'continue' as used by tower controler

[Mike Noel]

I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.

Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html

[Aaron Coolidge]

Mike Noel > wrote:
: I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
<snip>
: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
: using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

I commonly get told 'continue' in the context of an instrument approach:
(me) Hyannis tower, cherokee 9376J outside bogey ils 24
(them) Cherokee 76J continue report bogey inbound
(me) tower 76J bogey inbound
(them) Cherokee 76J continue expect landing clearance short final following
twin cessna traffic short final

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Jim Carter]

I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
(but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on the
other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue" would
not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.

Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance" phrase
you might hear when on IFR.

--
Jim Carter
"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
> from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
> to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
back
> from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
> had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
> told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
> inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
> could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
> permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
>
> Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
> using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
>
>

[Peter R.]

Mike Noel wrote:

> Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
> using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

It is commonly used at Syracuse, NY, a class C airport. Normally, the
tower uses it at first reply to my call-up when s/he cannot clear me to
land at that point due to something (aircraft, vehicle, etc) on or about
to momentarily block the runway.

In response to "continue," I do what it takes to land, but remind myself
that I am not yet cleared and to expect further clearance shortly.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mike Noel]

....I just said 'through 5300' meaning to imply that I was descending.
--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
m...
> I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
> through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
> limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
> (but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on
the
> other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue"
would
> not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.
>
> Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance"
phrase
> you might hear when on IFR.
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to
4500'
> > from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the
handoff
> > to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
> back
> > from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time
I
> > had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was
being
> > told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and
continued
> > inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if
I
> > could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
> > permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
> >
> > Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
> > using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the
FAA.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
> >
> >
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just

Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
PROGRAM - n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's
input into error messages. v. tr.- To engage in a pastime similar to banging
one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

[Henry Q. Bibb]

In article >,
says...
> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
>
> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
>
>
Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark
recesses...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
>
> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.

The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
>>
>> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
>
>The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.

I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr

[The Weiss Family]

Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >>
> >> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
> >> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
> >>
> >> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
> >
> >The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
also.
>
> I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
> version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
> to Watfiv-S had it.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> `And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
> by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr

[Ron Rosenfeld]

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

>I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
>from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
>to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back
>from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
>had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
>told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
>inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
>could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
>permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
>
>Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
>using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.

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

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

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


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

[dennis brown]

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

The Weiss Family wrote in message >...
>Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
>Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)
>
>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>> >> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
>just
>> >>
>> >> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
>> >
>> >The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
>also.
>>
>> I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
>> version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax
Fortran
>> to Watfiv-S had it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
>> `And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
>> by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
>
>

[Judah]

The new Algorithmic Traffic Control (ATC) system:

for ALTITUDE = 5500 to 0 step -500FPM

if ( LANDED ON RUNWAY ) then BREAK

if ( CLEARED TO LAND ) then CONTINUE

if ( ALTITUDE = PATTERN ALTITUDE ) then LOOP

next ALTITUDE


(Boy am I geeky!)


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

> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
>>Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
>
> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

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

printf("Yes", %s);


>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
> > >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
> > >> >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
> just
> > >>
> > >> Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
> > >
> > >The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
> also.
> >
> > I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
> > version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax
Fortran
> > to Watfiv-S had it.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> > `And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
> > by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
>
>

[tom418]

Stop poking fun about FORTRAN. When I was in school, and writing fortran
code, we did it with punch cards on IBM 129 keypunch machines! With the 8
track tape playing in the background. LOL!!!!!!
"Henry Q. Bibb" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > In a previous article, "Mike Noel" > said:
> > >Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
> >
> > Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
> >
> >
> Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark
> recesses...
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
> version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
> to Watfiv-S had it.

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

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

[Paul Tomblin]

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

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


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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
>> version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
>> to Watfiv-S had it.
>
>I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop
>structure commands.

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


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

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
> >> version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
> >> to Watfiv-S had it.
> >
> >I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop
> >structure commands.
>
> That's not what CONTINUE did in FORTRAN - it was just a no-op for a
> statement that needed a line number, like a DO loop target. And CONTINUE
> was in FORTRAN I, as well as the FORTRAN-66 spec, so either you didn't
> know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying
> about being FORTRAN.

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Not to mention that TOPS-10 was an operating system, not a programming
> language.

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

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> so either you didn't
> know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying
> about being FORTRAN.

Well, I knew it well enough to teach it 20 years ago, but obviously don't remember it
well now.

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

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
> >> Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)
> >
> >printf("Yes", %s);
>
> Evidently it's a forum for *failed* nerds. (The format string comes first
> in a printf function.)
>

Or maybe people that don't know the difference between a printf( ) function
and a prints( ) function.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> so either you didn't
>> know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying
>> about being FORTRAN.
>
>Well, I knew it well enough to teach it 20 years ago, but obviously
>don't remember it
>well now.

Lucky you. I've been trying to purge those parts of my memory so I can
use them for something useful for 20 years.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Unix is simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
-- Dennis Ritchie