Takeoff clearance read back

[Roundsounds]

Ben87r:

 

Refer to CAAP 166(link below)

 

Page 21 states the content of a broadcast, which includes intentions. A broadcast immediately before entering a runway (line-up call) would include intentions- ie for circuits, departure to the west etc, upwind departure for Dubbo etc. hence no need for a departure call.

 

Page 22 contains a table of recommended broadcasts.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf

 

Uneccessary broadcasts can result in a safety issue when a non-towered airport gets busy. Put 4 or 5 aircraft into a circuit all making taxying, lineup, downwind, base, final, clear of runway calls there's no room for inbound traffic calls. It's also difficult to maintain situational awareness with constant radio chatter - there's a tendency to "tune out", a bit like a nagging partner or whinging child.

 

It also promotes a mindset of reliance on radio for traffic awareness, remember radios are not compulsory at all airports, radios fail and errors result in incorrect frequencies/selections. Lookout is you primary means of traffic separation, radio only assists.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Not really. Then again I don't generally do that in the day job either though I will happily return a greeting if I get one!This whole thing with ever-increasing readbacks and the arguments used to support them is interesting. They've only ever had one purpose in life, and a very important one: to confirm to ATC that the aircraft has correctly understood the clearance or instruction it was issued.

 

Readbacks have never been for other purposes. That might be called a "broadcast" or something similar. Of course there's nothing to stop you from gaining SA from a clearance issued by ATC to someone else. We do that all time (when the brainspace and capacity is available) and it's good airmanship when you can.

 

The other interesting thing is the Airservices conflation and confusion of their own principles recently. Going back to the "lineup and wait", for example, it has been said (in the process of admonishing an aircraft as personally relayed to me) that the "....and wait" is a conditional clearance and therefore needs to be read back. That's just bollocks someone plucked out of their backside. Sure conditional clearances do have to be read back but in this case, what exactly is the condition? What else can you do? It has the same effect as the other commonly used "XYZ lineup". It has no additional conditions and means exactly what it says, and has precisely the same effect as the previous one. You can't actually do anything else after being cleared to lineup until you receive another clearance or instruction.

 

It's like saying "XYZ descend to 5000 and then stop descent". Really? No I figured I'd just keep on going!

 

Now if they say "Behind the Chieftain on final, lineup behind" yes now they've put a condition on the lineup of only doing it behind the Chieftain, so that bit has to be read back. And no you don't have to repeat "behind" at the end - you've already said it at the beginning so the compliance is quite clear.

 

That's not strictly true, but sure, I'll read-back whatever they want. If they give me an updated ATIS on approach to Melbourne and want me to readback the entire ATIS to them I'll do that. If they want me to read back "when ready" even though it's not a conditional clearance for descent, I'll do that too, but there's no requirement.

 

AIP GEN 4.4.1 "For other than item a), only key elements of the following clearances, instructions , or information must be read-back ensuring sufficient detail is included to indicate compliance." then it goes on to list those clearances/instructions for which only key elements need to be read back.

 

Which goes back to what I said above, about the entire reason for having readbacks. But someone in ASA is going beserk at the moment. If they want every single word to be read back verbatim then they need to change GEN 4.4.1 because it quite clearly states otherwise and it's their own publication. Sure the key elements are usually somewhere in the readback, but they're becoming too often interspersed with garbage, and now garbage on demand!

Yes I meant ATC instructions, not every word they say, sorry if that confused you. The crack down normally stems from an incident in which the correct read back wasn't chased.

 

 

[ben87r]

Thanks RS,

 

I'm quite happy with my radio use due to the reasons outlined above. Is that the same advisory document that advises all not CTAF calls be made on centre?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Today did some circuits at Cessnock. A locally based aircraft made the following calls:

 

-10NM inbound

 

- 5NM inbound

 

-3 NM inbound

 

- descending on the dead side to join crosswind

 

- joining crosswind

 

- turning downwind

 

- turning base

 

- turning final

 

- clear of runway

 

- crossing runway.

