even the pros dont get it right

[Chris]

Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet
climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm
came the reply'
mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
keep it in the air.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Chris" > said:
>Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet
>climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
>'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm
>came the reply'
>mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
>keep it in the air.

Plus he's probably an American, so he's used to flight levels starting at
FL180.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is?
A: One per person.

[Chris]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Chris" > said:
>>Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand
>>feet
>>climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
>>'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?'
>>'Affirm
>>came the reply'
>>mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
>>keep it in the air.
>
> Plus he's probably an American, so he's used to flight levels starting at
> FL180.

The Northwest scenario is a regular occurrence, understandable because of
the airspace differences here and in the States.

Whenever the QNH falls below 1000 millibars the word millibars is emphasised
as you pass the numbers to American operators to try and prevent inches
being set in error with the obvious potentially nasty consequences.

Time to trot out the old one, supposedly heard on Thames radar...

"N12345 descend to altitude three thousand feet on QNH 1012 millibars"

"Can we have that in inches"

"Roger, descend to thirty six thousand inches on QNH 1012 millibars".

[Jay Somerset]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:51:43 +0100, "Chris" > wrote:

> Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet
> climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
> 'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm
> came the reply'
> mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
> keep it in the air.
>


In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much lower.

This was just a terminology difference, and the controller was quite correct
in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely reporting
by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.

It happens.
--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Jay Somerset]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:26:24 +0100, "Chris" > wrote:

>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "Chris" > said:
> >>Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand
> >>feet
> >>climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
> >>'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?'
> >>'Affirm
> >>came the reply'
> >>mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
> >>keep it in the air.
> >
> > Plus he's probably an American, so he's used to flight levels starting at
> > FL180.
>
> The Northwest scenario is a regular occurrence, understandable because of
> the airspace differences here and in the States.
>
> Whenever the QNH falls below 1000 millibars the word millibars is emphasised
> as you pass the numbers to American operators to try and prevent inches
> being set in error with the obvious potentially nasty consequences.
>
> Time to trot out the old one, supposedly heard on Thames radar...
>
> "N12345 descend to altitude three thousand feet on QNH 1012 millibars"
>
> "Can we have that in inches"
>
> "Roger, descend to thirty six thousand inches on QNH 1012 millibars".


PRICELESS!!!

--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Stefan]

Jay Somerset wrote:

> In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much lower.
> This was just a terminology difference,

No, this was *not* just a terminology difference. 15000ft QNH and FL150
are different altitudes.

> in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely reporting
> by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.

I am shocked that a professional pilot doesn't know the traffic rules of
the airspace he flies in. Imagine a truck driving against you on the
wrong side of the road. "Oh, supposedly the driver is British, so he's
used to drive on the left side of the road. No big deal."

Stefan

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Jay Somerset wrote:
>
>> In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much
>> lower.
>> This was just a terminology difference,
>
>
> No, this was *not* just a terminology difference. 15000ft QNH and FL150
> are different altitudes.
>
>> in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely
>> reporting
>> by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.
>
>
> I am shocked that a professional pilot doesn't know the traffic rules of
> the airspace he flies in. Imagine a truck driving against you on the
> wrong side of the road. "Oh, supposedly the driver is British, so he's
> used to drive on the left side of the road. No big deal."
>

Settle down. This was the most minor of problems. The difference
between 15,000 and FL150 is minimal.

[Arketip]

Newps wrote:

>
> Settle down. This was the most minor of problems. The difference
> between 15,000 and FL150 is minimal.
>

Yea right,maybe just 1000', in RVSM region

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Stefan > said:
>I am shocked that a professional pilot doesn't know the traffic rules of
>the airspace he flies in. Imagine a truck driving against you on the
>wrong side of the road. "Oh, supposedly the driver is British, so he's
>used to drive on the left side of the road. No big deal."

Nobody is saying it was no big deal. We're saying it's an understandable
mistake, and ATC caught it. That's the whole reason for having several
people checking on each other (pilots, copilots, ATC) and reading back
what they're doing, so that temporary brain farts get caught before the
plane levels off at the wrong altitude.

Do you get "shocked" every time a truck signals left, then realizes he
meant to signal right and so corrects himself? Because that's a more
analogous situation than driving on the wrong side of the road.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Home pages are the pet rock of the 90s. They all have them, they all think
they're very cute. But in a few years they're going to look back and be
pretty embarrassed. -- Kim Alm

[Stefan]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Nobody is saying it was no big deal.

