A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another stupid transponder question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 15th 05, 02:12 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another stupid transponder question

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"


  #2  
Old September 15th 05, 02:16 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #3  
Old September 15th 05, 02:43 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 =----
  #4  
Old September 15th 05, 03:04 PM
Jay Masino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #5  
Old September 15th 05, 03:39 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #6  
Old September 15th 05, 03:53 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"



  #7  
Old September 15th 05, 04:36 PM
BDS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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...





  #8  
Old September 15th 05, 05:02 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 =----
  #9  
Old September 15th 05, 06:09 PM
Maule Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #10  
Old September 15th 05, 06:17 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 =----
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ unakm Karl Treier Aviation Marketplace 3 December 18th 04 12:37 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ gitqexec OtisWinslow Products 7 November 12th 04 07:34 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ efamf Keith Willshaw Naval Aviation 4 November 11th 04 02:51 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ gitqexec Richard Hertz Products 0 November 8th 04 12:45 AM
More on transponder petition Ian Cant Soaring 1 February 27th 04 07:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.