right, contact tower point niner. I
> reply 34 Lima cleared to land 16 right contact tower point niner. I
> wouldn't reply roger?

You can simply respond with "34L".

>
> The above three scenarios are clearances?????

Yes.

>
> If so, I would be required to read back??? If not, why not say "roger 34L"
> to acknowledge cleared to land, or "roger 34L" to cleared for the
> approaches if I am not required to readback???

No reason not to.

>
> I had an ILS approach canceled on me. Was I not required to read back that
> cancellation of a clearance. Saying "roger 34L" in the clag I don't think
> is enough???

Not required, you might want to read back whatever you're new clearance was.

>
> I bring these three scenarios up, as I never have heard anything different
> then read back the clearances as noted above.
>
> If it truly is not required, then why does the airlines, spam cans tie up
> the frequency with reading back the clearances.

To put ATC back on the hook for readback/hearback errors.

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 9th 05, 09:05 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
>> need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?
>>
>> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
>> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
>> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
>> Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?
>>
>
> I'd have been happier if you had tried to learn something.

Yeah.. I've learned not to be assertive around you. Thanks for
making someone who is wanting to put his heart into this career feel
diswayed. Perhaps I'll be one less controller to replace you from
working harder than you should, or even better, thanks for putting more
burden on yourself. Don't complain if the government requires you to
stay on until you're 80, because with that attitude of yours, no-one
will love working under you. Check yourself.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf8KeyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnI4AKCZ4JL2h2sgSCcoW+mnW+ IcOOf2swCeIUi9
GiQW0bndG13edGEBQIyHEr8=
=YsII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Larry Dighera

May 9th 05, 09:26 PM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:57:34 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote in
>::

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hamish Reid > wrote:
>>
>> This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
>> watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
>> -- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...
>
> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
>need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?
>
> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
>instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
>into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
>Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?
>
> BL.

From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.

If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.

John Galban

May 9th 05, 09:34 PM

Gene Kearns wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:08:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> Let me jump in here with a confused expression.....
>
> When they first created the alphabetic areas, I was taught that Class
> B airspace required a specific clearance prior to entrance..... thus,
> something like "N12345 cleared to enter Class B airspace" as opposed
> to just "establishing" two-way communications as required in Class
> C.... and just barging in.

That is correct (clearance req'd for B). Your example would be most
likely heard when VFR. If you're on an IFR clearance already, you
wouldn't need the VFR "magic words".

>
> As for readbacks... As for VFR, I'd have to admit that I'm really
not
> clear on the absolute requirements, though I tend to read back
> everything that shouldn't be obvious or ambiguous....

Hold short instructions must be read back. Just about everything
else is optional (according to the absolute requirements).
Occasionally, I'll run across a controller that wants me to read back a
clearance and I'll certainly oblige, but there is no regulatory
requirement for me to have read it back when he gave it to me. When I
operated out of a class B primary airport, my clearance into class B
was usually tacked on to a paragraph of instructions on what I was
supposed to do once I was in the class B. Being a local, the whole
spiel was pretty standard and I usually just wilcoed the whole thing.
Given the usual lack of airtime on the class B approach freq., the
controllers were probably thankful that I didn't tie up their frequency
with a readback.

Basically, I just use my judgement when deciding what to readback.
Sometimes a complete readback is appropriate (even though not required)
and other times not.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 9th 05, 09:36 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
> corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
> informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
> personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.
>
> If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
> would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
> discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
> took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
> information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
> controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.
>

I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

But you're right. I should, and will work on it.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf8nMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkElAJwJjKAEmS+Dy5y04gRiFx cpMLki1ACglk0O
kDyhMWyeBWMxYIAbtzEj/+w=
=8O48
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John Galban

May 9th 05, 09:49 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.

No need to crawl into a hole. I'm not sure about "standing up for
what you learned" is, because if someone taught you something that
wasn't right, you shouldn't automatically "stand up" for it.

In ATC, you'll be personally responsible for knowing the rules to the
letter, regardless of what someone told you. If the day comes when an
operational error is due to a misunderstanding of a rule or reg,
"that's the way I learned it" will probably not go over very well.
Best to learn that part sooner rather than later. It will be a fact of
life in your chosen career.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Matt Whiting

May 9th 05, 09:54 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
>>This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
>>watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
>>-- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...
>
>
> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
> need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?
>
> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
> Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet. Everybody happy now?