I was responding to a post of Jay Sommerset, who wrote that "This was
just a terminology difference". I tried to point out that this was *not*
a terminology difference, but the difference between a uneventful flight
and a possible midair.

> That's the whole reason for having several
> people checking on each other (pilots, copilots, ATC) and reading back
> what they're doing, so that temporary brain farts get caught before the

I completely agree. Relating to an other thread, I'm very glad that
European controllers (at least those I've dealt with) insist that pilots
read back the assigned altitude as well as the altimeter setting.

Stefan

[Olivier Demacon]

Jay Somerset a écrit :
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:51:43 +0100, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>> Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet
>> climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
>> 'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm
>> came the reply'
>> mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
>> keep it in the air.
>>
>
>
> In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much lower.
>
> This was just a terminology difference, and the controller was quite correct
> in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely reporting
> by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.
>
> It happens.

I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter
setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone
been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is
easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local
setting" for the area flown.

What do you think?

Happy flying.

[Jose]

> I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe, starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting

Well, terrain is an issue. 3000 AGL rides up and down with the terrain,
and at the altitudes I like to fly, I'd be passing through the border
(between flight levels and feet MSL) quite often. I am more in favor of
a higher transition altitude.

The transistion altitude should be one whose vacancy would not be an
issue. The vacancy of 3000 AGL is an issue for me.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:45:45 +0200, "Olivier Demacon"
> wrote:

>I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
>starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter
>setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone
>been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is
>easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local
>setting" for the area flown.
>
>What do you think?

I think it would be a real pain for those of us who spend much of our time
at the lower altitudes; and would likely decrease the safety of operations
here in the US.

For example, on a typical flight of mine at 4000'MSL, I would be changing
the altimeter from 29.92 to the local setting many times. It's pretty
simple in the US to get local settings, and even easier if one is IFR.

When most traffic is commercial and generally operating at higher altitudes
then us GA pilots, it probably makes little difference.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Olivier Demacon" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe, starting
> at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting (1013
> mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the same
> altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than
> relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area flown.
>
> What do you think?
>

Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance
above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance
> above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense.

Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
and air traffic rules of Europe. It may make a lot less sense in the USA.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance
> above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
and air traffic rules of Europe. It may make less sense in the USA.

Stefan

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
>starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter
>setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone
>been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is
>easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local
>setting" for the area flown.
>
>What do you think?

Well, it eliminates the problem where one person is using an altimeter
setting from one side of a frontal boundary encountering somebody using an
altimeter setting from the other other side of a frontal boundary (both
settings within 100 miles of the potential collision).

But on the other hand, it could be a nightmare with all the VFR traffic we
have here in the US, especially since most of it seems to fly around 3000
AGL around here.

And with IFR flying it's not going to be an issue either way because (I
presume) that if you're approaching another aircraft the controllers will
give you both the same altimeter setting.

On consideration, I don't see any reason to change here.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If I have pinged farther than others, it is because I routed upon
the T3s of giants.
-- Greg Andrews

[B. Jensen]

I don't have my European charts in front of me, but depending on what
country you are flying in, the transition levels and transition
altitudes vary. In fact, the Transition ALTITUDE and the Transition
LEVEL can vary within the same country. Once you climb through the
Transition Altitude, all altitudes become Flight Levels and once you
descend below the Transition Level, the Flight Levels revert back to
normal altitudes. When flying to and over multiple destinations in
Europe, you can easily forget where these TA's and TL's begin and end.

Also, many of the older (US) jets only have altimeters that are set to
inches. You must constantly make the interpretation from millibars (or
hectopascals) to inches via a conversion chart. Fortunately, the newer
jets let you select which medium of altimeter settings you want to use
based on where you are flying. If this was an old DC10, you can bet
they were doing the conversion "longhand".

Until you flown in Europe and experienced "their different way"
(especially France) of doing things, don't be too hard on a US carrier
that just spent 8+ hours enroute to Europe in an old "steam gauge"
airliner. ;-)

BJ


Chris wrote:

>Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet
>climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked
>'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm
>came the reply'
>mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to
>keep it in the air.
>
>
>
>

[Stefan]

B. Jensen wrote:

> Until you flown in Europe and experienced "their different way"
> (especially France) of doing things, don't be too hard on a US carrier
> that just spent 8+ hours enroute to Europe in an old "steam gauge"
> airliner. ;-)

Actually, yes, I am so hard. I expect from an ATP to know the rules of
the air he is flying in. I expect his employer to offer appropriate
training. I expect the pilot to prepare his flight.

On the other hand, everybody is making mistakes, of course.

