Radio talk in the UK

[Paul]

Hi

I am training for my PPL in the UK at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, I have
passed the 55 hour mark which includes my Qualifying X-Country. Not long to
go now.... anyway, back to the subject of my posting. :)
At Liverpool, we do our power checks on the GA Apron and not at the holding
point, after the power checks we check the ATIS then request taxi.

I have been taught by my instructor(s) to make the call something like this:

G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD at Kilo with information Alpha QNH
1234, QFE 1234 request Taxi

To which the tower will reply confirming the AN/QFE and give taxi
instructions.

However,
When re-entering the Liverpool zone (or any other FIR), the first call is
usually (Station, callsign)
i.e.
G-ABCD: Liverpool Approach, this is G-ABCD
Approach: G-ABCD, Pass your message
etc. etc. etc.

I was told this was to just 'Introduce Yourself' first to ensure the
controller is ready to accept your message,

My question is:

Why not do the same when on the Apron?
i.e.
G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD
Tower: G-ABCD, Pass your message
G-ABCD: G-ABCD is at Kilo with information Alpha AN 1234, QFE 1234 request
Taxi

Surely it would be better to 'just introduce' yourself to the Tower before
babbling for 10 seconds only to be told by the Tower to 'Stand By' as he is
about to vector a 737 in for an approach.

I hate it (especially earlier in my training) when I would make a rushed
tongue tied call to the Tower only to be either told to Stand By or realise
I was talking over someone else.

Any comments or advice?

[S Green]

"karel adams" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > schreef in bericht
> ...
> > Hi
> >
> > I am training for my PPL in the UK at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, I
> have
> > passed the 55 hour mark which includes my Qualifying X-Country. Not
> long to
> > go now.... anyway, back to the subject of my posting. :)
> > At Liverpool, we do our power checks on the GA Apron and not at the
> holding
> > point, after the power checks we check the ATIS then request taxi.
> >
> > I have been taught by my instructor(s) to make the call something like
> this:
> >
> > G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD at Kilo with information Alpha
> QNH
> > 1234, QFE 1234 request Taxi
>
> even stranger than the rest of your story,
> it seems quite needless to read back both QNH and QFE
> surely the controller is aware of his (lack of) elevation?
>
> KA (continental PPL student)
>
>
I don't know about Liverpool but at Exeter you have to give then the ATIS
information identifier with the QNH on first contact.

I suppose it helps confirm that you have understood the ATIS.

[Dick Cheney]

Paul wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am training for my PPL in the UK at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, I have
> passed the 55 hour mark which includes my Qualifying X-Country. Not long to
> go now.... anyway, back to the subject of my posting. :)
> At Liverpool, we do our power checks on the GA Apron and not at the holding
> point, after the power checks we check the ATIS then request taxi.
>
> I have been taught by my instructor(s) to make the call something like this:
>
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD at Kilo with information Alpha QNH
> 1234, QFE 1234 request Taxi
>
> To which the tower will reply confirming the AN/QFE and give taxi
> instructions.
>
> However,
> When re-entering the Liverpool zone (or any other FIR), the first call is
> usually (Station, callsign)
> i.e.
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Approach, this is G-ABCD
> Approach: G-ABCD, Pass your message
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> I was told this was to just 'Introduce Yourself' first to ensure the
> controller is ready to accept your message,
>
> My question is:
>
> Why not do the same when on the Apron?
> i.e.
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD
> Tower: G-ABCD, Pass your message
> G-ABCD: G-ABCD is at Kilo with information Alpha AN 1234, QFE 1234 request
> Taxi
>
> Surely it would be better to 'just introduce' yourself to the Tower before
> babbling for 10 seconds only to be told by the Tower to 'Stand By' as he is
> about to vector a 737 in for an approach.
>
> I hate it (especially earlier in my training) when I would make a rushed
> tongue tied call to the Tower only to be either told to Stand By or realise
> I was talking over someone else.
>
> Any comments or advice?

My first advice is - do what your instructor tells you :-)

Seriously, aside from giving you the necessary skills, the instructor is
also teaching you how to pass the forthcoming tests, so if that's how
it's done, that's how it's done.

But you're right - it does seem inconsistent. I've always assumed that
the first, brief call to a tower on approaching their airspace was to
wake up the controller and give him time to find a pencil. I've lost
count of the number of times this has happened:

Me: Sleepy Tower, F-GACD.
[slight pause]
Tower: Ugh ... aircraft calling Sleepy Tower, say again callsign.

Of course, I fly in France and most of the towers around here aren't
that busy!

[david]

As already explained by Jim, the readback of pressure is mandatory, you'll
have a violation filed against you if you dont do ti, similarly all
clearances, but thats maybe outside your area of ops, so to speak.

When you fisrt call up, LISTEN first. That way you'll get to hear whats
going on and you WON'T talk over someone else except by chance. Like Jim I
use r/t all day at work (flying) and the occurrences of being "blocked" are
rare. If you LISTEN.

Also, if you lisrten you can glean a lot of information and so prevent the
tower having to repeat.

As for being tongue tied, well, just LISTEN first to get your ear in, the if
you have to, write down what you re going to say, especially pressures, nd
other NUMBERS that often confuse pilots (of all levels). Write down what he
tells you so your readback is clear and concise. Trust me, even full time
jet jockeys write stuff down...how those ATC guys expect me to remember a
speed, a heading, a pressure, a flight level AND a hosties phone number
beats me!

D

[David Cartwright]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> I am training for my PPL in the UK at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, I
have
> passed the 55 hour mark which includes my Qualifying X-Country. Not long
to
> go now.... anyway, back to the subject of my posting. :)
> I have been taught by my instructor(s) to make the call something like
this:
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD at Kilo with information Alpha QNH
> 1234, QFE 1234 request Taxi ... However,
> When re-entering the Liverpool zone (or any other FIR), the first call is
> usually (Station, callsign)
> i.e. G-ABCD: Liverpool Approach, this is G-ABCD
> Approach: G-ABCD, Pass your message

I find that the easiest way to proceed, regardless of whether you're on the
apron or rejoining the, is to listen for a quiet spot and then simply call
"Liverpool Tower, G-ABCD" and wait to be asked to pass your message. There's
nothing worse (and more pointless) than spouting a load of extra stuff only
to find out that you hit the "transmit" button at the same time as someone
else, so I find it best to keep it short until you know he's listening to
you. Remember, of course, that you should always use your full callsign
until the controller uses an abbreviated version, e.g. G-CD; it's not all
that often that you come across another G-CD or whatever, and so nine times
out of ten you end up abbreviating, but it's a good thing to remember in
case, like me, the first time you have to start using the entire callsign is
your final skill test!

Couple of extra points, though.

First, when I've just started up, I do tend to append the words "radio check
please" to my first greeting to the tower, just to get an idea of whether
the radio's in shape (okay, it's not a brilliant measure, but if I'm sat
outside my normal hangar I expect to hear "readability five", and if he says
"readability one" it flags a potential issue). At Norwich they're pretty
good and they give you the readability even if you don't bother asking, but
at some places you need to ask.

Secondly, one the controller had acknowledged my existence, I wouldn't
bother reading both the QNH and the QFE. Generally the ATIS gives the QNH,
and so I'd read that out; if I was staying in the circuit (which he'd know
because I told him when I booked out) he would inform me of the current QFE,
which I would acknowledge on receipt, and if he didn't tell me then I'd ask
him.

Dave

[David Cartwright]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> As already explained by Jim, the readback of pressure is mandatory, you'll
> have a violation filed against you if you dont do ti, similarly all
> clearances, but thats maybe outside your area of ops, so to speak.

I suspect that it's only in rare cases that you actually get a violation
filed, though the option is there for the controller if he or she so wishes.
However, particularly when a controller is quite busy, he or she will be
annoyed with you, and I've heard some very scathing comments from
controllers to people who've not read back the necessary bits.

Incidentally, do also try not to read back the stuff you don't have to read
back, particularly if you're in a busy area (e.g. Norwich at 11:30 on a
summer Saturday), as it does get in the way if every student in the sky is
telling the controller what the wind's doing.

To continue on the first point, though: do practise your RT, know what
you're doing and what your intentions are, and try to sound professional,
because it does make a difference to the controller's attitude to you. If
you sound uncertain as you call downwind, he'll send you miles away and put
you behind the gaggle of stuff on 15-mile final; if you're crisp and you
know what your next move is, you often find yourself hearing "Call on
finals, number one".

I also find being polite works wonders. For instance, even if it's a nice
day, I like to try the occasional holding pattern and/or ILS or NDB
approach, just in case I need them on a crappy day sometime. I can remember
at least one instance when just before I rejoined my local airport, a
shirty-sounding instructor in an aircraft a couple of minutes closer to the
field than me requested, and was bluntly denied, an ILS approach; I
pretended not to have heard, called up for a rejoin, said something like
"Good afternoon sir, G-XXXX overhead X, routing X, maintaining two thousand
feet; request radar vectors for ILS approach if convenient to yourself", and
was immediately granted my vectored approach.

D.

[Paul Sengupta]

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
> try to sound professional,
> because it does make a difference to the controller's attitude to you. If
> you sound uncertain as you call downwind, he'll send you miles away and
put
> you behind the gaggle of stuff on 15-mile final; if you're crisp and you
> know what your next move is, you often find yourself hearing "Call on
> finals, number one".

I have the opposite problem. At 300 hours and with my own plane,
I sound fairly confident over the RT. However if I haven't flown
for 2 or 3 weeks, my piloting skills may not be up to making that
curved approach to the threshold in a crosswind while doing my
checks and then getting off the runway at the first exit to let the next
plane land!

Paul

[John Bishop]

After 16 years of flying across UK and Europe as a hobby, I completed my
Night Rating on thursday at London Luton. The radio calls you do there are
the same as at Luton, with the exception that we have tower and ground
frequencies.

The power checks are done at the best place for you that does not
inconvenience the heavies that pay for the upkeep of the airport. With
regard to the radio calls, airports with significant volumes of IFR traffic
need a common system, with checks and balances to ensure everyone is singing
from the same hymnsheet. Stick with it, it will stand you in good stead.
Better to learn at learn that level, than to learn at a grass strip and be
frightened of going near a control zone.

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I am training for my PPL in the UK at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, I
have
> passed the 55 hour mark which includes my Qualifying X-Country. Not long
to
> go now.... anyway, back to the subject of my posting. :)
> At Liverpool, we do our power checks on the GA Apron and not at the
holding
> point, after the power checks we check the ATIS then request taxi.
>
> I have been taught by my instructor(s) to make the call something like
this:
>
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD at Kilo with information Alpha QNH
> 1234, QFE 1234 request Taxi
>
> To which the tower will reply confirming the AN/QFE and give taxi
> instructions.
>
> However,
> When re-entering the Liverpool zone (or any other FIR), the first call is
> usually (Station, callsign)
> i.e.
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Approach, this is G-ABCD
> Approach: G-ABCD, Pass your message
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> I was told this was to just 'Introduce Yourself' first to ensure the
> controller is ready to accept your message,
>
> My question is:
>
> Why not do the same when on the Apron?
> i.e.
> G-ABCD: Liverpool Tower, this is G-ABCD
> Tower: G-ABCD, Pass your message
> G-ABCD: G-ABCD is at Kilo with information Alpha AN 1234, QFE 1234 request
> Taxi
>
> Surely it would be better to 'just introduce' yourself to the Tower before
> babbling for 10 seconds only to be told by the Tower to 'Stand By' as he
is
> about to vector a 737 in for an approach.
>
> I hate it (especially earlier in my training) when I would make a rushed
> tongue tied call to the Tower only to be either told to Stand By or
realise
> I was talking over someone else.
>
> Any comments or advice?
>
>

[David Cartwright]

> Better to learn at learn that [Luton] level, than to learn at a grass
strip and be
> frightened of going near a control zone.

Yes, definitely. I learned to fly at Norwich, and actually did about 10
hours out of RAF Coltishall, and so I got to do a lot of R/T that those
flying from little rural places wouldn't do. My R/T examiner commented that
he can always tell someone who's done their course at a fully-featured, busy
airport versus someone who's learned at a dinky place with an oft-silent
air-ground station and has no actual experience of (say) calling a military
guy for a MATZ crossing, or having a radar advisory service, or whatever.

D.

[John Bishop]

Exactly my point. I used to own a Warrior and flew virtually every week. I
just restarted after a three year layoff, although I flew with a friend
sometimes from Stapleford. My instructor at Luton said he could always tell
if someone had learned their R/T at a grass strip or a controlled airfield.
I learnt at Southend in the days when it had a control zone.
If you learnt at Norwich, you might have been to Earls Colne (EGSR). That's
where my plane was (and still is) based. Did a lot of flying around E.Anglia

John

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
> > Better to learn at learn that [Luton] level, than to learn at a grass
> strip and be
> > frightened of going near a control zone.
>
> Yes, definitely. I learned to fly at Norwich, and actually did about 10
> hours out of RAF Coltishall, and so I got to do a lot of R/T that those
> flying from little rural places wouldn't do. My R/T examiner commented
that
> he can always tell someone who's done their course at a fully-featured,
busy
> airport versus someone who's learned at a dinky place with an oft-silent
> air-ground station and has no actual experience of (say) calling a
military
> guy for a MATZ crossing, or having a radar advisory service, or whatever.
>
> D.
>
>

[beaudoin]

Its amazing in this day and age that telegraphic CW abbreviations (QNH &
QFE) are still being used instead of normal words. I guess it must just be
RT double talk.

[[email protected]]

In uk.rec.aviation beaudoin > wrote:
:> Its amazing in this day and age that telegraphic CW abbreviations (QNH &
:> QFE) are still being used instead of normal words. I guess it must just be
:> RT double talk.

"QNH" uses a bit less air time than "mean sea level pressure". I guess
one could argue that the use of "altimeter" across the other side of
the pond is a good use of "normal words", but as we use QFE and a
number of regional pressure settings as well, having short phrases to
differentiate between subscale settings is useful. Sure, we could come
up with words to replace the CW abbreviations but it would surely only
be change for the sake of change.

At least we don't have to phonetically spell out the
abbreviations. What is the queenie nan how today anway? :-)

[beaudoin]

And besides QNF is completely unnecessary if flying. If one cannot fly
without QNF, one cannot fly. QNF only serves to complicate things.

[Stefan]

beaudoin wrote:

> And besides QNF is completely unnecessary if flying.

QNF? What the hell should that be?

Stefan

[cn8cg]

It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco. Americans should
appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the US is a
chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight plan for a 9
nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans are not
the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.

[Richard Herring]

In article >, cn8cg > wrote
>It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco.

What is?

> Americans should
>appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the US is a
>chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight plan for a 9
>nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans are not
>the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.

You may not have noticed, but Morocco isn't the whole of the
non-American world.