I'm actually indifferent. :-)

There are very good reasons to read back most clearances. The main
reason is to ensure that I got it right. However, the point was that it
isn't required, it is, however, a good practice. Lots of things that
aren't required are still good practice.

Matt

George Patterson

May 9th 05, 09:55 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
> have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
> not to take that as insulting.

Well, "ignorant" simply means you don't know. If you're posting and defending
stuff that's simply wrong, you *are* ignorant. It's a little blunt for someone
to say so, but it's not insulting to state a fact.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Matt Whiting

May 9th 05, 09:58 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>From the tone of your response it seems that you are taking the
>>corrective comments you received as a personal attack rather than
>>informative comment. That probably isn't the best sort of
>>personality/demeanor for a controller to possess.
>>
>>If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
>>would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
>>discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
>>took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
>>information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
>>controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.
>>
>
>
> I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
> have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
> not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
> really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
> coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
> not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
> was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
> clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
> insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

Being ignorant isn't a big deal. We're all ignorant in many ways. I
don't think anyone called you stupid, which would be an insult. Saying
you are ignorant is just a frank way of saying that there is a gap in
your knowledge that you need to fill. It isn't an insult, just a
statement of fact. Once you fill that gap you are now less ignorant,
and can move on to the next are for improvement.

Matt

Ron Natalie

May 9th 05, 10:10 PM

> When they first created the alphabetic areas, I was taught that Class
> B airspace required a specific clearance prior to entrance..... thus,
> something like "N12345 cleared to enter Class B airspace" as opposed
> to just "establishing" two-way communications as required in Class
> C.... and just barging in.

You are right, a clearance is required (as opposed to just establishing
communciations), however, the words you quote are NOT the only way that
clearance is conveyed. It's up to the pilot to be sure they have a
clearance.

>
> As for readbacks... As for VFR, I'd have to admit that I'm really not
> clear on the absolute requirements, though I tend to read back
> everything that shouldn't be obvious or ambiguous....

You NEVER have to readback anything back IFR or VFR with the sole
exception of runway crossing/holdshort instructions. Even then,
the job of insisting on the readback is the controllers, not the pilots.

Gig 601XL Builder

May 9th 05, 10:35 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Being ignorant isn't a big deal. We're all ignorant in many ways. I
> don't think anyone called you stupid, which would be an insult. Saying
> you are ignorant is just a frank way of saying that there is a gap in your
> knowledge that you need to fill. It isn't an insult, just a statement of
> fact. Once you fill that gap you are now less ignorant, and can move on
> to the next are for improvement.
>
> Matt

So now your saying ignorant of English?

[email protected]

May 9th 05, 11:17 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> It really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
> coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping)
while
> not berating you with the next word out of his mouth.

If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come up
with (or for no reason at all).
It's life in the FAA. A thick skin is a requirement. Get used to it
or change your career goals. You will NOT be able to change the FPLs,
especially those who have been around 20 or so years.

TJ Girl

p.s. If you act like you know it all (as you did in this thread) you
will be berated by your coworkers all the more. And washing out is a
very real probability - performance reviews are plenty subjective and
an attitude that rubs your trainer or supervisor the wrong way will
ensure failure.

Peter Duniho

May 10th 05, 12:34 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
> The previous poster is incorrect in what he says

I know. That's why I wrote "Not that the previous poster is correct".

Duh.

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 12:35 AM

George Patterson wrote:
.... in addition to that, I don't "snap to attention" when someone
> addresses me. I'm typically thinking, sightseeing, or daydreaming. I
> also spend a fair amount of any long flight listening to music (though
> not when I'm near something like class-D airspace).

George,

From what you describe above I wonder if you actually may have some
form of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).(?) I myself had similar
attention type problems that I assumed were due to my ears fading as a
result of all the rock n' roll concerts, guns, getting older, loud women
I've dated(ha!), and other noise that inundated my ears as a younger man.

