Abrupt Controller

Kobra writes:

Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000'
north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a
minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any
chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna
unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but
I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when
able'." Shortly after I turned direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture
with unneeded and unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T
YOU LISTEN OR UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE
TO FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"

When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when able." he
became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN
TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."

Where was your readback?

Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the controller
needs to take some responsibility for using confusing verbiage and surely it
was unprofessional to lay me out like that.

Had you read back the instructions, the chances of any confusion would have
been greatly reduced. You should always read things back.

This reminds me of how a
mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA
pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided
right in front of him on his screen.

When was this?

So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to say,
"...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that, that can be
EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's your thoughts on
this and did he use proper language or did he just use poor phraseology?

If you read back "when able" after he says "unable," he'll probably catch it
and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never know.

Anthony, where do you get off telling a real IFR rated pilot about how he
should read back instructions, when you have never been at the controls of
anything other than a computer game? Do you even remotely think that talking
with play controllers in any way mimics the real IFR environment?

Get a clue- you don't know anything about flying IFR or in IMC.

Where was your readback?


I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while
I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and
head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took
place.

But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just
think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and
probably having a bad day.

Kobra

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:07:57 -0400, "Kobra" wrote:

Where was your readback?


I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while
I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and
head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took
place.

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. Now, were it me:

1) File an ASRS form, now.

2) WRT the instruction, I would have thought the prefered method would
have been "aircraft, unable Smyrna." As you mention, "Smyrna
unable" is confusing. In fact, if I read the 7110.65 right, he wasn't
in compliance with the approved terminology in 2-1-18(c):

2-1-18: Operational requests
c. State the word “UNABLE” and, time permitting,
a reason.
PHRASEOLOGY-
UNABLE (requested operation).
and when necessary,
(reason and/or additional instructions.)

3) Never get into an on-air discussion. Just shush and go on to the
next sector. It's not worth the airtime, regardless of what the guy
on the ground is doing. You have better things to be doing, like
flying the aircraft. If you want to get into it later after you
landed, ask for the controller's initials, note the time, and then
call his facility and ask for the supervisor or QA guy. They'll take
the information and pull the tapes.

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.



Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

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

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

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

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

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
changed. It was widely misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.


It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was never
heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
changed. It was widely misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.


It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was
never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated even though his readback
error was not caught. The controller was charged with an error as well.
This is no doubt the exception as usually the controller buys the error
exclusively.

Peter Clark writes:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.

If ATC isn't supposed to correct an incorrect readback, why have readbacks?
Or is that not what you mean?

Kobra writes:

But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just
think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and
probably having a bad day.

If he reacts that emotionally to something this trivial, perhaps air traffic
control is not the best career choice for him. Angry young males make poor
air traffic controllers (in fact, they are bad at just about everything except
perhaps bar fights).