Readback of clerance

[Nico]

I fly online all the time, and whenever i file a flight plan (assuming it was sourced from flightaware or the preferred route database), after my clearance was given Exactly as i filed it, i read back the transponder code and my call sign. That’s it. I figure it saves a controller’s time. 

 

Is this correct? Do controllers online appreciate this or prefer a full readback?

[Andrew Heath]

Full readbacks are always expected unless ATC advises otherwise. If you want to shorten your readback, at the very least give us your destination, departure procedure, initial altitude, and squawk code. Altitude being the MOST important of all.

Example: "Cleared to La Guardia, Philadelphia Two departure, maintain 5000, squawk 3301."

The controller often times has no clue whether you are familiar with the route or not, and frankly it doesn't really matter. In the airline world we act as though it is our first time flying a route every time, regardless of the fact it may be our 1000th time. This is to prevent a hazard called "expectation bias" which could trap you if something changes from what you expect on the 1001th time you fly that route.

[aeroniemi]

It's dependent on what's included in the clearance as read by the controller, and where in the world you are:

In UK airports one will generally get "cleared to [airport] via [sid], initial climb [as appropriate, often not included if published], squawk. "

It would then be required that you read all of those components back, and the controller will ask you again for it should you not reply.
Under my VATSIM experience in the DANUBE FAB (BG/RO/MD), it'd be required to read back at minimum sq. code, altitude, sid and QNH (as given at clearance)

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by aeroniemi

[makyoch]

9 hours ago, lewis said:

We've been using PDC via PM lately and hopefully this will be standardised over time due to the phenomenal benefits it gives to area controllers while top-down. We can then focus on the airborne traffic that requires more precision

The problem with that is that it's nothing like CPDLC in the real world and having to get your clearance from the PMs loses a lot of your immersion in the sim. Personally I just think that it's tacky, annoying, and I cringe hard whenever I get a PM with one of those, usually departing OMDB. It's also a bit nonsensical because it assumes that all aircraft are datalink-capable - when I fly IFR in my C206, it most certainly is not... but that doesn't stop a controller from hitting the button and sending me a "datalink" clearance. Hoppie's system (www.hoppie.nl) is the best thing for datalink on VATSIM, but unfortunately it is used by so few controllers and even fewer pilots. Moreover, datalink clearances are primarily meant to reduce frequency congestion; the controller should pay just as much attention to aircraft regardless of whether the clearance is being passed by voice or datalink. Nonetheless, I'm really excited to be able to use CPDLC properly with POSCON.

That being said, shortened readbacks are a bad idea and you honestly won't find such a procedure being commonplace in many places around the world. As a controller, one has to ensure that the clearance is received correctly and the only surefire way to tell that, short of waiting and seeing that the pilot is flying the wrong heading/SID, expecting the wrong runway, climbing through his cleared level, etc; is through receiving a readback of the clearance in full. That is, a readback that includes every bit of information (not necessarily every word, lol) that was included in the clearance. Otherwise, all I'll be doing is asking the pilot to "confirm X, Y and Z" until they do. /my2cents

[Andrew Heath]

15 hours ago, makyoch said:

The problem with that is that it's nothing like CPDLC in the real world and having to get your clearance from the PMs loses a lot of your immersion in the sim. Personally I just think that it's tacky, annoying, and I cringe hard whenever I get a PM with one of those, usually departing OMDB. It's also a bit nonsensical because it assumes that all aircraft are datalink-capable - when I fly IFR in my C206, it most certainly is not... but that doesn't stop a controller from hitting the button and sending me a "datalink" clearance. Hoppie's system (www.hoppie.nl) is the best thing for datalink on VATSIM, but unfortunately it is used by so few controllers and even fewer pilots. Moreover, datalink clearances are primarily meant to reduce frequency congestion; the controller should pay just as much attention to aircraft regardless of whether the clearance is being passed by voice or datalink. Nonetheless, I'm really excited to be able to use CPDLC properly with POSCON.

That being said, shortened readbacks are a bad idea and you honestly won't find such a procedure being commonplace in many places around the world. As a controller, one has to ensure that the clearance is received correctly and the only surefire way to tell that, short of waiting and seeing that the pilot is flying the wrong heading/SID, expecting the wrong runway, climbing through his cleared level, etc; is through receiving a readback of the clearance in full. That is, a readback that includes every bit of information (not necessarily every word, lol) that was included in the clearance. Otherwise, all I'll be doing is asking the pilot to "confirm X, Y and Z" until they do. /my2cents

I agree with most everything said here.

Just something to note though... a PDC can still be sent to a General Aviation aircraft. The difference is many GA guys don't pick up their PDC because they don't have the datalink capabilities in their aircraft. However, if they were to go to a computer terminal in say, the FBO, and their company had access to this type of information, they could probably receive a PDC.

[Sean (1020678)]

Speaking for Non-PDC, Unless it says in the ATIS...Do a full readback. LAX has been in the past wanting just the you code, but most places are moving to PDC...so if you don't want to PDC, do it like a 172. Some controllers on VATSIM are overly PMing to the point its just not real anymore. If you don't want PDC or CPDLC, put it in the remarks.

[Krikor H. (1011200)]

Nico, it doesn't make a huge difference if nothing is amended. Most major airports (including some Class C's) will use PDC's for any CPDLC equipped aircraft, thus reducing frequency congestion. Some, such as Boston, will require pilots to report certain information such as beacon code, SID and ATIS on initial contact with ramp/ground for pushback.

