Answering Squawk Codes

[sfarner]

Hi All- I have a procedure question.  After initial contact with approach control, they give a squawk code and instructions to ident.  Is it necessary to acknowledge the squawk code verbally?  It would seem to not be necessary, as they will see the ident, but I've heard it both ways.  Any opinions?

[lucavettu]

If I'm not wrong, readback of squawk codes is mandatory

[KSYR-pjr]

In the US, the desired procedure is routinely debated in aviation groups.  There is no requirement to read back squawk codes in the US.  Just don't get it wrong or the controller will need to call you a second time.  Thus, a tail-id will suffice as an acknowledgment.

In the case of IDENT, there is one argument that the IDENT itself indicates you received the instruction and therefore no readback is needed.   However, as a feel-good measure I always reply to an IDENT request with my tail-id just to be extra sure the controller knows I received his/her instruction.   

Controller:  "Bonanza 45 Whiskey, squawk 4110 and IDENT."
Me:           "Bonanza 45 Whiskey."   while at the same time pushing the IDENT button.

One controller told me that for aircraft in the air, the only instructions he prefers to hear read back are heading, altitude, speed restrictions, and any clearance.  Otherwise, he would prefer just tail-id for "roger" or wilco/tail id for instructions that don't fall into those categories.  In busy airspaces, there is no need to repeat every word of the controller's instruction verbatim, as it only ties up the frequency.
 
Edit:  I should add that while the above may be the normal procedure for part 91 (general aviation) regulations, individual airline operations manuals may specify more stringent read-backs.   Not being an airline pilot I do not know.  Airlines have operations manuals that normally mandate more strict rules than the part 121 (scheduled carrier) regulations require and there may be some airlines that do require a more "parrot-like" read back for every instruction.

[KSYR-pjr]

And yet one more point:

IDENTs are not required in the US when checking in with approach unless specifically asked by the controller.  In the Northeast US, an IDENT typically is requested when an aircraft just enters radar coverage after departing from airports that are below radar coverage or from uncontrolled airports on the fringe of a controllers airspace.

[dave]

And yet one more point:

IDENTs are not required in the US when checking in with approach unless specifically asked by the controller.  In the Northeast US, an IDENT typically is requested when an aircraft just enters radar coverage after departing from airports that are below radar coverage or from uncontrolled airports on the fringe of a controllers airspace.

Correct.  I fly out of Nashua and 99% of the time am asked to ident.  Even though it's a towered airport.  It's in the Boston Approach LOA, I believe.  When Nashua Tower is active, the local controller needs to get an IFR release for every aircraft...at most towered airports you are not asked to ident on departure (at least here in the Northeast, where there is pretty much blanket radar coverage).

So...the Nashua (KASH) case is interesting...would love to know why the need for an ident coming off there.

If you look at the applicable 7110.65 chapter:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0503.html

If you look at 5-3-2a (1):
"A verbal rolling/boundary notification is issued for each departure, or..."

I believe that is not the same as an IFR release and Nashua Tower might just not do that for all releases.

5-3-2b might also not be met due to lack of a good map accurately depicting the airport.  But that seems weird and unlikely.

They've obviously chosen 5-3-3(a) as the identification method:
1. Request the aircraft to activate the "IDENT" feature of the transponder and then observe the identification display.

So maybe I answered my own question after babbling it out.  Still would love to know the real reason.

Sometimes curiosity gets the best of us like that 

[rpd]

An ident is required at a tower controlled airport if the aircraft is not observed within 1 mile of the departure end.  That may be the case at ASH.  Actually a controller can ask for an ident at any time he/she needs to verify aircraft idendity.  After a manual handoff from another facility would be an example.

[davolijj]

One of my pet-peeves is when pilots turn off their transponders to effect a code change.  I don't know why they do it, I never did in my pilot training.  I actually saw one case in which a pilot's switching off his transponder for a code change contributed to an operational deviation on the controller.

As for readbacks, my personal preference is the less the better.  Long, cumbersome readbacks just add to frequency congestion and sometimes even confuse the pilot.

[bcrosby]

Although not necessary, I usually read back squawk codes and altimeter settings. Only squawk ident when asked to.

In all other cases I acknowledge by saying call sign (while vfr).

[KSYR-pjr]

One of my pet-peeves is when pilots turn off their transponders to effect a code change.  I don't know why they do it, I never did in my pilot training.

There may be instructors out there who teach/taught this method to prevent the (then student) pilot from mistakenly rolling through the emergency or hijack codes while making the change.   And habits taught during training sometimes stick.

Not saying it is right by any means, but that may be why they do it.

[Greg01]

If the squawk code might cause a problem with the 7700, 7600, and 7500 codes, I'll immediately turn the last number to 1 so that I don't incidentally squawk an emergency code.

For the controllers: do you like full readbacks for IFR clearances on the ground? SOmetimes I hear people just acknowledge the squawk...what are your thoughts?

Thanks,

[KSYR-pjr]

For the controllers: do you like full readbacks for IFR clearances on the ground? SOmetimes I hear people just acknowledge the squawk...what are your thoughts?

I know you are addressing the controllers, but I thought this relevant:  One day last year while preparing to depart Buffalo International I asked the controller delivering clearances that very question.  He replied that he prefers a full readback of IFR clearances.

[Greg01]

When I was up in the tower, some were okay with squawk and others liked the full readback.

[w0x0f]

I'll try to address a few of the items from my perspective.  I prefer a brief readback of the squawk code when I am issuing a code to an airborne aircraft.  Call sign and code will do.  Actually the busier I am, the more I like this.  I know immediately that you heard the transmission.  Look at it this way.  I tell you to climb and maintain an altitude, we don't watch your altitude to see if you got the transmission.  You read it back,  I know immediately that you got it.  It may take several seconds for the code to acquire on my scope.  I can also correct the code immediately if it is read back wrong.

