Radio Communications

[Flying Illini]

Here is the situation:

Ground: "XXX taxi runway 33"
Me to ground: "Taxi rwy 33, XXX"
Me to tower: "XXX twr, XXX holding short rwy 33, ready for take-off"
Tower: "XXX cleared for take-off" or "XXX cleared for t/o, rwy 33"
Me: "cleared for take-off rwy 33, XXX" if intersection dep, "cleared for take-off rwy 33 at W, XXX"

This is where my question comes in. When communicating do you usually repeat the rwy that you were just cleared to take off from or not? One of the captains I fly with (a real good guy, not a jerk) doesn't like it (and has mentioned this to me on more than one occassion) when I repeat the "rwy 33" part shown in my last transmission above. He says that pro-pilots don't do that b/c it causes frequency congestion and you will be treated more like a professional by ATC if you don't do that. Being a low-time guy I try to absorb every tidbit of info I can but this is one thing that I don't agree with. I feel it is a safety issue. I want to repeat the rwy, JUST IN CASE ATC made an error and thought I was somewhere else. We don't see eye to eye on this and we had a conversation about it on the trip back. I am not looking for a who is right and who is wrong kind of thing. I don't think that there is a right or wrong (I haven't checked the AIM yet, but I'm going to). I AM curious as to what others do.

1. Do you repeat the rwy as shown in my last transmission above or not?

2. What are your feelings on this subject (freq congestion, safety, etc)?

Thanks!

 

[skyking1976]

I think you're right to read back the clearance the way you do, however, it just so happens that the guy sitting next to you is the boss. As long as his practices aren't creating a flight risk just go along with what he says. Make sure that you have the taxi chart available when you are on the ground and that you are following ATC's instructions carefully. If you really feel uncomfortable making the "abbrevitated" read backs and if your captain really is a good guy I'm sure if you discuss the situation with him using CRM and end up at an acceptable solution.

Hope this helps.... Fly SAFE!!!

SK

 

[bobbysamd]

This is where my question comes in. When communicating do you usually repeat the rwy that you were just cleared to take off from or not?

Not necessarily. My instructor taught me just to repeat the last three digits et al of my radio call and "roger," and that's what I taught my students. I do not believe the AIM either recommends or discourages reading back a runway clearance. You only have to read back certain parts of an instrument clearance per the AIM.

One of the captains I fly with . . . doesn't like it (and has mentioned this to me on more than one occassion) when I repeat the "rwy 33" part shown in my last transmission above. He says that pro-pilots don't do that b/c it causes frequency congestion and you will be treated more like a professional by ATC if you don't do that.

Your captain has a point about frequency congestion. His second point evades me somewhat. Maybe he's just using psychology to get you to do it his way.

Unless your company has specific SOPs in your ops manual for radio usage, as long as you follow AIM recommendations you will never be wrong. Everything else is technique.

Hope that helps a little more.

 

[Snoopy58]

Flying in a -121 jet environment, most guys I hear will read back "Cleared for takeoff, three-three at alpha, XXXXX." Some don't. I do.

I don't think it's right or wrong to include/omit the runway identifier, but I think it's a good technique to include it: there are times/places where you are close enough to take off from two different runways from the same spot (such as the close proximity of 12L, 17, and 12R at HOU Hobby, or holding short of two close parallel runways, such as departing west out of ONT or south out of LAS), and there are times when the runway you're cleared for isn't the "obvious" one. If you are in the habit of always confirming your runway, that's one more check for the one time in a decade that you (or the other pilot) go to depart the wrong runway.

Also, if I'm on final in the clouds at 300' and think I just heard I guy get cleared to go on the runway I'm (hopefully) about to try to land on, hearing the runway he's about to use REPEATED (by the pilot) is a better check of "WHERE'S he gonna depart from?!?!?" than the PNF calling tower with that question. PROBABLY he got cleared off of the parallel & NOT the runway I'm lined up for, but if tower messed up, I'd rather get confirmation of that fact by hearing the readback rather than in a radio exchange as we're breaking out at minimums!

In a single runway place like SAN, it obviously matters a lot less, but for the sake of habit, I'd still suggest it's not a bad idea.

As far as your compadre saying that it doesn't sound processional, I disagree, and I think listening to tower for a while at a busy place like ORD, DFW, LAX, etc will confirm that most of the "big boys" *do* read back the runway for takeoff as well as landing clearances .

I would omit the word "runway," however. Tower will use it, you don't need to (not being a helo, runways are the ONLY things you'll be cleared to depart from ).

My $.02, and worth what you paid for it!

Snoopy

 

[Stifler's Mom]

For those of us who have recurrent in ATL we get to meet with an ATC person for a few minutes of question and answer time each year. This one ATC person said they would be fine with "Roger" when given an approach clearance.

For instance...

ATC: "XXX, turn to 300, maintain 3500 until BURNY, 180 knots till the marker cleared for the ILS to Rwy XX."

PILOT: "Roger"

But as far as takeoff clearances, I will repeat the runway unless one of two things...I'm not in the mood, or I was given so many initial instructions that I can't remember what runway I am on to begin with. (ie dialing in a heading and finishing up a takeoff checklist at the same time).