I discovered just a few years ago that the problems were not that I
*couldn't* hear but that I *didn't* hear because my brain did not kick
in immediately when being addressed. I would constantly miss the
beginning of a conversation and sometimes drift off in the middle of it.
I could not concentrate on anything that was mundane, repetitious, or
"colorless" regardless of how important it was to me. I was often
distracted away by my own thoughts from a conversation or the task at hand.

I did some training and, vol la! I found out that there really was never
anything wrong with my hearing in the first place! I just wasn't paying
attention.

Just thinking out loud....hope that's not distracting. ;-)

Antonio

Peter Duniho

May 10th 05, 12:35 AM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> It's not required for VFR either.

Sigh. You AND Steven?

I never said it was required for VFR. I simply questioned the relevance of
an IFR situation to a VFR discussion.

> [...]
> Yes, you want to hear the word "CLEARED", no it doesn't have to
> be word for word "CLEARED INTO THE CLASS BRAVO.

Yes, I know. I knew it before. I will know it tomorrow.

Sigh.

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 12:40 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>Just because you can't see 'em, doesn't mean they're not there.

Are you saying you believe in ghosts? ;-)

Antonio

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 12:52 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Pretty much, yup. Especially when the quoted material in a message includes
> US publications as yours did.
>

Oh dear! Let me just say for myself that I don't consider this an
exclusive US newsgroup no matter what the inclusions or exclusions.

Antonio

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 01:14 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never said it was required for VFR. I simply questioned the relevance
> of an IFR situation to a VFR discussion.
>

What difference did it make if he was IFR or VFR? He just said he didn't
hear the quoted phraseology while he was on the frequency on the SFO Class B
airspace.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 01:15 AM

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh dear! Let me just say for myself that I don't consider this an
> exclusive US newsgroup no matter what the inclusions or exclusions.
>

You're free to consider it anything you like.

Peter Duniho

May 10th 05, 01:46 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
> What difference did it make if he was IFR or VFR? He just said he didn't
> hear the quoted phraseology while he was on the frequency on the SFO Class
> B airspace.

Whatever. Suffice to say, I don't read Hamish's post the same way you do.
Now you're just trying to cover up the fact that you failed to correctly
read my own post too.

Figures...

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 02:09 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whatever. Suffice to say, I don't read Hamish's post the same way you do.
> Now you're just trying to cover up the fact that you failed to correctly
> read my own post too.
>
> Figures...

The fact is you misread Hamish's post and your ego won't let you admit it.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 02:32 AM

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let me jump in here with a confused expression.....
>
> When they first created the alphabetic areas, I was taught that Class
> B airspace required a specific clearance prior to entrance..... thus,
> something like "N12345 cleared to enter Class B airspace" as opposed
> to just "establishing" two-way communications as required in Class
> C.... and just barging in.
>

That is correct and I don't believe anyone in this thread said differently.

>
> As for readbacks... As for VFR, I'd have to admit that I'm really not
> clear on the absolute requirements, though I tend to read back
> everything that shouldn't be obvious or ambiguous....
>

There is no regulatory requirement for pilots to read back any clearance.
There is an operational requirement for controllers to obtain a readback of
an instruction to hold short.

>
> So, from a controller's perspective, (1) what sort of "Clearance" into
> Class B should I expect to be required and (2) what do you guys prefer
> to be read back?
>

(1) The pilot must receive an ATC clearance prior to operating an aircraft
in Class B airspace. That's the requirement per the FARs. It can be an IFR
clearance, a clearance for a practice instrument approach while operating
VFR, or an explicit clearance to enter Class B airspace.

(2) I like to hear readbacks of control items; routes, altitudes, headings,
etc., but I don't solicit them. Except for hold short instructions, of
course.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 02:39 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yeah.. I've learned not to be assertive around you.
>

If you're going to be assertive it's a good idea to make sure you're right.

>
> Thanks for making someone who is wanting to put his heart into this career
> feel
> diswayed.
>

Diswayed?

>
> Perhaps I'll be one less controller to replace you from
> working harder than you should, or even better, thanks for putting more
> burden on yourself.
>

I'm irreplaceable anyway.

>
> Don't complain if the government requires you to
> stay on until you're 80, because with that attitude of yours, no-one
> will love working under you. Check yourself.
>

You think I have an attitude problem? Which of us refused to listen to
reason?

