Radio Procedure - Runway ID

[Casey Wilson]

Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
pattern should do.

Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.

Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?

[Jose]

> "...there is no zero in front of the two."
>
> Does it matter?

Visually, 02 and 20 can be confused, especially as they are opposite
ends of the same piece of pavement and you may be seeing one of them
upside down, so having a single digit is a nice cue.

Aurally I think "runway six" is clearer than "runway zero six" and uses
less radio time. I suppose "runway two garble" is ambiguous while
"runway zero two garble" isn't, but "runway garble two" isn't much
better, so that's a wash for me.

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

[Ross Richardson]

I use an airport that has RWY 7 and I call zero-seven all the time. What
does it matter?


-------------
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


Casey Wilson wrote:
> Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
> airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
> was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
> pattern should do.
>
> Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
> runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
> that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
> fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
> Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>
> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
>

[Newps]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> I use an airport that has RWY 7 and I call zero-seven all the time. What
> does it matter?

It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83T3f.22$oy3.18@trnddc04...
>
> Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
> airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
> was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
> pattern should do.
>
> Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left
> base, runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish
> me that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to
> rankle a fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time,
> anyway. Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>
> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?

He's right, there is no leading zero, but most pilots probably feel it's not
worth correcting when they hear it.

[Jay Honeck]

? > Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
> He's right, there is no leading zero, but most pilots probably feel it's not
> worth correcting when they hear it.

Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.

For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Gardner]

Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her own
ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>? > Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>>
>> He's right, there is no leading zero, but most pilots probably feel it's
>> not
>> worth correcting when they hear it.
>
> Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
> zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>
> For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
> simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
> guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[rps]

In most cases, the leading zero probably doesn't hurt except to take
more airtime.

At your runway, however, "zero two" could easily be confused with "two
zero," which as you know is the opposite end of the same runway. Most
listeners will understand where you are and where you're going, but
watch out for that student pilot on his solo cross country who's about
to join the downwind for a right-hand runway 20 pattern!

[Jose]

> "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
> anything.

Well, in all fairness, what =should= we trust instructors for?

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

[Mike W.]

Who knows, somebody might reply. Usually not.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
> Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.

[Bob Gardner]

All I ask is that instructors provide documentation for their little quirks.
If the student can't find something to back up the instructor's assertions,
s/he should ask for it.

I guess I am too far from the know-nothing student of 1960 to remember how I
accepted everything unquestionably, only to learn as the years rolled by
that I had been misled.

Bob

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for anything.
>
> Well, in all fairness, what =should= we trust instructors for?
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> ? > Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
>>He's right, there is no leading zero, but most pilots probably feel it's not
>>worth correcting when they hear it.
>
>
> Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
> zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.

But there is no leading zero. I just checked and Iowa City has a runway
7, but no 07. For reference:
http://www.aopa.org/members/airports/diagram.cfm?identifier=IOW


Matt

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
> He's right, there is no leading zero, but most pilots probably feel it's not
> worth correcting when they hear it.

I wonder if this is just a regional or international thing.

I've heard the preceding zero used constantly at airports
outside North America (YPPH, YSSY, EIDW, and EHAM in particular), so it
might be something carried over from that.. Just a thought.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDUDLjyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnhEAKDRfFXBVqBrcI7xq1pKsY g33UW1VwCgvhrQ
NXqD/JXw4dH6aYWLOsnQoLI=
=E2Ra
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jay Honeck]

> > Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
> > zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.

> Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her own
> ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
> anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.

I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.

Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83T3f.22$oy3.18@trnddc04...
> Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
> airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
> was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
> pattern should do.
>
> Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left
> base, runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish
> me that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to
> rankle a fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time,
> anyway. Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>
> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?

The AIM provides radio communication protocols. Unfortunately, section 4-2
(Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques) is silent on this point.
However, section 4-3 (Airport Operations) gives the example "cleared to land
runway six right", so omitting the zero appears to be the standard
(4-3-11c2).

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for anything.
>
> Well, in all fairness, what =should= we trust instructors for?

If an instructor is acting as PIC, the instructor should ordinarily be
trusted to control the aircraft (or to direct you as to how to control it),
especially while you are a primary student. An instructor should also be
trusted to make suggestions that are plausible enough to be worth the effort
it takes you to research and verify them. But a pilot should never
permanently delegate verification to the instructor--that's always the PIC's
own responsibility. Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through
successive generations of students, with no one fact-checking along the way,
are not reliable.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
>> > zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>
>> Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her
>> own
>> ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
>> anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>
> I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
> two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
> grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.
>
> Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?

Pretty high. (See my post about the AIM.)

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
>>>zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>
>
>>Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her own
>>ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
>>anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>
>
> I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
> two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
> grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.
>
> Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?

I'd say 100%. :-)


I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested a
leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading zeroes
are expected, however, on headings. Don't ask me why the difference...


Matt

[Jose]

> All I ask is that instructors provide documentation for their little quirks.
> If the student can't find something to back up the instructor's assertions,
> s/he should ask for it.

But if the student can find documentation to back up all the
instructor's assertions, then the instructor is pretty much superfluous, no?

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

[.Blueskies.]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message ...
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message news:83T3f.22$oy3.18@trnddc04...
>> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
> The AIM provides radio communication protocols. Unfortunately, section 4-2 (Radio Communications Phraseology and
> Techniques) is silent on this point. However, section 4-3 (Airport Operations) gives the example "cleared to land
> runway six right", so omitting the zero appears to be the standard (4-3-11c2).
>
> --Gary
>
>

Also, under 4-3-6, "the runway designation would be 9".

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> All I ask is that instructors provide documentation for their little
>> quirks. If the student can't find something to back up the instructor's
>> assertions, s/he should ask for it.
>
> But if the student can find documentation to back up all the instructor's
> assertions, then the instructor is pretty much superfluous, no?

Not at all. One key role for the instructor is to say "try doing this". You
do, and you verify by your own experience that it works reasonably well.
Then you know that it's a good technique (though not necessarily the best
possible technique). Instructors can also call your attention to errors or
lapses in your technique that aren't evident to you until they're pointed
out.

Another key role is to direct you to important things for you to look up, or
tell you about errors that have crept into your recollections of past
research (or errors in things you never researched to begin with).

--Gary

[Bob Moore]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote
> The AIM provides radio communication protocols. Unfortunately, section
> 4-2 (Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques) is silent on
> this point. However, section 4-3 (Airport Operations) gives the
> example "cleared to land runway six right", so omitting the zero
> appears to be the standard (4-3-11c2).

Also..........
4-3-6. Use of Runways/Declared Distances

a. Runways are identified by numbers which indicate the nearest 10-degree
increment of the azimuth of the runway centerline. For example, where the
magnetic azimuth is 183 degrees, the runway designation would be 18; for a
magnetic azimuth of
87 degrees, the runway designation would be 9. For a magnetic azimuth
ending in the number 5, such as 185, the runway designation could be either
18 or 19. Wind direction issued by the tower is also magnetic and wind
velocity is in knots.

Bob Moore

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I do believe that leading zeroes are expected, however, on headings.

Yes (AIM 4-2-10).

> Don't ask me why the difference...

I'd guess it's because there's much more room for confusion when it comes to
headings--in general, there are many more headings available than there are
runways at a particular airport.

--Gary

[Morgans]

"rps" > wrote\

> At your runway, however, "zero two" could easily be confused with "two
> zero," which as you know is the opposite end of the same runway.

How could you do that? Zero has two syllables, and two has only one, plus
they sound nothing alike!
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I wonder if this is just a regional or international thing.
>
> I've heard the preceding zero used constantly at airports
> outside North America (YPPH, YSSY, EIDW, and EHAM in particular), so it
> might be something carried over from that.. Just a thought.
>

Use of a leading zero in runway designations is an ICAO standard that the US
does not follow.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I wonder if this is just a regional or international thing.
>>
>> I've heard the preceding zero used constantly at airports
>> outside North America (YPPH, YSSY, EIDW, and EHAM in particular), so it
>> might be something carried over from that.. Just a thought.
>>
>
> Use of a leading zero in runway designations is an ICAO standard that the
> US does not follow.

Yup. And if you google-map satellite photos of Canadian airports, you'll see
leading zeros painted on the 1-9 runways, unlike in the US.

--Gary

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I wonder if this is just a regional or international thing.
>>
>> I've heard the preceding zero used constantly at airports
>> outside North America (YPPH, YSSY, EIDW, and EHAM in particular), so it
>> might be something carried over from that.. Just a thought.
>>
>
> Use of a leading zero in runway designations is an ICAO standard that the
> US does not follow.

Please provide a reference for that.

[Jose]

> Not at all. One key role for the instructor is to say "try doing this". You
> do, and you verify by your own experience that it works reasonably well.

"Try saying 'runway zero nine'." And are all books correct? In
learning, one synthesizes, but there's only a limited amount of time
available. The instructor helps "cut to the chase", as it were, and
though nothing should be accepted blindly, challenging everything the
instructor tells you becomes rather pointless, especially in the beginning.

Things that are "wrong" often work "reasonably well".

> Instructors can also call your attention to errors or
> lapses in your technique that aren't evident to you until they're pointed
> out.

I thought that's what Usenet was for. :)

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Visually, 02 and 20 can be confused, especially as they are opposite ends
> of the same piece of pavement and you may be seeing one of them upside
> down, so having a single digit is a nice cue.
>
> Aurally I think "runway six" is clearer than "runway zero six" and uses
> less radio time. I suppose "runway two garble" is ambiguous while "runway
> zero two garble" isn't, but "runway garble two" isn't much better, so
> that's a wash for me.
>

When part of a radio transmission is garbled I respond with "say again."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I use an airport that has RWY 7 and I call zero-seven all the time. What
> does it matter?
>

It's not that it's harmful, it's just that it serves no useful purpose.
Much like calling yourself "Skyhawk november niner eight zero one victor"
instead of "Skyhawk niner eight zero one victor".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
> simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
> guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.
>

How does use of a leading zero avoid confusion with lower runway numbers?

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Not at all. One key role for the instructor is to say "try doing this".
>> You do, and you verify by your own experience that it works reasonably
>> well.
>
> "Try saying 'runway zero nine'."

Sure, a student's introduction to radio communication usually comes from the
instructor. And saying 'zero nine' does work reasonably well, even though
it's nonstandard (in the US).

> And are all books correct?

They are when they're in a position to declare by fiat what the official
convention is (as the AIM does with regard to US aviation radio
phraseology).

> In learning, one synthesizes, but there's only a limited amount of time
> available. The instructor helps "cut to the chase", as it were, and
> though nothing should be accepted blindly, challenging everything the
> instructor tells you becomes rather pointless, especially in the
> beginning.

No disagreement there. But we were talking about what pilots should know by
the time they have their certificates. We're certainly expected to have read
the AIM. And although we don't usually memorize every detail therein, we're
expected to know what sort of things are probably there, and how to go back
and find them. Standard radio phraseology is among the most obvious of those
things.

>> Instructors can also call your attention to errors or lapses in your
>> technique that aren't evident to you until they're pointed out.
>
> I thought that's what Usenet was for. :)

:) Yup. The aviation newsgroups perform a number of useful instructor-like
functions.

--Gary

[Bushleague]

There is a section in the A.I.M. which clarifies this, and will add
that zero for safety.

Fly safe,

Bush

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:47:32 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote:

>Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
>airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
>was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
>pattern should do.
>
>Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
>runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
>that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
>fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
>Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>
>Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
>> simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
>> guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.
>>
>
> How does use of a leading zero avoid confusion with lower runway numbers?

It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
"cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
designation.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z_X3f.209$t12.133@trnddc03...
>
> Please provide a reference for that.
>

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume I,
Aerodromes

[BTIZ]

and if no one replies... do you assume that no one is there??

NOT

BT

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> Who knows, somebody might reply. Usually not.
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
>> Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.
>
>

[rps]

Because we still have humans piloting these darned flying machines and
humans are sometimes absent minded.

[rps]

I just realized that my earlier post could be more clear. The leading
zero in most cases wouldn't hurt. Here, I'd omit the leading zero for
runway two on the off chance that someone misunderstands "zero two" to
mean "two zero."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
> "cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
> "three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
> however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
> designation.
>

Now you're introducing non-standard phraseology. In the US, the runway
designator precedes the landing clearance. It's "runway three zero cleared
to land", not "cleared to land runway three zero". If the tower says
"runway three zero cleared to land" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot hasn't been issue a clearance to land on any runway.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> But if the student can find documentation to back up all the
> instructor's assertions, then the instructor is pretty much superfluous,
> no?

Only if the student would have found and read all that documentation without the
instructor saying anything.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through
> successive generations of students, with no one fact-checking along the way,
> are not reliable.

Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but have not
been true since radial engines were the norm.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?

Pretty good. I was also taught the same thing.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jose]

> When part of a radio transmission is garbled I respond with "say again."

You can't count on the seventeen aircraft in the pattern at an
uncontrolled airport doing the same thing when my transmission is
garbled, and I'm not sure you want to. :)

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

[Newps]

Actually I reply. I say "I'm over here."



Mike W. wrote:

> Who knows, somebody might reply. Usually not.
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
>>Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.
>
>
>

[Newps]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message news:83T3f.22$oy3.18@trnddc04...
>>
>>>Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>>
>>The AIM provides radio communication protocols. Unfortunately, section 4-2 (Radio Communications Phraseology and
>>Techniques) is silent on this point. However, section 4-3 (Airport Operations) gives the example "cleared to land
>>runway six right", so omitting the zero appears to be the standard (4-3-11c2).
>>
>>--Gary
>>
>>
>
>
> Also, under 4-3-6, "the runway designation would be 9".


er

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>> I use an airport that has RWY 7 and I call zero-seven all the time. What
>> does it matter?
>
> It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
> Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.

Just don't have dyslexia and say runway seven-zero.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her own
> ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
> anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>
Almost as bad is "...my mechanic says..."

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
>> > zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>
>> Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her
>> own
>> ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
>> anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>
> I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
> two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
> grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.
>
> Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?


Listen to the pros, on the air, or get a scanner to pull in Des Moines, and
see how they do it. :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
>>>>zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>>
>>
>>>Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her
>>>own
>>>ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
>>>anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>>
>>
>> I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
>> two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
>> grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.
>>
>> Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?
>
> I'd say 100%. :-)
>
>
> I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested a
> leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading zeroes
> are expected, however, on headings. Don't ask me why the difference...
>

A heading can be 360 different degrees; a runway has fewer options.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations of
>>students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
>
> Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
> have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
>
And many things are relevant from radials all the way through horizontally
opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same internally. The
combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial, HO, or a lawn
mower.

[Newps]

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>>
>>I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested a
>>leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading zeroes
>>are expected, however, on headings.

Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.

[Dave Stadt]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:dCY3f.5892$MN6.5076@fed1read04...
> and if no one replies... do you assume that no one is there??
>
> NOT
>
> BT

That's why it is such a useless waste of time used by amateur radio jockeys
that want to hear themselves talk.

>
> "Mike W." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Who knows, somebody might reply. Usually not.
> >
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >>
> >> It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
> >> Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >
> >>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations
of
> >>students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
> >
> > Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
> > have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
> >
> And many things are relevant from radials all the way through horizontally
> opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same internally.
The
> combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial, HO, or a lawn
> mower.

So do you pull through one blade for each cylinder of your flat four before
starting?

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-10-15, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:dCY3f.5892$MN6.5076@fed1read04...
>> and if no one replies... do you assume that no one is there??
>>
>> NOT
>
> That's why it is such a useless waste of time used by amateur radio jockeys
> that want to hear themselves talk.

Sure, just like reporting your position in the pattern is useless.
Everyone is supposed to "see and avoid" right? Why bother?

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> On 2005-10-15, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> >
> > "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> > news:dCY3f.5892$MN6.5076@fed1read04...
> >> and if no one replies... do you assume that no one is there??
> >>
> >> NOT
> >
> > That's why it is such a useless waste of time used by amateur radio
jockeys
> > that want to hear themselves talk.
>
> Sure, just like reporting your position in the pattern is useless.
> Everyone is supposed to "see and avoid" right? Why bother?

It isn't the same at all. The "where are you" yahoos are simply to lazy to
look and listen and for the most part simply clutter up already busy
frequencies. I can't say I have ever heard any one respond to their cries
for help. It's the same as the guy that calls 15 miles out into a busy
airport asking for the active when there have been 10 position reports in
the last few minutes all for the same runway.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
>> > Gary Drescher wrote:
>> >
>> >>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations
> of
>> >>students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
>> >
>> > Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
>> > have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
>> >
>> And many things are relevant from radials all the way through
>> horizontally
>> opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same internally.
> The
>> combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial, HO, or a lawn
>> mower.
>
> So do you pull through one blade for each cylinder of your flat four
> before
> starting?
>
I pull through the blades on my lawn mower.

So, are you saying the combustion event is different in a radial from a HO
plant?

Here's a quiz; What are the fundamental aspects of the gasoline fired
internal combustion engine?

"..many things are relevant from radials all the way through horizontally
opposed "

Read again the part that says "many things". There's more alike than there
is different.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
>> "cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
>> "three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
>> however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
>> designation.
>>
>
> Now you're introducing non-standard phraseology. In the US, the runway
> designator precedes the landing clearance. It's "runway three zero cleared
> to land", not "cleared to land runway three zero". If the tower says
> "runway three zero cleared to land" but gets blocked right after saying
> "three", a US pilot hasn't been issue a clearance to land on any runway.

Problem is, that some tower controllers do use 'cleared to land
runway xx'. Listen to the JFK or BOS feeds, and you'll hear exactly
that on a daily basis. Some call it 'non-standard phraseology', others
call it 'technique'.

What would you do? send them back for retraining? They are
giving a valid landing clearance (runway assigned, and 'cleared to
land').

There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.

BL.

- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDULOVyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkK7AKCsO7L5+NNx0/MxG1Jmmlb8H/d8lwCeIbij
WGKGpn/8aqWIzCUm+q4+/MU=
=tPqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gary Drescher > wrote:
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83T3f.22$oy3.18@trnddc04...
>> Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
>> airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
>> was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
>> pattern should do.
>>
>> Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left
>> base, runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish
>> me that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to
>> rankle a fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time,
>> anyway. Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>>
>> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
> The AIM provides radio communication protocols. Unfortunately, section 4-2
> (Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques) is silent on this point.
> However, section 4-3 (Airport Operations) gives the example "cleared to land
> runway six right", so omitting the zero appears to be the standard
> (4-3-11c2).
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I was taught, the AIM was
presented as a guideline for pilots to follow, not something that they
must absolutely swear by, like ATC does with the .65. So the pilots
could say 'zero six right' or 'six right', and both would be
acceptable.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDULRtyBkZmuMZ8L8RAmftAJ0XN+UN5WIzVIMJLYmUk4 RZVzGLfgCePhML
LRogvXXiHjP8Tgby58+52fs=
=FkgO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Brien K. Meehan]

Jose wrote:
> Well, in all fairness, what =should= we trust instructors for?

Signatures.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Now you're introducing non-standard phraseology. In the US, the runway
> designator precedes the landing clearance. It's "runway three zero
> cleared to land", not "cleared to land runway three zero". If the tower
> says "runway three zero cleared to land" but gets blocked right after
> saying "three", a US pilot hasn't been issue a clearance to land on any
> runway.

Interesting. Is the AIM mistaken in the following example (4-3-11c2), or is
the order different for LAHSO? "ATC: '(Aircraft ID) cleared to land runway
six right, hold short of taxiway bravo for crossing traffic (type
aircraft).'"

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>>Interesting. Both Mary and I were trained to ALWAYS use the leading
>>>>>zero. Runway 7 is ALWAYS called runway 07.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah...but this is just another example of an instructor pushing his/her
>>>>own
>>>>ideas as gospel. "My instructor told me to..." is not justification for
>>>>anything. Heard it too many times on checkrides.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suppose you're right -- but this was done by two different CFIIs, in
>>>two different states, separated by 7 years. And my guy was an old
>>>grey-beard, while Mary's was a young buck.
>>>
>>>Dang, what're the odds of *both* of us being taught incorrectly?
>>
>>I'd say 100%. :-)
>>
>>
>>I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested a
>>leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading zeroes
>>are expected, however, on headings. Don't ask me why the difference...
>>
>
>
> A heading can be 360 different degrees; a runway has fewer options.

True, but with headings the pad with leading zeroes to reach the number
of digits contained in the maximum value. If they applied the same rule
to runways, you WOULD use a leading zero on the single digit runways, as
ICAO also requires. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm used to
not using leading zeroes on runways, but using them on headings so it
isn't a big deal, just a curiousity.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
>
>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations of
>>>students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
>>
>>Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
>>have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
>>
>
> And many things are relevant from radials all the way through horizontally
> opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same internally. The
> combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial, HO, or a lawn
> mower.

Gee, Matt, you really need to learn to recognize context. He wasn't
talking at all about engine construction here...

Matt "the one who can recognize context"

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>
>>> I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever
>>> suggested a leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that
>>> leading zeroes are expected, however, on headings.
>
>
> Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.

I know. The interesting question is why?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Listen to the pros, on the air, or get a scanner to pull in Des Moines, and
> see how they do it. :~)

It's funny, we play Unicom (and Cedar Rapids Approach, and a couple of
other airports) in the lobby at the inn all the time. I literally hear
aviation-talk 12 hours per day.

Yet I can't say that either way of describing a runway is predominant.
I hear both ways all day long, and never really gave it a thought.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Listen to the pros, on the air, or get a scanner to pull in Des Moines, and
>>see how they do it. :~)
>
>
> It's funny, we play Unicom (and Cedar Rapids Approach, and a couple of
> other airports) in the lobby at the inn all the time. I literally hear
> aviation-talk 12 hours per day.
>
> Yet I can't say that either way of describing a runway is predominant.
> I hear both ways all day long, and never really gave it a thought.

Until now... :-)

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...

> True, but with headings the pad with leading zeroes to reach the number of digits contained in the maximum value. If
> they applied the same rule to runways, you WOULD use a leading zero on the single digit runways, as ICAO also
> requires. .
>
>
> Matt

Do you have the ICAO reference for this?

[.Blueskies.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Z_X3f.209$t12.133@trnddc03...
>>
>> Please provide a reference for that.
>>
>
> International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodromes
>

Looks like this doc addresses the design and layout of 'aerodromes'; I cannot find any reference to radio communications
there...

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
>>
>>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations
>>>>of students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
>>>
>>>Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
>>>have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
>>>
>>
>> And many things are relevant from radials all the way through
>> horizontally opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same
>> internally. The combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial,
>> HO, or a lawn mower.
>
> Gee, Matt, you really need to learn to recognize context. He wasn't
> talking at all about engine construction here...
>
> Matt "the one who can recognize context"

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:kzZ3f.337$Gt2.140@trndny01...
>>
>>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Factoids that propagate by word of mouth through successive generations
>>>>of students, with no one fact-checking along the way, are not reliable.
>>>
>>>Yes, and you also have things still circulating that were once true but
>>>have not been true since radial engines were the norm.
>>>
>>
>> And many things are relevant from radials all the way through
>> horizontally opposed since internal combustion engines are much the same
>> internally. The combustion event is virtually the same whether a radial,
>> HO, or a lawn mower.
>
> Gee, Matt, you really need to learn to recognize context. He wasn't
> talking at all about engine construction here...

Too bad you snipped the part about how engines are different now.

>
> Matt "the one who can recognize context"

No, Matt "the one who snips too much, including the prime focus".

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested
>>>> a leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading
>>>> zeroes are expected, however, on headings.
>>
>>
>> Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.
>
> I know. The interesting question is why?

Maybe because runways are only one or two digits?

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've had at least 6 different instructors and none have ever suggested
>>>>>a leading zero on a runway designation. I do believe that leading
>>>>>zeroes are expected, however, on headings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.
>>
>>I know. The interesting question is why?
>
>
> Maybe because runways are only one or two digits?

So? Runways can be two digits, so why not pad to two for single digit
runways? This is the same as padding to three for a heading.

I think an earlier poster was probably right when he said that runways
are in essence named, rather than representing a numeric value.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.
>>
>
> I know. The interesting question is why?
>

Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest ten
degrees.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Looks like this doc addresses the design and layout of 'aerodromes'; I
> cannot find any reference to radio communications there...

It does address the design and layout of 'aerodromes', including runway
designators and markings. It calls for a leading zero for single-digit
runways. The US does not follow that particular ICAO standard.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest
> ten degrees.

True...headings are always rounded off to the nearest one degree. There IS
a difference after all!

The implication of your explanation is of course that things that are
rounded to the tens place should only be the number of digits required to
represent those numbers, but things that are rounded to the ones place
should be three digits?

Hmmm...there's something wrong with that logic, but I can't quite put my
finger on it.

[Jose]

> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest
> ten degrees.

I'd say that the fact that headings are equal to their value, whereas
runway designations are not (they are equal to roughly ten percent of
their value, with exceptions) is closer to the reason. Runways are not
merely "rounded off", rather, the last digit of their magnetic heading
is ruthlessly ripped away after the roundoff process has taken place.
And even then, some runways are given different names ("Sorry, 9 is
already taken, how about 8?") for convenience. After all, it's better
than having runway "nine all the way left", runway "nine sort of left",
runway "nine right, looks like rightmost but isn't" and "nine so far to
the right it looks like another airport tucked in the corner".

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> True...headings are always rounded off to the nearest one degree. There
> IS a difference after all!
>
> The implication of your explanation is of course that things that are
> rounded to the tens place should only be the number of digits required to
> represent those numbers, but things that are rounded to the ones place
> should be three digits?
>
> Hmmm...there's something wrong with that logic, but I can't quite put my
> finger on it.

That's because you don't use logic.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...
>
> Problem is, that some tower controllers do use 'cleared to land
> runway xx'. Listen to the JFK or BOS feeds, and you'll hear exactly
> that on a daily basis. Some call it 'non-standard phraseology', others
> call it 'technique'.
>
> What would you do? send them back for retraining? They are
> giving a valid landing clearance (runway assigned, and 'cleared to
> land').
>

So what specifically do you see as the problem there? Are you saying
controllers should use a leading zero, which would be another phraseology
error, when issuing improper clearances for runways with single-digit
designations?


>
> There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
> taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
> zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
> shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
> second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
> 02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
> know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.
>

Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting. Is the AIM mistaken in the following example (4-3-11c2), or
> is the order different for LAHSO? "ATC: '(Aircraft ID) cleared to land
> runway six right, hold short of taxiway bravo for crossing traffic (type
> aircraft).'"
>

The AIM is mistaken.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0310.html#3-10-4

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest
>> ten degrees.

Please be more careful with your quotes. You replied to my message, but
quoted nothing that I wrote.

> I'd say that the fact that headings are equal to their value,

They are only "equal to their value" within one degree.

> whereas runway designations are not (they are equal to roughly ten percent
> of their value, with exceptions)

The precision is different, but the accuracy is exactly the same.

> is closer to the reason. Runways are not merely "rounded off", rather,
> the last digit of their magnetic heading is ruthlessly ripped away after
> the roundoff process has taken place.

That's simply a savings in representation. Just as the "minus" sign is
dropped from temperatures above a certain altitude in the winds aloft
forecast.

> And even then, some runways are given different names ("Sorry, 9 is
> already taken, how about 8?") for convenience. After all, it's better
> than having runway "nine all the way left", runway "nine sort of left",
> runway "nine right, looks like rightmost but isn't" and "nine so far to
> the right it looks like another airport tucked in the corner".

Now you're getting somewhere. Indeed, runways ARE named, and two parallel
runways have have different "numbers", if they've run out of L's, R's, and
C's to tack on to the runway number.

Personally, I tend to think of runway numbers as labels, and not headings,
though of course the number is suggestive of a heading. But if one is going
to argue against interpreting them as headings, one ought to at least stick
with solid reasons grounded in reality, rather than imagining some arbitrary
differences that aren't relevant.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> That's because you don't use logic.

It's your "logic" you're commenting on there, not mine.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's your "logic" you're commenting on there, not mine.

No, I'm commenting on your inability to put your finger on anything wrong
with my logic. The reason you can't, of course, is you don't use logic.
Thank you for proving my point.

[Jose]

> The precision is different, but the accuracy is exactly the same.

No, the accuracy is not the same. Due to magnetic drift over time, and
due to values of convenience (such as when there are too many parallel
runways).

>> is closer to the reason. Runways are not merely "rounded off", rather,
>> the last digit of their magnetic heading is ruthlessly ripped away after
>> the roundoff process has taken place.
> That's simply a savings in representation. Just as the "minus" sign is
> dropped from temperatures above a certain altitude in the winds aloft
> forecast.

That kind of change is significant, especially when what is left looks
like a (different) number.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> The precision is different, but the accuracy is exactly the same.
>
> No, the accuracy is not the same. Due to magnetic drift over time, and
> due to values of convenience (such as when there are too many parallel
> runways).

You're right, I stand mistaken. The error in runway naming isn't nearly as
great as that found in the typical magnetic compass. My mistake.

>[...]
>> That's simply a savings in representation. Just as the "minus" sign is
>> dropped from temperatures above a certain altitude in the winds aloft
>> forecast.
>
> That kind of change is significant, especially when what is left looks
> like a (different) number.

That's my point. 090 and 9 look quite different, but they refer to
(essentially) the same number. Just as -10 and 10 look quite different, but
still refer to the same number.

Nice to see we're back in 100% agreement.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> No, I'm commenting on your inability to put your finger on anything wrong
> with my logic.

So you actually DO believe that when rounding to the tens place, numbers
should be represented as one or two digits, but when rounding to the ones
place, they should always be three digits?

Your stance is indeed as odd as it seemed in the first place.

You certainly have failed to justify your claim that rounding should affect
how many digits are used to represent a number.

[Jose]

> Just as -10 and 10 look quite different, but
> still refer to the same number.

Not in my bank book they don't.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Just as -10 and 10 look quite different, but still refer to the same
>> number.
>
> Not in my bank book they don't.

On the winds aloft forecast, they do. Your bank book is entirely
irrelevant.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you actually DO believe that when rounding to the tens place, numbers
> should be represented as one or two digits, but when rounding to the ones
> place, they should always be three digits?
>
> Your stance is indeed as odd as it seemed in the first place.
>
> You certainly have failed to justify your claim that rounding should
> affect how many digits are used to represent a number.

Thank you for proving my point. Again.

[Gerald Sylvester]

Now that this has been discussed ad naseum, I think I'll
switch to say 'runway 0-2.' It keeps things perfectly clear and
concise as takes a whole 0.13 seconds which even a busy pattern can
handle. It is probably good practice as it helps avoid the
confusion and potential bent metal the one time a pilot
says "Landing 2" and his finger slipped off the PTT button
for the last 'zero' or when dealing with non-US pilots in US
Airspace.

Gerald Sylvester

[Gerald Sylvester]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Much like calling yourself "Skyhawk november niner eight zero one victor"
> instead of "Skyhawk niner eight zero one victor".

That's nonsense. You must say the november. What country do you live
in? Oh, you must have forgotten that there are other countries than the
US. Don't assume everyone here lives in the US. Plenty of non-US
pilots here too.

Gerald

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Now that this has been discussed ad naseum, I think I'll
> switch to say 'runway 0-2.' It keeps things perfectly clear and
> concise as takes a whole 0.13 seconds which even a busy pattern can
> handle. It is probably good practice as it helps avoid the
> confusion and potential bent metal the one time a pilot
> says "Landing 2" and his finger slipped off the PTT button
> for the last 'zero'

The last zero and the airport. Again, poor technique is required to justify
the leading zero.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
t...
>
> That's nonsense. You must say the november.
>

Why?


>
> What country do you live in?

The United States of America.


>
> Oh, you must have forgotten that there are other countries than the US.
>

Nope.


>
> Don't assume everyone here lives in the US.
>

I never have,


>
> Plenty of non-US pilots here too.
>

Yup.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Thank you for proving my point. Again.

No, thank YOU for proving MY point. Again.

You are so darned cooperative...I see hours of entertainment coming up...

[.Blueskies.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message . ..
>>
>> Looks like this doc addresses the design and layout of 'aerodromes'; I cannot find any reference to radio
>> communications there...
>
> It does address the design and layout of 'aerodromes', including runway designators and markings. It calls for a
> leading zero for single-digit runways. The US does not follow that particular ICAO standard.
>

Yea, that is what I was reading, but is there a mandate to use the leading zero when referring to that runway via some
sort of regulation or standard?

[TaxSrv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> Are you saying
> controllers should use a leading zero, which would be another
phraseology
> error, when issuing improper clearances for runways with
single-digit
> designations?
>
>

Well, there is an apparent local rule in my neck of the woods where
if there's a control tower, no leading "zero." Nontowered field
you must use it. See, there's a big flight school based at two
fields near each other, one tower the other not. The students
practice both places, of course. On the freq you'll hear the same
student say "zero five" on unicom, but later return to the towered
field and acknowledge ATC instructions by referring only to its
"runway six" like tower does.

I think it's the CFIs who advise this. Has to be. A couple of
them tell the students that if there's a displaced threshold, you
are to taxi up to the white line and then apply full power. On one
runway, that's 900 feet and comical to watch.

They also for our other rwy, say "one zero." At the big air
carrier field which has its rwy 10, they don't. Whichever, but I
think it could only possibly be "misheard" if the field also had a
rwy 2.

No one can make this stuff up.

Fred F.

[Jose]

> On the winds aloft forecast, they do. Your bank book is entirely
> irrelevant.

If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are irrelevant.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Problem is, that some tower controllers do use 'cleared to land
>> runway xx'. Listen to the JFK or BOS feeds, and you'll hear exactly
>> that on a daily basis. Some call it 'non-standard phraseology', others
>> call it 'technique'.
>>
>> What would you do? send them back for retraining? They are
>> giving a valid landing clearance (runway assigned, and 'cleared to
>> land').
>>
>
> So what specifically do you see as the problem there? Are you saying
> controllers should use a leading zero, which would be another phraseology
> error, when issuing improper clearances for runways with single-digit
> designations?