Stefan

[B. Jensen]

Stefan wrote:

> Actually, yes, I am so hard. I expect from an ATP to know the rules of
> the air he is flying in. I expect his employer to offer appropriate
> training. I expect the pilot to prepare his flight.

And I expect a surgeon with a Ph.D. in medicine and years of training to
be flawless too, however, we both know that isn't always the case. (sigh)

> On the other hand, everybody is making mistakes, of course.

Yep...it's called being human. (double sigh)

BJ

[Matt Whiting]

Olivier Demacon wrote:

> Jay Somerset a écrit :
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:51:43 +0100, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>> Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine
>>> thousand feet climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever
>>> the diplomat asked 'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to
>>> Flight level 150?' 'Affirm came the reply'
>>> mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy
>>> trying to keep it in the air.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much
>> lower.
>>
>> This was just a terminology difference, and the controller was quite
>> correct
>> in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely
>> reporting
>> by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace.
>>
>> It happens.
>
>
> I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
> starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting
> (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the
> same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get
> than relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area
> flown.
>
> What do you think?

It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the
European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I
can't think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit.

Matt

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>Europe,
>> starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting
>> (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the
>> same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than
>> relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area
>> flown.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the
> European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I can't
> think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit.
>
> Matt

The one advantage is that once through the transition altitude there is no
need to keep getting altimeter settings.

In the UK flying IFR is often done by non instrument rated pilots because it
relates only to the rules you fly by. In the case of IFR it is setting 1013
(29.92) and using the appropriate flight levels for the direction of flight.

VFR only pilots still have to maintain appropriate conditions and stay out
of class A airspace which can start as low as 2500ft msl. There is some
around Heathrow starting at the surface but you can get SVFR for that.

[Ash Wyllie]

Olivier Demacon opined


>I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe,
>starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter
>setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone
>been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is
>easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local
>setting" for the area flown.

I suspect that there will be a lot more CFIT. Pressure (and temperature)
changes can change actual AGL by surprising amounts.

Now, I think that I'm in a low pressure area... Am I going to miss that
mountain I know is around here somewhere?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[John Gaquin]

"Stefan" > wrote in message news:d6asj8
>
> Actually, yes, I am so hard. I expect from an ATP to know the rules of the
> air he is flying in. I expect his employer to offer appropriate training.
> I expect the pilot to prepare his flight.

Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight,
verbal slips will still occur. Having flown transports in *exactly* the
environment you described - [have you, Stefan? ] - , I would be willing to
guarantee a very high probability that what you heard was merely a slip of
the tongue. Happens all the time, and controllers on both sides of the
ocean are well cognizant of this. You ought to take a lead from the
controller's attitude. Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and
climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different.

Let the NG know the first time *you* make a low grade error. Enquiring
minds.....

[Stefan]

John Gaquin wrote:

> Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight,
> verbal slips will still occur.

Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of.

I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot
was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation),
that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were
different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to
point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

> Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and
> climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different.

It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair,
especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other.
Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more
frequent causes of near miss reports.

Stefan

[Chris]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> John Gaquin wrote:
>
>> Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the
>> flight, verbal slips will still occur.
>
> Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of.
>
> I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot
> was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation), that
> he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were different
> traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to point is that
> this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
>
>> Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and climbing to 15000 ft aren't
>> all that different.
>
> It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair,
> especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other.
> Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more
> frequent causes of near miss reports.

I would echo that. It is perfectly possible that being at 15000 instead of
FL150 would give you the height difference that would put you outside the
deviation limit.

However as the OP the point of the post was to demonstrate that pilots and
ATC work as a team, not as adversaries aiming to score points of each other.

For another thought on the matter lets just imagine there was an incident
and the tape was being played later. If ATC had not said what they did, the
pilots would have been left in the prime seat for any blame because they got
it wrong. Any excuse the blame the pilot would have been taken by those with
a reason to shift the blame.
ATC caught the issue and although it was minor, it was straighten out with
an "affirm" from the pilots. Therefore the original wrong call ceases to be
a factor.
I call that great teamwork.
For what its worth, the correct response was "affirm" not "affirmative".
Extra brownie points for that. The reason is to draw a clear distinction
from "negative".

If transmissions get clipped at the start of the word, then affirmative and
negative risk sounding the same.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
> and air traffic rules of Europe.

Please explain.

[B. Jensen]

Stefan wrote:

> I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the
> pilot was probably American, implying, as I understood (my
> interpretation), that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that
> there were different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I
> wanted to point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The assumption was that the pilot was American based on the "NW43"
callsign and reference to a DC10. I agree that pilots should always
know the rules for the airspace they are flying in, above or under.