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 02:58 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
> have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
> not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller.
>

The only messages in this thread that contain the word "insulting" are your
message above and the responses to it.

>
> It really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
> coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
> not berating you with the next word out of his mouth.
>

I don't recall you being berated in this thread by anyone. What are you
referring to?

>
> I admitted that I was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't
> mandate reading back
> clearances.
>

Your admission of error was a long time coming. Several people told you you
were wrong and explained why you were wrong and through it all you insisted
you were right.

>
> But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
> insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.
>

Respect is earned, nobody insulted you.

Hamish Reid

May 10th 05, 03:06 AM

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> >> There's your clearance out of Bravo. If you're VFR, you'll hear
> >> 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace'. That's ATC regulations there, and
> >> ATC are to adhere to that.
> >
> > Funny. I flew KOAK / KMRY yesterday IFR on a routing that took me deep
> > into KSFO's Class B airspace and never *once* heard that magic phrase
> > "Cleared into Class Bravo..."
>
> Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says, but how does your
> IFR flight relate to his claim regarding VFR flight?

You snipped the part where he claimed that one had to hear the magic
phrase under all circumstances. I pointed out that that simply wasn't
true.

> >> ("Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at all
> >> along in this thread. You *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo
> >> Airspace' to be allowed to enter Bravo airspace. That is your clearance
> >> into it. Even the FARs state it:"

Which was followed up by:

> > The regulation says the operator must receive an ATC clearance, it does not
> > state he *MUST* hear 'Cleared into Class Bravo Airspace' to be allowed to
> > enter Bravo airspace.

Which was illustrated by my posting.

Hamish

George Patterson

May 10th 05, 03:07 AM

Antoñio wrote:
>
> I did some training and, vol la! I found out that there really was never
> anything wrong with my hearing in the first place! I just wasn't paying
> attention.

Tests show that I have lost the higher frequencies in both ears. I also have a
condition (I don't remember the name) which causes distant conversations (say,
20 feet away) to sound about as loud as the person across the table from me.
That doesn't interfere with radio work, of course, but it makes it very
difficult for me to converse in a public place or noisy party. I do a lot of lip
reading.

I can't do that over the radio, and NAV/COMs don't have treble and bass
controls. Thankfully, there are very few controllers with soprano voices.

And it's not a disorder to prefer to be doing something else than concentrating
on listening for your N-number in the static and other conversation.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Hamish Reid

May 10th 05, 03:19 AM

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Hamish Reid > wrote:
> >
> > This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
> > watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
> > -- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...
>
> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
> need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?

This is Usenet. The idea of everybody here being happy is kinda funny...
*someone* will find fault with your new position, now :-).

> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
> Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet.

Well, don't do *that*.... Basically, if all you'd done was "respond with
something I was taught by my instructors", and then thought a little and
researched a lot about the issue when virtually everyone here pointed
out you were wrong (and why), probably none of this would have happened.
But you started questioning people's credentials and giving out abuse --
and ended up maybe getting rather more than you gave, for sure, but your
attitude really didn't help. And it probably won't help with the ATC
job, either....

Hamish

Morgans

May 10th 05, 04:05 AM

"Antoñio" > wrote

> George,
>
> From what you describe above I wonder if you actually may have some
> form of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).(?) I myself had similar
> attention type problems that I assumed were due to my ears fading as a
> result of all the rock n' roll concerts, guns, getting older, loud women
> I've dated(ha!), and other noise that inundated my ears as a younger man.
>
> I discovered just a few years ago that the problems were not that I
> *couldn't* hear but that I *didn't* hear because my brain did not kick
> in immediately when being addressed. I would constantly miss the
> beginning of a conversation and sometimes drift off in the middle of it.
> I could not concentrate on anything that was mundane, repetitious, or
> "colorless" regardless of how important it was to me. I was often
> distracted away by my own thoughts from a conversation or the task at
hand.

What was that? I was reading it, but I lost track of it somewhere. Who
were you talking to, anyway? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Matt Barrow

May 10th 05, 04:19 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong, it most certainly does. If a handoff is not completed for any
> reason that is an ATC error. You have no way of knowing where the
> airspace boundaries are.

Quite; your clearance was issued when you took off (shortly before, or
shortly after if you filed enroute).