You have taken my post out of context. If you re-read it, and
its parent, it is regarding 'cleared to land runway xx', vs. 'runway
xx, cleared to land. This doesn't have anything to do with the leading
zero.. yet.

By your own definition, it is non-standard phraseology. Yet,
certified controllers are using this non-standard phraseology on a
daily basis. Your very own coworkers are doing the thing you say is
wrong. My question is, you say what they are using is wrong, and they
say (by using it), that it is right. Which one of you is right? and if
one is wrong, who should be retrained?

>>
>> There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
>> taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
>> zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
>> shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
>> second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
>> 02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
>> know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.
>>
>
> Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
> involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?

Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
are valid.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDUYeIyBkZmuMZ8L8RAk2MAJ4k9DdHwkbswOxmSF+jF/XBypg4HwCgwo8N
cLT9jl7/IHOLQ6AZGNvefLc=
=McTZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are
> irrelevant.

I see that you are being intentionally obtuse. Oh, and your bank book ought
to have the right numbers in it, otherwise you are also guilty of making a
false statement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, thank YOU for proving MY point. Again.
>
> You are so darned cooperative...I see hours of entertainment coming up...

Glad to do it.

[Jose]

>> If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are
>> irrelevant.
>
> I see that you are being intentionally obtuse.

No, I was being ineffectively humorous. You can represent ten degrees
below zero by the number 3 if you want (and it's reasonable to do so in
certain contexts), however 3 does not equal -10. You can represent it
with a smiley face too; that doesn't make smiley faces into numbers.

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

[Chris]

">>> There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
>>> taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
>>> zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
>>> shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
>>> second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
>>> 02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
>>> know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.
>>>
>>
>> Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
>> involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?
>
> Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
> and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
> are valid.
>

It is similar to the use of the words affirmative and negative. Outside the
US the word affirm is used to draw a distinct difference from negative.
Again if a transmission is cut or garbled there is a better chance to know
what's being said.

A ?tive is a negative not an affirmative.
Surely that's the point of developing a standard phraseology.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the
>> nearest ten degrees.
>
>
> I'd say that the fact that headings are equal to their value, whereas
> runway designations are not (they are equal to roughly ten percent of
> their value, with exceptions) is closer to the reason. Runways are not
> merely "rounded off", rather, the last digit of their magnetic heading
> is ruthlessly ripped away after the roundoff process has taken place.
> And even then, some runways are given different names ("Sorry, 9 is
> already taken, how about 8?") for convenience. After all, it's better
> than having runway "nine all the way left", runway "nine sort of left",
> runway "nine right, looks like rightmost but isn't" and "nine so far to
> the right it looks like another airport tucked in the corner".

No, headings are just rounded to a different level. A heading can
certainly can be a real number, it doesn't fundamentally have to the
ones digit.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.
>>>
>>
>>I know. The interesting question is why?
>>
>
>
> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest ten
> degrees.
>
>

So, headings are rounded off to the nearest degree. Still doesn't
answer the leading zero question.

Matt

[Jose]

> No, headings are just rounded to a different level.

No, headings are rounded and the rounded number is fully stated. Runway
headings are rounded and then nicknamed. 9 is not the same as 90, even
if runway 9 points to heading 090.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:

> ">>> There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
>
>>>>taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
>>>>zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
>>>>shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
>>>>second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
>>>>02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
>>>>know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
>>>involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?
>>
>>Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
>>and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
>>are valid.
>>
>
>
> It is similar to the use of the words affirmative and negative. Outside the
> US the word affirm is used to draw a distinct difference from negative.
> Again if a transmission is cut or garbled there is a better chance to know
> what's being said.
>
> A ?tive is a negative not an affirmative.
> Surely that's the point of developing a standard phraseology.
>
>

The only correct way to understand a garbled or cut transmission is to
ask for a retransmit.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yea, that is what I was reading, but is there a mandate to use the leading
> zero when referring to that runway via some sort of regulation or
> standard?
>

I don't know. In the US, there is a mandate for controllers to use "the
word 'runway,' followed by the separate digits of the runway designation."
Since the standard for runway designators lacks the leading zero it follows
that the leading zero is not used by controllers following proper
procedures.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
t...
>
> You have taken my post out of context. If you re-read it, and
> its parent, it is regarding 'cleared to land runway xx', vs. 'runway
> xx, cleared to land. This doesn't have anything to do with the leading
> zero.. yet.
>

I'm just asking questions so that I may understand your position.


>
> By your own definition, it is non-standard phraseology.
>

It's not my definition. It is non-standard phraseology because it does not
follow the standard that controllers are required to follow.


>
> Yet, certified controllers are using this non-standard phraseology on a
> daily basis. Your very own coworkers are doing the thing you say is
> wrong. My question is, you say what they are using is wrong, and they
> say (by using it), that it is right. Which one of you is right?
>

I am.


>
> and if
> one is wrong, who should be retrained?
>

Those that are not following required procedures. Controllers are required
to provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and
minima in FAA Order 7110.65.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-1


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


>
> Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
> and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
> are valid.
>

What are the pros to using the leading zero in situations that do not
involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, there is an apparent local rule in my neck of the woods where
> if there's a control tower, no leading "zero." Nontowered field
> you must use it.
>

What is the local governing body that enforces this "rule"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Headings are always three digits. Runways never are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know. The interesting question is why?
>>>
>>
>> Because, unlike headings, runways are always rounded off to the nearest
>> ten degrees.
>
> So, headings are rounded off to the nearest degree. Still doesn't answer
> the leading zero question.
>

The question was why headings are always three digits while runways never
are. See above.

[Gerald Sylvester]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> The last zero and the airport. Again, poor technique is required to justify
> the leading zero.

0.13 seconds to completely avoid any confusion whatsoever. Are
you saying that pilots should also read back clearances by
saying their call sign first rather than last?
No one is perfect, even you. The 0.13 seconds is well worth it.
Get a grip.

Gerald

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> 0.13 seconds to completely avoid any confusion whatsoever. Are
> you saying that pilots should also read back clearances by
> saying their call sign first rather than last?
> No one is perfect, even you. The 0.13 seconds is well worth it.
> Get a grip.
>

The leading zero is a source for potential confusion. If someone transposes
digits "runway zero two" becomes "runway two zero". If proper procedures
are used "runway two" cannot be transposed as anything and 0.13 seconds are
saved as a bonus.

[George Patterson]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>
>>Well, in all fairness, what =should= we trust instructors for?
>
> Signatures.

Great answer!

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[TaxSrv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > Well, there is an apparent local rule in my neck of the woods
where
> > if there's a control tower, no leading "zero." Nontowered
field
> > you must use it.
> >
>
> What is the local governing body that enforces this "rule"?
>

No gov't needed in the Land of Oz at my field and the CFIs. Well,
exaggeration, but I thought through my actual in-flight dealings,
you ATC folk could spot the jest in my post, though true story in
fact.

Fred F.

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> 0.13 seconds to completely avoid any confusion whatsoever. Are
>> you saying that pilots should also read back clearances by
>> saying their call sign first rather than last?
>> No one is perfect, even you. The 0.13 seconds is well worth it.
>> Get a grip.
>>
>
> The leading zero is a source for potential confusion. If someone
> transposes digits "runway zero two" becomes "runway two zero". If proper
> procedures are used "runway two" cannot be transposed as anything and 0.13
> seconds are saved as a bonus.

......and someone said somthing about justification using...???

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:47:32 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote:

>Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
>runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
>that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
>fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
>Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>
>Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?

Note that Zero Two is a particular case, since the reciprocal is Two
Zero. The locals may have found (as I find) that there's a tendency to
confuse these two.

My home aport is 02/20, and I have learned to say Runway Two when
landing to the north, and Two Zero when landing to the south. I find
it's a great help.

I would not have a similar problem with 03/19.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
>> Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
>> runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
>> that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
>> fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
>> Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.
>>
>> Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?
>
> Note that Zero Two is a particular case, since the reciprocal is Two
> Zero. The locals may have found (as I find) that there's a tendency to
> confuse these two.
>
> My home aport is 02/20, and I have learned to say Runway Two when
> landing to the north, and Two Zero when landing to the south. I find
> it's a great help.


My home airport (KUZA.. Rock Hill, SC) has runway 02/20 also. I have always
prefaced runway two with the zero. Not only that, I include the name of the
place twice in a transmission. ("Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 417 entering a left
downwind for runway zero two, Rock Hill.") I know the purists don't approve,
but i think of how many times I've listened to an announcement on the radio
where the location name was lost in transmission... either stepped on or I
wasn't paying attention. Besides, what's an addition two words in the interest
of clarity?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[N93332]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> My home aport is 02/20, and I have learned to say Runway Two when
> landing to the north, and Two Zero when landing to the south. I find
> it's a great help.
>
> I would not have a similar problem with 03/19.