I'm not sure what Nashua Tower does, but I'm going to take a stab and say that they do not provide a roll check, that's why you are asked to ident for radar identification.  A roll check can be accomplished verbally as the aircraft begins take off, by dropping a strip down a tube to the departure controller, or electronically at locations where the tower and TRACON are not co-located.  This is so that the radar controller knows that the next target off the airport is the one in question.

Now for readbacks of IFR clearances on the ground.  If you as a pilot are comfortable in your skills to write down everything correctly and be held accountable for an error if you make a mistake enroute, then I say I don't mind at all if you just read back your call sign or maybe just the squawk. But if you prefer to have your transcribing skills double-checked, then by all means, please read everything back.  That's just my opinion.  You do what you feel most comfortable with in this situation.

w0x0f     

[Greg01]

Honestly, I feel good when I can scribble down a clearance read by a busy NYC controller on the ground, actually read my scribble, and then read it back to him. I've been told, by other pilots, that my readbacks are fast. I try to get it out fast enough that I'm not wasting time, but not too fast so that the controller can correct any error(s).

My thoughts,

[Jason]

I think it quite often depends on the situation at hand, but I follow a similar method as Greg.  If you fly in the northeast, namely the NYC area, you can almost guarantee a re-route, typically when picking up your initial clearance.

I try to read the clearance back slow enough that the controller can correct any possible errors, but fast enough that I don't tie up the frequency.  If there's a possibility I may have screwed something up, I'll be sure to readback the entire clearance.  If it's a clearance to a nearby airport to shoot a few approaches via "direct" I'll typically only read back the squawk code.

I haven't yet been yelled at by a flight data controller so I suppose this method works well, at least around this area.

[RV1]

I agree with woxof., with only an additional bit of info. At the approach control where I work, there is a VFR tower in our airspace in addition to the tower we are co-located with. The VFR tower has to call for all IFR departures. If they were to call with a "departure end RY**" for the IFR aircraft, that would suffice for RADAR identifying. This is to ensure that the primary target I see is actually the IFR aircraft, and NOT the transponder beacon. Since this is a pain in the neck (and elsewhere) I am required to have the aircraft ident UNLESS he states his position. Remenber, if you state your position and the controller observes a target return in the corresponding location, this qualifies as radar identified. The three types of RADAR indentification are position correlation, thirty degree or more turns, and ident.
      As far as clearances go, if you read back the code, you'll get 'readback correct' the same as if you read the entire clearance. Just be sure you wrote the rest down without errors! I have given an airborne pilot a transponder code, and got no reply. I called him and asked if he got the code. He rudely responded "I'm squawking it now, can't you see it?!" I informed him that I was a little busy to watch and see if he got it and got it right. 
     As always, try to remember that even though you don't hear anyone else on the freq. it doesn't mean that there aren't other freqs. that the controller might be working. At my facility, we have six. When they all come out of the same speaker or into the same headset, having someone rumble and stumble through a clearance can affect the controllers ability to listen for errors, especially when other pilots key up on a different freq.
     A little sidebar, on one of the recordings there is the case of the midair between the Cessna and the low wing (Seminole, saratoga, piper whatever...) Interesting note that the controller calls possible traffic to the Cessna, a few moments later, the low-wing calls with a mayday, midair. Do all you pilots realize that with NEXGEN if there was any system failure of the onboard equipment required by NEXGEN in the low-wing, the controller would NEVER have seen the target/traffic for the Cessna and issued traffic? Any aircraft without the equipment or with malfunctioning equipment would be invisible to NEXGEN. It's not   RADAR!                            Talk about stealth!

[KSYR-pjr]

Interesting note that the controller calls possible traffic to the Cessna, a few moments later, the low-wing calls with a mayday, midair.

As the one who edited that clip I need to point out that there actually is more time between the two calls than the clip suggests.   Actually, in retrospect I now wish I had left most of the non-essential communications in between those two calls (the traffic call and the midair mayday).   My mistake, as it resulted from spending too much time on the beginning of it and then rushing it up to LiveATC.

Normally, clips found here are edited by the author to remove non-essential comms and long pauses to keep them relatively short, relevant, and of a small file size (as per the size limit set by this board).  I will be the second to admit (with Anthony, the OP of the midair thread being the first <g> ) that in this case the edit between the two calls was too aggressive.

[Casper87]

I may be repeating what someone else has said....but in your clearance you should read back the SSR code becasue its part of the clearance. Unless stated otherwise in the ATC units local intructions that readbacks of SSR codes aint required.

If you are told to change your squawk from say 1200 to 3601 then read back the new code...and when you are told to "Squawk IDENT" the read back IDENT and the code if given in the transmission.

[FlySafe]

acknowledging the code and squawk ident are two separate things. 

#1 Acknowledgement:  Acknowledge that you received the code is common and expected radio procedure, you can say "roger" or repeat the code you received. 

#2 Ident:  The ident is a radar requirement, the controller must observe you within 1 mile of the end of the runway of a towered airport (with a rolling call) or observe you change to the specific code OR via accurate pilot report identify your "target" over the location you say you ARE RIGHT NOW...not just departed Keene and you are passing Jaffrey.... the fastest way to move things along we have you "Indent". 

Part 3" Remember to verify your mode C, we also need you to check in with you current altitude, even if you are in a climb, we must verify your mode C.... Boston Approach Cessna 427 passing 2300 for 5500