 

The only other traffic at the airport was us doing circuits, it would seem this was an aircraft on a training flight. To me this is not enhancing safety in any way. If you have 2 or three of aircraft inbound making these calls, plus a few in the circuit there's no room to make all of the calls and you lose track of who's where. Remember too, this CTAF frequency is shared by a nearby ALA where training also takes place. (Maitland).

 

 

[Robbo]

Ahhh I so hate overuse of the radio, thats more dangerous than not saying anything !

 

 

[Parkway]

Ahhh I so hate overuse of the radio, thats more dangerous than not saying anything !

Definitely agree!!!

 

 

[KRviator]

Today did some circuits at Cessnock. A locally based aircraft made the following calls:-10NM inbound

- 5NM inbound

 

-3 NM inbound

 

- descending on the dead side to join crosswind

 

- joining crosswind

 

- turning downwind

 

- turning base

 

- turning final

 

- clear of runway

 

- crossing runway.

 

The only other traffic at the airport was us doing circuits, it would seem this was an aircraft on a training flight. To me this is not enhancing safety in any way. If you have 2 or three of aircraft inbound making these calls, plus a few in the circuit there's no room to make all of the calls and you lose track of who's where. Remember too, this CTAF frequency is shared by a nearby ALA where training also takes place. (Maitland).

I was up there Monday and someone did the same thing - with no one else in the circuit! By comparison, my calls were 10NM East inbound, Joining crosswind behind a Mooney on downwind, and turning base behind the Mooney. I don't get these "Every leg, every time" calls, or the teaching behind them...

[Roundsounds]

I was up there Monday and someone did the same thing - with no one else in the circuit! By comparison, my calls were 10NM East inbound, Joining crosswind behind a Mooney on downwind, and turning base behind the Mooney. I don't get these "Every leg, every time" calls, or the teaching behind them...

Yep - I flew in from the north and made the following calls:

- 5NM inbound,

 

-joining downwind for touch and go (behind another aircraft already on downwind),

 

- then base calls on subsequent circuits.

 

Seemed to work ok and satisfied CAR 166.

 

The most useless call that's appeared in recent years would be "clear of runway". Why make this call?

 

 

[turboplanner]

So there are no standard radio standards any more, no radio exam?

 

 

[turboplanner]

The most useless call that's appeared in recent years would be "clear of runway". Why make this call?

A long time ago that call was "xxx Clear all Runways" and was to advise the Tower you were goung out of their control and switching to ground control frequency.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

A long time ago that call was "xxx Clear all Runways" and was to advise the Tower you were goung out of their control and switching to ground control frequency.

The purpose of the call once clear of the runway and runway strip is simply to establish comm's with SMC at a Towered airport. It's got nothing to do with advising ATC of you being clear of the runway, that is established visually (or ground radar at some airports).

Therefore, this call has no purpose at a non-towered airport.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So there are no standard radio standards any more, no radio exam?

Yes, the AIP and CAAP 166 provide direction on the required calls. There is a radio exam and practical assessments during flight training. The problem is flight training providers have decided they know better than the regulator and teach their own version of RT, the theme seems to be the more calls the better. The use of traffic displays on various EFB devices seems to be trendy, this worries me too. The attitude of no calls heard, no traffic displayed on EFB=no traffic is dangerous. Pilots of bug smashers need to maintain a proper look out as their primary means of collision avoidance, just take note of the lack of scanning for traffic in the plethora of video footage posted online - there's rarely any scanning happening.

 

 

[turboplanner]

WEll, you would look a goose calling SMC on the tower frequency, but yes this call has no purpose at a non - towered airport.

 

The string of calls that you endured at Cessnock #29 is nonsensical, and would not be a safe practice at a busy airfield (although I'd think someone would tell him to shut up very quickly.

 

 

[facthunter]

Instructors should avoid having "personal" and very individual ways of insisting a certain way is the only way. Your actions should fit the situation AND comply with the rules. You shouldn't find when you change your instructor it becomes a challenge to work out what HE/SHE wants done, differently. It's hard to please numerous masters at the one time. This is not to strait jacket instructional techniques as they vary with the individual but the facts being taught should not .Nev

 

 

[Parkway]

So clear of all runways isn't a required call at non towered airports?