If something is amended, a full readback is required of any amendments.

[Nico]

3 hours ago, Andrew said:

Full readbacks are always expected unless ATC advises otherwise. If you want to shorten your readback, at the very least give us your destination, departure procedure, initial altitude, and squawk code. Altitude being the MOST important of all.

Example: "Cleared to La Guardia, Philadelphia Two departure, maintain 5000, squawk 3301."

The controller often times has no clue whether you are familiar with the route or not, and frankly it doesn't really matter. In the airline world we act as though it is our first time flying a route every time, regardless of the fact it may be our 1000th time. This is to prevent a hazard called "expectation bias" which could trap you if something changes from what you expect on the 1001th time you fly that route.

Expectation bias, that is a good one. I guess that is the reason why you perform checklists and briefinds even if it is your 1000th time performing the same procedure. 

 

Is it fair to expect that you need a more complete readback to a CLR_DEL than a CTR controller when FLYING ONLINE?

also, whats the deal with PDC? And why havent all facilities adopted this procedure? It seems to be a big time saver

[Andrew Heath]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

Expectation bias, that is a good one. I guess that is the reason why you perform checklists and briefinds even if it is your 1000th time performing the same procedure. 

 

Is it fair to expect that you need a more complete readback to a CLR_DEL than a CTR controller when FLYING ONLINE?

also, whats the deal with PDC? And why havent all facilities adopted this procedure? It seems to be a big time saver

No, it is not fair to expect that one controller would need a more complete readback than the other. Let THEM tell you whether they want a shortened readback. It's not really for the pilot to decide.

PDC should be used where it is available in the real world; however, on network's such as VATSIM, there is not clear standardized model or automated process for it. We will be solving this issue on POSCON.

[Nico]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:29 PM, Andrew said:

No, it is not fair to expect that one controller would need a more complete readback than the other. Let THEM tell you whether they want a shortened readback. It's not really for the pilot to decide.

PDC should be used where it is available in the real world; however, on network's such as VATSIM, there is not clear standardized model or automated process for it. We will be solving this issue on POSCON.

Great! Will you also be solving the issue of shorter readbacks (i.e. sqw only) in poscon?

[lewis]

We've been using PDC via PM lately and hopefully this will be standardised over time due to the phenomenal benefits it gives to area controllers while top-down. We can then focus on the airborne traffic that requires more precision

[Saul G.]

Sometimes, here in Brazil, some ATCs, due to heavy traffic at TWR/GND/DEL, after the clearance, they ask pilots to do not readback. Specially if is a RPL.

But I guess the pilots need have a little bit of good sense and readback only necessary info, as destination, flight level, SID, sqwk and some info after departure.

[Andrew (1017363)]

At Least for VATSIM, they only require a squawk code readback, unless they amend your clearance - then a full readback is required.

[Andrew Heath]

@Andrew

Is that a written policy, or just something that as been unofficially adapted?

[Tomas H. (1013783)]

Neither. Most places on VATSIM (including Canada where I control) will require a full readback unless explicitly stated otherwise. 

[Andrew (1017363)]

18 hours ago, Andrew H. said:

@Andrew

Is that a written policy, or just something that as been unofficially adapted?

It is a written policy.

[Ryan S. (1011255)]

I've seen it where PDCs only require a squawk read back. For verbal read backs it usually either a full read back or an abbreviated one (as AJ mentions earlier), but never just the squawk (unless the controller tells you).

 

(United States Operations)

[Rob Shearman Jr]

@Ryan S.

is that "near'universal accepted best practice" or actually required by FARs? 

http://imgur.com/HJYFATT

[Ryan S. (1011255)]

10 hours ago, Rob Shearman Jr said:

@Ryan S.

is that "near'universal accepted best practice" or actually required by FARs? 

http://imgur.com/HJYFATT

Tune into any clearance frequency and I doubt you'll hear 'Roger' as a pilot read back for clearance. You are correct, pilots SHOULD read back the 'numbers', they MAY acknowledge the instruction with 'roger'. (2-4-3a). The AIM says the same thing (4-4-7). The one restriction is altitudes specifically stated by the controller must be read back.

It's more about clear communication than anything, and avoiding expectation bias as AJ mentions above.

[Rob Shearman Jr]

I completely agree with you @Ryan S. and in my own personal sim flying I'll do a full readback of an IFR clearance every time, unless specifically requested not to by the controller.  And I also completely agree that it's probably kind of a dumb idea not to do that, usually.  However, the question posed above was what is actually required, and there is a distinction there.

[Tiago G. (1019607)]

I'm surprised with no references to Doc 4444 or 9432 or any other documents.

 

Comms between pilot and atc are mostly clearances. The departure clearance is just one of them. Everything is about a clearance, its limit, get another clearance and so on

 

Officially, the following shall always be read back:

-Taxi instructions

-Level instructions

-Heading instructions

-Speed instructions

-Airways/route clearances

-Approach clearances

-Runway in use

-All clearances affecting any runway

-SSR operating instructions

-Altimeter settings

-VDF information

-Type of radar service

-Transition levels

-Frequency changes should always be read-back in full

 

 

Local requirements must also be looked after, since those differ from place to place, like full or partial readback by voice from a PDC clearance, or departure clearances being given during taxi and so on...

 

But most importantly... Have fun!!

 

Happy flying