Heard on the radio

This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.


It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?

I'm wondering why he couldn't do more than 1000fpm. I know of dogs that
skydive...that's around 10000fpm descent.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?

What breed of dog was it? Cos everybody knows that anything smaller than a
labrador has a restricted descent capability because their front legs are
too short to push the column very far forward ...

D.

"David Cartwright" writes:

It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?

What breed of dog was it? Cos everybody knows that anything smaller than a
labrador has a restricted descent capability because their front legs are
too short to push the column very far forward ...

The legendary Ed Gauss had a few words on dogs:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation/msg/b38c55002a8fa3b6?dmode=source

I alas can't find his post about the dog that panicked when Ed
throttled back; and jumped into the owner's lap --- keeping Ed from
pulling up when he most needed to....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept a
descent greater than 1000 fpm?



Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
a dog onboard.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
a descent greater than 1000 fpm?

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
dog onboard.


I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
nothing.

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the
remarks section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have
a dog onboard.

How many characters fit in the remarks field on the flight strip? It
would be a hoot if it got cut off at "unable descent" :-)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...


This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
a descent greater than 1000 fpm?

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
dog onboard.



I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
nothing.



It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)

Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...


This was a funny one I overheard today, heading back into HPN.

Some guy checks in with NY Approach. The controller says, "It says here
in the remarks that you've got a dog aboard".

Aircraft: That's right

ATC: Why would I want to know that?

Aircraft: It means I can't handle a descent faster than 1000 fpm.

ATC: Oh, OK.

It doesn't look very funny written down, but it was pretty humorous on
the air.



It doesn't seem like a very effective remark either. Why would the
controller necessarily know "dog aboard" meant the pilot couldn't accept
a descent greater than 1000 fpm?

Got me, but probably would have had a similar conversation if the remarks
section has said "unable descent of greater than 1000 FPM."

The controller would have asked why. The pilot would have said, I have a
dog onboard.



I don't think so. From an operational standpoint "unable descent of
greater than 1000 FPM" tells the controller the pilot is unable to descend
at a rate greater than 1000 ft/min, "dog aboard" tells the controller
nothing.



It tells the controller that the pilot has a dog aboard. :-)

Matt

Well, it tells the controller that there's a dog aboard. It doesn't
actually say anything about there being a pilot too.