Heard on the radio

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

He could have been disparaging about his wife too.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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. :-)


Which means what, from an operational standpoint?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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. :-)



Which means what, from an operational standpoint?



It means that even though he only has one soul on board, in the event of
a crash, the SAR folks would find two "bodies." :-)

Matt

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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. :-)


Which means what, from an operational standpoint?


If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
the dog is supposed to bite him!

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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. :-)



Which means what, from an operational standpoint?

It means that even though he only has one soul on board, in the event of a
crash, the SAR folks would find two "bodies." :-)


We're talking about remarks, not souls on board.

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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. :-)


Which means what, from an operational standpoint?


If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
the dog is supposed to bite him!


How is that important to the controller?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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. :-)


Which means what, from an operational standpoint?



If he tries to do anything other than re-boot the computer,
the dog is supposed to bite him!



How is that important to the controller?



Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?


Matt

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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" :-)


Enroute strips display more characters than terminal strips, I don't recall
the numbers. When the remark exceeds the allotted space on the strip the
remark is cut off and three asterisks are displayed at the end to indicate
it. The controller can then enter a flight plan readout request for the
entire remark.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?


Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
humor.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steve, if we all send you a donation, will you go buy a sense of humor?



Yes, I will. Send me a substantial donation and I will buy a sense of
humor.



I'm not sure we can afford what you would need. :-)

Matt