Unnecessary verbiage or sensible redundancy?

CB wrote:

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...

Two part answer. First, runways with single-digit designators (1,2,3, etc)
do not have a preceding zero painted on them. Second, FAA-P-8740-47 "Radio
Communications Procedures and Techniques," which hardly anyone has or has
read, says that if there is more than one digit, each digit should be
spoken, as in "one three" rather than "thirteen." If there is only one
digit, there is no reason to enunciate two digits.



Flying in the UK it is the reverse. The runway will have 02 painted on the
runway and you will be expected to say zero two. Saying "runway 2" would be
confusing and leading people to believe you meant something from 20 to 29.

Likewise for Australia.

MC wrote:

Likewise for Australia.

Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
words, the in whole world except the USA.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
words, the in whole world except the USA.


Most nations use leading zeros, most pilots do not.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
MC wrote:

Likewise for Australia.

Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
words, the in whole world except the USA.

Indeed, this came up a while back. The ICAO requirement is for
two digits, "zero two". The US have an exemption for this and for
single digits just use 2, not 02. However, what I've heard on the
radio, you always put "runway" in front of it.

So...

In the UK.
"Left downwind for zero-two". "Left downwind for two-zero"

In the US.
"Left downwind for runway two." "Left downwind for two-zero".

So the "zero" has been replaced with "runway" when spoken. Of course
there's nothing to stop people putting "runway" in front of "two-zero",
except it's usually left out for brevity.

It saves some paint I suppose! :-)

Paul

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

However, don't be surprised to hear a controller say "Climb and maintain
one
one thousand, eleven thousand" because there have been some
readback/hearback problems with pure digits.


Many controllers use similar technique with altitude assignments. I tend to
use the phraseology "Climb and maintain one-one, eleven thousand" when such
praseology is prudent, as opposed to "Climb and maintain one one thousand,
eleven thousand" (with it's repetition of the word "thousand").

Also BTW, we had a trainee controller cause an operational error using this
non-prescibed phraseology. His MIA was 4900. He had overflight traffic on
radar at 6000 and a non-radar departure that he was issuing a full IFR
clearance to. The departure was filed for 9000. As part of the detailed
departure clearance with "CRAFT" and all that, he instructed the pilot to
"Climb and maintain five thousand, FIVE" in an attempt to reinforce the 5000
assigned altitude portion of the full clearance. The pilot, doing the full
clearance readback, read back "Climb and maintain five thousand five, blah
blah blah..." The apprentice controller missed the semantical difference
between his phraseology and the pilot's readback and the departure aircraft
got with the overflight.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:


Also BTW, we had a trainee controller cause an operational error using this
non-prescibed phraseology. His MIA was 4900. He had overflight traffic on
radar at 6000 and a non-radar departure that he was issuing a full IFR
clearance to. The departure was filed for 9000. As part of the detailed
departure clearance with "CRAFT" and all that, he instructed the pilot to
"Climb and maintain five thousand, FIVE" in an attempt to reinforce the 5000
assigned altitude portion of the full clearance. The pilot, doing the full
clearance readback, read back "Climb and maintain five thousand five, blah
blah blah..." The apprentice controller missed the semantical difference
between his phraseology and the pilot's readback and the departure aircraft
got with the overflight.


You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Newps wrote:
You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.

--
David Rind

David Rind wrote:
Newps wrote:

You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three
airplanes below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The
investstigation reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the
ground or any obstacles and it goes away.


Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.

Hey, it's the FAA. Safety was never compromised, until you die. Then
maybe it was.

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:
You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.


See David, if he actually *has* a mid-air or runs someone into a mountain,
FAA will promote him into ATC Management, or else make him a "Quality
Assurance" staff specialist (where he gets to tell real controllers where
they made procedural mistakes). Until his promotion though, his fellow
controllers are stuck carrying him on the roster, and the pilots he serves
are stuck with his "service". After all, we have to run ATC like a
business, and he has certain employment rights. As long as we keep
publically saying "safety was never compromised", the company can't do a
thing...

Chip, ZTL

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
So what do instructors teach these days?

Instructors teach whatever they think is right. Each one is different.

Do you add the extra zero or not?

When I'm confronted with a single-digit runway, I usually speak both numbers
on the radio. However, I'm sure there have been times when I simply said
one number.

The solution to the "missed number" problem is not to add numbers. After
all, unless you know everyone is doing it (and you never can), you can't
rely on that rule to fill in missing information. For example, generally
going around saying both numbers would not have done a single thing to help
you fill in the blanks in that Cherokee's transmission. You still would
have been left wondering if he was talking about 02 or 20.

The real solution to chopping off transmissions is for pilots to not chop
off their transmissions. One technique that would help a little would be to
include the airport name at both the beginning and ending of the
transmission, but that still leaves the opportunity for a pilot to chop of
the name of the airport. The real solution is for pilots to only speak when
the PTT switch is being held down, and to put a brief pause at the beginning
of the transmission (just a half second or so is perfectly sufficient).

Pete