If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(sorta OT) Free Ham Radio Course | RST Engineering | Home Built | 51 | January 24th 05 08:05 PM |
Jim Weir or other qualified persons: a tangent on the 2 radio 1 antennathread | Dave S | Home Built | 12 | June 23rd 04 01:03 AM |
1944 Aerial War Comes to Life in Radio Play | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 25th 04 10:57 PM |
Radio silence, Market Garden and death at Arnhem | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 4 | February 12th 04 12:05 AM |
Ham Radio In The Airplane | Doug Carter | Home Built | 24 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |