'continue' as used by tower controler

I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.

Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html

Mike Noel wrote:
: I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
snip
: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
: using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

I commonly get told 'continue' in the context of an instrument approach:
(me) Hyannis tower, cherokee 9376J outside bogey ils 24
(them) Cherokee 76J continue report bogey inbound
(me) tower 76J bogey inbound
(them) Cherokee 76J continue expect landing clearance short final following
twin cessna traffic short final

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
(but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on the
other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue" would
not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.

Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance" phrase
you might hear when on IFR.

--
Jim Carter
"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.

Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html

Mike Noel wrote:

Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

It is commonly used at Syracuse, NY, a class C airport. Normally, the
tower uses it at first reply to my call-up when s/he cannot clear me to
land at that point due to something (aircraft, vehicle, etc) on or about
to momentarily block the runway.

In response to "continue," I do what it takes to land, but remind myself
that I am not yet cleared and to expect further clearance shortly.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

....I just said 'through 5300' meaning to imply that I was descending.
--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
m...
I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
(but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on
the
other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue"
would
not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.

Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance"
phrase
you might hear when on IFR.

--
Jim Carter
"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to
4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the
handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time
I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was
being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and
continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if
I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.

Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the
FAA.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
PROGRAM - n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's
input into error messages. v. tr.- To engage in a pastime similar to banging
one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

In article ,
says...
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.


Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark
recesses...

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.

The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.

The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.

I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr

Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.

The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
also.

I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr