even the pros dont get it right

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

But my question wasn't about the
floor of Class E airspace, it was about the transition altitude. Please try
again.

I tried to explain the possible reasoning of the regulation. (Which one
may or may not agree with.) I tried to explain, now it's your turn to
try to understand.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

No, it's not a typo. It's a linguistic error of somebody who tries to
communicate in a foreign language. I'm sure it won't happen to you.


If it's not a typo what is it?

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

I tried to explain the possible reasoning of the regulation. (Which one
may or may not agree with.) I tried to explain, now it's your turn to try
to understand.


As you answered a question that wasn't asked, I'm left to conclude you don't
understand the subject you're attempting to discuss.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

No, it's not a typo. It's a linguistic error of somebody who tries to
communicate in a foreign language. I'm sure it won't happen to you.

If it's not a typo what is it?

You can read, can't you?

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

You can read, can't you?


Yes, I read very well. The problem is in your writing.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

ICAO sets out standard international phraseology for communications
between air traffic services and pilots in several documents including
Annex 10
Volume 2 (Communications Procedures) to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services -
Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.

I was not able to find that on the www. However, the British Radio
Telephony Manual CAP 413 is available at

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...13.PDF&e=10313

There is also an appendix where they list the differences from ICAO
standard.


But that would mean the US is NOT the only nation that doesn't adhere to
ICAO phraseology. How can that be??!!!



With regard to the current discussion, of "level instructions", CAP 413
states:

===================================
1.2 Level Instructions

1.2.1 Only basic level instructions are detailed in this chapter. More
comprehensive phrases are contained in subsequent chapters in the context
in which they are most commonly used.

1.2.2 The precise phraseology used in the transmission and acknowledgement
of climb and descent clearances will vary, depending upon the
circumstances, traffic density and nature of the flight operations.

1.2.3 However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not
generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases
of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or
flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting.

Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
b) All messages relating to an aircraft's climb or descent to a HEIGHT or
ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or
ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will
also include the appropriate QFE or QNH.
==========================================

Examples include:

Climb FL 150

Climb to altitude 2000 feet.


In another section, they state that "Climb" means "Climb and maintain"


One wonders why they don't just say that. That would allow them to be
consistent with altitudes and Flight Levels; "climb and maintain FL 150",
"climb and maintain 2000."

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two" and
to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"


Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".


"An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the use
of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use 'climb and
maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be confusion when using
the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to whether the command was climb
to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand feet. Currently, the FAA
requires controllers to comply with standard U.S. phraseology as filed with
ICAO."

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...11-00memo.html

On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:41:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

But that would mean the US is NOT the only nation that doesn't adhere to
ICAO phraseology. How can that be??!!!
\
You would be more likely to obtain an answer by directing your question to
those making that claim.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

You would be more likely to obtain an answer by directing your question to
those making that claim.


It was sarcasm. I already know the answer and he who made that claim has
grown silent.

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

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two"
and
to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"


Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".


"An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the
use of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use 'climb
and maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be confusion when
using the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to whether the command was
climb to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand feet. Currently,
the FAA requires controllers to comply with standard U.S. phraseology as
filed with ICAO."

with respect in the example about the instruction would be to climb to
flight level 250 so the example is not realistic.