Unnecessary verbiage or sensible redundancy?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

When I'm confronted with a single-digit runway, I usually speak both
numbers
on the radio. However, I'm sure there have been times when I simply said
one number.

The solution to the "missed number" problem is not to add numbers. After
all, unless you know everyone is doing it (and you never can), you can't
rely on that rule to fill in missing information. For example, generally
going around saying both numbers would not have done a single thing to
help
you fill in the blanks in that Cherokee's transmission. You still would
have been left wondering if he was talking about 02 or 20.

Not really. He'd have said "Cherokee blah-blah downwind zero", which
fails the consistency check. I probably think he meant 02, but I'd
be sure to ask for a retransmission. Of course, you can postulate bizarre
intermittent transmission problems which fail the test, but I'd wager that
*mostly* one gets a single contiguous transmission, interrupted by being
stepped on perhaps, or as in this case by the simple mistake of the dancing
finger.


The real solution to chopping off transmissions is for pilots to not chop
off their transmissions. One technique that would help a little would be
to
include the airport name at both the beginning and ending of the
transmission, but that still leaves the opportunity for a pilot to chop of
the name of the airport.

And in busy airports, when one can hardly get a word in? Dropping
the airport name at the end would seem to enhance safety & lots
of people tend to do it.

The real solution is for pilots to only speak when
the PTT switch is being held down, and to put a brief pause at the
beginning
of the transmission (just a half second or so is perfectly sufficient).

They could still be stepped on, if not by other pilots then by an ASOS.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
[...] For example, generally
going around saying both numbers would not have done a single thing to
help
you fill in the blanks in that Cherokee's transmission. You still would
have been left wondering if he was talking about 02 or 20.

Not really. He'd have said "Cherokee blah-blah downwind zero"

You are not paying attention. Not even to your own post, apparently.

The Cherokee in question was landing 20. There's no way to guarantee that
everyone is saying the zero in 02 (even if that were standard phraseology in
the US), so when you hear "two" by itself, you have no idea whether that's
really runway 2 or runway 20.

You have no basis for saying "he'd have said 'Cherokee blah blah downwind
zero'". That's my point...there's no way to guarantee what other people are
saying.

[...]
And in busy airports, when one can hardly get a word in? Dropping
the airport name at the end would seem to enhance safety & lots
of people tend to do it.

Maybe it would seem to, to you. But it's important to have the airport name
at both ends, specifically to enhance safety. Dropping the airport name
neither frees up a significant amount of radio time, nor enhances safety,
and the fact that "lots of people tend to do it" is irrelevant.

They could still be stepped on, if not by other pilots then by an ASOS.

What ASOS transmits on the traffic frequency? In any case, when a
transmission is stepped on, there is a clear indication that has happened
(the infamous "squeal"). It's very different than when a transmission is
simply cut short by the transmitter. In the former case, you know you've
lost information. The latter, you don't.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
[...] For example, generally
going around saying both numbers would not have done a single thing to
help
you fill in the blanks in that Cherokee's transmission. You still
would
have been left wondering if he was talking about 02 or 20.

Not really. He'd have said "Cherokee blah-blah downwind zero"

You are not paying attention. Not even to your own post, apparently.

You're right, sorry. But extending to the general case (or 01/19 for that
matter), my point is valid. Truncating the last number (or not) while
vocalizing the "zero" at least alerts others to a potential problem;
omitting
the "zero" leads to potentially dangerous confusion.


[...]
And in busy airports, when one can hardly get a word in? Dropping
the airport name at the end would seem to enhance safety & lots
of people tend to do it.

Maybe it would seem to, to you. But it's important to have the airport
name
at both ends, specifically to enhance safety. Dropping the airport name
neither frees up a significant amount of radio time, nor enhances safety,
and the fact that "lots of people tend to do it" is irrelevant.

It takes me about 3 seconds to repeat my home airport name. And
think of those poor sods at SJC when the tower is closed:- "Cherokee
blah-blah, left base 29, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport traffic" ;-).



They could still be stepped on, if not by other pilots then by an ASOS.

What ASOS transmits on the traffic frequency?

Boulder City (61B) for one. Every 15 minutes or so even if not
prompted by three clicks.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

It takes me about 3 seconds to repeat my home airport name. And
think of those poor sods at SJC when the tower is closed:- "Cherokee
blah-blah, left base 29, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport traffic" ;-).