BTW, are you from Sweden or France?

BJ

[Robert M. Gary]

I think they don't have mountains in Europe.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I think they don't have mountains in Europe.
>
Is this sarcasm?

Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
on the continent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think they don't have mountains in Europe.
>

I know they do.

[Stefan]

Chris wrote:

> For what its worth, the correct response was "affirm" not "affirmative".
> Extra brownie points for that.

If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".

Stefan

[Stefan]

B. Jensen wrote:

> BTW, are you from Sweden or France?

No.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:05:37 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
>elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
>on the continent.

But they're all squashed together. My Swiss flying instructor said,
comparing mountains in the Western US to Switzerland's Alps, "The
amplitude is the same, but in your country, the period is longer."

Don

[Montblack]

("Ron Natalie" wrote)
> Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
> elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
> on the continent.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/
The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain (1995)

Ok "date" movie.


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I think they don't have mountains in Europe.

Ever heard of something called "The Alps"?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Grumman-581]

"Stefan" wrote in message ...
> Imagine a truck driving against you on the
> wrong side of the road. "Oh, supposedly
> the driver is British, so he's used to drive
> on the left side of the road. No big deal."

Does it really matter? Are you going to stay in your lane, comfortable in
your knowledge that you "have the right-of-way"?

"Law Of Gross Tonnage -- He who has the most gross tonnage has the
right-of-way"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
> The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".
>

What nations are you referring to? In the US the correct phrase is "climb
and maintain".

[Grumman-581]

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:%ITie.9664$E05.6297@trndny09...
> Ever heard of something called "The Alps"?

A fuzzy alien on a TV show?

Oh, you mean those speed bumps on the way to Switzerland...

[Chris]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:05:37 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>>Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
>>elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
>>on the continent.
>
> But they're all squashed together. My Swiss flying instructor said,
> comparing mountains in the Western US to Switzerland's Alps, "The
> amplitude is the same, but in your country, the period is longer."

You only need to hit one mountain and of course they are spread out over 5
countries

[Roger]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:56:12 GMT, "Grumman-581" >
wrote:

>"Stefan" wrote in message ...
>> Imagine a truck driving against you on the
>> wrong side of the road. "Oh, supposedly
>> the driver is British, so he's used to drive
>> on the left side of the road. No big deal."
>
>Does it really matter? Are you going to stay in your lane, comfortable in
>your knowledge that you "have the right-of-way"?
>
>"Law Of Gross Tonnage -- He who has the most gross tonnage has the
>right-of-way"

I took out a big SUV with my little Trans Am. Put the SUV driver in
the hospital, I didn't get hurt. OTOH he broke my toy. Totaled the
TA, although that GMC will never track the same. Make it sorta
U-shaped.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>"Law Of Gross Tonnage -- He who has the most gross tonnage has the
>>right-of-way"
>
> I took out a big SUV with my little Trans Am. Put the SUV driver in
> the hospital, I didn't get hurt. OTOH he broke my toy. Totaled the
> TA, although that GMC will never track the same. Make it sorta
> U-shaped.

But of course. Those following the "Law of Gross Tonnage" must remember to
not forget the related law, the "Law of Kinetic Energy": he who is light can
still win by going REALLY REALLY fast.

Pete

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> What nations are you referring to? In the US the correct phrase is "climb
> and maintain".

I'm referring to ICAO phraseology. In other words, to all countries
except the USA.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> What nations are you referring to? In the US the correct phrase is "climb
> and maintain".

I'm referring to ICAO phraseology. In other words, to all countries
except the USA. (The original poster was referring to an occurrence
outside the USA, in fact, the point was exactly a (supposedly) US pilot
flying in British airspace.)

Stefan

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I think they don't have mountains in Europe.

Tell that to the US bomber crew who forgot about the Isle of Man and
ended up plastered over the side of North Barrule...

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[John Gaquin]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
>
> I'm referring to ICAO phraseology. In other words, to all countries except
> the USA.

Ooops. Careful, Stefan -- your shirt's a little snug, and that chip on your
shoulder is showing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm referring to ICAO phraseology. In other words, to all countries except
> the USA. (The original poster was referring to an occurrence outside the
> USA, in fact, the point was exactly a (supposedly) US pilot flying in
> British airspace.)
>

Where can ICAO phraseology be found? How do you know the US is the only
nation that doesn't adhere to ICAO phraseology?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
> The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".
>

Are you sure about that phraseology? I think you've got it backward; ICAO
standard is "climb to", not just "climb". As in "climb to eight thousand".
But "to" sounds exactly like "two", we use "climb and maintain eight
thousand" in the US to avoid possible confusion.