 

[Flying Illini]

As far as your compadre saying that it doesn't sound processional, I disagree, and I think listening to tower for a while at a busy place like ORD, DFW, LAX, etc will confirm that most of the "big boys" *do* read back the runway for takeoff as well as landing clearances .

He said exactly the opposite, said that if you go to somewhere like ORD you WON'T hear that. I have never really listened to hear that...I will next time I go.

As far as saying "rwy," I usually don't, I guess I just typed it to make it easier to read.

Not reading back the rwy you were cleared to go on is something that makes me *very* uncomfortable. I'm not sure why, but I tried it his way this afternoon and I felt naked, like I didn't have that extra layer of protection.

In a magazine recently there was an article describing how ATC got confused and a 172 (or 152) was cleared into position to hold at such and such intersection and immediatly before that a 152 (or 172) was cleared for takeoff full length. The intesection guy taxied out in front of the full length guy who was unable to avoid the collission and it killed all occupants of both aircraft. I need to try and find it b/c I think it mentioned something about reading back the rwy and intersection (if applicable) that you were cleared to t/o from.
Anybody know what mag this was in?!

As far as the other guy being the boss, he is. I am very good at following directions and we have a very open policy on discussing topics, such as this. I tried it his way and *did not* like it. Just seems like a safety of flight kind of thing. Either way, I'm lucky to fly with someone who will listen to his F/O and have a constructive conversation about an issue and not end it by saying, "I'm the captain, do it my way."

Thanks for the responses!

 

[Flying Illini]

I found the article. It's not directly related but it is pretty close...who knows, repeating the rwy you are cleared to go on or the rwy and intersection could have broken this "accident chain."

For those interested:

Flying Mag.
December 2003
pg 81

AOPA Flight Training
December 2003
Pg.40

http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/search_ntsb.cfm
Enter NTSB #: MIA00FA103B

 

[ClassG]

I fully agree that it comes down to safety.

I absolutely DO teach my students (private pilot) to read back the pertinent pieces of information to give everyone one more chance of identifying a miscommunication. I do this to create a good habit, even though I know it isn't required (only hold short clearances are) and I know some jagoff is gonna say it's unprofessional and ties up precious airtime. You know why it matters? 'Cause it's gonna be a while before these students will be operating in and out of ORD, JFK, ATL, etc.

Are you aware that in ORD, when you call clearance delivery up and they read it to you, you are expected to read back ONLY the sqwauk code (unless there has been an amendment to that which you filed). This is also in the interests of keeping the radio chatter to a minimum so they can keep the flow going.

If you are not at ORD, etc, and working alongside the BigBoys, why WOULDN'T you want to readback a clearance for the purposes of clarity? Now, I realize that some places will be extra busy at given times and that it is more considerate (ie, professional) if you take care to LISTEN UP, ANTICIPATE what you're about to hear, and READ BACK ONLY WHAT'S REQUIRED when everything is going smoothely. But, you also need to confirm those items that just don't seem right to you --- they probably aren't.

As for those individuals who are so rigid that they feel the need to criticize you for being thorough and conscientious, I say they're the one's who lack professionalism. Their image seem to mean more to them than safety.

On the same note, you might want to be a little less rigid yourself and be ready and able to DO AS THE ROMANS in places like ORD and some of the busier controlled airspaces. Just pay close attention to making sure safety remains your first concern. Forget that professional image crap. It's useless and often the first breakdown in the chain of events leading to the scene of the crash.


I had a designated examiner criticize one of my students for reading back his clearances as it isn't required by the FAR/AIM. That's not the point. He represents the FAA which (lately) has been going well out of it's way to make sure EVERYONE realizes that runway/taxiway incursions are their biggest concern. NOT reading back a taxi, holdshort, takeoff or landing clearance, including runway number, intersections and tail number (with brevity) is just as stupid as not clearing the area before turning.

He agreed, but argued that this just isn't necessary at the quiet, country airfield we operate out of. My response: How's the student going to know the difference now? He/She will learn the differece with time, but needs the habits now. I don't plan to stop teaching it. And regardless of how it may SOUND, I don't plan to quit doing it, either.

 

[bigsky]

I am no longer an Alpa member but seem to recall them being on a push several years ago to cut out the slang and yes even if it causes some radio congestion to clearly read back the clearance in order to avoid confusion and to help tower catch any mistakes.

Also it is more of an ICAO procedure but still a good habit- In order to avoid confusion - Tell tower you are "ready for departure" rather than ready for takeoff, saving those magical words for the actual clearance to takeoff and the readback.... Likewise tower should say XXX are you ready for departure? There have been cases where they asked are you ready for takeoff?- and the crew just hears takeoff and thought they were cleared. Just something to think about. I do think radio phrasiology becomes all the more important when you are in an international airport mingling with crews from all walks of life

 

[Typhoon1244]

I don't think it's a bad idea at all to repeat the runway number...especially someplace like HOU or MDW where you have several runways crammed together on a small airport. I'd get it in there at least once.

For the love of god, though, don't say "on the hold."

(Eugh...like fingernails on a blackboard...)