Another stupid transponder question

[Jay Honeck]

The other day, after launching from Iowa City, Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)
gave me my squawk code, as usual.

My usual procedure is to read back the squawk code as I punch it into our
Garmin 327. (It's got keys to punch, rather than dials to twirl.) This
time, however, I punched a wrong number, and had to re-enter the whole code,
which added a second or two to my reaction time.

Before I could read it back to the CID controller, he had moved on to
another plane. The radio was solid for another minute, until he came back
with "N56993, radar contact 4 miles north of the Iowa City Airport..."

Which led me to question why I ever read the code back in the first place?
Since the controller can obviously see the code on his screen, he certainly
knows that I have complied with his instructions.

So why do we read it back?

*Does* everyone read it back?

I think it's almost more of a tradition than a real procedure. I suppose
it's possible for someone else to have heard his instruction, and for *them*
to have keyed in the code -- but reading it back doesn't really prevent this
scenario from happening.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:12:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<5reWe.331799$_o.122122@attbi_s71>::

>So why do we read it back?

To acknowledge receipt, and provide an opportunity for the ATC
controller to correct an incorrect readback?

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> So why do we read it back?
>
> *Does* everyone read it back?

I will sometimes use a "wilco, Bonanza XXX" in place of the readback, if I
am confident that I heard the number correctly. Other times I will read
back the code primarily for my own memory aid.

In response to an IDENT request, I always use a "wilco, Bonanza XXX," but I
recall reading here that even that is probably overkill since the
controller will know when this occurs. If nothing else, the "wilco" acts
as an acknowledgement and doesn't take that much more radio time than a
simple aircraft id response.

--
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 =----

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Which led me to question why I ever read the code back in the first place?
> Since the controller can obviously see the code on his screen, he certainly
> knows that I have complied with his instructions.

My instrument instructor taught me to *not* readback the transponder code.
The act of dialing it in *is* your response. In a high volume area with a
lot of radio traffic, it saves radio bandwidth. That said, I often read
the squawk back as I'm dialing it in... especially when I'm about to
enter the Washington ADIZ.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Which led me to question why I ever read the code back in the first place?
> Since the controller can obviously see the code on his screen, he certainly
> knows that I have complied with his instructions.
>
> So why do we read it back?

Because, if you don't, the controller has to hold the frequency open for the
response he's expecting, until enough time elapses that he decides you're not
going to respond, so it takes up just as much air time either way?

I dunno, I've done it both ways, and both ways seem to work, and I've never had
a complaint either way.

Normally, I do the readback, though.

[OtisWinslow]

I guess it depends on the depends on the situation. If there's really a lot
of
radio traffic than I'll just reply with "56L" to let them know I heard them.
They'll see the squawk when it comes up. I prefer to read it back if it
doesn't contribute to clutter on the freq .. especially IFR but keep it
short .. "4206, 56L".

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5reWe.331799$_o.122122@attbi_s71...
> The other day, after launching from Iowa City, Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)
> gave me my squawk code, as usual.
>
> My usual procedure is to read back the squawk code as I punch it into our
> Garmin 327. (It's got keys to punch, rather than dials to twirl.) This
> time, however, I punched a wrong number, and had to re-enter the whole
> code, which added a second or two to my reaction time.
>
> Before I could read it back to the CID controller, he had moved on to
> another plane. The radio was solid for another minute, until he came back
> with "N56993, radar contact 4 miles north of the Iowa City Airport..."
>
> Which led me to question why I ever read the code back in the first place?
> Since the controller can obviously see the code on his screen, he
> certainly knows that I have complied with his instructions.
>
> So why do we read it back?
>
> *Does* everyone read it back?
>
> I think it's almost more of a tradition than a real procedure. I suppose
> it's possible for someone else to have heard his instruction, and for
> *them* to have keyed in the code -- but reading it back doesn't really
> prevent this scenario from happening.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[BDS]

"Jay Masino" > wrote

> My instrument instructor taught me to *not* readback the transponder code.
> The act of dialing it in *is* your response. In a high volume area with a
> lot of radio traffic, it saves radio bandwidth. That said, I often read
> the squawk back as I'm dialing it in... especially when I'm about to
> enter the Washington ADIZ.

I think it's a good idea to read it back along with your aircraft ID. It
tells the controller which aircraft is responding to which instruction -
important especially when there are aircraft on the freq with similar tail
numbers. Besides, it takes a whole 2 seconds if you do it right.

2007 Cessna 81Z - doesn't take any longer to say than "wilco Cessna 81Z", it
contains more info, and provides a certain level of cya value.

My .02 worth...

[Peter R.]

BDS > wrote:

> 2007 Cessna 81Z - doesn't take any longer to say than "wilco Cessna 81Z", it
> contains more info, and provides a certain level of cya value.

