Squawk Readback Correct

[Evan Reiter]

I've heard the phrase "squawk readback correct" from a few students, and I understand it's presented as procedure in the VATUSA CBT (see below).

However, I can't find it (or even any relevant guidance for IFR clearance readback procedures) in the 7110.

Anyone have any perspective on the use of the term "squawk readback correct" for pilots who choose only to readback the squawk code in an IFR clearance. Is that even an acceptable readback?

[Ryan Parry]

I believe it is a Vatsim-ism you'll hear on a busy frequency, such as but not limited to ZLA, when they're stupid busy and everybody wants a voice clearance while simultaneously stepping on one another. Per the .65 it's probably incorrect, but I feel there are more pressing things to worry about like not letting the green (or yellow) flashy things hit each other. I'd say it's just like people that want to say "Climb via the SID" instead of "Climb via SID".

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and somebody has a better explanation.

[Matthew Kramer]

As far as I know the phraseology for a correct readback is "Readback Correct." Since Ryan mentioned ZLA, at KLAX you'll see in the real ATIS, "readback only your squawk code and callsign." I'm guessing somewhere controllers started saying "squawk readback correct" just to differentiate. We don't teach it at ZLA like that.

[Rick Rump]

It’s on my phraseology guide in the training standard Evan as just “Readback correct”.
As for there being other things Ryan, I am of the belief we all need to be teaching the same things across the board for the basics. 

[Clay Brock]

2−4−3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK
Ensure pilots acknowledge all Air Traffic Clearances
and ATC Instructions. When a pilot reads back an Air
Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction:

a. Ensure that items read back are correct.
b. Ensure the read back of hold short instructions,
whether a part of taxi instructions or a LAHSO
clearance.
c. Ensure pilots use call signs and/or registration
numbers in any read back acknowledging an Air
Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction.

NOTE−
1. ATC Clearance/Instruction Read Back guidance for
pilots in the AIM states:
     a. Although pilots should read back the “numbers,” unless
otherwise required by procedure or controller request,
pilots may acknowledge clearances, control instructions,
or other information by using “Wilco,” “Roger,”
“Affirmative,” or other words or remarks with their
aircraft identification.
     b. Altitudes contained in charted procedures, such as
departure procedures, instrument approaches, etc., need
not be read back unless they are specifically stated by the
controller.
     c. Initial read back of a taxi, departure or landing
clearance should include the runway assignment,
including left, right, center, etc. if applicable.

2. Until a pilot acknowledges a controller’s clearance or
instruction, a controller cannot know if a pilot will comply
with the clearance or remain as previously cleared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What I take away from this section of the .65 is that ATC should ensure that "Pilots acknowledge all Air Traffic Clearances and ATC Instructions," and that "Pilots may acknowledge clearances, control instructions,
or other information by using 'Wilco,' 'Roger,' 'Affirmative,' or other words or remarks with their
aircraft identification." Essentially, the pilot doesn't even have to readback the squawk code. Technically he could just say "Roger, N123AB," and that would be perfectly acceptable readback. Since this is (Technically) an acceptable readback, the controller (In my opinion) should just say "Readback correct." Saying "Squawk readback correct," in my opnion is too much extra information. Did the pilot readback or acknowledge the clearance correctly? Then say "Readback correct."

Just my 2 cents.

[Ryan Parry]

It’s on my phraseology guide in the training standard Evan as just “Readback correct”.
As for there being other things Ryan, I am of the belief we all need to be teaching the same things across the board for the basics.

I didn't say anything about teaching anything. Just an explanation of where I thought it came from, and the fact that I don't think it's the end of the world. 

[Rick Rump]

What if it is the end of the world?!
I got your point though, I just wanted to point out that this ya an example of not teaching the same thing division wide.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Essentially, the pilot doesn't even have to readback the squawk code. Technically he could just say "Roger, N123AB," and that would be perfectly acceptable readback.

Bingo.  I've never once heard the word "squawk" injected in there, either.  I'm not sure where that would have originated.

[Brad Littlejohn]

I've heard this used in the real world, and not just at ZLA. Again like Evan mentioned, if the pilot chooses to only read back the transponder code, ATC responds with "squawk readback correct". Now, that essentially places the onus on the pilot to once again fully understand the clearance he just agreed to. While a full readback guarantees that, just reading back the transponder code places more of an onus on the pilot.

Now as far as ZLA goes, and specifically at KLAX, that is included in the RW ATIS, but that is a more definitive LAXism than anything.

Now with that said, I would expect even this to be riding off into the sunset as more and more clearances are being delivered via CPDLC.

But I have heard this in more than just KLAX. pilots at KLAS have done this, as well as flights I've overheard (RW that is) at KDEN, KMKE, KOMA, KOKC, and others, so it isn't just relative to a single sector or a single airport: VATSIM, real world, or otherwise.

BL.

[Frank Louis Miller]

I have also heard “squawk readback correct” in real-world.   I’d suggest this is not a VATSIM-ism, but is rather a natural variation that can be permitted to persist.   In fact, some variability in phraseology contributes to immersion.   

We’ve got bigger fish to fry in training more generally.  For instance, I’m focused more on ensuring our students appreciate the difference between “Cleared to” and “Cleared direct”!

Also...... unable end of world.  Say intentions.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Technically he could just say "Roger, N123AB," and that would be perfectly acceptable readback. Since this is (Technically) an acceptable readback, the controller (In my opinion) should just say "Readback correct."

I'm not sure I would ever respond "readback correct" to a pilot who hasn't read anything back.  Personally I'd just roll into verifying ATIS / altimeter & expected departure runway.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Technically he could just say "Roger, N123AB," and that would be perfectly acceptable readback. Since this is (Technically) an acceptable readback, the controller (In my opinion) should just say "Readback correct."

I'm not sure I would ever respond "readback correct" to a pilot who hasn't read anything back.  Personally I'd just roll into verifying ATIS / altimeter & expected departure runway.

Why not?  If they do their part, they do their part.