Larry Dighera

May 10th 05, 04:27 AM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 16:40:19 -0700, Antoñio
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>Just because you can't see 'em, doesn't mean they're not there.
>
>
>Are you saying you believe in ghosts? ;-)
>

I believe it's difficult to discern all the aircraft in the vicinity
if there is haze or they're against a busy landscape. They are
tangible ghosts that can quite surprisingly appear to materialize
suddenly due to high closing speeds, and be startlingly close at
times.

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 04:39 AM

George Patterson wrote:

> And it's not a disorder to prefer to be doing something else than
> concentrating on listening for your N-number in the static and other
> conversation.

Unfortunately, the phemomena I was speaking of is called "Attention
Deficit *Disorder* ". I hope you realize that I meant no disrespect.

Antonio

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 04:45 AM

Morgans wrote:

> What was that? I was reading it, but I lost track of it somewhere. Who
> were you talking to, anyway? ;-)

Ha! ....obviously MYSELF ! Remember that old saying; "No good deed goes
unpunished"?

Antonio

George Patterson

May 10th 05, 05:01 AM

Antoñio wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the phemomena I was speaking of is called "Attention
> Deficit *Disorder* ". I hope you realize that I meant no disrespect.

Oh, I realize that. I was simply assuring you that I have been spared that
particular problem.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 05:05 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Oh dear! Let me just say for myself that I don't consider this an
>>exclusive US newsgroup no matter what the inclusions or exclusions.
>>
>
>
> You're free to consider it anything you like.
>

Such repartee !
Oh, and by the way, I am a US citizen posting from the USA so the
context of my replies will be within that framework.

I quote:

Happy dog:
"Is it assumed that people are posting from the USA unless they make it
known otherwise?"

Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "

Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.

Antonio

Antonio

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 05:18 AM

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> Such repartee !
> Oh, and by the way, I am a US citizen posting from the USA so the context
> of my replies will be within that framework.
>
> I quote:
>
> Happy dog:
> "Is it assumed that people are posting from the USA unless they make it
> known otherwise?"
>
>
> Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "
>
> Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.
>

Actually, it's just an observed fact.

May 10th 05, 05:40 AM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 06:52:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:42:33 -0500, A Lieberman >
>wrote in >::
>
>>If so, I would be required to read back???
>
>There is no FAA regulation *requiring* reed back of a clearance.
>Subsequent to 'rogering' your clearance, you may detect a bit of
>consternation in the controller's voice if you are in contact with
>her, but that's about it.
>
I guess a lot depends on the airport/Center area you are flying
from. In meetings with our local ATC, they advise us to readback
all clearances, hold short, taxi, and runway assignments.

The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
have to file an ASRS form.

Ron

Peter Duniho

May 10th 05, 08:09 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
> The fact is you misread Hamish's post and your ego won't let you admit it.

Whether I did or not is irrelevant to the fact that you misread MY post.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 11:59 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whether I did or not is irrelevant to the fact that you misread MY post.

But I didn't misread YOUR post.

Ron Natalie

May 10th 05, 01:35 PM

OP wrote:

>
> The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
> goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
> instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
> have to file an ASRS form.
>
Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction. This
was once touted to be the case, but the FAA stompted on that idea.

Your last sentence makes no sense. You don't need any CYA for filing
ASRS. You can file an ASRS at any time you think you have a
contribution to the safety process. The ASRS itself is a CYA for
some enforcement actions, but it's primary purpose is not a way
for pilots to avoid FAA persecution.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 10th 05, 01:39 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
> you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction.

It does if they tell you "readback correct". It doesn't if they don't
acknowledge your readback.

Larry Dighera

May 10th 05, 02:18 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:40:40 GMT, OP > wrote in
>::

>On Mon, 09 May 2005 06:52:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:42:33 -0500, A Lieberman >
>>wrote in >::
>>
>>>If so, I would be required to read back???
>>
>>There is no FAA regulation *requiring* reed back of a clearance.
>>Subsequent to 'rogering' your clearance, you may detect a bit of
>>consternation in the controller's voice if you are in contact with
>>her, but that's about it.
>>
>I guess a lot depends on the airport/Center area you are flying
>from. In meetings with our local ATC, they advise us to readback
>all clearances, hold short, taxi, and runway assignments.

