'continue' as used by tower controler

On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:49:58 -0700, "Mike Noel"
wrote:

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.

It sounds as if the controller is abbreviating the proper use of the
phrase. From the pilot/controller glossary:

CONTINUE- When used as a control instruction should be followed by another
word or words clarifying what is expected of the pilot. Example: "continue
taxi", "continue descent", "continue inbound" etc.

However, I would assume that CONTINUE means to continue doing whatever it
was that I just told ATC I was doing. In your instance, having been
cleared to 4500' by ATC, I, too, would have asked for clarification as to
whether or not descent below my previously cleared altitude was OK.


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

Let us remember the all-versatile NOP. Then we could alter the command by
inserting an instruction during the execution of the code. Great stuff. Used
it often
when writing programs for the computer that would occupy half a room, but
had
only 2K characters for both the program and data. Those were 6 bit
characters, BTW.
Oh, this was the bigger machine. The machine started with 1K characters. And
no,
it was not a wired program, it had a real programming language. 5 characters
per
instruction. 1 character for the operation, 4 for the operand. Address was
by row and column. Used the same logic right on up the line to those fancy
new languages called
Fortran and Cobol.

The Weiss Family wrote in message ...
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

The new Algorithmic Traffic Control (ATC) system:

for ALTITUDE = 5500 to 0 step -500FPM

if ( LANDED ON RUNWAY ) then BREAK

if ( CLEARED TO LAND ) then CONTINUE

if ( ALTITUDE = PATTERN ALTITUDE ) then LOOP

next ALTITUDE


(Boy am I geeky!)


(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:c8oquf$ic9$3
@allhats.xcski.com:

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 Weiss Family" wrote in message
...
Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)

printf("Yes", %s);




"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

Stop poking fun about FORTRAN. When I was in school, and writing fortran
code, we did it with punch cards on IBM 129 keypunch machines! With the 8
track tape playing in the background. LOL!!!!!!
"Henry Q. Bibb" wrote in message
k.net...
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:

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.

I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop structure commands.

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

In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" said:
"The Weiss Family" wrote in message
...
Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)

printf("Yes", %s);

Evidently it's a forum for *failed* nerds. (The format string comes first
in a printf function.)


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"How do you feel about women's rights?"
"I like either side of them."
-- Groucho Marx, 1890-1977

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

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.

I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop
structure commands.

That's not what CONTINUE did in FORTRAN - it was just a no-op for a
statement that needed a line number, like a DO loop target. And CONTINUE
was in FORTRAN I, as well as the FORTRAN-66 spec, so either you didn't
know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying
about being FORTRAN.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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

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.

I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop
structure commands.

That's not what CONTINUE did in FORTRAN - it was just a no-op for a
statement that needed a line number, like a DO loop target. And CONTINUE
was in FORTRAN I, as well as the FORTRAN-66 spec, so either you didn't
know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying
about being FORTRAN.

Not to mention that TOPS-10 was an operating system, not a programming
language.

Roy Smith wrote:

Not to mention that TOPS-10 was an operating system, not a programming
language.

Yeah, but DEC had their own version of the FORTRAN compiler for that system.

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