Curved runway? ;-)

We all know you meant to type 1/19 or 3/21...

[Ash Wyllie]

N93332 opined

>"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
>> My home aport is 02/20, and I have learned to say Runway Two when
>> landing to the north, and Two Zero when landing to the south. I find
>> it's a great help.
>>
>> I would not have a similar problem with 03/19.

>Curved runway? ;-)

No, he is in an area where the isogonic lines are real close together.

>We all know you meant to type 1/19 or 3/21...




-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Gerald Sylvester > wrote:
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Much like calling yourself "Skyhawk november niner eight zero one victor"
>> instead of "Skyhawk niner eight zero one victor".
>
>That's nonsense. You must say the november. What country do you live
>in? Oh, you must have forgotten that there are other countries than the
>US. Don't assume everyone here lives in the US. Plenty of non-US
>pilots here too.
>
Mr. McNicoll could have cited the AIM, 4-2-4.a.3 where it says:

Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the
registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model
is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
Alpha.

Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary.

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mr. McNicoll could have cited the AIM, 4-2-4.a.3 where it says:
>
> Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
> manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the
> registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model
> is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
> Alpha.
>
> Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
> has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary.
>

The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Mr. McNicoll could have cited the AIM, 4-2-4.a.3 where it says:
>>
>> Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
>> manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the
>> registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model
>> is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
>> Alpha.
>>
>> Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
>> has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary.
>>
>
>The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.
>
OK. Then what is the basis for your assertion that the November is
not necessary? Would you care to back it up with a documentary basis,
or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?

Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Newps]

Michael Houghton wrote:


> Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
> as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
> is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.

The AIM has hung thousands of pilots over the years. It doesn't have
the force of the FAR's but go contrary to the AIM and cause a problem
and that is the very document they will use against you. They always have.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK. Then what is the basis for your assertion that the November is
> not necessary? Would you care to back it up with a documentary basis,
> or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?
>

You'd rarely go wrong by taking my word for anything, but I don't expect you
to do that.

See Title 47 CFR Section 2.303 for forms of identification which may be used
in lieu of call signs by the specified classes of stations. The station
identification for aircraft of US registry is the registration number
preceded by the type of the aircraft, or the radiotelephony designator of
the aircraft operating agency followed by the flight identification number.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c26457ea3c3718e72f2cd54c91497da9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.4.213.3&idno=47


>
> Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
> as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
> is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.
>

The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Are you saying the AIM is wrong
on that issue?

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Preface/aim-pol.html#Policy

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The AIM has hung thousands of pilots over the years. It doesn't have the
> force of the FAR's but go contrary to the AIM and cause a problem and that
> is the very document they will use against you. They always have.
>

Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to the
AIM.

[Montblack]

("Ash Wyllie" wrote)
>>Curved runway? ;-)

>>We all know you meant to type 1/19 or 3/21...

> No, he is in an area where the isogonic lines are real close together.


Airport (1970) was on TV the other night.

Burt Lancaster's discussion in the office (with an SST model on the table)
was the closing of 29 and using 22 instead (Airport Commission members live
under the flight path - noise issues). Burt wants to keep the airport open!
Darn it!


Montblack
Movie filmed at Minneapolis/St Paul (MSP) when I was 9.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes it does - some legal force, but the amount of force
> varies. A regulation (FAR) or statute carries legal force
> like the proverbial "irresistible force." The AIM carries
> force more like a wind that varies from time to time or
> place to place. Any court or tribunal will pay some
> attention to the AIM as a set of written standards and
> practices that are presumptively good. They're not
> mandatory and pilots can deviate from those standards. Many
> do, with good reason, but if you're accused of something
> like "careless and reckless operation," it's nicer to be
> doing what the AIM recommends than something else.
>

Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to the
AIM.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but:

Federal Aviation Regulations do reference the Aeronautical Information
Manual (AIM), and I would presume that therefore the content so referenced
makes the knowledge "official" and legal for certain purposes.

For example, in section 61.65, Instrument rating requirements:

"(b) Aeronautical knowledge. A person who applies for an instrument rating
must have received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor
or accomplished a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge
areas that apply to the instrument rating sought:

(1) Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that apply to flight
operations under IFR;

(2) Appropriate information that applies to flight operations under IFR in
the "Aeronautical Information Manual;
.....
"

AIM is likewise mentioned under sections 61.97 and 61.105.

[Mike W.]

No, that's just what they'd be expecting....

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > No, headings are just rounded to a different level.
>
> No, headings are rounded and the rounded number is fully stated. Runway
> headings are rounded and then nicknamed. 9 is not the same as 90, even
> if runway 9 points to heading 090.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> OK. Then what is the basis for your assertion that the November is
>> not necessary? Would you care to back it up with a documentary basis,
>> or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?
>>
>
>You'd rarely go wrong by taking my word for anything, but I don't expect you
>to do that.
>
>See Title 47 CFR Section 2.303 for forms of identification which may be used
>in lieu of call signs by the specified classes of stations. The station
>identification for aircraft of US registry is the registration number
>preceded by the type of the aircraft, or the radiotelephony designator of
>the aircraft operating agency followed by the flight identification number.
>
>http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c26457ea3c3718e72f2cd54c91497da9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.4.213.3&idno=47
>
OK. You could have cited that in the first case and saved all the
extra swirl...
>
>>
>> Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
>> as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
>> is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.
>>
>
>The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Are you saying the AIM is wrong
>on that issue?

I'm puzzled as to why you ask this question, as it does not follow from
anything I've said. It presumes words that I did not write.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm puzzled as to why you ask this question, as it does not follow from
> anything I've said. It presumes words that I did not write.
>

Well, then, somebody must be adding things to your messages.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>
> There aren't any.
>

I didn't think so.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I'm puzzled as to why you ask this question, as it does not follow from
>> anything I've said. It presumes words that I did not write.
>>
>
>Well, then, somebody must be adding things to your messages.
>
I spoke of the AIM having "force" (quotes included), and that it is
generally taken a prescriptive. Nowhere did I use or imply the word
"regulatory" - a word you introduced into the discourse. Your
question was nonsensical unless you were implying that I was claiming
that the AIM had any regulatory force.

Of course, by removing all the context, you make your snappy comeback
look like content-lite picking at made-up-things.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I spoke of the AIM having "force" (quotes included), and that it is
> generally taken a prescriptive. Nowhere did I use or imply the word
> "regulatory" - a word you introduced into the discourse. Your
> question was nonsensical unless you were implying that I was claiming
> that the AIM had any regulatory force.
>

The word "force" in this context implies "regulatory". I suggest you avoid
using words you do not understand.

[Jose]

> The word "force" in this context implies "regulatory".

And the AIM does have regulatory force. It just doesn't have
irresistable regulatory force. Neither of course do the FARs, but they
are a bit less resistable.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the AIM does have regulatory force. It just doesn't have irresistable
> regulatory force. Neither of course do the FARs, but they are a bit less
> resistable.
>

The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

[Jose]

> The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory force. If
the AIM's statement is supposed to mean "has no regulatory force" then
it is wrong. Just like the SS number is not supposed to be used for ID.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory force. If
> the AIM's statement is supposed to mean "has no regulatory force" then it
> is wrong. Just like the SS number is not supposed to be used for ID.
>

What regulatory force does the AIM have?

[TaxSrv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory
force.
> >
>
> What regulatory force does the AIM have?
>

Clearly the AIM (or any Advisory Circular) is not a Regulation.
However, FAA can use the AIM or such to support say a reckless
operation FAR violation. The pilot was operating unsafely, because
we clearly explain how to do things safely in an advisory document.
All fed agencies do this, not just FAA. The AIM can thus been
quoted even in a federal court decision, typically in a footnote,
to either support or set aside FAA's argument that an FAR was
violated.

Fred F.

[Jose]

> What regulatory force does the AIM have?

I believe it has all the regulatory force given to it by the FAA in its
enforcement actions. This is compounded by the "careless or reckless"
clause, where the FAA can say that not following the AIM is careless and
reckless.

I would also be interested in seeing actual cases where the AIM was
cited in an enforcement action (or sufficient evidence that it has never
been cited), so that my belief one way or the other is backed by actual
fact rather than heresay. But my point is not that it has "the force of
law" but that it has "force in the law", which is sufficient.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clearly the AIM (or any Advisory Circular) is not a Regulation.
> However, FAA can use the AIM or such to support say a reckless
> operation FAR violation. The pilot was operating unsafely, because
> we clearly explain how to do things safely in an advisory document.
> All fed agencies do this, not just FAA.
>

Can you give me an example of a practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
the AIM that if not adhered to would demonstrate operation of an aircraft in
a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another?


