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.

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.

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

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:07:04 GMT, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

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


Yep, for exactly the same reason you found out that day. With only
one number you don't know if you've missed part of the transmission.

z

"Tony Cox" tc wrote:
>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.
[snip]
>So what do instructors teach these days? Do you
>add the extra zero or not?

No, I agree with your CFI-friend. A local uncontrolled airport has runways
3/21. I've never heard anyone announce "zero three" when referring to Runway 3,
nor was I taught to do so by my CFI. Recorded ATIS announcements don't add
zeros either -- they just say, "landing and departing Runways 4 left and
right."

Recently, Tony Cox > posted:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
> extra zero or not?
>
At some point, common sense has to play a part in what you say or omit. I
believe that it is important to eliminate ambiguity, so in the case of
runways that have the potential for confusion, as is the case with "two"
vs. "two zero", I would do as you did, and say "zero two". Note that in
either case, the potential for losing part of the transmission exists, and
if so, the same ambiguity is created as before. But, at least you've done
what you can to reduce the ambiguity.

Neil

"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...

The AIM's radio phraseology section doesn't seem to address this question.
However, an example in AIM 4-3-11c2 refers to "runway six right", which is
the phrasing I've always heard from ATC or ATIS at controlled fields. So I'd
vote for "runway two", more for standardization than for concision.

If you follow the standard practice of beginning and ending a unicom or
multicom transmission with the name of the airfield, then your listeners
will not be left wondering if there was an extra digit after the "runway
two" at the end of your transmission, unless they fail to hear the
concluding mention of the airfield.

--Gary

Two part answer. First, runways with single-digit designators (1,2,3, etc)
do not have a preceding zero painted on them. Second, FAA-P-8740-47 "Radio
Communications Procedures and Techniques," which hardly anyone has or has
read, says that if there is more than one digit, each digit should be
spoken, as in "one three" rather than "thirteen." If there is only one
digit, there is no reason to enunciate two digits.

However, don't be surprised to hear a controller say "Climb and maintain one
one thousand, eleven thousand" because there have been some
readback/hearback problems with pure digits.

Bob Gardner

"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.
>
> 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.
>
> So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
> extra zero or not?
>
> --
> Dr. Tony Cox
> Citrus Controls Inc.
> e-mail:
> http://CitrusControls.com/
>
>

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> So what do instructors teach these days?

Instructors teach whatever they think is right. Each one is different.

> Do you add the extra zero or not?

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.

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. 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).

Pete

In article >,
Bob Gardner > wrote:
>However, don't be surprised to hear a controller say "Climb and maintain one
>one thousand, eleven thousand" because there have been some
>readback/hearback problems with pure digits.

On Saturday I heard an airliner call in at "one one thousand, ten thousand".
He quickly corrected himself. No amount of redundancy helps if your brain
isn't in gear.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Two part answer. First, runways with single-digit designators (1,2,3, etc)
> do not have a preceding zero painted on them. Second, FAA-P-8740-47 "Radio
> Communications Procedures and Techniques," which hardly anyone has or has
> read, says that if there is more than one digit, each digit should be
> spoken, as in "one three" rather than "thirteen." If there is only one
> digit, there is no reason to enunciate two digits.
>

Flying in the UK it is the reverse. The runway will have 02 painted on the
runway and you will be expected to say zero two. Saying "runway 2" would be
confusing and leading people to believe you meant something from 20 to 29.

Funny how it goes.

"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.

"CB" > wrote in message
...
>
> Flying in the UK it is the reverse. The runway will have 02 painted on the
> runway and you will be expected to say zero two. Saying "runway 2" would
be
> confusing and leading people to believe you meant something from 20 to 29.

So *that's* where I got it from. Being English myself, it must
be some sort of racial memory...

"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...
>
> 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 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".

CB wrote:

> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Two part answer. First, runways with single-digit designators (1,2,3, etc)
>>do not have a preceding zero painted on them. Second, FAA-P-8740-47 "Radio
>>Communications Procedures and Techniques," which hardly anyone has or has
>>read, says that if there is more than one digit, each digit should be
>>spoken, as in "one three" rather than "thirteen." If there is only one
>>digit, there is no reason to enunciate two digits.
>>
>
>
> Flying in the UK it is the reverse. The runway will have 02 painted on the
> runway and you will be expected to say zero two. Saying "runway 2" would be
> confusing and leading people to believe you meant something from 20 to 29.

Likewise for Australia.

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.

MC wrote:

> Likewise for Australia.

Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
words, the in whole world except the USA.

Stefan

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...
> 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

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
> words, the in whole world except the USA.
>

Most nations use leading zeros, most pilots do not.

"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.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

Oh I don't know about that. 100% compliance isn't necessary, since
the two methods of announcing intentions aren't contradictory and
no additional ambiguity is introduced.

And *in this particular case* (and no doubt in other scenarios
too) safety would have been enhanced had he used the "zero two"
phraseology. Even a mixed system with some using "zero two" and some
using just "two" is a more effective communicator of intent over an
imperfect
communication channel where the failure mode is truncation of the tail end
of the transmission. Heck, he could even have been saying "Cherokee
blah-blah, right base, two [zero right Jean traffic]" -- using perfectly
correct
phraseology -- but as he was truncated, I'd never have known now would I?

>
> 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.

Indeed. But there is much one can do to maximize information transfer
over an imperfect channel. Sometimes asking a guy to retransmit isn't
an option (I'm reluctant to question solo students as to their intent as
they're
trying to land, for example. Sometimes the channel is just too busy). Look
at it this way...

Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know there
is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case you
assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's on
base for 2.

Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable assumption
is that he is heading for 2.

Which is less likely to lead to problems? And safety is no worse because
some people are announcing the leading zero while some aren't, so you
don't need 100% compliance.

BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero" ?
Been a while & I can't remember.

>
> > 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.

Missed the smiley, eh?

>
> 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?

Well, "Boulder City Traffic" takes me about 3 seconds & it's not an
issue unless there are 4 planes in the pattern, helicopters heading out
through the pattern & the jump pilots ordering sandwiches from their
base station all at the same time. Truncation leads to confusion with
"Bullhead", which although being on a different frequency, seems to
gets plenty of calls from pilots who forget to switch. Anyway, it isn't an
issue for us, since the only single-digit runway is 9, which cant be
confused
with anything.

>
> > > 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.

You're right. It's an automated unicom. No sign of it in the
AFD. Fancy that.

> 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.

It's not detecting conflicts. It's making use of degraded information.
Think of it as equivalent to a cyclic redundancy check, rather than
a parity check.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know there
> is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case you
> assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's on
> base for 2.
>
> Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
> assumption
> is that he is heading for 2.
>
> Which is less likely to lead to problems? And safety is no worse because
> some people are announcing the leading zero while some aren't, so you
> don't need 100% compliance.
>

Using leading zeros creates the possibility of transposing numbers. A pilot
might say "zero two" when he means "two zero". With just "two" there's
nothing to transpose.


>
> BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
> blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero" ?
> Been a while & I can't remember.
>

Three numbers are used when issuing headings.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Oh I don't know about that. 100% compliance isn't necessary, since
> the two methods of announcing intentions aren't contradictory and
> no additional ambiguity is introduced.

For it to do any good, you need to be able to tell the difference between a
complete communication and an incomplete one. Without 100% compliance and
without some sort of built-in error detection, you can't. Your proposal
provides neither.

> And *in this particular case* (and no doubt in other scenarios
> too) safety would have been enhanced had he used the "zero two"
> phraseology.

How do you know he wasn't?

> [...] Heck, he could even have been saying "Cherokee
> blah-blah, right base, two [zero right Jean traffic]" -- using perfectly
> correct
> phraseology -- but as he was truncated, I'd never have known now would I?

Which is why I said from the outset that the true solution is to NOT
TRUNCATE YOUR TRANSMISSION. It doesn't matter what you say, if you don't
hold that PTT switch down for the entire transmission, some information has
been lost.

> Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know there
> is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case you
> assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's on
> base for 2.

How do you know there is an error? Perhaps he's landing on 2 and that was
the end of his transmission.

> Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
assumption
> is that he is heading for 2.

How do you know he's heading for 2? Perhaps he's at a different airport,
landing on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Or even 2.

> Which is less likely to lead to problems? And safety is no worse because
> some people are announcing the leading zero while some aren't, so you
> don't need 100% compliance.

It's not a question about whether safety is worse. I'm trying to explain to
you that safety is NO BETTER.

> BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
> blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero" ?
> Been a while & I can't remember.

As Steven said, three digit headings. But that has nothing to do with
calling runways, and they use single digits for single digit runways.

> Well, "Boulder City Traffic" takes me about 3 seconds

I know you're closer to Texas than we are here in the Pacific Northwest, but
I had no idea you talked so slow in Nevada. "Boulder City Traffic" doesn't
take me nearly three seconds to say, and if it's that big of a problem you
could drop either or both the "City" and "Traffic".

> & it's not an
> issue unless there are 4 planes in the pattern, helicopters heading out
> through the pattern & the jump pilots ordering sandwiches from their
> base station all at the same time.

In that scenario, simply transmitting on the radio is an issue. Shortening
your transmission by a second, or even three, isn't going to make a
difference.

> Truncation leads to confusion with
> "Bullhead", which although being on a different frequency, seems to
> gets plenty of calls from pilots who forget to switch.

Which is, again, why I said from the outset that the correct solution is to
NOT TRUNCATE YOUR TRANSMISSION.

> It's not detecting conflicts. It's making use of degraded information.
> Think of it as equivalent to a cyclic redundancy check, rather than
> a parity check.

I'm afraid you need to read up on CRCs. They are simply a more reliable
error detection than a single bit parity check. They don't help you
reconstruct degraded information.

In any case, your proposal does not allow you to make use of degraded
information, as I have pointed out several times by now. There are plenty
of scenarios in which one does not even detect an error, which is a
prerequisite for reinterpreting the information in order to recover the lost
information.

Pete

But if you always use a leading zero, then you always know you have received
the entire number. If you're using a mix of single digit and two digit
numbers you can never be assured you received correct information on the <
10 numbers.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know there
> > is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case you
> > assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's on
> > base for 2.
> >
> > Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
> > assumption
> > is that he is heading for 2.
> >
> > Which is less likely to lead to problems? And safety is no worse because
> > some people are announcing the leading zero while some aren't, so you
> > don't need 100% compliance.
> >
>
> Using leading zeros creates the possibility of transposing numbers. A
pilot
> might say "zero two" when he means "two zero". With just "two" there's
> nothing to transpose.
>
>
> >
> > BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
> > blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero"
?
> > Been a while & I can't remember.
> >
>
> Three numbers are used when issuing headings.
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> But if you always use a leading zero, then you always know you
> have received the entire number.
>

But not necessarily the correct number.


>
> If you're using a mix of single digit
> and two digit numbers you can never be assured you received
> correct information on the 10 numbers.
>

If the guy says "...runway two Podunk.", I know he's referring to runway two
at Podunk. If he says "...runway zero two Podunk.", I know there's the
possibility that he transposed the numbers and actually meant runway two
zero. The leading zero does nothing to improve communications if the pilot
properly ends his transmission with the airport name.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:18:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If the guy says "...runway two Podunk.", I know he's referring to runway two
>at Podunk.


Unless he's making a reference "...TO podunk." Then the zero would
help.

No right answer with this one it seems.

z

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.

In Canada we tend to use the leading zero.
So I would always say downwind zero five,
never downwind five

Tony


In article et>,
"Tony Cox" > wrote:

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




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> MC wrote:
>
> > Likewise for Australia.
>
> Likewise in the whole world that adheres to ICAO standards. Or in other
> words, the in whole world except the USA.

Indeed, this came up a while back. The ICAO requirement is for
two digits, "zero two". The US have an exemption for this and for
single digits just use 2, not 02. However, what I've heard on the
radio, you always put "runway" in front of it.

So...

In the UK.
"Left downwind for zero-two". "Left downwind for two-zero"

In the US.
"Left downwind for runway two." "Left downwind for two-zero".

So the "zero" has been replaced with "runway" when spoken. Of course
there's nothing to stop people putting "runway" in front of "two-zero",
except it's usually left out for brevity.

It saves some paint I suppose! :-)

Paul

My airport is 02/20, and so is the one 52 NM away that I often fly to.

I say Zero Two, and so do most other people. I've occasionally heard
it called "Two". I think Zero Two is safer -- BUT:

I don't understand why anyone would designate an airport that way.
Chances are it's fairly close to 1/19 or 3/21. What difference could
it possibly make at a non=towered field to avoid this potentially
dangerous combination?

When I first got a radio, I had a terrible time with the runway
numbers, and at least once I announced that I was taking off on Two
Zero when I was heading north. I may have done it other times without
realizing it.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On 31 Aug 2004 16:31:48 GMT, (XMnushaL8y)
wrote:

> "zero three" when referring to Runway 3,

But the reciprocal in that case is not three zero!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:18:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> If the guy says "...runway two Podunk.", I know he's referring to
>> runway two at Podunk.
>>
>
> Unless he's making a reference "...TO podunk." Then the zero would
> help.
>

What would "runway zero to Podunk" mean?


>
> No right answer with this one it seems.
>

Yes there is.

Cub Driver > wrote:

> My airport is 02/20, and so is the one 52 NM away that I often fly to.
> I say Zero Two, and so do most other people. I've occasionally heard
> it called "Two". I think Zero Two is safer -- BUT:

I'm also based at an airport with a 02/20 runway. I always say "zero
two". To me, it sounds weird to just say "two".


> I don't understand why anyone would designate an airport that way.
> Chances are it's fairly close to 1/19 or 3/21. What difference could
> it possibly make at a non=towered field to avoid this potentially
> dangerous combination?

One thing would be the often used practice of resetting your DG when you
pull onto the runway. Presently, the runway heading is the magnetic
heading rounded to the NEAREST 10th. If the rounded the other way, some
people's DG would be off by more than 5 degrees. In practice, that's
probably not a big deal, but that the only thing I could think of.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

I teach my students to say 'zero-six'. There isn't much 'unnecessary
verbiage' in adding 'zero', and I think it reduces confusion, and adds
consistency.

Cap


"Tony Cox" > wrote in message et>...
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So what do instructors teach these days? Do you add the
> extra zero or not?

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
[snipped]
>
> However, don't be surprised to hear a controller say "Climb and maintain
one
> one thousand, eleven thousand" because there have been some
> readback/hearback problems with pure digits.
>

Many controllers use similar technique with altitude assignments. I tend to
use the phraseology "Climb and maintain one-one, eleven thousand" when such
praseology is prudent, as opposed to "Climb and maintain one one thousand,
eleven thousand" (with it's repetition of the word "thousand").

