Unnecessary verbiage or sensible redundancy?

"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

My airport is 02/20, and so is the one 52 NM away that I often fly to.

I say Zero Two, and so do most other people. I've occasionally heard
it called "Two". I think Zero Two is safer -- BUT:

I don't understand why anyone would designate an airport that way.
Chances are it's fairly close to 1/19 or 3/21. What difference could
it possibly make at a non=towered field to avoid this potentially
dangerous combination?

When I first got a radio, I had a terrible time with the runway
numbers, and at least once I announced that I was taking off on Two
Zero when I was heading north. I may have done it other times without
realizing it.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On 31 Aug 2004 16:31:48 GMT, unicate (XMnushaL8y)
wrote:

"zero three" when referring to Runway 3,

But the reciprocal in that case is not three zero!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:18:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If the guy says "...runway two Podunk.", I know he's referring to
runway two at Podunk.


Unless he's making a reference "...TO podunk." Then the zero would
help.


What would "runway zero to Podunk" mean?



No right answer with this one it seems.


Yes there is.

Cub Driver wrote:

My airport is 02/20, and so is the one 52 NM away that I often fly to.
I say Zero Two, and so do most other people. I've occasionally heard
it called "Two". I think Zero Two is safer -- BUT:

I'm also based at an airport with a 02/20 runway. I always say "zero
two". To me, it sounds weird to just say "two".


I don't understand why anyone would designate an airport that way.
Chances are it's fairly close to 1/19 or 3/21. What difference could
it possibly make at a non=towered field to avoid this potentially
dangerous combination?

One thing would be the often used practice of resetting your DG when you
pull onto the runway. Presently, the runway heading is the magnetic
heading rounded to the NEAREST 10th. If the rounded the other way, some
people's DG would be off by more than 5 degrees. In practice, that's
probably not a big deal, but that the only thing I could think of.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

I teach my students to say 'zero-six'. There isn't much 'unnecessary
verbiage' in adding 'zero', and I think it reduces confusion, and adds
consistency.

Cap


"Tony Cox" wrote in message link.net...
I've had a smoldering dispute with a CFI friend of mine for
years about whether to announce (say) "zero-two" or just
"two" when operating at an uncontrolled field with runways
2-20. My friend is of the opinion that the extra "zero" is
superfluous, whereas I've always instinctively said "zero-two"
without really understanding why I do it. It has always "just
seemed right", with a blank in the orderly transmission of
information that cried out to be filled.

This weekend I felt vindicated. As I started to taxi out at
0L7 (two runways, 2-20R and 2-20L), I was not particularly
surprised to hear a Cherokee doing touch-and-gos on runway 2 (the
wind was 5 out of the north). Listening to several calls as I
prepared to depart, I finally caught a "two-zero" -- the fellow,
out of exuberance or lack of currency was letting his finger
slip off the transmit button to give an entirely erroneous and
completely believable false impression of what he was up to.
Turns out he was practicing downwind landings. Add to that
that the airport is right traffic for 20 and left for 02, the potential
for disaster is evident.

So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
extra zero or not?

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

{steven}
Using leading zeros creates the possibility of transposing numbers. A
pilot
might say "zero two" when he means "two zero". With just "two" there's
nothing to transpose.

Well, I suppose so. But then couldn't one argue for calling "Cessna
blah-blah, climb and maintain twelve thousand", rather than "one two
thousand"? Those number could be transposed too.




BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero"
?
Been a while & I can't remember.


Three numbers are used when issuing headings.

I thought so. Makes sense, since everyone is expecting three digits.
Which is, of course, where we came in on the discussion of announcing
runways!

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

Well, I suppose so. But then couldn't one argue for calling "Cessna
blah-blah, climb and maintain twelve thousand", rather than "one two
thousand"? Those number could be transposed too.


Yes, but it would be an obvious error because one does not climb and
maintain "two one thousand", it's "flight level two one zero".

Altitudes may be restated in group form for added clarity if the controller
chooses.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0204.html#2-4-17



I thought so. Makes sense, since everyone is expecting three digits.
Which is, of course, where we came in on the discussion of announcing
runways!


But everyone isn't expecting leading zeros for runways.