--
Richard Herring >

[beaudoin]

The link, obviously, was disconnected. You are commenting on something you
may not have complete knowledge of. QFE is what was being discussed. In my
comment, Morocco was noted as the most stupid of the flight plan requirement
made by many countries. My flight experience is not limited to that
country. I know well that Morocco isn't the whole of the non-American
world. Nor is the UK, asshole.
"Richard Herring" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, cn8cg > wrote
> >It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco.
>
> What is?
>
> > Americans should
> >appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the US is a
> >chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight plan for a
9
> >nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans are not
> >the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.
>
> You may not have noticed, but Morocco isn't the whole of the
> non-American world.
>
> --
> Richard Herring >

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>"Richard Herring" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, cn8cg > wrote
>> >It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco.
>>
>> What is?
>>
>> > Americans should
>> >appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the US is a
>> >chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight plan for a
>9
>> >nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans are not
>> >the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.
>>
>> You may not have noticed, but Morocco isn't the whole of the
>> non-American world.

>The link, obviously, was disconnected.

"The link"?

>You are commenting on something you
>may not have complete knowledge of.

Yes. That's why normal newsgroup practice is to quote enough of the
message to which you're replying to establish a context, and to put your
replies after what you quote. Otherwise people don't know what you're
talking about.

> QFE is what was being discussed.

Glad to hear it.

> In my
>comment, Morocco was noted as the most stupid of the flight plan requirement
>made by many countries. My flight experience is not limited to that
>country. I know well that Morocco isn't the whole of the non-American
>world.

Glad to hear that too. From here it looked remarkably like hasty
generalisation.

>Nor is the UK, asshole.

Who mentioned the UK?

--
Richard Herring >

[Ali Hopkins]

"Richard Herring" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, beaudoin
> > wrote

>
> Glad to hear that too. From here it looked remarkably like hasty
> generalisation.
>
> >Nor is the UK, asshole.
>
> Who mentioned the UK?
>

May I say, Richard, that I think you are being far politer than the OP
deserves.:)

Ali

[S Green]

"Ali Hopkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Herring" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, beaudoin
> > > wrote
>
> >
> > Glad to hear that too. From here it looked remarkably like hasty
> > generalisation.
> >
> > >Nor is the UK, asshole.
> >
> > Who mentioned the UK?
> >
>
> May I say, Richard, that I think you are being far politer than the OP
> deserves.:)
>
> Ali

true and he must be an asshole to be able to recognise one too.

[B S D Chapman]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:29:50 +0000, Richard Herring
> wrote:

> In article >, beaudoin
> > wrote
>> "Richard Herring" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, cn8cg > wrote
>>> >It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco.
>>>
>>> What is?
>>>
>>> > Americans should
>>> >appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the US
>>> is a
>>> >chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight plan
>>> for a
>> 9
>>> >nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans are
>>> not
>>> >the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.
>>>
>>> You may not have noticed, but Morocco isn't the whole of the
>>> non-American world.
>
>> The link, obviously, was disconnected.
>
> "The link"?

The "Link" was to what you asked "What is?" too, in other words, QFE/QHN.

>
>> You are commenting on something you
>> may not have complete knowledge of.
>
> Yes. That's why normal newsgroup practice is to quote enough of the
> message to which you're replying to establish a context, and to put your
> replies after what you quote. Otherwise people don't know what you're
> talking about.
>
>> QFE is what was being discussed.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
>> In my
>> comment, Morocco was noted as the most stupid of the flight plan
>> requirement
>> made by many countries. My flight experience is not limited to that
>> country. I know well that Morocco isn't the whole of the non-American
>> world.
>
> Glad to hear that too. From here it looked remarkably like hasty
> generalisation.
>
>> Nor is the UK, asshole.
>
> Who mentioned the UK?
>

Sorry Richard, but (whilst "asshole" is uncalled for in our newsgroup) you
did deserve a strong response to your rather terse post. I followed what
he was talking about. The thread is crossposted to rec.aviation.misc, so
he was talking about how lucky the yanks are and was giving an example of
how difficult aviation can be in other parts of the world.

For Beaudoin, please don't use bad language to insult people on our (uk)
newsgroup. Whilst we don't mind the odd four-letter word in chit-chat, is
it quite unacceptable to use them to insult people. The reaction can be
worse than the reason you insulted them in the first place.



