ATC Phraseology

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?

I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller
answered; the AC wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty"
(although it should have been painfully obvious), and so the
controller clarified his original answer.


I agree with you about the appropriateness of querying the controller
if there is any question, but in this case, if you had heard the
rather flip pilot and resignation of the controller, it would be
pretty apparent that his question wasn't about a misunderstanding.
This is borne out somewhat by the fact that the controller failed to
respond to the pilot's initial question.

So now you have graduated from netkop to atccop.

Move'n On Up


Bwwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!


Bertie

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the information.

Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
experience?


Only one that I can immediately recall. Some twenty years ago I was at
Chicago Center working the OSH sector. I had an arrival to MKE, the route
was GRB direct BJB direct MKE. BJB is the arrival fix for MKE arrivals from
the north, by Letter of Agreement jets are to cross BJB at 10,000 feet. I
issued the descent clearance as he crossed the Center boundary about ten
miles south of GRB, "cross West Bend VOR at and maintain one zero thousand."
The pilot responded, in a rather snotty tone, "I wasn't aware that West Bend
had DME." I confirmed that it did not have DME, to which he asked, "Then
how do you expect us to cross it at ten?" I replied, "I expect you to
practice the fine art of navigation, please advise if that presents a
problem to you." "Outta two four oh for ten" was his reply, in a much less
snotty tone.

Our only other discourse was the communications transfer. Had he something
more to say about the descent clearance I was prepared to point out that if
a simple time-speed-distance problem was too challenging for him, proceeding
to BJB VOR did not preclude use of DME from GRB VORTAC.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

We don't know what the Citation pilot heard, for all we know he heard
"Wind 150 at 4squeeecrackclecclick", and just wanted a clarification.


Doubtful. If the Citation pilot had heard, "Wind 150 at
4squeeecrackclecclick", he might have asked, "is that wind 4*ZERO*?", but he
wouldn't have asked, "is that wind *ZERO* 4?".

It's most like that the Citation pilot heard it exactly correct and was just
making a point (incorrectly) and wasting everyone's time, including this
thread.

--
BobF.
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

We don't know what the Citation pilot heard, for all we know he heard
"Wind 150 at 4squeeecrackclecclick", and just wanted a clarification.


Doubtful. If the Citation pilot had heard, "Wind 150 at
4squeeecrackclecclick", he might have asked, "is that wind 4*ZERO*?", but
he wouldn't have asked, "is that wind *ZERO* 4?".

"Bob F." wrote in message
. ..

It's most like that the Citation pilot heard it exactly correct and was
just making a point (incorrectly) and wasting everyone's time, including
this thread.


And making an ass of himself.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:ZbeCj.10195$iD2.4491@trndny09...

It *should* have been issued as "four zero".

I've heard plenty of non-standard phraseology from ATC.


Like what?



The wind speed makes a lot more difference to the guy in the plane than it
does to the guy in the tower. I would have asked.


A sharp pilot that thinks he may have missed a digit prior to the "four"
might have responded "confirm wind *ONE* 4" or "confirm wind *TWO* 4", but
he would know wind speeds are not issued with leading zeros.

A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
...yeah that's about right.

--
BobF.
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:ZbeCj.10195$iD2.4491@trndny09...

It *should* have been issued as "four zero".

I've heard plenty of non-standard phraseology from ATC.


Like what?



The wind speed makes a lot more difference to the guy in the plane than
it
does to the guy in the tower. I would have asked.


A sharp pilot that thinks he may have missed a digit prior to the "four"
might have responded "confirm wind *ONE* 4" or "confirm wind *TWO* 4", but
he would know wind speeds are not issued with leading zeros.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F."
wrote:

A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
..yeah that's about right.


You can see the sock from a distance where a Citation might ask for a
wind check?

oops sorry, thought this was during taxi. Someone deleted too much thread
and I lost context.

--
BobF.
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F."
wrote:

A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
..yeah that's about right.


You can see the sock from a distance where a Citation might ask for a
wind check?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:56:40 -0400, "Bob F."
wrote:

oops sorry, thought this was during taxi.

I'll agree with that. G