Readbacks - another rant.

[Bob Turner]

I am teaching minimal readbacks. I operate out of the world's busiest airport, daily, and have zero problems with readbacks. Zero. At least here.

When instructed to turn off at Mike and hold short of 28 Left, I read back "Hold short of 28 Left, Piper Cub 536." No complaints from the tower.
Our tower is seriously qualified - we do not let newbies on the staff at all; a controller must be experienced to even apply.

But a local Serco tower is not quite so friendly - yesterday I asked for and received a clearance for an intersection departure. I specifically named the taxiway, got my clearance, then recited back only the runway numbers and hold short clearance, omitting the taxiway. Got a hard time for it.

Then on departure, I specifically stated the intersection taxiway, the runway, my N number, and request for clearance. So presumably by now the local knows that I know where I am - got a clearance, and in the readback, I simply re-named the runway and my N number. How could there possibly be any confusion? Nope, the controller needed to hear the taxiway again (I suppose in case one of us forgot where I was).

My possibly mistaken impression is that a readback need not be exactly identical to the clearance, so long as the N-number is in there somewhere. I make it a point, and believe it should be a regulation, that the runway needs to be read back each and every time ATC mentions it, either in a clearance or an advisory. And while at O'Hare (Hopefully they haven't re-named it) it really is a good idea to write down and read back taxiways, I am not aware of any requirement for reading back taxiways as a general matter.

Any thoughts? Am I a bad guy for trying to minimize radio communications to those that are essential?

By the way, I did this on supercub dot org a year or so ago, when things were a lot worse - serious harrassment. Serco blamed me, but the FAA took a different approach, and found a definite problem, and told me there would be corrective action. It got better, for a while.

 

[Desert7GCBC]

It's not just you. KRYN has a contract tower and for years the controllers were familiar voices. Ground and airborne communications were pretty informal, both ways, when the Controller knew the pilot was local and familiar with procedures. Recently, there seems to be several new voices from the tower and some of them don't seem too experienced. My guess is that they may be training new Controllers. All readbacks must be correct, syllable for syllable. It's a bit of a pain but I can see some justification for it. It this is the worst problem I have when going flying, then I'm a lucky man.

I have to hand it to Bob for routinely flying a Cub out of KSAN. Years ago I was flying two-place Grummans out of NAS North Island and found the VFR environment there pretty stressful to say the least.

 

[Bob Turner]

That is precisely why we need brevity and no low level harassment.

There is, somewhere, an instruction to controllers: when they need a word-for-word readbacks, they are supposed to say so. It is either AIM or point 65.

I am out of KMYF. Far busier than Lindbergh. They treat me like a king. No complaints.

 

[Bob Turner]

Went looking for the proper phraseology. The AIM starts out emphasizing brevity, then suggests an occasional glance at the controller’s glossary, which is in the AIM as well as the point 65.

If a controller wants an exact readback, he appends two words: “read back.” It is in their manual.

Serco controller’s are famous for not knowing the rules.