I'd go with "runway two-niner Mineta".

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
You're right, sorry. But extending to the general case (or 01/19 for that
matter), my point is valid. Truncating the last number (or not) while
vocalizing the "zero" at least alerts others to a potential problem;
omitting the "zero" leads to potentially dangerous confusion.

You can't extend to the general case that way. You need 100% compliance for
your theory to work, and there's no way to detect non-compliance.
Procedures like this only work if they allow people using them to not only
detect errors the procedures are designed to expose, AND they expose those
not using the procedure.

Any time you can't tell the difference between a legitimate communication
under the proposed procedure and an erroneous communication not using the
proposed procedure, the procedure is not capable of preventing erroneous
communication.

It takes me about 3 seconds to repeat my home airport name. And
think of those poor sods at SJC when the tower is closed:- "Cherokee
blah-blah, left base 29, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport traffic" ;-).

No one says you have to say the full name of the airport. You simply need
to include enough to uniquely identify the airport. IMHO, "Mineta" or "San
Jose International" ought to be enough at either end of the transmission.
Heck, since I'll bet nearly everyone calls Reid-Hillview just that, "San
Jose" is probably good enough, especially since they don't use the same
traffic frequency. I can't imagine anyone ever says the entire name of the
airport on the radio to identify the airport; anyone that does is just being
silly.

At what airport are you based, where it takes a full 3 seconds to say its
name? And why is an additional 3 seconds such a huge problem? And what is
it about your home airport's name that prevents it from being shortened
while remaining unique?

What ASOS transmits on the traffic frequency?

Boulder City (61B) for one. Every 15 minutes or so even if not
prompted by three clicks.

According to the FAA data, 61B does not have an ASOS, and the nearest ASOS
is at KLAS, 16NM to the northwest (and that's phone-only anyway).

Perhaps you mean there's an automated unicom? That's very different from an
ASOS. In any case, an automated transmission once every 15 minutes is a
non-issue with respect to determining radio procedures. As I said before,
detecting conflicting transmissions is not a problem with aviation radio,
since the receiver gets a very clear indication of what happened.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

What ASOS transmits on the traffic frequency?

I don't think it's an ASOS, but Old Bridge airport has a "smart" unicom that
announces the wind direction and speed when it detects three mic clicks in a short
period of time. In the absence of mic clicks, it will announce "Old Bridge Airport.
Click your mic three times for radio check" every few minutes. It tends to step on
transmissions a lot.

The frustrating thing about it is that, if you're approaching the airport and need
the information, the shared UNICOM frequency is usually so busy with traffic from
other airports that you can't get the wind info anyawy. The only time the wind info
comes in clear enough is when you're on the ground at Old Bridge.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

I've had a smoldering dispute with a CFI friend of mine for
years about whether to announce (say) "zero-two" or just
"two" when operating at an uncontrolled field with runways
2-20. My friend is of the opinion that the extra "zero" is
superfluous, whereas I've always instinctively said "zero-two"
without really understanding why I do it. It has always "just
seemed right", with a blank in the orderly transmission of
information that cried out to be filled.


Leading zeros are not used for runway designations in the US. "Zero-two" is
wrong.



This weekend I felt vindicated. As I started to taxi out at
0L7 (two runways, 2-20R and 2-20L), I was not particularly
surprised to hear a Cherokee doing touch-and-gos on runway 2 (the
wind was 5 out of the north). Listening to several calls as I
prepared to depart, I finally caught a "two-zero" -- the fellow,
out of exuberance or lack of currency was letting his finger
slip off the transmit button to give an entirely erroneous and
completely believable false impression of what he was up to.
Turns out he was practicing downwind landings. Add to that
that the airport is right traffic for 20 and left for 02, the potential
for disaster is evident.


His transmission should have ended with "runway two-zero Jean".

Tony Cox wrote:

So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
extra zero or not?

The instructors I had in the late '80s and early '90s recommended using the leading
zero in transmissions.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tony Cox wrote:

So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
extra zero or not?

The instructors I had in the late '80s and early '90s recommended using
the leading
zero in transmissions.

The instructors I had said just the opposite. No leading zero.


George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

I use the leading zero, so my students tend to do that, too. Quite honestly,
I think some people worry about excess verbiage a little too much. Yeah, I
don't want people writing "War and Peace" on the radio, but the guys who go
nuts whenever they hear what they think is even one extra word are just a
little bit touched, if you ask me.