Regardless of their advice, there is no FAA regulatory basis for
mandating clearance readback. If ATC instructs a pilot to readback
anything, that is another matter.

>The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
>goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
>instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
>have to file an ASRS form.
>
>Ron

I'm not sure your reason for repeating controllers' instructions is
useful for the reason you state, but it is just common sense to verify
you've got the information correct.

Larry Dighera

May 10th 05, 02:21 PM

On Mon, 09 May 2005 21:05:46 -0700, Antoñio
> wrote in
>::

>
>Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "
>
>Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.

Yah, but you'll never get him to see it. :-)

Happy Dog

May 10th 05, 02:28 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" .
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
>> would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
>> discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
>> took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
>> information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
>> controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.
>
> I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
> have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
> not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
> really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
> coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
> not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
> was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
> clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
> insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

After almost a dozen posts reflecting a unanimous consensus that you're
wronger that Wrongy W. Wrongenstein? You neither deserve nor should ask for
respect on Usenet. Your inability to recognize the improbability that you
could be the only person who got the simple point under discussion right
reminds me of the Larson cartoon with the seeing eye dog walking up the ramp
into the jet engine. You failed the simplest of tests, which is, "know
thine enemy". You picked the fight. Your posts are textbook jackass
material.

That aside, almost nobody, including the best this NG has to offer
(delivering your free education here) are exempt from criticism. Note the
number of disagreements between people in this thread who, pretty much, only
agree you're wrong. If you can't take it here, abandon hope of an ATC job.
At least until their union is back to full strength. (Uh oh. LOVE Usenet.)

moo

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 04:50 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
They are
> tangible ghosts
>

....Tangible ghosts that can transform you into an intangible ghost? ;-)
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist playing with that great simily.)

Antonio

Newps

May 10th 05, 05:02 PM

wrote:

>
>
> If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
> in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
> developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come up
> with (or for no reason at all).
> It's life in the FAA.

It's life in the Centers. Out here in the towers we are normal.

Antoñio

May 10th 05, 05:17 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" wrote

>>I quote:
>>
>>Happy dog:
>> "Is it assumed that people are posting from the USA unless they make it
>> known otherwise?"
>>
>>
>>Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "
>>
>>Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.
>>
>
>
> Actually, it's just an observed fact.

A *fact* which not all of us share; therefore, a self-proclaimed one.

While it may be true that the majority here are from the USA, that still
does not make this a "USA group". That's a *fact* you appear to have
missed for some, not unknown, reason.

Antonio

Peter Duniho

May 10th 05, 06:38 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> But I didn't misread YOUR post.

Whatever. You did, but you're too busy being the kettle and calling all the
other pots black to notice. Probably has something to do with YOUR
monumental ego.

For giggles, let's assume you didn't misread my post. I suppose you were
just reiterating the same point I'd already made then?

What other reason would you have for posting the reply to my post that you
did? I wrote that the previous poster was incorrect, then you replied
saying exactly that. Is that the new Usenet standard now? To just go
around quoting articles and restating what's already been written?

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 10th 05, 09:48 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Yeah.. I've learned not to be assertive around you.
>>
>
> If you're going to be assertive it's a good idea to make sure you're right.

I agree. I thought I was. I found out I wasn't. Now that I've
learned, I've moved on. Apparently, you haven't.

>>
>> Thanks for making someone who is wanting to put his heart into this career
>> feel
>> diswayed.
>>
>
> Diswayed?

My spelling error. Dissuaded. you don't know what it means, go
look it up.

>>
>> Perhaps I'll be one less controller to replace you from
>> working harder than you should, or even better, thanks for putting more
>> burden on yourself.
>>
>
> I'm irreplaceable anyway.

In a job/profession, ANYONE is replaceable. look at your
President. Look at who comes in after you turn 65.

>>
>> Don't complain if the government requires you to
>> stay on until you're 80, because with that attitude of yours, no-one
>> will love working under you. Check yourself.
>>
>
> You think I have an attitude problem? Which of us refused to listen to
> reason?

Actually, I know you have an attitude problem. Too bad you
refuse to see, let alone admit it. Remind me to never select nor tour
your facility.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCgR4TyBkZmuMZ8L8RAjpIAJ9buxKizsOPLLgGqXBT3q fW3xyEPgCg0Wim
zOKsAWsMvWBmVK4Z4r3chnQ=
=cO+V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

May 10th 05, 09:55 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hamish Reid > wrote:
> In article >,
> A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:
>
>> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>> >
>> > This thread has certainly had a sort of morbid entertainment value
>> > watching you go up against Steven M, an experienced controller and pilot
>> > -- basically, you seem to be a little out of your depth here...
>>
>> Fine then, everyone. You're all right, I'm wrong. You don't
>> need to readback clearances. Everybody happy now?
>
> This is Usenet. The idea of everybody here being happy is kinda funny...
> *someone* will find fault with your new position, now :-).
>
>> I tried to respond with something I was taught by my
>> instructors. Now I know what I was told was wrong. I'll go crawl back
>> into my hole, and shut up because I stood up for what I had learned.
>> Now that I'm wrong, I'll be quiet.
>
> Well, don't do *that*.... Basically, if all you'd done was "respond with
> something I was taught by my instructors", and then thought a little and
> researched a lot about the issue when virtually everyone here pointed
> out you were wrong (and why), probably none of this would have happened.
> But you started questioning people's credentials and giving out abuse --
> and ended up maybe getting rather more than you gave, for sure, but your
> attitude really didn't help. And it probably won't help with the ATC
> job, either....

As for the job, it's a learning curve, and a steep one. But I'm
willing to learn it, and do my best in it. If they tell me that I'm not
cut out for it, I'll do something else. But I'll be satisfied in
knowing that I did my best, and was judged for what I did, not who I
am.

Attitudes will fall away, when experience is built. I admit I'm
young and green about it, but that will change.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCgR+vyBkZmuMZ8L8RAuvzAKCNnh5qfac3bSvM0KpHCG GgKZbqrACgp0a0
gubDDoKcGwEvuNywwOAwoeE=
=dyE/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Matt Whiting

May 10th 05, 11:47 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:

> OP wrote:
>
>>
>> The best reason I have for reading back clearances is, if anything
>> goes wrong, my voice is on the tape repeating the controllers
>> instructions and getting "readback correct" in return. CYA if you
>> have to file an ASRS form.
>>
> Failure for ATC to correct your incorrect readback does not absolve
> you of responsibilty to comply with the original instruction. This
> was once touted to be the case, but the FAA stompted on that idea.
>
> Your last sentence makes no sense. You don't need any CYA for filing
> ASRS. You can file an ASRS at any time you think you have a
> contribution to the safety process. The ASRS itself is a CYA for
> some enforcement actions, but it's primary purpose is not a way
> for pilots to avoid FAA persecution.

But, alas, that seems to have become its primary use.

Matt

Chip Jones

May 11th 05, 01:46 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
> > in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
> > developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come up
> > with (or for no reason at all).
> > It's life in the FAA.
>
> It's life in the Centers. Out here in the towers we are normal.

Actually, out there in the towers you are, well, out there...

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones

May 11th 05, 01:46 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 21:05:46 -0700, Antoñio
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >Steven's categorical reply: "Pretty much, yup... "
> >
> >Such an assuption is, at best, borderline arrogance.
>
> Yah, but you'll never get him to see it. :-)
>

He sees it. You'll never get him to admit he sees it.

Chip, ZTL

Steven P. McNicoll

May 11th 05, 03:50 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
>> have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
>> not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller.
>>
>
> The only messages in this thread that contain the word "insulting" are
> your message above and the responses to it.
>

Oops! That should have been; "The only messages in this thread that contain
the word 'ignorant' are your message above and the responses to it."

Steven P. McNicoll

May 11th 05, 04:04 AM

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> A *fact* which not all of us share; therefore, a self-proclaimed one.
>

A fact doesn't have to be shared to be factual.

>
> While it may be true that the majority here are from the USA, that still
> does not make this a "USA group".
>

I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from the
US.

>
> That's a *fact* you appear to have missed for some, not unknown, reason.
>

No, that's just a misinterpretation on your part.

