Runway Numbering - Radio Procedure

Not a data error? If the pilot doesn't identify the airport I may have to
ask him where he's going. If he does identify it and it's not the airport
I'm going to I can ignore him. The location is important data.

Correct. Not a data error (more precisely, not an indication that what
was understood is different from what was transmitted). It may well be
an error on the part of the person transmitting to omit the data, but
that's not the kind of error that pertains to "zero two".

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind
runway two ZERO, stop-and-go, Podunk."

He's actually coming the other way, head on to you who hears "runway two,
stop and go..."


Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.



I suppose you don't, and that's the argument for omitting the leading
zero. Further, you could hear it correctly and transpose it in your own
mind.

Which one trumps the other? I don't think either is trump. Do what other
pilots expect to hear, whether by local practice or AIM.


Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Note that all of the scenarios used to support the use of the leading zero
rely on improper phraseology. If proper phraseology is used the leading
zero provides nothing positive, but if it is used it creates the possibility
for confusion as it can be transposed with the other digit. That
possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
10/28.

Bottom line, the leading zero should not be used.

I would simply ask north or south.

The garbling prevented my distinguishing between "zero two" and "two
zero," so I surely wouldn't have been able to distinguish "north"
from "south."

vince norris

Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.

Yes, but =she= (the next week) spoke slower, and with a more varied cadence.

Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Well, the discussion here shows that there =is= some question about it,
just not in your mind. I tend to agree with you that non-use is
probably better. However, it is not without benefit.

As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
the same.

That
possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
10/28.

Good point.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
the same.

correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since
the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
anything wrong with following international standard as international
aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

Gerald Sylvester

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard.

As have the aviation boards of every other country, as far as they can. It's the
only way they can keep their turf.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

The main problem with US pilots is that they often speak some
undefinable mumblejumble instead of English...

Stefan

Yeah, or even being able to distinguish "landing from the south" vs
"landing to the south"

Since when did US prevent foreign-registered aircrafy from landing in
the US?

Can you cite specific examples of US pilots phrasology causing dangerous
conditions?






Gerald Sylvester wrote in
:


correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards.
Since the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to
international standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they
see fit and not give a damn about international standard. For this, I
don't see anything wrong with following international standard as
international aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW,
I've heard many complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way
too much non-international standard phraseology making it hard to
understand and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

Gerald Sylvester






--
Andrew Sarangan
CFII
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Can you cite specific examples of US pilots phrasology causing dangerous
conditions?

no as often it is ignored. Can you imagine if every time non-standard
phraseology is used other pilots are requesting clarification?
One instance where English was not used was when my friend
flying for a major was going into Mexico City. He was the PNF.
The PF on the approach made a sharp turn. My friend asked
what the turn was for. The PF said the controller told the preceding
a/c about a severe windshear alert but the call was in spanish. The
other a/c cancelled their approach. If the
PF didn't understand spanish, it very well could have
been dangerous.

Another instance was living in Germany. I was half way through
my PPL and went flying with a friend of a friend. Looking back,
the guy was a moron. He barely understood English and couldn't
copy the clearance nor follow the clearance out of Salzburg and
then busted the Class B (I think it is B) MUC airspace due to
his lack of English. Although no near miss happened but if
the airspace was more dangerous, it certainly could have been
bad.

Although this is non-US pilots not being fluent in English ATC
phraseology, the same happens the other way for sure.

Gerald Sylvester