[Chris]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
>> The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".
>>
>
> Are you sure about that phraseology? I think you've got it backward; ICAO
> standard is "climb to", not just "climb". As in "climb to eight
> thousand". But "to" sounds exactly like "two", we use "climb and maintain
> eight thousand" in the US to avoid possible confusion.

ICAO has " affirm" in place of "affirmative" to avoid confusion with
"negative".

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 at 16:35:23 in message
>, Montblack
> wrote:
>("Ron Natalie" wrote)
>> Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
>> elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
>> on the continent.
>
I wondered whether or not the first sentence was a question but I
decided to answer it. The answer is I don't know why there are no
mountains in the UK. Must be something to do with geology. Among those
ant hills we have there are some remarkably scary places that I would
not care to fall from.
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/
>The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain (1995)
>
That film made the point that in order to correct our shortage of
mountains we created the definition of a mountain as being over a 1000ft
high. That's why, in the film, the locals carted enough material up to
the top to make a mound just high enough to re-classify their 'hill' as
a mountain.

"Ben Nevis is the highest in the British Isles, in the Highland area of
Scotland. Its summit, reaching an elevation of 4,406 feet (1,343
metres), is a plateau of about 100 acres (40 hectares), with a slight
slope to the south and a sheer face to the north east. Snow lies in some
parts all year, and permafrost conditions are almost reached."

Snowdon in North Wales looks more like a mountain although it is only
3,560 feet


--
David CL Francis

[Grumman-581]

"Roger" wrote in message ...
> I took out a big SUV with my little Trans Am. Put the SUV driver in
> the hospital, I didn't get hurt. OTOH he broke my toy. Totaled the
> TA, although that GMC will never track the same. Make it sorta
> U-shaped.

From a gross tonnage standpoint, they're not that different... Not like
going up against a 18-wheeler even if you're driving a Suburban...

[Grumman-581]

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
> But of course. Those following the "Law of Gross Tonnage" must remember
to
> not forget the related law, the "Law of Kinetic Energy": he who is light
can
> still win by going REALLY REALLY fast.

Assuming he doesn't just get spattered upon contact...

[George Patterson]

Grumman-581 wrote:
>
> "Law Of Gross Tonnage -- He who has the most gross tonnage has the
> right-of-way"

"I drive a vehicle of urban assault. I'm bigger than you, so it ain't my fault.
Doesn't even matter if I know how to drive. No matter what I hit, I know I'll
survive." .....

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
> and air traffic rules of Europe.

Could you please explain why?

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
> "I drive a vehicle of urban assault. I'm bigger than you, so it ain't my
> fault. Doesn't even matter if I know how to drive. No matter what I hit, I
> know I'll survive." .....


Not so much :-)

Vanishing Point (1971)


Montblack
"I like to watch"

[Grumman-581]

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:6Rcje.10893$Y36.973@trndny05...
> "I drive a vehicle of urban assault. I'm bigger than you, so it ain't my
fault.
> Doesn't even matter if I know how to drive. No matter what I hit, I know
I'll
> survive." .....

Said right before he learns about 18-wheelers... <evil-grin>

I used to drive sports cars... Had a RX-7 at one time and an 18-wheeler
changed lanes and drove over the top of me... PHYSICALLY OVER THE TOP OF
ME... He stopped and came back to investigate... He said, "Well, I heard
some tires screeching, felt a slight bump, and figured I better take a
look"... That's all I was -- A SLIGHT BUMP... Both rear axles of the tanker
trailer went over my car... Luckily when he first hit me, the car spun 90
degrees to the left and he drove over the top of the engine instead of the
passenger compartment... Flattened my car... Totalled, of course... It
happed at around 35 mph, so I could pretty much count the lug nuts at the
axles rolled over my engine right in front of my face... I think I *might*
have knocked a couple of chunks of dirt off of his tires in the process...

The 18-wheeler drivers get kind of cocky thinking that they're the largest
thing on the road and everyone else has to get out of their way... Every
once in awhile, they learn that there's this thing called "trains"...
Remember the Law of Gross Tonnage? Well, let's just say that a train trumps
an 18-wheeler...