Ben.

--

....And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.

[Richard Herring]

In article >, B S D Chapman
> wrote
>On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:29:50 +0000, Richard Herring
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>>> "Richard Herring" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >, cn8cg > wrote
>>>> >It is used in practice. I have used it in Morocco.
>>>>
>>>> What is?
>>>>
>>>> > Americans should
>>>> >appreciate the freedom we have in flying. Flying outside of the
>>>> >
>>>> is a
>>>> >chore. In Morocco, I have had to file an international flight
>>>> >
>>>> for a
>>> 9
>>>> >nautical mile flight. Utterly stupid. International flight plans
>>>> >
>>>> not
>>>> >the simple flight plan we use here in the US either.
>>>>
>>>> You may not have noticed, but Morocco isn't the whole of the
>>>> non-American world.
>>
>>> The link, obviously, was disconnected.
>>
>> "The link"?
>
>The "Link" was to what you asked "What is?" too, in other words, QFE/QHN.

Ah, you mean a reference to a previous Usenet article. Links are what
you find on web pages. As for what it was really about, read on...

>>
>>> You are commenting on something you
>>> may not have complete knowledge of.
>>
>> Yes. That's why normal newsgroup practice is to quote enough of the
>>message to which you're replying to establish a context, and to put
>>your replies after what you quote. Otherwise people don't know what
>>you're talking about.
>>
>>> QFE is what was being discussed.
>>
>> Glad to hear it.

(In fact, having refetched the article I see it was actually QNF. See
why it's worth retaining enough of the original text to establish
context?)

>>
>>> In my
>>> comment, Morocco was noted as the most stupid of the flight plan
>>>requirement
>>> made by many countries. My flight experience is not limited to that
>>> country. I know well that Morocco isn't the whole of the non-American
>>> world.
>>
>> Glad to hear that too. From here it looked remarkably like hasty
>>generalisation.
>>
>>> Nor is the UK, asshole.
>>
>> Who mentioned the UK?
>>
>
>Sorry Richard, but (whilst "asshole" is uncalled for in our newsgroup)
>you did deserve a strong response to your rather terse post.

My post was making a point about his even terser post, which was
context-free.

> I followed what he was talking about.

Did you work out how it was related to the use of QNF?

>The thread is crossposted to rec.aviation.misc, so he was talking about
>how lucky the yanks are and was giving an example of how difficult
>aviation can be in other parts of the world.

One example scarcely proves the blanket statement "Flying outside of the
US is a chore".

>For Beaudoin, please don't use bad language to insult people on our
>(uk) newsgroup. Whilst we don't mind the odd four-letter word in
>chit-chat, is it quite unacceptable to use them to insult people. The
>reaction can be worse than the reason you insulted them in the first
>place.

To haul this thread back to somewhere near the original topic, has
anyone here ever used QNE?

--
Richard Herring >

[beaudoin]

I have on CW but not voice. It is inapproprite when speaking.

[Ali Hopkins]

"beaudoin" > wrote in message
...
> I have on CW but not voice. It is inapproprite when speaking.
>
>

I do wish you would quote properly.

Ali

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote

quoting no context whatsoever,

>I have on CW but not voice.

On the assumption that you're talking about QNE, what were the
circumstances? Likewise, if it should happen to be QNF.

I have this vision of someone in a 152 with a big brass Morse key
strapped to his leg, frantically trying to "read" back a clearance at 12
wpm.

> It is inapproprite when speaking.
>
The spoken use of "QFE" and "QNH" is required in the UK at least,
according to CAP 413.

--
Richard Herring >

[beaudoin]

>quoting no context whatsoever

I do not quote any context whatsoever.

Are your knickers in a twist?

[Ali Hopkins]

"beaudoin" > wrote in message
...
> >quoting no context whatsoever
>
> I do not quote any context whatsoever.
>

Precisely; thus we have no idea to what you are responding, and the posts
make little sense.

