-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
"cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
designation.


Now you're introducing non-standard phraseology. In the US, the runway
designator precedes the landing clearance. It's "runway three zero cleared
to land", not "cleared to land runway three zero". If the tower says
"runway three zero cleared to land" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot hasn't been issue a clearance to land on any runway.

Problem is, that some tower controllers do use 'cleared to land
runway xx'. Listen to the JFK or BOS feeds, and you'll hear exactly
that on a daily basis. Some call it 'non-standard phraseology', others
call it 'technique'.

What would you do? send them back for retraining? They are
giving a valid landing clearance (runway assigned, and 'cleared to
land').

There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.

BL.

- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDULOVyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkK7AKCsO7L5+NNx0/MxG1Jmmlb8H/d8lwCeIbij
WGKGpn/8aqWIzCUm+q4+/MU=
=tPqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----