[Roger]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:17:27 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>"Law Of Gross Tonnage -- He who has the most gross tonnage has the
>>>right-of-way"
>>
>> I took out a big SUV with my little Trans Am. Put the SUV driver in
>> the hospital, I didn't get hurt. OTOH he broke my toy. Totaled the
>> TA, although that GMC will never track the same. Make it sorta
>> U-shaped.
>
>But of course. Those following the "Law of Gross Tonnage" must remember to
>not forget the related law, the "Law of Kinetic Energy": he who is light can
>still win by going REALLY REALLY fast.

and stop really, really, quick.

The redio control head on the console was smashed flat just from the
momenturm. It made me a firm believer in air bags, but man does that
powder they pack them in burn!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Pete
>

[Chris]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I think they don't have mountains in Europe.
> Is this sarcasm?
>
> Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum
> elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones
> on the continent.

Here is someone else who thought they did have mountains in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4562447.stm
If he had been flying at 4500' he would have been safe. But then it takes
all sorts.

One really lucky guy.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure
> and air traffic rules of Europe. It may make a lot less sense in the USA.
>

It seems you're at a complete loss as to how a transition altitude based on
some distance above the ground makes a lot of sense if you consider the
airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe.

[Stefan]

Chris wrote:

>>>If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
>>>The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".

>>Are you sure about that phraseology?

Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two"
and to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Where can ICAO phraseology be found?

At ICAO's.

> How do you know the US is the only
> nation that doesn't adhere to ICAO phraseology?

I don't. I was provokating.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> It seems you're at a complete loss as to how a transition altitude based on
> some distance above the ground makes a lot of sense if you consider the
> airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe.

It rather seems that sometimes I have some spare time and sometimes I
have none and/or don't feel like spending it here.

As to your question: In some countries, airspace E begins as low as 2000
ft AGL. Yes, AGL again. This is outside CTRs, of course. So all IFR
flights are under direct control of ATC, even when flying as low as e.g.
FL30. It makes a lot of sense that they all use the same altimeter
setting. ATC knows about mountains in the region, of course, as well as
the pressure situation, and routes the flights accordingly.

You may second guess the airspace structure, of course, but this is not
the point here.

BTW: VFR flights should adhere to the transition level, too, but do so
rather loosely.

Stefan

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:44:23 +0200, Stefan > wrote:

>If you like nitpicking: ATC should never tell you to "climb to FL 150".
>The correct phrase is "climb FL 150".

That is not standard phraseology in the US.

In the US, the appropriate instruction would be "climb and maintain FL 150"


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:57:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Where can ICAO phraseology be found?

ICAO sets out standard international phraseology for communications between
air traffic services and pilots in several documents including Annex 10
Volume 2 (Communications Procedures) to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services –
Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.

I was not able to find that on the www. However, the British Radio
Telephony Manual CAP 413 is available at

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF&e=10313

There is also an appendix where they list the differences from ICAO
standard.

With regard to the current discussion, of "level instructions", CAP 413
states:

===================================
1.2 Level Instructions

1.2.1 Only basic level instructions are detailed in this chapter. More
comprehensive phrases are contained in subsequent chapters in the context
in which they are most commonly used.

1.2.2 The precise phraseology used in the transmission and acknowledgement
of climb and descent clearances will vary, depending upon the
circumstances, traffic density and nature of the flight operations.

1.2.3 However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not
generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases
of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or
flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting.

Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
a) The word ‘to’ is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or
ALTITUDE employ the word ‘to’ followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or
ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will
also include the appropriate QFE or QNH.
==========================================

Examples include:

Climb FL 150

Climb to altitude 2000 feet.


In another section, they state that "Climb" means "Climb and maintain"



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

[Stefan]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services –
> Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.
>
> I was not able to find that on the www.

The document must be bought, it is not freely available. (In fact, it's
very expensive).

> However, the British Radio
> Telephony Manual CAP 413 is available at

> Examples include:
> Climb FL 150
> Climb to altitude 2000 feet.

Thanks for the clarification.

Stefan

[Chris]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> It seems you're at a complete loss as to how a transition altitude based
>> on some distance above the ground makes a lot of sense if you consider
>> the airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe.
>
> It rather seems that sometimes I have some spare time and sometimes I have
> none and/or don't feel like spending it here.
>
> As to your question: In some countries, airspace E begins as low as 2000
> ft AGL. Yes, AGL again. This is outside CTRs, of course. So all IFR
> flights are under direct control of ATC, even when flying as low as e.g.
> FL30. It makes a lot of sense that they all use the same altimeter
> setting. ATC knows about mountains in the region, of course, as well as
> the pressure situation, and routes the flights accordingly.
>
> You may second guess the airspace structure, of course, but this is not
> the point here.

