On Clearance Delivery

[Reece Hunter]

All,

I flew an AvA rally today and I noticed a nice trick that O'Hare Ground did to expedite clearance delivery. If the pilot's filed route did not change, the only thing required in the readback is the squawk code. Do you guys think that will be feasible for CS9?

RH

[Sachin]

Yes.. I think Cleared as filed Sq XXXX would be an ideal thing to do.

[ZOA_Joey]

I agree. My only question is how do we go about letting the pilots know? I'm assuming putting it into the ATIS. Telling each pilot this would waste a lot of the freed up airtime.

Joey

[bradl]

I agree. My only question is how do we go about letting the pilots know? I'm assuming putting it into the ATIS. Telling each pilot this would waste a lot of the freed up airtime.

Joey

Problem with this (as we've encountered at KLAS) is the following.

If you, for say, look at the IDALE2 chart at http://www.laartcc.org/charts/LAS_IDALE%20...WO%20DEP%20.GIF (http://www.laartcc.org/charts/LAS_IDALE%20TWO%20DEP%20.GIF) , or even the SFO8 chart. You'll see the freqs there for departure control. If we were to just say 'cleared as filed, c/m 5000, squawk xxxx', it would work in the real world, because the dep freq hasn't changed. Since we aren't using the same freqs, we'd have to give those to the pilot. So now you're at 'c/m 5000, dep freq xxx.xx, squawk xxxx' You'd also still need to clear them at least as far as the SID goes, or to the airport if it is in your airspace. "cleared to SFO via the FMG6 dep, FMG trans, direct MVA, MOD2 arrival, c/m xxxx, dep freq. xxx.xx, squawk xxxx". So really, the only time you could clear them as filed, squawk xxxx, is if a) the dep freq is the same as listed on the chart, and B) if the initial altitude is already listed (Pilots won't know about SOPs for the area).

Not saying it couldn't be done, because it would be nice to do it. But it's going to take more than what the pilots think they already know, which they don't..

BL.

[Reece Hunter]

I may have mistyped what I meant to say.
The DEL ATC will issue full clearance using CRAFT but on readback, the pilot only needs to readback the squawk code if the route did not change. This would eliminate about 90% of the time spent in reading back the clearance.
We can put the notice in the ATIS of the DEL Controller and hope that pilots notice it. What do you guys think?

[Rob Jarrock]

another thing we might do is let the tower issue the sqk code just prior to departure, this might help with all the data blocks on the ground

"aal100 winds xxx @ xx rwy 28L cleare for t/o sqk xxxx"

what do you think?

[ielchitz]

- Perhaps I am missing the point on why you wouldn't issue a code until take off. What problems are there by issuing a code in the clearance? You shouldn't have any problems issuing codes on the ground as long as everyone has the correct POF file.

- Delivery should have no problem handling full readbacks. We're talking about a few seconds here guys.

Just my thoughts.

[Sachin]

I agree with Reece on this one.. whats the point in reading back the whole clearance if the pilot knows what he's flying?? Cleared as filed dep XXX.XX sq XXXX is just fine.

[bradl]

I may have mistyped what I meant to say.
The DEL ATC will issue full clearance using CRAFT but on readback, the pilot only needs to readback the squawk code if the route did not change. This would eliminate about 90% of the time spent in reading back the clearance.
We can put the notice in the ATIS of the DEL Controller and hope that pilots notice it. What do you guys think?

This, I absolutely agree with, and is done in real world, with thanks to PDC. As long as there aren't any routing changes or change in runway setup, this is something that can and should be done if possible. This is something also that may be going on in the pilot training stuff that Jeff Turner (I believe) is setting up with JC. In all honesty, if they know what they've filed, pilot readbacks should be optional if they're with a company; GA would be another story. It's the transponder code that is really important.

BL.

[bradl]

I may have mistyped what I meant to say.
The DEL ATC will issue full clearance using CRAFT but on readback, the pilot only needs to readback the squawk code if the route did not change. This would eliminate about 90% of the time spent in reading back the clearance.
We can put the notice in the ATIS of the DEL Controller and hope that pilots notice it. What do you guys think?

This, I absolutely agree with, and is done in real world, with thanks to PDC. As long as there aren't any routing changes or change in runway setup, this is something that can and should be done if possible. This is something also that may be going on in the pilot training stuff that Jeff Turner (I believe) is setting up with JC. In all honesty, if they know what they've filed, pilot readbacks should be optional if they're with a company; GA would be another story. It's the transponder code that is really important.

BL.

Small addendum to this.

What I'm generally hearing in the real world with my scanner, or from BOS, is that when a pilot reads back the becon code, Delivery generally responds with "squawk readback correct", instead of just "readback correct." This can go either way, but just another thing to throw out for everyone. :)

BL.

[feathers]

What I'm generally hearing in the real world with my scanner, or from BOS, is that when a pilot reads back the becon code, Delivery generally responds with "squawk readback correct", instead of just "readback correct." This can go either way, but just another thing to throw out for everyone. :)

Yeah, I read somewhere that's a legal CYA move... 'cause the pilot's only reading back the squawk... if you say 'Readback Correct' and he flies something wierd and causes an accident... didn't you just confirm he had the right info? So to avoid legal troubles, if they want to just readback the squawk code, then you just confirm the squawk code.

And speaking of reading clearances... I've gotten in the habit of reconfirming the DP and transition, even if it's been filed. Like if I get a PORTE3.AVE.SADDE6 filing, I'll say 'Cleared to Los Angeles International via PORTE 3, Avenal transition, then as filed'. I think it runs 50/50 on pilots who will read it back exactly as I told it to them, and the ones that will just say 'cleared as filed' on the readback ('cause it is what they filed).

So am I wasting valuable frequency time doing this?

Finally, my four haypennies on issuing squawks... if NorCal's scopes are getting congested, maybe clearance could just issue a reminder to squawk standby until ready to depart... or put something similar in the controller's ATIS?

James

[Anonymous]

[quote]And speaking of reading clearances... I've gotten in the habit of reconfirming the DP and transition, even if it's been filed. Like if I get a PORTE3.AVE.SADDE6 filing, I'll say 'Cleared to Los Angeles International via PORTE 3, Avenal transition, then as filed'. I think it runs 50/50 on pilots who will read it back exactly as I told it to them, and the ones that will just say 'cleared as filed' on the readback ('cause it is what they filed).

So am I wasting valuable frequency time doing this?

If they filed PORTE3.AVE.SADDE6 then your wasting time reading the entire thing back.. they should know what route they filed.. so all you need to do is "Cleared as filed.. dep freq XXX.XXX, sqwk XXXX" plus any altitude restrictions can be added if needed.

[nobody291]

If we want to stay true to the real world, the DP should always be included in the clearance even if the route is exactly what the pilot filed. The only time you hear "cleared to XXX, as filed..." in the rw is when there is no DP. RW bare minimum clearance from SFO to LAX would be "cleared to LAX, via PORTE3.AVE, then as filed, squawk XXXX." This, of course, assumes that the published altitude/dep freq on the DP are appropriate.

-Eric