"2007" contains seven syllables when properly spoken, whereas "wilco" only
contains two. I absolutely do not mean to nitpick, but the former does
take longer to speak.

--
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 =----

[Maule Driver]

I understand that we should acknowledge ATC requests. "1234 Maule 30KS"
does that effectively.

However, when asked to ident, I don't say anything. I just ident. Even
if asked "Maule 30KS, squawk 1234 and ident", I ack with a squawk and an
Ident. The ident representing a positive acknowledgement.

Don't know if it's right but is consistently accepted by ATC.

Peter R. wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>
>>So why do we read it back?
>>
>>*Does* everyone read it back?
>
>
> I will sometimes use a "wilco, Bonanza XXX" in place of the readback, if I
> am confident that I heard the number correctly. Other times I will read
> back the code primarily for my own memory aid.
>
> In response to an IDENT request, I always use a "wilco, Bonanza XXX," but I
> recall reading here that even that is probably overkill since the
> controller will know when this occurs. If nothing else, the "wilco" acts
> as an acknowledgement and doesn't take that much more radio time than a
> simple aircraft id response.
>

[Peter R.]

Maule Driver > wrote:

> However, when asked to ident, I don't say anything. I just ident. Even
> if asked "Maule 30KS, squawk 1234 and ident", I ack with a squawk and an
> Ident. The ident representing a positive acknowledgement

That is true if you are guaranteed to be in positive radar coverage when
the instruction is given. However, there are a couple of airports in NY
State out of which I fly IFR where radar coverage doesn't begin until about
4,000 ft AGL or so. The controller will often issue a request similar to
"upon reaching 5,000, ident." Since this could be one to a few minutes
out, I always verbally acknowledge the request.

--
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 =----

[Maule Driver]

Peter R. wrote:
> Maule Driver > wrote:
>
>>However, when asked to ident, I don't say anything. I just ident. Even
>>if asked "Maule 30KS, squawk 1234 and ident", I ack with a squawk and an
>>Ident. The ident representing a positive acknowledgement
>
> That is true if you are guaranteed to be in positive radar coverage when
> the instruction is given. However, there are a couple of airports in NY
> State out of which I fly IFR where radar coverage doesn't begin until about
> 4,000 ft AGL or so. The controller will often issue a request similar to
> "upon reaching 5,000, ident." Since this could be one to a few minutes
> out, I always verbally acknowledge the request.
>
Yes, I would do the same in that case. No question.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> Which led me to question why I ever read the code back in the first place?

There is no reason to read a code back in that type of situation. The
controller will see the code change on the radar and that serves as your
readback.

>
> *Does* everyone read it back?

Me? Never.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> *Does* everyone read it back?

I never have. All of my instructors over the years have told me not to. The
argument is that the controller will see the blip and tell you if you're
squawking the correct code or not. If they don't see the code in a minute or
two, they'll ask you to ident.

I've also never had a controller ask for a readback or sound upset that he
didn't get one. I *have* dialed in the wrong code once, and the controller
corrected me.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Peter R.]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

> wilco, Bonanza XXX isn't really anything shorter than 4132, Bonanza XXX.

You quoted my paragraph about the IDENT request, but then compared "wilco"
to a squawk code. Apples and oranges, dear Martin.

--
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 =----

[[email protected]]

I was taught to read it back, the same as freq. changes, QNH, headings,
altitudes. etc.
There is also a class that can be answered with a wilco, roger or
double click.(wind directions and so while landing).
I hardly use the double click, I'm too afraid a box suddenly appears in
my window saying I've done something stupid ;-)

-Kees.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> The other day, after launching from Iowa City, Cedar Rapids Approach
> (CID) gave me my squawk code, as usual.
>
[...]
>
> Before I could read it back to the CID controller, he had moved on to
> another plane.
[...]
>
> So why do we read it back?
>
> *Does* everyone read it back?
>
I "read it back" before I change the transponder, just as I do for any
other controller instructions. If I enter the wrong number, they'll let me
know, if only to say "no radar contact".

Neil

[Mark T. Dame]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> So why do we read it back?

My argument for reading it back would be that it lets the controller
know that the correct aircraft is responding. Imagine two planes
talking to the same controller: 2948Q (my club's Archer) and 6468Q (one
of the 152's that I flew for my primary training) (based at the same
field, so very likely to be flying at the same time). The controller
calls to me in the Archer to squawk 1234: "48Q squawk 1234 and ident".
My four year old is asking "what's that for" (referring to who knows
what), so I'm distracted and miss the call. Meanwhile, the student
pilot leaving for his long cross country had requested flight following,
so he's expecting a squawk code. He squawks 1234 and idents. No one
read back the request, but now the controller sees 1234 light up on his
radar and thinks it's me.