In the UK class A starts at the surface and certainly as low as 2500 outside
the CTR

[Chris]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:57:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>Where can ICAO phraseology be found?
>
> ICAO sets out standard international phraseology for communications
> between
> air traffic services and pilots in several documents including Annex 10
> Volume 2 (Communications Procedures) to the Convention on International
> Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services -
> Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.
>
> I was not able to find that on the www. However, the British Radio
> Telephony Manual CAP 413 is available at
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF&e=10313
>
> There is also an appendix where they list the differences from ICAO
> standard.
>
> With regard to the current discussion, of "level instructions", CAP 413
> states:
>
> ===================================
> 1.2 Level Instructions
>
> 1.2.1 Only basic level instructions are detailed in this chapter. More
> comprehensive phrases are contained in subsequent chapters in the context
> in which they are most commonly used.
>
> 1.2.2 The precise phraseology used in the transmission and acknowledgement
> of climb and descent clearances will vary, depending upon the
> circumstances, traffic density and nature of the flight operations.
>
> 1.2.3 However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not
> generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases
> of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or
> flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting.
>
> Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
> a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
> b) All messages relating to an aircraft's climb or descent to a HEIGHT or
> ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or
> ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will
> also include the appropriate QFE or QNH.
> ==========================================
>
> Examples include:
>
> Climb FL 150
>
> Climb to altitude 2000 feet.
>
>
> In another section, they state that "Climb" means "Climb and maintain"
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The nub of the thread is that pilots flying in different airspace are
required to familiarise themselves with the appropriate phraseology.

Again quoting from the British CAP 413 (an excellent publication)

Where the ICAO standard phraseology may be misunderstood, or has weaknesses
in the UK environment, different phraseology has been specified for use (and
notified to ICAO). In the UK, air traffic service units and pilots are
expected to comply with the phraseology and procedures described in main
text of this document.

When communicating with air traffic service units in other States pilots
should use phraseology and procedures set out by ICAO (subject to any
differences notified by that State).

Basically it is the pilots duty to find out what's different to the standard
(ICAO).

Most of the Aeronautical Information Publications have a standard section of
variations to ICAO. It is usually GEN 1.7

This is the French one for example.

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/GEN/1/AIP%20FRANCE%20GEN%201.7.pdf

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> As to your question: In some countries, airspace E begins as low as 2000
> ft AGL. Yes, AGL again. This is outside CTRs, of course. So all IFR
> flights are under direct control of ATC, even when flying as low as e.g.
> FL30. It makes a lot of sense that they all use the same altimeter
> setting. ATC knows about mountains in the region, of course, as well as
> the pressure situation, and routes the flights accordingly.
>
> You may second guess the airspace structure, of course, but this is not
> the point here.
>
> BTW: VFR flights should adhere to the transition level, too, but do so
> rather loosely.
>

In some countries Class E airspace begins even lower than 2000 AGL. In the
US the floor of Class E airspace is most often at 1200 AGL, but it can also
be at 700 AGL or right at the surface. But my question wasn't about the
floor of Class E airspace, it was about the transition altitude. Please try
again.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> At ICAO's.
>

How does one obtain it?


>
> I don't. I was provokating.
>

I'm pretty sure "provokating" is a typo, but I don't know what word you
meant. Provoking?

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I'm pretty sure "provokating" is a typo, but I don't know what word you
> meant. Provoking?

No, it's not a typo. It's a linguistic error of somebody who tries to
communicate in a foreign language. I'm sure it won't happen to you.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> But my question wasn't about the
> floor of Class E airspace, it was about the transition altitude. Please try
> again.

I tried to explain the possible reasoning of the regulation. (Which one
may or may not agree with.) I tried to explain, now it's your turn to
try to understand.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it's not a typo. It's a linguistic error of somebody who tries to
> communicate in a foreign language. I'm sure it won't happen to you.
>

If it's not a typo what is it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I tried to explain the possible reasoning of the regulation. (Which one
> may or may not agree with.) I tried to explain, now it's your turn to try
> to understand.
>

As you answered a question that wasn't asked, I'm left to conclude you don't
understand the subject you're attempting to discuss.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> No, it's not a typo. It's a linguistic error of somebody who tries to
>> communicate in a foreign language. I'm sure it won't happen to you.

> If it's not a typo what is it?

You can read, can't you?