Steven P. McNicoll

May 11th 05, 04:18 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whatever. You did, but you're too busy being the kettle and calling all
> the other pots black to notice. Probably has something to do with YOUR
> monumental ego.
>
> For giggles, let's assume you didn't misread my post. I suppose you were
> just reiterating the same point I'd already made then?
>
> What other reason would you have for posting the reply to my post that you
> did? I wrote that the previous poster was incorrect, then you replied
> saying exactly that. Is that the new Usenet standard now? To just go
> around quoting articles and restating what's already been written?
>

But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote, "Not
that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those statements are
not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous poster is
correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

I didn't misinterpret your post, you simply misspoke.

Matt Barrow

May 11th 05, 04:53 AM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If that's the way you feel, get out FAST. It took me less than a week
> > > in the Center to learn that most controllers are happy to berate
> > > developmentals any chance they can get, for any reason they can come
up
> > > with (or for no reason at all).
> > > It's life in the FAA.
> >
> > It's life in the Centers. Out here in the towers we are normal.
>
> Actually, out there in the towers you are, well, out there...
>

Snob! :~)

Happy Dog

May 11th 05, 05:57 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" >

> I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
> posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
> reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from the
> US.

Define "overwhelming". Then back your claim with figures. Even if it's
90%, that's no excuse for the intellectual laziness of "reasonable
assumption" and it hardly makes it incumbent on any non-US participant to
make an overt reference to their non-US status. Your suggestion is idiotic,
unnecessary and recommended by nobody but you. Your lack of presumption is
touching, though.

moo

Peter Duniho

May 11th 05, 06:24 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote,
> "Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those
> statements are not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous
> poster is correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

It's not saying that he is correct either. Even ignoring your absurd
equivocation over what "not that" means and your egotistical refusal to
properly interpret my statement, there was no need for your reply.

As usual, since you're willing to take the most ridiculous stance and carry
it to genuinely silly extremes, you once again get the last word. I'm not
wasting any more time on your idiotic "no I didn't"s. I hope at least you
get as much satisfaction from your empty last word as I do from knowing
that, while you are compelled to respond with ever-increasing foolishness,
no matter how far it takes you, that I am able to resist replying to your
foolishness.

And just because I can...

WHATever.

Pete

Jay Beckman

May 11th 05, 07:02 AM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>
>> I didn't say it was a "USA group". I said it's assumed that people are
>> posting from the USA unless they make it known otherwise. That's a
>> reasonable assumption because the participants are overwhelmingly from
>> the US.
>
> Define "overwhelming". Then back your claim with figures. Even if it's
> 90%, that's no excuse for the intellectual laziness of "reasonable
> assumption" and it hardly makes it incumbent on any non-US participant to
> make an overt reference to their non-US status. Your suggestion is
> idiotic, unnecessary and recommended by nobody but you. Your lack of
> presumption is touching, though.
>
> moo
>

It's not snobbery but rather history that makes Steven's claim true.

Go Google this group and you'll see that an "overwhelming" number of posts
discuss flying in the US, by US pilots at US airports under US regulations.

I don't think it's unfair to ask non-US pilots to mention the fact that
their stories, comments and/or critiques are based on non-US regulations,
laws or customs.

I see it like this: We all speak "aviation" here, but Canadian and European
pilots have an accent.

FWIW,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Larry Dighera

May 11th 05, 02:14 PM

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:02:24 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <Sdhge.8009$Fa1.6309@fed1read02>::

>I see it like this: We all speak "aviation" here, but Canadian and European
>pilots have an accent.

Given the fact that usenet originated in the US, and the largest group
of computer users reside in the US, usenet is dominated by articles
posted from, and written about occurrences in, the US.

Some pilots in other countries have their own news groups:

aus.aviation
can.aviation
eunet.aviation
fr.rec.aviation
uk.rec.aviation

So it may be natural to assume the articles posted in the
rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup are authored by, and written about,
aviation in the US, but I would characterize such as presumptuous.

When an author's country is readily apparent from his e-mail address,
it is more likely s/he is referring to aviation occurring in the
country indicated by that address. That is a somewhat subtle point,
but valid none the less.

Of course, it demands an acceptance of membership in the global
community, rather than an American-centric bias, to expect articles
from other localities at all.