 

Reading this from casa it seems like there are only recommendations and no hard and fast rules of which calls have to be made.. Probably doesn't help the whole situation of instructors teaching what they think should be done rather than a set guideline of what calls to make

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So clear of all runways isn't a required call at non towered airports?Reading this from casa it seems like there are only recommendations and no hard and fast rules of which calls have to be made.. Probably doesn't help the whole situation of instructors teaching what they think should be done rather than a set guideline of what calls to make

CAAP 166 is a good start, the table on page 22 lists the recommended broadcasts. Page 22, para 7.3.6 effectively says other calls should be made to avoid the risk of a collision when one exists - this doesn't give permission for teaching verbal diarrhoea. I cannot see how a call clear of the runway serves to avoid a collision. My take on this poor RT use is most flight instructors are now trained at towered airports, so simply transfer those calls on top of the CAR 166 calls.

 

The AIP Book is the primary source for when and what to say, whether that be Class C, D or G airports. if you're uncertain of the rules, it might be worth reviewing that info.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Reading this from casa it seems like there are only recommendations and no hard and fast rules of which calls have to be made

Remember CASA has started to move in the Public Liability direction; where there is a code or recommendation, your situation is reversed and the code or recommendation becomes your defence against negligence, so in terms of financial self preservation they are tougher than the old prescriptive regulations ever were.

 

 

[DWF]

The purpose of making radio calls is to aid situational awareness and facilitate ALERTED see-and-avoid traffic separation.

 

 

 

When operating on circuits I usually only make a Turning Downwind call each circuit - unless it is prudent/desirable to make additional calls for separation with other traffic.

 

(An aircraft is usually more visible to other traffic when turning so I make the call entering the downwind turn.)

 

This practice may be a hangover from when I used to operate at a secondary CTR airport where the only call ATC usually required was the turning downwind call.

 

 

 

I will confess to using the "Clear of the Runway" call.

 

This call is made to aid the situational awareness of other traffic in the area, particularly inbound traffic, by informing them that I am no longer a separation problem for them. (At our airstrip it is difficult to see an aircraft on the ground once it has left the runway due to buildings, trees and several taxiways.)

 

 

 

I definitely agree that some pilots make far too many (unnecessary) calls.

 

 

 

A pet hate of mine is pilots who talk too fast - trying to get it all out as quickly as possible.

 

I can usually decipher the calls but my students often have real trouble with them.

 

These calls usually require a "say again" and so do not really save any time and cause an extra distraction for those hearing the transmission.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Yenn]

My opinion is that turning downwind is a wasted call. It does not give location as you cn join downwind short, long or midfield. I consider the base call is the most useful and of greatest safety.

 

 

[dsam]

Ok lots of opinions here... I agree with many, but... What is the absolute MANDATORY minimum calls inbound to landing at a basic CTAF? Given that a radio is optional, my pick is NONE! Obviously, that isn't very safe, so flexibility, (governed by traffic density) is the best choice, I would think... Keep it minimum when busy, moderate if nobody around, and LOOK OUT THE WINDOW at all times! Ok, flame me now...

 

 

[djpacro]

My take on this poor RT use is most flight instructors are now trained at towered airports, so simply transfer those calls on top of the CAR 166 calls.

My thought is that they were taught by flying schools who had taken the earlier version of CASA's rules to heart - "it says recommended so you must do it because if you don't and ........ "

My observation is that there were few, if any, superfluous radio calls prior to that.

 

 

[facthunter]

Call turning base with intentions.( Full stop or touch and go) Informative and max visibility in the turn for straight in and other following traffic in the normal pattern. Nev

 

 

[dsam]

Call turning base with intentions.( Full stop or touch and go) Informative and max visibility in the turn for straight in and other following traffic. Nev

Perhaps good.... But is that just for a base leg join (not recommended by regs)? I hate uncertainty

In the end, common sense and simplicity should govern RT options.

 

 

[facthunter]

No it wasn't It was emphasised in the original communications to all pilots in the terms I've indicated. If you joined base you wouldn't call "turning" base as you don't (usually) If joining and I probably wouldn't.. Nev

 

 

[dsam]

I suppose I'm guilty here as this thread was about "takeoff clearance" RT... Sorry...