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can read, can't you?
>

Yes, I read very well. The problem is in your writing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> ICAO sets out standard international phraseology for communications
> between air traffic services and pilots in several documents including
> Annex 10
> Volume 2 (Communications Procedures) to the Convention on International
> Civil Aviation and ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services -
> Air Traffic Management) Doc. 4444.
>
> I was not able to find that on the www. However, the British Radio
> Telephony Manual CAP 413 is available at
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF&e=10313
>
> There is also an appendix where they list the differences from ICAO
> standard.
>

But that would mean the US is NOT the only nation that doesn't adhere to
ICAO phraseology. How can that be??!!!


>
> With regard to the current discussion, of "level instructions", CAP 413
> states:
>
> ===================================
> 1.2 Level Instructions
>
> 1.2.1 Only basic level instructions are detailed in this chapter. More
> comprehensive phrases are contained in subsequent chapters in the context
> in which they are most commonly used.
>
> 1.2.2 The precise phraseology used in the transmission and acknowledgement
> of climb and descent clearances will vary, depending upon the
> circumstances, traffic density and nature of the flight operations.
>
> 1.2.3 However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not
> generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases
> of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or
> flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting.
>
> Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
> a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
> b) All messages relating to an aircraft's climb or descent to a HEIGHT or
> ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or
> ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will
> also include the appropriate QFE or QNH.
> ==========================================
>
> Examples include:
>
> Climb FL 150
>
> Climb to altitude 2000 feet.
>
>
> In another section, they state that "Climb" means "Climb and maintain"
>

One wonders why they don't just say that. That would allow them to be
consistent with altitudes and Flight Levels; "climb and maintain FL 150",
"climb and maintain 2000."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two" and
> to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"
>

Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".


"An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the use
of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use 'climb and
maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be confusion when using
the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to whether the command was climb
to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand feet. Currently, the FAA
requires controllers to comply with standard U.S. phraseology as filed with
ICAO."

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/04-11-00/04-11-00memo.html

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:41:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>But that would mean the US is NOT the only nation that doesn't adhere to
>ICAO phraseology. How can that be??!!!
\
You would be more likely to obtain an answer by directing your question to
those making that claim.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> You would be more likely to obtain an answer by directing your question to
> those making that claim.
>

It was sarcasm. I already know the answer and he who made that claim has
grown silent.

[Chris]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two"
>> and
>> to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"
>>
>
> Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
> standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".
>
>
> "An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the
> use of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use 'climb
> and maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be confusion when
> using the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to whether the command was
> climb to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand feet. Currently,
> the FAA requires controllers to comply with standard U.S. phraseology as
> filed with ICAO."

with respect in the example about the instruction would be to climb to
flight level 250 so the example is not realistic.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two"
>>> and to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
>> standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".
>>
>>
>> "An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the
>> use of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use
>> 'climb and maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be
>> confusion when using the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to whether
>> the command was climb to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand
>> feet. Currently, the FAA requires controllers to comply with standard
>> U.S. phraseology as filed with ICAO."
>>
>
> with respect in the example about the instruction would be to climb to
> flight level 250 so the example is not realistic.
>

The example quoted in the top message above is "climb to 5000 ft".

[Chris]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It serves two pruposes: To avoid confusion between "to" and "two"
>>>> and to avoid confusion between "climb to 5000ft" and "climb 5000ft"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a reference for that? I found a site that says the ICAO
>>> standard is "climb to 5,000 feet".
>>>
>>>
>>> "An example the FAA uses is that ICAO standard phraseology requires the
>>> use of the phrase 'climb to 5,000 feet' while the U.S. filed to use
>>> 'climb and maintain 5000 feet.' FAA believed that there could be
>>> confusion when using the ICAO phraseology in that situation as to
>>> whether
>>> the command was climb to five thousand feet or climb two five thousand
>>> feet. Currently, the FAA requires controllers to comply with standard
>>> U.S. phraseology as filed with ICAO."
>>>
>>
>> with respect in the example about the instruction would be to climb to
>> flight level 250 so the example is not realistic.
>>
>
> The example quoted in the top message above is "climb to 5000 ft".

The point is there would not be an instruction to climb two five thousand
feet, such an instruction would be to climb FL 250 so confusion should be
limited.
Climb to five thousand cannot be confused with climb FL250

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> The point is there would not be an instruction to climb two five thousand
> feet, such an instruction would be to climb FL 250 so confusion should be
> limited.
>

But still possible, THAT is the point.

[Chris]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The point is there would not be an instruction to climb two five thousand
>> feet, such an instruction would be to climb FL 250 so confusion should
>> be limited.
>>
>
> But still possible, THAT is the point.

Less possible than someone screwing up with affirmative and negative for
example.