Ali

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>>quoting no context whatsoever
>
>I do not quote any context whatsoever.

You just did. See, it's not so hard if you try.

Now, are you going to answer my question?

--
Richard Herring >

[beaudoin]

I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.
If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post fits
in the chronology.
Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other jibberish.

[beaudoin]

I have a Cessna 152 (N714WQ) but don't have a strap on leg key for Morse.
Morse is archaiac and we don't need to use archaiac Morse abbreviations any
longer. Speak English d.... it. Dah di dah.

[Jürgen Exner]

beaudoin wrote:
> I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.

What "it" are you refering to?

> If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post
> fits in the chronology.

You don't know much about Usenet and how it works, do you?

> Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other
> jibberish.

Except that many people will have no idea what the heck you are talking
about because they didn't read the post you are following up to, forgot what
was written there, found your article weeks later in google and are
wondering now what on earth you were talking about, killfiled the poster you
were responding to, or simply didn't have a chance to read the preceeding
post because it has not been delivered to their newsserver (yet).
There are many, many reasons why not quoting any context isn't any better
then doing a dumb TOFU posting.

jue

[pietro]

Tscha Jürgen, ich teile Beaudoins Meinung. Ist's ja zu 90% meistens
belangloses Zeug, oder? ;-)

Pietro

[Ali Hopkins]

"beaudoin" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.
> If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post fits
> in the chronology.
> Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other jibberish.
>
>

No.

Ali

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>I have a Cessna 152 (N714WQ) but don't have a strap on leg key for Morse.
>Morse is archaiac and we don't need to use archaiac Morse abbreviations any
>longer. Speak English d.... it. Dah di dah.
>
So what's the answer to my question?

--
Richard Herring >

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.

And the difference is?

>If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post fits
>in the chronology.

Your faith in perfect Usenet propagation is touching, if naive.

>Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other jibberish.
>
No.


--
Richard Herring >

[beaudoin]

> So what's the answer to my question?
>
The following will not be interesting to the current flying enthusiast but
to answer Red's multiple request, here goes, The last time I remember using
QNE was in the mid-fifties. I was a shipboard radio operator on ice patrol
off the Newfoundland coast in the North Atlantic. Ship-shore communications
at the time was done completely using Morse. Our ship was assigned patrol
looking for ice (bergs & growlers). We were assisted in the searches by
aircraft. The aircraft were controlled by Argentia Newfoundland. While the
aircraft was in our area we communicated with it on UHF RT but they weren't
able to communicate with their base in Argentia and we had to relay via CW.
The usual scenario was the aircraft would search our area and then return to
Argentia after a search of the area. Whenever the aircraft decided to
return to base they would ask us on RT to contact their base and tell them
the aircraft was returning to base and switching to QNE. That is when I
remember using the term.

[Richard Herring]

In article >, beaudoin
> wrote
>
>> So what's the answer to my question?
>>
>The following will not be interesting to the current flying enthusiast but
>to answer Red's multiple request, here goes, The last time I remember using
>QNE was in the mid-fifties. I was a shipboard radio operator on ice patrol
>off the Newfoundland coast in the North Atlantic. Ship-shore communications
>at the time was done completely using Morse. Our ship was assigned patrol
>looking for ice (bergs & growlers). We were assisted in the searches by
>aircraft. The aircraft were controlled by Argentia Newfoundland. While the
>aircraft was in our area we communicated with it on UHF RT but they weren't
>able to communicate with their base in Argentia and we had to relay via CW.
>The usual scenario was the aircraft would search our area and then return to
>Argentia after a search of the area. Whenever the aircraft decided to
>return to base they would ask us on RT to contact their base and tell them
>the aircraft was returning to base and switching to QNE. That is when I
>remember using the term.
>
Thank you. Most interesting.

--
Richard Herring >