Also BTW, we had a trainee controller cause an operational error using this
non-prescibed phraseology. His MIA was 4900. He had overflight traffic on
radar at 6000 and a non-radar departure that he was issuing a full IFR
clearance to. The departure was filed for 9000. As part of the detailed
departure clearance with "CRAFT" and all that, he instructed the pilot to
"Climb and maintain five thousand, FIVE" in an attempt to reinforce the 5000
assigned altitude portion of the full clearance. The pilot, doing the full
clearance readback, read back "Climb and maintain five thousand five, blah
blah blah..." The apprentice controller missed the semantical difference
between his phraseology and the pilot's readback and the departure aircraft
got with the overflight.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:

>
> Also BTW, we had a trainee controller cause an operational error using this
> non-prescibed phraseology. His MIA was 4900. He had overflight traffic on
> radar at 6000 and a non-radar departure that he was issuing a full IFR
> clearance to. The departure was filed for 9000. As part of the detailed
> departure clearance with "CRAFT" and all that, he instructed the pilot to
> "Climb and maintain five thousand, FIVE" in an attempt to reinforce the 5000
> assigned altitude portion of the full clearance. The pilot, doing the full
> clearance readback, read back "Climb and maintain five thousand five, blah
> blah blah..." The apprentice controller missed the semantical difference
> between his phraseology and the pilot's readback and the departure aircraft
> got with the overflight.
>

You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> {steven}
> Using leading zeros creates the possibility of transposing numbers. A
pilot
> might say "zero two" when he means "two zero". With just "two" there's
> nothing to transpose.

Well, I suppose so. But then couldn't one argue for calling "Cessna
blah-blah, climb and maintain twelve thousand", rather than "one two
thousand"? Those number could be transposed too.

>
>
> >
> > BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
> > blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero"
?
> > Been a while & I can't remember.
> >
>
> Three numbers are used when issuing headings.

I thought so. Makes sense, since everyone is expecting three digits.
Which is, of course, where we came in on the discussion of announcing
runways!

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Well, I suppose so. But then couldn't one argue for calling "Cessna
> blah-blah, climb and maintain twelve thousand", rather than "one two
> thousand"? Those number could be transposed too.
>

Yes, but it would be an obvious error because one does not climb and
maintain "two one thousand", it's "flight level two one zero".

Altitudes may be restated in group form for added clarity if the controller
chooses.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0204.html#2-4-17


>
> I thought so. Makes sense, since everyone is expecting three digits.
> Which is, of course, where we came in on the discussion of announcing
> runways!
>

But everyone isn't expecting leading zeros for runways.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Oh I don't know about that. 100% compliance isn't necessary, since
> > the two methods of announcing intentions aren't contradictory and
> > no additional ambiguity is introduced.
>
> For it to do any good, you need to be able to tell the difference between
a
> complete communication and an incomplete one. Without 100% compliance and
> without some sort of built-in error detection, you can't. Your proposal
> provides neither.

I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid. In both cases you can tell
when the transmission is complete since it'll end with "xxx traffic".
If you think I'm proposing dispensing with the full call, I'm not.
I'm not actually proposing anything - just telling you that I personally
prefer to add a "zero" to the front of a runway with one numeral,
and judging by what others have said that seems to be the preference
of the majority, even here in the US (it is apparently proper phraseology
elsewhere in the world).

I'm also saying that in this case, prepending a "zero" improves
the quality of information transfer if the transmission is truncated.

The two objections to this (pardon me if I've missed others) are
1) it's additional bandwidth, and 2) pilots might accidentally transpose
numbers. Both are valid.

>
> > And *in this particular case* (and no doubt in other scenarios
> > too) safety would have been enhanced had he used the "zero two"
> > phraseology.
>
> How do you know he wasn't?

Because he was calling "Cherokee blah-blah, downwind, runway two".

>
> > Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know there
> > is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case you
> > assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's on
> > base for 2.
>
> How do you know there is an error? Perhaps he's landing on 2 and that was
> the end of his transmission.

I know there is an error because the transmission doesn't end with
"Left Jean Traffic" or "Zero Left Jean Traffic" (0L7 has two parallel
runways). The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that he was
landing on 2 is precisely the issue in hand. He wasn't.

>
> > Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
> assumption
> > is that he is heading for 2.
>
> How do you know he's heading for 2? Perhaps he's at a different airport,
> landing on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Or even 2.

I don't know for certain, of course. He may be dyslexic. But assuming
he isn't, he could only be heading for 2 since he'd only say "zero" if he
was about to follow it with "two". Jean has only 2 one-digit runways,
2L and 2R, and he prepended his entire call with "Jean Traffic".

> > BTW, how does ATC call vectors? Don't they say things like "Cherokee
> > blah-blah turn right heading zero-two-zero", rather than just "two-zero"
?
> > Been a while & I can't remember.
>
> As Steven said, three digit headings. But that has nothing to do with
> calling runways, and they use single digits for single digit runways.

I think it has everything to do with it. ATC call three numbers and
pilots expect to hear three. If they don't, they know immediately that
there is an error. If it makes sense for headings, then why not for this?

>
> > It's not detecting conflicts. It's making use of degraded information.
> > Think of it as equivalent to a cyclic redundancy check, rather than
> > a parity check.
>
> I'm afraid you need to read up on CRCs. They are simply a more reliable
> error detection than a single bit parity check. They don't help you
> reconstruct degraded information.

You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html
CRC's *can* correct some limited types of transmission errors, whereas
parity checking can't. CRC's aren't very good at it, but that's another
matter. Just like adding that spare "zero"- it allows you to correct certain
limited types of transmission error.

Now if we could only get pilots to calculate a CRC in their
heads and append it to each transmission.......!

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid. In both cases you can tell
> when the transmission is complete since it'll end with "xxx traffic".
> If you think I'm proposing dispensing with the full call, I'm not.
> I'm not actually proposing anything - just telling you that I personally
> prefer to add a "zero" to the front of a runway with one numeral,
> and judging by what others have said that seems to be the preference
> of the majority, even here in the US (it is apparently proper phraseology
> elsewhere in the world).
>

Adding a leading zero accomplishes nothing when proper phraseology is used.


>
> I'm also saying that in this case, prepending a "zero" improves
> the quality of information transfer if the transmission is truncated.
>

So don't truncate transmissions.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid. In both cases you can tell
> > when the transmission is complete since it'll end with "xxx traffic".
> > If you think I'm proposing dispensing with the full call, I'm not.
> > I'm not actually proposing anything - just telling you that I personally
> > prefer to add a "zero" to the front of a runway with one numeral,
> > and judging by what others have said that seems to be the preference
> > of the majority, even here in the US (it is apparently proper
phraseology
> > elsewhere in the world).
> >
>
> Adding a leading zero accomplishes nothing when proper phraseology is
used.

Did I say otherwise?

>
>
> >
> > I'm also saying that in this case, prepending a "zero" improves
> > the quality of information transfer if the transmission is truncated.
> >
>
> So don't truncate transmissions.

Sometimes they are truncated by the actions of others. Sometimes
they are truncated accidentally. Sometimes the frequency is so
crowded that there is no bandwidth to request and receive a
retransmission. And sometimes you're best off not distracting
a student pilot who might have his/her hands full just landing a plane.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> Did I say otherwise?
>

Did I say you did?


>
> Sometimes they are truncated by the actions of others.
>

Because they are stepped on? Does it matter what you say when that happens?


>
> Sometimes they are truncated accidentally.
>

How so?


>
> Sometimes the frequency is so
> crowded that there is no bandwidth to request and receive a
> retransmission.
>

Then anything which reduces bandwith, such as dropping the completely
useless leading zero, is good.


>
> And sometimes you're best off not distracting
> a student pilot who might have his/her hands full just landing a plane.
>

So it's best if some blocked transmissions not be repeated? Seems to me
such a transmission need not have been made at all.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid.

Your original claim was that by including the zero on single-digit runway
names, one can reconstruct the communication if it is truncated. My point
is that that's not true.

Not sure how much more simply I can state it than that.

> In both cases you can tell
> when the transmission is complete since it'll end with "xxx traffic".

Not when it's truncated, it won't.

> If you think I'm proposing dispensing with the full call, I'm not.
> I'm not actually proposing anything - just telling you that I personally
> prefer to add a "zero" to the front of a runway with one numeral,
> and judging by what others have said that seems to be the preference
> of the majority, even here in the US (it is apparently proper phraseology
> elsewhere in the world).

I prefer to as well, as I said in the original post, to which you started
disagreeing. How can you disagree with my post, and yet claim to have the
same preference that I have?

> I'm also saying that in this case, prepending a "zero" improves
> the quality of information transfer if the transmission is truncated.

Yes, I know you're saying that. It's still not true.

> The two objections to this (pardon me if I've missed others) are
> 1) it's additional bandwidth, and 2) pilots might accidentally transpose
> numbers. Both are valid.

I'm not objecting to it at all. I'm simply pointing out that there's no
added value in adding a leading zero.

> > > And *in this particular case* (and no doubt in other scenarios
> > > too) safety would have been enhanced had he used the "zero two"
> > > phraseology.
> >
> > How do you know he wasn't?
>
> Because he was calling "Cherokee blah-blah, downwind, runway two".

Which you said really was a truncated version of "Cherokee blah-blah,
downwind, runway two zero". There's nothing about that transmission that
tells you he wasn't using the "use a leading zero for single-digit runway
names" procedure.

> > > Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know
there
> > > is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case
you
> > > assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's
on
> > > base for 2.
> >
> > How do you know there is an error? Perhaps he's landing on 2 and that
was
> > the end of his transmission.
>
> I know there is an error because the transmission doesn't end with
> "Left Jean Traffic" or "Zero Left Jean Traffic" (0L7 has two parallel
> runways). The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that he was
> landing on 2 is precisely the issue in hand. He wasn't.

You have an odd definition of "know". Nothing about the pilot's
transmission allows you to differentiate between landing on "runway two" and
on "runway two zero". The fact that there's no "left Jean traffic" or "zero
left Jean traffic" at the end tells you nothing. For all you know, the
pilot simply didn't bother to say one or the other. And whether the pilot
chose to not say either intentionally, or did so accidently, that
information is still missing and still could have been either one.

> > > Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
> > assumption
> > > is that he is heading for 2.
> >
> > How do you know he's heading for 2? Perhaps he's at a different
airport,
> > landing on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Or even 2.
>
> I don't know for certain, of course. He may be dyslexic. But assuming
> he isn't, he could only be heading for 2 since he'd only say "zero" if he
> was about to follow it with "two". Jean has only 2 one-digit runways,
> 2L and 2R, and he prepended his entire call with "Jean Traffic".

You never said anything about him prepending his entire call with "Jean
traffic". And if you're relying on that, why not just suggest to use "Jean
traffic" at the end, like everyone else does? Why insist on the use of a
leading "zero"?

> > As Steven said, three digit headings. But that has nothing to do with
> > calling runways, and they use single digits for single digit runways.
>
> I think it has everything to do with it. ATC call three numbers and
> pilots expect to hear three. If they don't, they know immediately that
> there is an error. If it makes sense for headings, then why not for this?

In the case of vectors, three digits is used specifically to differentiate
from a relative turn (e.g. "turn left 30 degrees"). There's no similar need
with respect to runway names.

In other words (in case you missed it in the above paragraph), it makes
sense for vectors for an entirely different, and an entirely irrelevant
reason (irrelevant to runway names, that is).

> You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
> has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html

I saw what NIST has to say. So?

> CRC's *can* correct some limited types of transmission errors

For example?

> whereas parity checking can't.

Show me an example of a transmission error correctable with a CRC but not
with parity checking. The only difference between the two is the number of
bits applied to the error *detection*. Knowing the CRC does not allow you
to determine what the original data is.

The best parity checking *or* CRCs can do is tell you what the data was NOT.
You still need some other form of redundancy in order to tell you exactly
what the data IS, after you've used parity checking or a CRC to detect the
error.

In every use of a CRC for error detection I'm familiar with, once the error
is detected, the data is simply retrieved again (whether that be
retransmitting, user entering again, reading from media again, etc.)

> CRC's aren't very good at it, but that's another matter.

They aren't "very good at it" because they aren't useful at all for it.

> Just like adding that spare "zero"- it allows you to correct certain
> limited types of transmission error.

The only example you've come up with is when you hear a zero and nothing
else. So, let's consider that for a moment:

* For it to work, the pilot MUST provide the *correct* name of the
airport, and the airport must NOT have more than one runway with a single
digit name.
* In the scenario where it works, the pilot could just as easily have
said the single *correct* digit, and provided just as much information.
* For seven out of nine airports with single digit runway names, there
is NO benefit whatsoever to including the leading zero.

I stand by my original statement: the correct solution is for pilots to not
truncate their transmissions.

> Now if we could only get pilots to calculate a CRC in their
> heads and append it to each transmission.......!

What good would that do?

Pete

Of course the [remembered to hit the ptt] re aren't any pilots who chop off
the front of their transmissions. And isn't it wonderful that interference
only affects the end of a phrase, it never chops off the front of one.






"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid.
>
> Your original claim was that by including the zero on single-digit runway
> names, one can reconstruct the communication if it is truncated. My point
> is that that's not true.
>
> Not sure how much more simply I can state it than that.
>
> > In both cases you can tell
> > when the transmission is complete since it'll end with "xxx traffic".
>
> Not when it's truncated, it won't.
>
> > If you think I'm proposing dispensing with the full call, I'm not.
> > I'm not actually proposing anything - just telling you that I personally
> > prefer to add a "zero" to the front of a runway with one numeral,
> > and judging by what others have said that seems to be the preference
> > of the majority, even here in the US (it is apparently proper
phraseology
> > elsewhere in the world).
>
> I prefer to as well, as I said in the original post, to which you started
> disagreeing. How can you disagree with my post, and yet claim to have the
> same preference that I have?
>
> > I'm also saying that in this case, prepending a "zero" improves
> > the quality of information transfer if the transmission is truncated.
>
> Yes, I know you're saying that. It's still not true.
>
> > The two objections to this (pardon me if I've missed others) are
> > 1) it's additional bandwidth, and 2) pilots might accidentally transpose
> > numbers. Both are valid.
>
> I'm not objecting to it at all. I'm simply pointing out that there's no
> added value in adding a leading zero.
>
> > > > And *in this particular case* (and no doubt in other scenarios
> > > > too) safety would have been enhanced had he used the "zero two"
> > > > phraseology.
> > >
> > > How do you know he wasn't?
> >
> > Because he was calling "Cherokee blah-blah, downwind, runway two".
>
> Which you said really was a truncated version of "Cherokee blah-blah,
> downwind, runway two zero". There's nothing about that transmission that
> tells you he wasn't using the "use a leading zero for single-digit runway
> names" procedure.
>
> > > > Pilot calls "..left base, two". Could be either 2 or 20 & you know
> there
> > > > is an error. But you're none the wiser as to where he is. Worse case
> you
> > > > assume he's just being lazy with the "Jean traffic" bit & think he's
> on
> > > > base for 2.
> > >
> > > How do you know there is an error? Perhaps he's landing on 2 and that
> was
> > > the end of his transmission.
> >
> > I know there is an error because the transmission doesn't end with
> > "Left Jean Traffic" or "Zero Left Jean Traffic" (0L7 has two parallel
> > runways). The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that he was
> > landing on 2 is precisely the issue in hand. He wasn't.
>
> You have an odd definition of "know". Nothing about the pilot's
> transmission allows you to differentiate between landing on "runway two"
and
> on "runway two zero". The fact that there's no "left Jean traffic" or
"zero
> left Jean traffic" at the end tells you nothing. For all you know, the
> pilot simply didn't bother to say one or the other. And whether the pilot
> chose to not say either intentionally, or did so accidently, that
> information is still missing and still could have been either one.
>
> > > > Pilot calls "..left base, zero". Error detected, but a reasonable
> > > assumption
> > > > is that he is heading for 2.
> > >
> > > How do you know he's heading for 2? Perhaps he's at a different
> airport,
> > > landing on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Or even 2.
> >
> > I don't know for certain, of course. He may be dyslexic. But assuming
> > he isn't, he could only be heading for 2 since he'd only say "zero" if
he
> > was about to follow it with "two". Jean has only 2 one-digit runways,
> > 2L and 2R, and he prepended his entire call with "Jean Traffic".
>
> You never said anything about him prepending his entire call with "Jean
> traffic". And if you're relying on that, why not just suggest to use
"Jean
> traffic" at the end, like everyone else does? Why insist on the use of a
> leading "zero"?
>
> > > As Steven said, three digit headings. But that has nothing to do with
> > > calling runways, and they use single digits for single digit runways.
> >
> > I think it has everything to do with it. ATC call three numbers and
> > pilots expect to hear three. If they don't, they know immediately that
> > there is an error. If it makes sense for headings, then why not for
this?
>
> In the case of vectors, three digits is used specifically to differentiate
> from a relative turn (e.g. "turn left 30 degrees"). There's no similar
need
> with respect to runway names.
>
> In other words (in case you missed it in the above paragraph), it makes
> sense for vectors for an entirely different, and an entirely irrelevant
> reason (irrelevant to runway names, that is).
>
> > You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
> > has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html
>
> I saw what NIST has to say. So?
>
> > CRC's *can* correct some limited types of transmission errors
>
> For example?
>
> > whereas parity checking can't.
>
> Show me an example of a transmission error correctable with a CRC but not
> with parity checking. The only difference between the two is the number
of
> bits applied to the error *detection*. Knowing the CRC does not allow you
> to determine what the original data is.
>
> The best parity checking *or* CRCs can do is tell you what the data was
NOT.
> You still need some other form of redundancy in order to tell you exactly
> what the data IS, after you've used parity checking or a CRC to detect the
> error.
>
> In every use of a CRC for error detection I'm familiar with, once the
error
> is detected, the data is simply retrieved again (whether that be
> retransmitting, user entering again, reading from media again, etc.)
>
> > CRC's aren't very good at it, but that's another matter.
>
> They aren't "very good at it" because they aren't useful at all for it.
>
> > Just like adding that spare "zero"- it allows you to correct certain
> > limited types of transmission error.
>
> The only example you've come up with is when you hear a zero and nothing
> else. So, let's consider that for a moment:
>
> * For it to work, the pilot MUST provide the *correct* name of the
> airport, and the airport must NOT have more than one runway with a single
> digit name.
> * In the scenario where it works, the pilot could just as easily have
> said the single *correct* digit, and provided just as much information.
> * For seven out of nine airports with single digit runway names, there
> is NO benefit whatsoever to including the leading zero.
>
> I stand by my original statement: the correct solution is for pilots to
not
> truncate their transmissions.
>
> > Now if we could only get pilots to calculate a CRC in their
> > heads and append it to each transmission.......!
>
> What good would that do?
>
> Pete
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid.
>
> Your original claim was that by including the zero on single-digit runway
> names, one can reconstruct the communication if it is truncated. My point
> is that that's not true.
>
> Not sure how much more simply I can state it than that.

There doesn't seem much point in continuing this. I've given you
an example and walked you through it. If you can't see that someone
vocalizing "zero", necessarily followed by another digit which you
can reliably guess if you don't hear it, resolves a potentially dangerous
redundancy then I'm at a loss. I'm sorry I've not been able to help you
understand.

>
> > You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
> > has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html
>
> I saw what NIST has to say. So?

Then you'll have noticed the statement "Many transmission errors
may be detected, and some corrected" in their description of the
algorithm, right?

>
> > CRC's *can* correct some limited types of transmission errors
>
> For example?

It's been years since I've done this, and it is clearly off topic, but
as I remember the theory, it runs as follows. Since the CRC is a
polynomial which you can choose arbitrarily, it is possible to choose
an expression which generates CRC bits which 'oversample' certain
parts of the block you're trying to protect. In this way, you can -
given certain statistical noise properties - generally reconstruct certain
critical areas of the block from your redundant CRC bits (and even
if the CRC bits themselves have been corrupted).

>
> > whereas parity checking can't.
>
> Show me an example of a transmission error correctable with a CRC but not
> with parity checking. The only difference between the two is the number
of
> bits applied to the error *detection*. Knowing the CRC does not allow you
> to determine what the original data is.

Well, here's a tutorial which claims (I've not followed their proof) to
show how to use CRC's to correct burst transmission errors. Burst
transmission errors are those that begin with a bit error (which you
can detect and then reconstruct from the CRC) together with subsequent
bits which may or may not have errors in them (which you can detect, but
not correct). http://www.cs.niu.edu/~sjchung/c463/network.htm. Is that
sufficient to convince you?

>
> In every use of a CRC for error detection I'm familiar with, once the
error
> is detected, the data is simply retrieved again (whether that be
> retransmitting, user entering again, reading from media again, etc.)

That's because CRC's aren't suitable for error correction when
the errors are distributed evenly through a block you're trying to
protect, and I'd wager that that is the only usage of CRC's that
you've come across. Not enough information content, you see,
but I'm sure you knew that. Anyway, as I hope I've explained to you
more clearly than I did with the runway phraseology, you *can*
use them for more than just error detection if you know where
you expect to find the error in the first place.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> There doesn't seem much point in continuing this. I've given you
> an example and walked you through it. If you can't see that someone
> vocalizing "zero", necessarily followed by another digit which you
> can reliably guess if you don't hear it, resolves a potentially dangerous
> redundancy then I'm at a loss. I'm sorry I've not been able to help you
> understand.
>

I'm sure that everyone could see that if you would explain why that's so.
But you have not done that.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
.net...
> There doesn't seem much point in continuing this. I've given you
> an example and walked you through it. If you can't see that someone
> vocalizing "zero", necessarily followed by another digit which you
> can reliably guess if you don't hear it, resolves a potentially dangerous
> redundancy then I'm at a loss.

"Potentially dangerous redundancy"? Now you're claiming that *redundancy*
is dangerous? Uh, okay.

You are right about one thing: there's no point in continuing, since you've
failed to even come close to showing how adding "zero" is a practice that
would improve communications.

> > > You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
> > > has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html
> >
> > I saw what NIST has to say. So?
>
> Then you'll have noticed the statement "Many transmission errors
> may be detected, and some corrected" in their description of the
> algorithm, right?

Just because someone wrote it, that doesn't make it true.

> Well, here's a tutorial which claims (I've not followed their proof) to
> show how to use CRC's to correct burst transmission errors.

Did you read the tutorial? I was unable to read it completely, because all
of the embedded items are of a type that doesn't display on my computer.
However, they only have one example of CRC error checking, and they
specifically state at the end of that example "However, there is no
sufficient information for the receiving TCP to correct the error(s)".

In spite of the promise at the beginning of the tutorial, it contains no
demonstration of the use of a CRC to *correct* an error.

> Burst
> transmission errors are those that begin with a bit error (which you
> can detect and then reconstruct from the CRC) together with subsequent
> bits which may or may not have errors in them (which you can detect, but
> not correct). http://www.cs.niu.edu/~sjchung/c463/network.htm. Is that
> sufficient to convince you?

I don't know what you think is contained in that tutorial that ought to
convince me. But no, it does not convince me. Maybe you could quote the
party that's supposed to convince me.

For a CRC to be useful in *correcting* erroneous data, it needs to contain
as much information as was lost in the first place. In the example you're
talking about, where the error is limited to a certain area of the data,
you'll find that the CRC itself contains essentially the same information
that was lost.

CRCs do NOT inherently provide error correction. They are only different
from a parity check with respect to the accuracy. For a CRC to provide
error correction, it needs to be large enough to basically be a redundant
component of the communication. And in that case, it's not the "CRC-ness"
of the CRC that's providing the error correction; it's the "redundantness"
of the CRC that's providing the error correction.

Perhaps your inability to understand that parity checks and CRCs are
basically the same thing, with only a difference of magnitude between them,
suggests an explanation as to your inability to see why adding "zero" to
your runway names isn't going to help things.

Pete

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:27:19 +0100, "Paul Sengupta"
> wrote:

>So the "zero" has been replaced with "runway" when spoken.

I will try this, more for my own benefit than for others :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On 01 Sep 2004 11:31:57 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:

>One thing would be the often used practice of resetting your DG when you
>pull onto the runway. Presently, the runway heading is the magnetic
>heading rounded to the NEAREST 10th.

Jay, my airport is a rather lumpy, 250-foot wide, 2,500=foot long
refined pasture. I doubt anyone has ever reset his gyro on it :)

(But the other runway I mentioned is indeed asphalt, 50 feet wide, and
your point is well taken. I didn't think of that. No gyro in the Cub!)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

I work at a flight school and asked the question there.

The unanimous answer was "no zero", with the addendum that if your concern is
confusion at Runways 2/20, adding a zero to Runway 2 may *increase* the risk of
confusion since hearing a zero at all could mislead a person to think it's
Runway 2-0 (there's no zero in Runway 2). Without the zero preceding Runway
Two, there's no mistaking it and no chance of transposing numbers because one
is a single-digit and the other isn't.

No substitute for button/speak technique, timely and concise
self-announcements, listening carefully and ASKING if there's uncertainty. Goes
w/o saying, yes?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> I'm sure that everyone could see that if you would explain why that's so.
> But you have not done that.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
to us all the time. Two situations.

1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"

2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"

You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
north?

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
> a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
> blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
> a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
> radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
> dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
> airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
> to us all the time. Two situations.
>
> 1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"
>
> 2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"
>
> You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
> using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
> alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
> would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
> north?
>

Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
proper phraseology.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
> > > > has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclicRedundancyCheck.html
> > >
> > > I saw what NIST has to say. So?
> >
> > Then you'll have noticed the statement "Many transmission errors
> > may be detected, and some corrected" in their description of the
> > algorithm, right?
>
> Just because someone wrote it, that doesn't make it true.

Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
not some random collection of net kooks. Say, why don't you write
them and tell them they are wrong, eh?

>
> > Well, here's a tutorial which claims (I've not followed their proof) to
> > show how to use CRC's to correct burst transmission errors.
>
> Did you read the tutorial? I was unable to read it completely, because
all
> of the embedded items are of a type that doesn't display on my computer.

I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.

> For a CRC to be useful in *correcting* erroneous data, it needs to contain
> as much information as was lost in the first place. In the example you're
> talking about, where the error is limited to a certain area of the data,
> you'll find that the CRC itself contains essentially the same information
> that was lost.

No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?

But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
provided error correction; now you're saying they can. Guess
you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people. Sorry
Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
> > a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
> > blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
> > a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
> > radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
> > dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
> > airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
> > to us all the time. Two situations.
> >
> > 1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"
> >
> > 2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"
> >
> > You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
> > using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
> > alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
> > would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
> > north?
> >
>
> Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
> improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
> proper phraseology.

Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
Try answering the question I've posed & you'll see what I'm
talking about.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
>> improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
>> proper phraseology.
>>
>
> Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
> Try answering the question I've posed & you'll see what I'm
> talking about.
>

Try it my way and perhaps you'll see the folly of your position.

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
> > improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
> > proper phraseology.
>
> Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?

How can you argue to change standard phraseology, and yet and the same time
postulate a person not using standard phraseology for the purpose of
defending your position?

"XMnushaL8y" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> No substitute for button/speak technique, timely and concise
> self-announcements, listening carefully and ASKING if there's uncertainty.
> Goes w/o saying, yes?

I would've thought so, but apparently there are those who disagree. :)

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
> not some random collection of net kooks.

The quote itself is not from NIST. They simply provide the web site on
which it's contained.

In any case, not even the NIST is infalliable.

> Say, why don't you write them and tell them they are wrong, eh?

Because I couldn't care less what they publish on their web site.

> I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
> web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
> theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.

You can either try to prove what you said is true, or not. That's your
choice. But don't expect people to just sit around while you make false
statements and just keep quiet.

> No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
> that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?

Getting a little touchy, are you?

> But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
> provided error correction; now you're saying they can.

What I said is that CRCs are no different than parity checks. And they are
not, not fundamentally.

Of course, you can always add redundancy so that errors can be corrected
rather than requiring data to be resent/reread/whatever. But just because a
CRC can ALSO be made into a redundant data set, that does not make the CRC
inherently about error correction.

Your statement is like saying that, because Microsoft Word has an
HTML-output feature, all word processors are HTML editors. You are
confusing an added feature with the fundamental nature of something.

> Guess you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people.

Buzz? Uh, right. What I get is the urge to contest false information,
whenever and wherever I see it. When you stop posting false information,
I'll stop arguing with you.

> Sorry Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..

You might as well.

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
> >> improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
> >> proper phraseology.
> >>
> >
> > Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
> > Try answering the question I've posed & you'll see what I'm
> > talking about.
> >
>
> Try it my way and perhaps you'll see the folly of your position.

What is so foolish about asking a question?

Say, your ancestors weren't French by any chance were
they? I spent a miserable weekend in Paris trying out my
'O' level language skills some years back. Just about
everyone I attempted to speak to would contemptuously
ignore me if I got noun genders wrong or used the wrong
tense. I just know the ****ers were doing it on purpose.
"Ahh, *le* boeuf" they'd say, as if a light had suddenly gone
off after me trying to order "la boeuf" for 20 minutes.

Surely you don't behave like that in the air do you? Ignoring
every radio call that isn't pedantically canonical? If you tried
that around here, you'd filter out 50% of the calls.

So pinch your nose, suppress your linguistic contempt or
whatever you have to do & tell me what you make of those
(not so hypothetical) radio calls you've hypothetically received
when approaching Arrakeen.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "XMnushaL8y" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > No substitute for button/speak technique, timely and concise
> > self-announcements, listening carefully and ASKING if there's
uncertainty.
> > Goes w/o saying, yes?
>
> I would've thought so, but apparently there are those who disagree. :)

If you think I don't believe proper canonical radio technique is
important, then you're wrong. But sometimes, like it or not, one
has to deal with imperfection.

All word processors that can save files as plain text are HTML editors.

Bad example.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
> > not some random collection of net kooks.
>
> The quote itself is not from NIST. They simply provide the web site on
> which it's contained.
>
> In any case, not even the NIST is infalliable.
>
> > Say, why don't you write them and tell them they are wrong, eh?
>
> Because I couldn't care less what they publish on their web site.
>
> > I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
> > web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
> > theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.
>
> You can either try to prove what you said is true, or not. That's your
> choice. But don't expect people to just sit around while you make false
> statements and just keep quiet.
>
> > No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
> > that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?
>
> Getting a little touchy, are you?
>
> > But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
> > provided error correction; now you're saying they can.
>
> What I said is that CRCs are no different than parity checks. And they
are
> not, not fundamentally.
>
> Of course, you can always add redundancy so that errors can be corrected
> rather than requiring data to be resent/reread/whatever. But just because
a
> CRC can ALSO be made into a redundant data set, that does not make the CRC
> inherently about error correction.
>
> Your statement is like saying that, because Microsoft Word has an
> HTML-output feature, all word processors are HTML editors. You are
> confusing an added feature with the fundamental nature of something.
>
> > Guess you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people.
>
> Buzz? Uh, right. What I get is the urge to contest false information,
> whenever and wherever I see it. When you stop posting false information,
> I'll stop arguing with you.
>
> > Sorry Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..
>
> You might as well.
>
> Pete
>
>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's
still
> > > improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples
with
> > > proper phraseology.
> >
> > Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
>
> How can you argue to change standard phraseology, and yet and the same
time
> postulate a person not using standard phraseology for the purpose of
> defending your position?

Well, first of all it's debatable that there *is* a standard
phraseology. Except at the ICAO level, where prepending
a "zero" is required. Bob Gardner quotes FAA-P-8740-47,
which may or may not have regulatory authority, I'm not sure.
From his description, the guide says there is "no reason" to
enunciate two digits, which is different from prohibiting it.
What would international flights do on approach, for example?

I am not arguing to change 'standard phraseology', whatever that
might mean. I'm inviting you to compare two different methods
of announcing position given that the message is truncated. The
fact that one form may or may not be standard is completely
irrelevant.

Why both you and Steven are so strongly resisting even *considering*
this is a complete mystery to me. You've side-tracked into
claiming I'm against proper radio calls, don't understand CRC's,
have underestimated the number of dyslexic pilots, speak too
damn slowly on the radio and God knows what else. I've reduced
the problem to the absolute bare-arsed, naked 10-line minimum
simplest question I can ask, and you *still* won't answer it. "It's
a stupid question. Ask me another".

Well, that's Usenet, I suppose.

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> All word processors that can save files as plain text are HTML editors.
>
> Bad example.

It's a fine example to anyone who gets the point. A true HTML editor
provides WYSIWYG display of the HTML.

I can enter a Word document from the command line prompt if I like. That
doesn't make DOS a word processor.

Looking only at the two examples you provided, with example 1, you cannot
tell if truncation occurred or not. With example 2, you know that truncation
did occur as there is no runway "0".

What runways do or do not exist at a particular airport, or what runways are
in use are totally irrelevant All that information does is allow you to
start guessing, and guessing is generally bad.

A communication itself should allow you to tell if such things as truncation
has occurred, you should not need any external cues to help you decipher the
message.

Using two digits for runway numbers improve communications and reduce errors
due to truncation; as has been noted, headings are always three digits.

The lack of a leading zero is a convention decided on somewhere by somebody;
it is the standard. But the two-digit method is far superior.




"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > I'm sure that everyone could see that if you would explain why that's
so.
> > But you have not done that.
>
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
> a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
> blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
> a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
> radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
> dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
> airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
> to us all the time. Two situations.
>
> 1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"
>
> 2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"
>
> You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
> using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
> alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
> would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
> north?
>
>

Real programmers don't have the time to waste on WYSIWYG. I have been
building web sites with Visual InterDev since 1995 and never used WYSIWYG. I
code for about an hour, open the page in IE, then continue coding.

And you cannot enter a Word document from the command prompt. You can create
a text document, then open in in Word and save it back in Word format, but
you can't create a native Word document from the command line.

Another bad example...



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All word processors that can save files as plain text are HTML editors.
> >
> > Bad example.
>
> It's a fine example to anyone who gets the point. A true HTML editor
> provides WYSIWYG display of the HTML.
>
> I can enter a Word document from the command line prompt if I like. That
> doesn't make DOS a word processor.
>
>

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Try it my way and perhaps you'll see the folly of your position.
>>
>
> What is so foolish about asking a question?
>

You're trying to make a case for use of the leading zero. If you can't make
that case using prescribed phraseology, and it is quite clear that you
cannot, then you simply have no case.


>
> Say, your ancestors weren't French by any chance were
> they?
>

No, but some of them may have traveled through France.


>
> I spent a miserable weekend in Paris trying out my
> 'O' level language skills some years back. Just about
> everyone I attempted to speak to would contemptuously
> ignore me if I got noun genders wrong or used the wrong
> tense. I just know the ****ers were doing it on purpose.
> "Ahh, *le* boeuf" they'd say, as if a light had suddenly gone
> off after me trying to order "la boeuf" for 20 minutes.
>
> Surely you don't behave like that in the air do you?
>

Nope.


>
> Ignoring
> every radio call that isn't pedantically canonical? If you tried
> that around here, you'd filter out 50% of the calls.
>

Any idea why the knowledge level is so low there?


>
> So pinch your nose, suppress your linguistic contempt or
> whatever you have to do & tell me what you make of those
> (not so hypothetical) radio calls you've hypothetically received
> when approaching Arrakeen.
>

The pilots are in need of remedial instruction.

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Real programmers don't have the time to waste on WYSIWYG.

Ah, yes...the elitist "real programmers" attitude. I should've guessed that
would surface. If I wanted to play that game, I'd simply point out that
real programmers don't bother "programming" in HTML at all.

In any case, I'm a real programmer, and I use all sorts of time-saving
tools, whether I'm authoring a web page or producing a standalone program.
Many of those involve WYSIWYG interfaces.

Any "real programmer" who insists on doing everything in longhand is, pardon
my French, an idiot. Anyone who pays a "real programmer" to take the time
to do everything in longhand is even dumber.

> I have been
> building web sites with Visual InterDev since 1995 and never used WYSIWYG.

If all you need is notepad.exe, why do you bother with Visual InterDev?

> I code for about an hour, open the page in IE, then continue coding.

Bully for you.

> And you cannot enter a Word document from the command prompt.

Of course you can. What would make you make such a blatantly false claim
that you can't?

> You can create
> a text document, then open in in Word and save it back in Word format, but
> you can't create a native Word document from the command line.

Yes, you can. From the command line, you can enter every byte value from 0
to 255 into a file. A Word document is simply a string of bytes. To create
a Word document from the command line, simply enter the appropriate bytes in
the appropriate order to create the Word document you desire.

> Another bad example...

Again, only to those who insist on failing to get the point.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Real programmers don't have the time to waste on WYSIWYG.
>
> Ah, yes...the elitist "real programmers" attitude. I should've guessed
that
> would surface. If I wanted to play that game, I'd simply point out that
> real programmers don't bother "programming" in HTML at all.

I was picking up on your example. Most of what I do is DHTML, VBScript, and
lots of COM objects that produce code. I also program in Visual Basic and MS
SQL Server Transact SQL.

>
> In any case, I'm a real programmer, and I use all sorts of time-saving
> tools, whether I'm authoring a web page or producing a standalone program.
> Many of those involve WYSIWYG interfaces.
>
> Any "real programmer" who insists on doing everything in longhand is,
pardon
> my French, an idiot. Anyone who pays a "real programmer" to take the time
> to do everything in longhand is even dumber.

I use time-saving tools also; one of which is NOT using WYSIWYG. Most of the
objects I have on a web page will not display in WYSIWYG anyway.

Besides, I can hand-code most things on a web page far faster than I could
drag 'n drop them and set the properties.
>
> > I have been
> > building web sites with Visual InterDev since 1995 and never used
WYSIWYG.
>
> If all you need is notepad.exe, why do you bother with Visual InterDev?

Because I need far more than notepad.exe. InterDev is an integrated
development environment. I provides quick access to SourceSafe, keeps track
of all of the files in a project, allows me to have multiple pages open at
once, and provides integrated access to SQL databases and the other stuff I
use.

>
> > I code for about an hour, open the page in IE, then continue coding.
>
> Bully for you.
>
> > And you cannot enter a Word document from the command prompt.
>
> Of course you can. What would make you make such a blatantly false claim
> that you can't?
>
> > You can create
> > a text document, then open in in Word and save it back in Word format,
but
> > you can't create a native Word document from the command line.
>
> Yes, you can. From the command line, you can enter every byte value from
0
> to 255 into a file. A Word document is simply a string of bytes. To
create
> a Word document from the command line, simply enter the appropriate bytes
in
> the appropriate order to create the Word document you desire.

First, you can't enter every byte value from the command line. Try CTRL-Z.
And there are lots of other things you can't enter from the command line.
Second, you could not realistically determine the byte values to use without
first creating the Word document, then reverse engineering it.

>
> > Another bad example...
>
> Again, only to those who insist on failing to get the point.

Again, another bad example.

>
> Pete
>
>

Bill Denton wrote:

> Real programmers don't have the time to waste on WYSIWYG. I have been
> building web sites with Visual InterDev since 1995 and never used WYSIWYG. I
> code for about an hour, open the page in IE, then continue coding.

While the rest of us are on our second beer. But that's the price we
pay for not being real.

Newps wrote:
> You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
> irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
> below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
> reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
> obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.

--
David Rind

David Rind wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
>> irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three
>> airplanes below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The
>> investstigation reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the
>> ground or any obstacles and it goes away.
>
>
> Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
> something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
> was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
> be recommending dropping a dime on him.

Hey, it's the FAA. Safety was never compromised, until you die. Then
maybe it was.

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
> > You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
> > irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
> > below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
> > reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
> > obstacles and it goes away.
>
> Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
> something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
> was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
> be recommending dropping a dime on him.
>

See David, if he actually *has* a mid-air or runs someone into a mountain,
FAA will promote him into ATC Management, or else make him a "Quality
Assurance" staff specialist (where he gets to tell real controllers where
they made procedural mistakes). Until his promotion though, his fellow
controllers are stuck carrying him on the roster, and the pilots he serves
are stuck with his "service". After all, we have to run ATC like a
business, and he has certain employment rights. As long as we keep
publically saying "safety was never compromised", the company can't do a
thing...

Chip, ZTL

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> First, you can't enter every byte value from the command line. Try CTRL-Z.
> And there are lots of other things you can't enter from the command line.

Sure I can. I just can't use the built-in "copy con" command.

> Second, you could not realistically determine the byte values to use
without
> first creating the Word document, then reverse engineering it.

How do you know? Are you claiming it's impossible for any person to know
the Word document file format?

Your claims are getting dumber and dumber.

> Again, another bad example.

I can see that you *really* have a need to find fault where none exists. I
apologize for not being an appropriate target for you to satisfy your need.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First, you can't enter every byte value from the command line. Try
CTRL-Z.
> > And there are lots of other things you can't enter from the command
line.
>
> Sure I can. I just can't use the built-in "copy con" command.

If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it? Keep in
mind that you have to do it from the command line; "notepad.exe" doesn't
count.


>
> > Second, you could not realistically determine the byte values to use
> without
> > first creating the Word document, then reverse engineering it.
>
> How do you know? Are you claiming it's impossible for any person to know
> the Word document file format?

That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
"realistiically". I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother. Just cosider
the byte values associated with a single character: font, size, color, bold,
underline, italic, et al. And then you may have to change the attributes
after that character.


>
> Your claims are getting dumber and dumber.

I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.


>
> > Again, another bad example.
>
> I can see that you *really* have a need to find fault where none exists.
I
> apologize for not being an appropriate target for you to satisfy your
need.

I don't have a need for anything. I did go back and review some of your
previous posts and realized that you are a person who obviously knows
everything there is to know. I hope your delusions carry you a long way; if
not, let me know, and I can tell you where to buy a clue.

This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post of
yours I saw on this thread. So I'm out of this one until it comes back to
flying...


>
> Pete
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it?

Any program that allows creation of files, and which supports quoting of
special-use characters or otherwise allows direct entry of bytes.

It would take any competent programmer approximate 10 minutes to write such
a program.

> That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
> "realistiically".

You introduced that word yourself. I am not under any obligation to abide
by it.

> I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
> file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother.

The point is not whether "anyone with a life would bother". It's whether
the fact that you can create a Word document from the command prompt makes
the command prompt a word processor.

It does not, just as the fact that you can create an HTML page in Word does
NOT make Word an HTML editor.

> I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.

False facts.

> I don't have a need for anything.

Of course you do. Otherwise you would not have invested so much in your ego
here.

> [...]
> This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
> intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post of
> yours I saw on this thread.

Point out how? By posting your own glaringly stupid statements? Uh huh...

Look, someone who cannot understand the difference between a program and the
command line is far too stupid for me to waste my time on...



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it?
>
> Any program that allows creation of files, and which supports quoting of
> special-use characters or otherwise allows direct entry of bytes.
>
> It would take any competent programmer approximate 10 minutes to write
such
> a program.
>
> > That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
> > "realistiically".
>
> You introduced that word yourself. I am not under any obligation to abide
> by it.
>
> > I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
> > file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother.
>
> The point is not whether "anyone with a life would bother". It's whether
> the fact that you can create a Word document from the command prompt makes
> the command prompt a word processor.
>
> It does not, just as the fact that you can create an HTML page in Word
does
> NOT make Word an HTML editor.
>
> > I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.
>
> False facts.
>
> > I don't have a need for anything.
>
> Of course you do. Otherwise you would not have invested so much in your
ego
> here.
>
> > [...]
> > This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
> > intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post
of
> > yours I saw on this thread.
>
> Point out how? By posting your own glaringly stupid statements? Uh
huh...
>
>

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Look, someone who cannot understand the difference between a program and
the
> command line is far too stupid for me to waste my time on...

Failing to make any headway justifying your own argument, you resort to ad
hominem attacks. How well does that crutch work for you in the rest of your
life?

Chip Jones wrote:
> "David Rind" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>>You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
>>>irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
>>>below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
>>>reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
>>>obstacles and it goes away.
>>
>>Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
>>something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
>>was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
>>be recommending dropping a dime on him.
>>
>
>
> See David, if he actually *has* a mid-air or runs someone into a mountain,
> FAA will promote him into ATC Management, or else make him a "Quality
> Assurance" staff specialist (where he gets to tell real controllers where
> they made procedural mistakes). Until his promotion though, his fellow
> controllers are stuck carrying him on the roster, and the pilots he serves
> are stuck with his "service". After all, we have to run ATC like a
> business, and he has certain employment rights. As long as we keep
> publically saying "safety was never compromised", the company can't do a
> thing...
>
> Chip, ZTL

Chip --

This seems like a topic I'd be intereted in seeing Don Brown address in
one of his AVweb columns. Do you have any objection to my sending him a
copy of this thread?

-- David

--
David Rind