• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

The anal-retentiveness that is SMO

English

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,374
Total Time
1
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?
 

JediNein

No One Special at all
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Posts
1,256
Total Time
53 wks
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,374
Total Time
1
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Posts
2,090
Total Time
6800
Makes you appreciate places like LAX that tell you to only read back the squawk unless you have a question
 

PHX767

it's a dry heat
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Posts
349
Total Time
3:45pm
They treat everyone like student pilots..

.....
 
Last edited:

Vector4fun

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Posts
796
Total Time
1700
English said:
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

Consigliere
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
829
Total Time
-
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

Roger, Roger.
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Posts
151
Total Time
5000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
Vector4fun said:
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.
 

Vector4fun

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Posts
796
Total Time
1700
A Squared said:
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.

That's only if the facility management decided to persue both avenues together. (Controller error and pilot deviation) I can't recall where I've ever seen that happen. Not that it couldn't I suppose, if the error caused a really nasty incident. I'm not aware of any NTSB or Appeals Court finding where a pilot was held responsible for a readback that was received, but NOT corrected by the controller, are you? In any event, my reply was in direct response to the question;

I thought controllers were no longer responsible for erroneous pilot readbacks?

We are still responsible.
 

Vector4fun

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Posts
796
Total Time
1700
I'm sorry Sam, I never even heard of such an ATIS statement until just a few weeks ago. I don't know the answer. Where I work, if you want to do an abbreviated readback, that's fine, and I'll correct anything I hear that's questionable. If you want me to read the whole Route start to finish, and read the whole thing back, we do that to.
 

HMR

I Live by the River.
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,048
Total Time
100+
Why don't they just make a DP for SMO?

I used to fly there several times a week and can't say I miss the readback police, the noise nazis nor the parking at SuperMarine.;)
 

Lead Sled

Sitt'n on the throne...
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Posts
2,066
Total Time
> enuf
HMR said:
Why don't they just make a DP for SMO?

I used to fly there several times a week and can't say I miss the readback police, the noise nazis nor the parking at SuperMarine.;)
But at least they've got a pretty decent restraurant within walking distance.

Speaking of Noise Nazis, I just received a certified letter form the Orange County John Wayne noise nazis. It seems that I rang their bell the other night. If we rang it in an Astra, I wonder what the G-3 guys did that departed right after us?

'Sled
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
Vector4fun said:
That's only if the facility management decided to persue both avenues together. (Controller error and pilot deviation) I can't recall where I've ever seen that happen. Not that it couldn't I suppose, if the error caused a really nasty incident. I'm not aware of any NTSB or Appeals Court finding where a pilot was held responsible for a readback that was received, but NOT corrected by the controller, are you? In any event, my reply was in direct response to the question; We are still responsible.

My point was that neither English's comment :

I thought controllers were no longer responsible for erroneous pilot readbacks?
...nor your response:

If you read it back, and we hear it, then we're (ATC) still responsible.
.......is completely accurate. The truth, as usual lies somether inbetween.
In the other thread I posted a link with information on an FAA interpretaive ruling which is at the center of English's remark. The interpretive rule, which was published in the Federal Register makes it abundently clear that the pilot will still be held responsible even if he gives a full readback.

From the interperative Rule.

However, the simple act of giving a readback does not shift full responsibility to air traffic control and cannot insulate pilots from their primary responsibility under 14 CFR 91.123 and related regulations to listen attentively, to hear accurately, and to construe reasonably in the first
instance.

This interperative rule http://www.avweb.com/other/faa9914.pdf was issued as a result of the Merrell case and it was issued for the express purpose of reversing a trend in NTSB case law which tended to absolve the pilot if a readback was given.
Now I don't presume to know what will or will not happen to a controller in such an instance, I'll accept that they may be subject to some sort of sanction also. Your words seem to suggest that the controller bears *full* responsibility if a readback has been given, and that is patently untrue.
 

dalegribble

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Posts
110
Total Time
7000
The reason for the "no delay", is they really do not want you to wait for the radial to center prior to turning to the assigned heading. This is for spacing with LAX departures. They also need you at about that radial for noise reasons prior to turning so they don't say intercept it. Basically if you can see outside, at aprox. the shore line, is where the radial comes into play and you turn.

I can not stand the noise nazi's of S. Cal though. It is rediculous. Get a life. Does 1db make a noticeable diff? Not to me. All these noise nazi's do is reduce a margin of safety to show on paper that they are responding to the local's complaints.
 
Top