The anal-retentiveness that is SMO

[English]

Is there anything in the FARS or AIM that states a clearance must be read back verbatim?

I was given a clearance today that read "Cleared to the XYZ airport, fly runway heading. At the LAX 310 radial turn right heading 265, no delay, radar vectors LIMBO etc." I read everything back except the "no delay" part and the controller insisted I read it back, claiming, no kidding, "the lawyers require you to read it back".
I'm still shaking my head over this one. I understand the need for the turn at the radial, as there are parallel departures from LAX close by. But this was a bit ridiculous. The controller wasn't going to let us go (IFR) until I read the entire clearance over again with the words "no delay".

What if I had just read back, "Cleared to XYZ, squawking 1234?" I thought controllers were no longer responsible for erroneous pilot readbacks?

 

[Lead Sled]

Maybe he just wanted to hear your voice.

'Sled

 

[JediNein]

That is how SMO controllers keep themselves amused and keep you from being run over by a Boeing from LAX.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[English]

I don't have a problem with him telling me not to dawdle. It was his insistence on me reading back the entire clearance a second time with his little phrase inserted where he wanted it that irritated me.

 

[viper548]

Makes you appreciate places like LAX that tell you to only read back the squawk unless you have a question

 

[PHX767]

They treat everyone like student pilots..

.....

 

[Vector4fun]

Is there anything in the FARS or AIM that states a clearance must be read back verbatim?

[snip]

What if I had just read back, "Cleared to XYZ, squawking 1234?" I thought controllers were no longer responsible for erroneous pilot readbacks?

Not quite. If you read it back, and we hear it, then we're still responsible. Just went over this in another thread.
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=63178

If your readback were to be blocked by another transmission or some such, and we never heard or got it, then you might be on your own hook.

​

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.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]
AIM, Contact Procedures, Para 4-2-3.[/SIZE]
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.

​

 

[501261]

Can't say I've heard the "no delay" part of the clearance before. Somebody probably almost caused a midair by not turning at the shoreline and so now there's a new emphasis on it.

Look at the brightside, at least you're not getting a letter from the noise nazis .

 

[Sam Snead]

Controller question: for airports where ATIS sez "read back only your callsign and xpdr code unless you have a question" how does that fit into the legality issue here?

Could i "legally" use that technique for any clearance delivery?

 

[A Squared]

Not quite. If you read it back, and we hear it, then we're still responsible. Just went over this in another thread.

True, but incomplete. You the controler, may still be responsible, in the sense that you may have to face the music within your own organization for not catching and correcting the readback. However, if the pilot reads back the clearence as he understood it (but incorrectly) and the controller dosen't catch and correct the mistake, and the pilot subsequently gets in trouble for following his mistaken understanding of the clearence, the pilot will still be held in violation of not complying with a clearence.