A Thin Line...

[Nelson L.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY4JrFdCCnY

Saw that on Youtube... I'd be interested to hear the general opinion on this, but I thought it was just a "tad" bit ridiculous. I can understand having pilots read back the runway assignment for a taxi instruction, but if "7000, 290 in five minutes" (you can tell the pilot who read that back had been there before ) isn't an acceptable readback, you may as well just park it in the hangers.

[gavink42]

I'm not sure I see much wrong with his procedure. He reads it clearly and slowly, which is nice, and expects a full and complete readback of the essential information.

The only thing I have an issue with (and a very small issue, at that) is his insistence on hearing expected altitudes. ie... "Expect FL290 in 5 minutes" -vs- "290 in 5."

There could be a history that we're not aware of, as to why he is so demanding.

I definitely see the need for the proper callsign to be present in every transmission. There have been recent issues with mixed-up callsigns.

- Gavin

[chevyrules]

I've got no issues with how he controls.

Most of the time from what I have heard, the pilots were screwing up( missing information, changing/no callsigns, etc) and he handled it with courtesy mostly( didn't listen to the whole thing). If he wants you to say Expect FL290 after 5 minutes vs short handing it to 290 in 5, just freaking do it. It doesn't mean he needs to be fired, etc. It's not that hard. If that pilot had been there before, he should know how that controller prefers things and do it to make everyone's lives easier.

I find this youtube comment more offensive....

I've had that same ****** give me shit for saying 'expect 410 TEN minutes after departure instead of FIVE minutes after departure'. I said back 'roger, 5 minutes', he came back with 'I need to hear the full clearance correctly'. I decided to be an ass and read back 'expect 410 5 minutes after departure'. He got pissed and actually yelled at me like this. I finally gave him what he wanted. Same way about taxi clearances. Ridiculous!

[Marcus Becker]

I don't see anything wrong with the controller assuring the pilot understands the clearance. The AIM provides some clarification as to what ATC wants, which some pilots in the recording missed.

4-4-7 b.1. Include the aircraft identification in all
readbacks and acknowledgments. This aids controllers
in determining that the correct aircraft received
the clearance or instruction.

2. Read back altitudes, altitude restrictions, and
vectors in the same sequence as they are given in the
clearance or instruction

3. Altitudes contained in charted procedures,
such as DPs, instrument approaches, etc., should not
be read back unless they are specifically stated by the
controller.

4. Initial read back of a taxi, departure or landing
clearance should include the runway assignment,
including left, right, center, etc. if applicable.

[Nelson L.]

Huh, guess I'm the minority then. I don't have a problem with ATC being thorough and conscientious, but if pilots are constantly having to go through multiple transmissions to deliver a satisfactory readback, that's a danger in and of itself (the way I view it at least). Then there's the factor of annoyed pilots - annoyance leads to impatience, impatience leads to rash decisions, rash decisions in aviation = bad. Maybe I'm just rambling though. Everything the controller did was technically correct, so he's not being negligent or anything, but I view it as sort of an "overly-fastidious" approach to ATC. Then again, I'm not at liability if something goes wrong... But then again, there's a way to keep the environment safe without constant tension... Yep, now I'm rambling.

[Marcus Becker]

Then there's the factor of annoyed pilots - annoyance leads to impatience, impatience leads to rash decisions, rash decisions in aviation = bad.

Maybe it's improper/incomplete read backs that make grumpy and annoyed controllers. I'm not trying to start an ATC vs. Pilot war here. There are responsibilities on both parties. The FAA has started an initiative with ATC regarding read backs. I think that this is representative of that and pilots are going to adapt. It will take time for some to adjust when they've gotten away with bare minimum read backs at best. My opinion.

[Donovan]

I see how I could improve my own actions in regards to:

Read back altitudes, altitude restrictions, and vectors in the same sequence as they are given in the clearance or instruction

Its been quite a process for me to learn to be concise, rapid, yet comprehensible when reading back, or contacting ATC. Sometimes I get it correctly, sometimes I've added unnecessary verbiage. Isn't that why we are here? To perfect our technique in as many aspects as we can? I'm still improving in most aspects, and have a ways to go in most as well. As long as I find out what needs improvement, I'm more than happy to work on it. I've never felt chastised or ridiculed by the controllers -- but I have felt embarrassed by making the same mistake twice before doing it correctly has become ingrained by enough correct repetition.

It was interesting to me watching Peter's recent twitch stream - he casually mentioned a couple of pet peeves while controlling. I certainly appreciated hearing them, some I've ignorantly done while not knowing better, others have been since corrected by controllers (time available) have let me know what the error was, and what was needed and wanted. I appreciate the feedback and how much I've learned to date. (And how far I still have to go...)

Don

[Thomas_Horn]

What I noticed was that the controller spells out the 3-letter code for the VOR´s and does use the name of the stations, like the controllers here on PilotEdge do.
I would actually prefer that as well - since I am not a native English speaker, it would be easier to listen to the spelled out VOR codes, since sometimes the actual names are hard to understand especially when you fly in unfamiliar area. If this is a new "rule" from the FAA, I would like it.

[sellener777]

If they want us to readback "by the book," and expect ATC to enforce accurate read backs, they need to have all controllers on board and maybe send an email out so we can expect it.

To have one controller expecting what this controller was, is silly, as he just comes off as a ridiculous controller.

But if all pilots read back accurately the issue would go away. But they need to inform both sides of the expectations.

If 90 percent of controllers routinely are happy with cleared to lindberg heading 270 seal beach v233 direct climb maintain 5 , 7 in 10 , thirty five four and two two seven six,

then theres a problem if 10 percent expect different.

[chevyrules]

If they want us to readback "by the book," and expect ATC to enforce accurate read backs, they need to have all controllers on board and maybe send an email out so we can expect it.

To have one controller expecting what this controller was, is silly, as he just comes off as a ridiculous controller.

But if all pilots read back accurately the issue would go away. But they need to inform both sides of the expectations.

If 90 percent of controllers routinely are happy with cleared to lindberg heading 270 seal beach v233 direct climb maintain 5 , 7 in 10 , thirty five four and two two seven six,

then theres a problem if 10 percent expect different.

Or maybe pilots shouldn't pick up bad habits by short handing their read backs. I read back my clearances the way that controller expects other pilots to do them. Why? Because my flight instructors didn't allow me to pick up those bad habits. And I don't let my students develop those bad habits.

If you don't pick up good habits when communicating on the radios, you will get the experience those pilots got where it will vary between controller. But if you readback the clearance in the same manner it was given to you, you will never run into problems( if your readback was correct of course).

But I agree with you saying they need to get all controllers on board about the way they should hear the read backs. It will help to prevent those bad habits from being picked up.