"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:



"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...



This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says
here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous
on
the air.



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't
accept a descent greater than 1000 fpm?

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
a dog onboard.



I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to
descend at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the
controller nothing.

It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)



Which means what, from an operational standpoint?

It means that even though he only has one soul on board, in the event of a
crash, the SAR folks would find two "bodies." :-)


We're talking about remarks, not souls on board.