Similarly, I will always respond to a request to ident with "48Q
identing" so if something is wrong and I don't show up on the screen,
the controller at least knows that I tried. So instead of spending
another couple of minutes trying to get me to ident, we can deal with
the problem (whatever it may be).

Basically, my philosophy about talking with controllers is this:
they're there to help me, so I'm going to make sure that we on the same
page so they can do their job to keep my butt safe. I read back every
request and don't hesitate to ask a controller to repeat a request if I
am at all unsure. To me it just makes sense. It's not like it requires
a lot of extra effort. Even on a busy frequency, you can read back a
squawk code in less than 2 seconds.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"This message represents the official view of the voices in my head"
-- Bill Cole (wkc at mail-abuse.org)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> My argument for reading it back would be that it lets the controller know
> that the correct aircraft is responding. Imagine two planes talking to
> the same controller: 2948Q (my club's Archer) and 6468Q (one of the 152's
> that I flew for my primary training) (based at the same field, so very
> likely to be flying at the same time). The controller calls to me in the
> Archer to squawk 1234: "48Q squawk 1234 and ident".

Improper use of abbreviated callsign. Should be "Archer 48Q" or "Piper
48Q".


>
> My four year old is asking "what's that for" (referring to who knows
> what), so I'm distracted and miss the call. Meanwhile, the student pilot
> leaving for his long cross country had requested flight following, so he's
> expecting a squawk code. He squawks 1234 and idents. No one read back
> the request, but now the controller sees 1234 light up on his radar and
> thinks it's me.
>

Nobody even acknowledged it. So the controller will probably repeat the
transmission before the code gets dialed in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but I've also been on the same freq as another Piper/Archer/Cherokee
> with a similar tail number, so the point stands.
>

That would also be improper use of abbreviated callsigns, as similar
callsigns are not to be abbreviated.


>
> That was the whole point of the discussion: why you should acknowledge
> the squawk request from the controller. Several people made the point
> that the squawk code showing up on the radar would be enough for
> acknowledging the request. My example shows how this could backfire.
>

But that's not the whole point of the discussion. Jay wondered why we read
back the transponder code, he didn't wonder why we acknowledge
transmissions.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> *Does* everyone read it back?

Many do, many don't...

Going off topic for a personal rant:

You still hear a lot of garbage on the air like: "Area traffic please
advise" Which is an ego boost that really means: "I am too important
to listen to your transmissions, now YOU listen up because -> I <- am
more important than you are, and -> I <- want you to tell me where you
are and what you are doing, as -> I <- was doing other things and not
listening to you when you made your previous courtesy call".

Here is the briefing from Jer/: "Don't buy ENRON... read the AIM, and
LEARN how to talk on the radio"!!!!

Well, they ASKED for advice, didn't they? They got as much advice as
their CRAP transmission was worth to me!!!! Think about it... what
is the difference between "Podunk traffic" and "Podunk AREA
traffic"... other than the waste of air time and ego on the frequency.
Do you really think that YOU, a PILOT, need to be INVITED to talk on
the radio by someone who's ego is much bigger than yours, and who
doesn't have the courtesy to listen to your transmissions, nor the
training (or reading from the AIM) about what to say on the radio?

"Standard is better than 'better'... if what you are doing is SO MUCH
BETTER THAN STANDARD, go through channels and see that it is adopted
as the standard. Until then, standard is better than standard".
The AIM and the FAA Advisory Circulars are the standard!


Back on topic NOT reading back ident or squawk codes:

This VERY topic came up with both a DEN Center controller and a DEN
Class B approach controller presenting at our Civil Air Patrol
squadron meeting.

Both IMMEDIATELY said "your squawk is your response, however, if you
are confused about the code, or the frequency is VERY quiet, read it
back".

BOTH wanted only the squawk to change, or the IDENT to happen as the
ONLY response. Their point is... this is not an immediacy issue.
They will see the response in a timely manner... and they have other
things to do on other frequencies, or on the data strips, or are on
the phone.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 233 Young Eagles!

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message ...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > *Does* everyone read it back?
>
> Many do, many don't...
>
> Going off topic for a personal rant:
>
> You still hear a lot of garbage on the air like: "Area traffic please
> advise" Which is an ego boost that really means: "I am too important
> to listen to your transmissions, now YOU listen up because -> I <- am
> more important than you are, and -> I <- want you to tell me where you
> are and what you are doing, as -> I <- was doing other things and not
> listening to you when you made your previous courtesy call".

Heard a new twist on the idiotic _in the area please advise_ a couple of
weeks ago. This one was _anybody in the area please say intentions_. Being
one to always follow directions I promptly keyed the mic and in my best John
Wayne voice boomed out over the airwaves.............._intentions_. I was
right proud of myself.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> You still hear a lot of garbage on the air like: "Area traffic please
> advise"

The answer to that query is "I'm over here."