>
> The AIM can thus been
> quoted even in a federal court decision, typically in a footnote,
> to either support or set aside FAA's argument that an FAR was
> violated.
>

I think there's a typo or two in that sentence. Are you saying AIM has been
quoted in a federal court decision to support an FAA argument that an FAR
was violated? Can you cite such a case?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I believe it has all the regulatory force given to it by the FAA in its
> enforcement actions. This is compounded by the "careless or reckless"
> clause, where the FAA can say that not following the AIM is careless and
> reckless.
>

What regulatory force does the FAA give the AIM in it's enforcement actions?
Can you give me an example of a practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
the AIM that if not adhered to would demonstrate operation of an aircraft in
a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another?

[Jose]

> What regulatory force does the FAA give the AIM in it's enforcement actions?

After the fact, after not following the AIM when you could have done so,
and an accident or other FAA-worthy event occurs, the FAA can cite this
as careless or reckless. The general paranoia about it leads me to
believe that this has occured (though I don't have cites and it is
possible I'm just following the other monkeys)

> Can you give me an example of a practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
> the AIM that if not adhered to would demonstrate operation of an aircraft in
> a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
> another?

It's not me that gives the examples, it's the FAA. After the fact.
There are certainly ways to be careless or reckless while not following
the AIM. I don't believe that all non-AIM procedures are careless or
reckless; that would be silly. But I don't get to decide. The FAA
does, after the fact, on a case by case basis.

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

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

No and yes. First, here's what the AIM says about itself with regard to FAA
regulation:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
requirements in other federal publications or regulations."

(From: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Preface/aim-pol.html#Policy )

But the AIM may be used by other regulatory bodies, such as municipalities,
which explicitly make portions of the AIM regulatory. For example, a quick
Google search shows an example from the Kodiak Alaska Municipal Airport
Ordinance which makes portions of the AIM part of their ordinance:

"18.36.100 Landing and takeoff, monitor frequency requirement. All aircraft
with radios, upon takeoff or landing, shall be required to monitor and
maintain two-way radio communications with frequency 119.8 (Kodiak Tower),
and all aircraft shall comply with the recommended procedures of the
Aeronautical Information Manual. (Ord. 593 §1, 1981; Ord. 406 §3(7), 1973)

18.36.110 Aircraft traffic regulations adopted. The traffic advisory
practices at non-tower airports contained in the Aeronautical Information
Manual, dated July 20, 1995, as regularly updated by the Federal Aviation
Administration and published by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, are adopted and shall constitute the
laws of the city relating to aircraft traffic practices in the Kodiak
Municipal Airport. The city clerk is directed to keep a copy on file in the
clerk's office. (Ord. 1026, 1996; Ord. 435 §2, 1975)"

(From: http://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/citycode/code_18.htm )

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I spoke of the AIM having "force" (quotes included), and that it is
>> generally taken a prescriptive. Nowhere did I use or imply the word
>> "regulatory" - a word you introduced into the discourse. Your
>> question was nonsensical unless you were implying that I was claiming
>> that the AIM had any regulatory force.
>>
>
>The word "force" in this context implies "regulatory". I suggest you avoid
>using words you do not understand.
>
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Since we're offering suggestions, let me suggest that you avoid putting
words in other people's mouths.

It has moral force, in that a failure to heed the AIM can lead to
considerable peer pressure to conform to the Pretty Good Suggestions
it contains. That has no regulatory force, in that you won't face
certificate action for it, but you may well face other action, such
as having an FBO decide that you aren't fit to rent their aircraft.

Naturally, I don't have any specific examples here, but I can visualize
these potential consequences.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[rps]

On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?"

Here's a hypothetical:
1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
some damage to third parties on the ground;
2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.

Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
the pilot of aircraft B.

There was an article in IFR magazine in the early '90s written by an
aviation attorney who, based on his reading of various cases, said that
the AIM has become pseudo-regulatory in the court of law. I'm getting
older and my memory is fading, so I may be wrong. When there is an
accepted or prescribed "standard of behavior," courts are apt to assign
blame to those who don't follow that accepted or prescribed norm.

So, I don't think it matters whether the AIM is regulatory or not.

[Chris]

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?"
>
> Here's a hypothetical:
> 1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
> some damage to third parties on the ground;
> 2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
> AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
> 3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
> to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.
>
> Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
> the pilot of aircraft B.
>
> There was an article in IFR magazine in the early '90s written by an
> aviation attorney who, based on his reading of various cases, said that
> the AIM has become pseudo-regulatory in the court of law. I'm getting
> older and my memory is fading, so I may be wrong. When there is an
> accepted or prescribed "standard of behavior," courts are apt to assign
> blame to those who don't follow that accepted or prescribed norm.
>
> So, I don't think it matters whether the AIM is regulatory or not.
>
The AIM is considered the guide to best practice. Therefore a deviation from
best practice lays one open for scrutiny and sanction. Otherwise the AIM has
no point.

[TaxSrv]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > [Me]: The AIM can thus be quoted even in a federal court
> > decision, typically in a footnote, to either support or set
aside
> > FAA's argument that an FAR was violated.
>
> I think there's a typo or two in that sentence. Are you saying
AIM has been
> quoted in a federal court decision to support an FAA argument
that an FAR
> was violated? Can you cite such a case?
>

First, let's get off the "AIM kick." The AIM is the user-friendly
version of many other things "on the record," exactly like an IRS
Publication. However, now and then even the Tax Court cites an IRS
Pub in a footnote, and in at least one case I recall, in the
opinion body itself. Maybe an FAA case has cited the AIM, or has
not, it really doesn't matter. A distinction without a difference.

Because take the AIM -- remove pure information, like weather,
various approach light systems, hand signals to taxiing aircraft,
and fatherly advice -- and what remains is FAA's position in its
own FARs and Advisory Circulars, and often prior holdings of the
NTSB. So, in litigation, FAA will if need be also cite an Advisory
Circular, if an FAR doesn't contain the specifics of the case at
issue. Like, "What's reckless, if not so obvious?"

NTSB decisions at times refer to Advisory Circulars. In the case
of Garvey v. Macko, the issue was whether an airline crew could
deny a jump-seat ride to an FAA inspector with a beard. The
dispute concerned the potential need to don oxygen masks, and their
effectiveness with a beard. Advisory Circulars were cited as
relevant to the matter, like the precise definition of
"crewmember," meaning FAA interpreting its own rules (FARs). This
legal principle is called "due deference [to agency interpretations
of its own rules -- FARs]."

So will then federal courts. In Woolsey v. NTSB, in the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals (1991), the issue was whether the company
was Part 91 or 135 while carrying Reba McIntyre's band, plus other
big-name musicians too as part of their business plan. Advisory
Circulars were cited in the actual opinion body as to FAA's
definition of "common carriage."

Fred F.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> No and yes. First, here's what the AIM says about itself with regard to
> FAA
> regulation:
>
> "This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
> reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
> requirements in other federal publications or regulations."
>
> (From: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Preface/aim-pol.html#Policy )
>
> But the AIM may be used by other regulatory bodies, such as
> municipalities,
> which explicitly make portions of the AIM regulatory. For example, a quick
> Google search shows an example from the Kodiak Alaska Municipal Airport
> Ordinance which makes portions of the AIM part of their ordinance:
>
> "18.36.100 Landing and takeoff, monitor frequency requirement. All
> aircraft
> with radios, upon takeoff or landing, shall be required to monitor and
> maintain two-way radio communications with frequency 119.8 (Kodiak Tower),
> and all aircraft shall comply with the recommended procedures of the
> Aeronautical Information Manual. (Ord. 593 §1, 1981; Ord. 406 §3(7), 1973)
>
> 18.36.110 Aircraft traffic regulations adopted. The traffic advisory
> practices at non-tower airports contained in the Aeronautical Information
> Manual, dated July 20, 1995, as regularly updated by the Federal Aviation
> Administration and published by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box
> 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, are adopted and shall constitute the
> laws of the city relating to aircraft traffic practices in the Kodiak
> Municipal Airport. The city clerk is directed to keep a copy on file in
> the
> clerk's office. (Ord. 1026, 1996; Ord. 435 §2, 1975)"
>
> (From: http://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/citycode/code_18.htm )
>

When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following the
traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
Aeronautical Information
Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the city
ordinance?

[Jose]

> When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following the
> traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
> Aeronautical Information
> Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the city
> ordinance?

It doesn't matter. The pilot is cited. Therefore the AIM has
regulatory force. It is true that the cited example does not show that
the AIM has force through the FAA - the city of Kodiak could just as
well have made Skylune's posts regulatory. This is how building codes
work - some group of people gets together and decides what they like to
see, they publish a guidebook and sell it for huge amounts of money and
convince municipalities to adopt it, thus generating book sales.
Robert's Rules of Order works that way too.

Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a
ruling that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of
the AIM, then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?"
>
> Here's a hypothetical:
> 1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
> some damage to third parties on the ground;
> 2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
> AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
> 3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
> to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.
>
> Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
> the pilot of aircraft B.
>

How were they in compliance with all FARs? It appears to me that both
pilots violated FAR 91.111. What procedure recommended by the AIM did pilot
B fail to follow?

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following
> the traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
> Aeronautical Information
> Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the
> city ordinance?

The following is only a guess - consult a lawyer or the city of Kodiak for
the straight scoop: the citation would have to list the city code at least
- it might or might not list the AIM paragraphs that were violated in order
to be more specific.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> It doesn't matter.

Yes it does.


>
> The pilot is cited.

What is he cited with?


>
> Therefore the AIM has regulatory force.

If the AIM had regulatory force why did the city of Kodiak feel the need to
create the referenced city ordinances? Why didn't they just rely on the
regulatory force of the AIM?


>
> It is true that the cited example does not show that the AIM has force
> through the FAA - the city of Kodiak could just as well have made
> Skylune's posts regulatory. This is how building codes work - some group
> of people gets together and decides what they like to see, they publish a
> guidebook and sell it for huge amounts of money and convince
> municipalities to adopt it, thus generating book sales. Robert's Rules of
> Order works that way too.
>
> Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a ruling
> that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of the AIM,
> then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?
>

If the procedures in the AIM were established as regulations through the
specified rulemaking process they would then be regulatory.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The following is only a guess - consult a lawyer or the city of Kodiak for
> the straight scoop: the citation would have to list the city code at least
> - it might or might not list the AIM paragraphs that were violated in
> order
> to be more specific.
>

The citation would have to show what law was violated, the only law violated
would be the city ordinances.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> After the fact, after not following the AIM when you could have done so,
> and an accident or other FAA-worthy event occurs, the FAA can cite this as
> careless or reckless. The general paranoia about it leads me to believe
> that this has occured (though I don't have cites and it is possible I'm
> just following the other monkeys)
>

Do you mean you'd be charged with violating FAR 91.13(a)?


>
> It's not me that gives the examples, it's the FAA. After the fact. There
> are certainly ways to be careless or reckless while not following the AIM.
> I don't believe that all non-AIM procedures are careless or reckless; that
> would be silly. But I don't get to decide. The FAA does, after the fact,
> on a case by case basis.
>

I was asking for your opinion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
>
> Since we're offering suggestions, let me suggest that you avoid putting
> words in other people's mouths.
>

Calm down. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, we're using the words you
selected.


>
> It has moral force, in that a failure to heed the AIM can lead to
> considerable peer pressure to conform to the Pretty Good Suggestions
> it contains. That has no regulatory force, in that you won't face
> certificate action for it, but you may well face other action, such
> as having an FBO decide that you aren't fit to rent their aircraft.
>

What about the legal force you attributed to the AIM?

[Jose]

> Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

> What is he cited with?

It doesn't matter. He's cited for violating the law, a law which has
incorporated the AIM into it.

> If the AIM had regulatory force why did the city of Kodiak feel the need to
> create the referenced city ordinances?

To get in on the action.

> If the procedures in the AIM were established as regulations through the
> specified rulemaking process they would then be regulatory.

That is a true statement which does not quite answer my question. Would
the promulgation of a ruling that all aircraft whall comply with the
recommended procedures of the AIM count as establihing it as a
regulation through the specified rulemaking process?

Of course, you see what's coming. Assuming yes, I would next ask
whether a court case holding that pilots must comply with the AIM would
count as regulatory. I bet you'd answer no, I would then generalize
that you don't think courts of law have regulatory force. It is true
that they do not have =legistlative= force, but courts of law certainly
do have regulatory force, especially as case law is often cited in the
courts (FAA and otherwise) to bolster a case.

It is upon the force of case law in general that I base my belief that
the AIM has (some) regulatory force.

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

[Jose]

> Do you mean you'd be charged with violating FAR 91.13(a)?

Yes. And "careless or reckless" is just a matter of opinion. The AIM
can be used to bolster the FAA's opinion, and when a case is decided on
that basis, the AIM becomes part of that case law inasmuch as it forms
the basis for the opinion the FAA claims. It then gains regulatory
force. The more such cases, the more force it has.

> I was asking for your opinion.

Not everything that is legal is safe. Not everything that is safe is
legal. Not every safe and prudent procedure is in the AIM. Just
because a procedure is in the AIM does not mean it is the only safe way
to do something.

You can do something "safely" and still have an accident. That's why
they call them "accidents". Safety is relative, not absolute; calling a
procedure unsafe just because an accident resulted when following a
procedure is improper hindsight. The procedure may well be unsafe, but
that determination should be independent of any individual outcome.

The AIM should be a guide, not a law. I think that, as we seek more and
more to blame others for bad things that happen, more rules will be
made, more guides will be turned into rules, and there will be more
legal consequences of going against the flow.

I think low wing airplanes should be designed with lightweight diesel
engines in mind, which would enable the wings to be further back from
the pilot and afford better visibility downward. I think it wouldn't
make much difference anyway though.

And I think that if we are going to attempt to get at the finer points
of our disagreements, it can be done more cooperatively.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No it doesn't.
>

Explain how.


>
> It doesn't matter. He's cited for violating the law, a law which has
> incorporated the AIM into it.
>

What law is he cited with violating?


>
> To get in on the action.
>

They pass laws without purpose?


>
> That is a true statement which does not quite answer my question.
>

You asked your question poorly, my answer provides the information you were
seeking.


>
> Would
> the promulgation of a ruling that all aircraft whall comply with the
> recommended procedures of the AIM count as establihing it as a regulation
> through the specified rulemaking process?
>

Of course not.


>
> Of course, you see what's coming. Assuming yes, I would next ask whether
> a court case holding that pilots must comply with the AIM would count as
> regulatory. I bet you'd answer no, I would then generalize that you don't
> think courts of law have regulatory force. It is true that they do not
> have =legistlative= force, but courts of law certainly do have regulatory
> force, especially as case law is often cited in the courts (FAA and
> otherwise) to bolster a case.
>
> It is upon the force of case law in general that I base my belief that the
> AIM has (some) regulatory force.
>

Cite some of those cases where pilots were charged with violating the AIM.

[Jose]

> Explain how.

Explain why it does.

> What law is he cited with violating?

The law in question, which says that the AIM is to be followed.

> They pass laws without purpose?

Don't most governments?

> You asked your question poorly, my answer provides the information you were
> seeking.

I asked my question precisely. It was
"Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a
ruling that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of
the AIM, then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?"

The answer is either yes, or no. I didn't ask for information which
would allow me to infer what your answer is, I asked what your answer
was. Explain further if you think the question is of the "do you still
beat your wife" variety, but the answer is still either yes or no. For
the record, no, I don't still beat my wife. :)

>> Would
>> the promulgation of a ruling that all aircraft shall comply with the
>> recommended procedures of the AIM count as establihing it as a regulation
>> through the specified rulemaking process?
>
> Of course not.

Ok, here we differ in a meaningful way, though it's admittedly a fine
point of law (and in typical Usenet tradition, neither of us are
lawyers). I admit that, were such a rule to be promulgated, and were
such a rule to have the force of law which you deny it has, it would
essentially allow changes to be made to the law (by changing the AIM)
without going through the public rulemaking process, and that this would
defeat one of the checks and balances on a free society.

It seems that you think that because of this, it must not be so. I
think that despite this, it is so.

Building codes are made law this way. Here's a challenge for anybody
who is willing to take it (I've been unsuccessful myself) - on spas
there is a requirement to place a warning to the effect that immersion
at 104 degrees should be limited to 15 minutes. At "lower" temperatures
one can remain "longer". I cannot find the ultimate source of this -
neither the group that made the "guideline" that was codified into law
by ruling bodies elsewhere, nor the research that one presumes should
have been done to justify it. And specifically, =how= much longer can
one stay in when the temperature is =how= much lower.

I don't think the FAA has done this with the AIM in a legislative
fashion. But case law is valid law too, and sufficient case law can
give the AIM some legal force.

> Cite some of those cases where pilots were charged with violating the AIM.

That I cannot do, but my lack of ability to do so does not a priori
indicate that there are no such cases. I would be interested in hearing
about any such cases myself, so that my opinion on the matter could be
based on hard fact, rather than heresay (or lack of it).

Jose










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

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
>>
>> Since we're offering suggestions, let me suggest that you avoid putting
>> words in other people's mouths.
>
>Calm down. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, we're using the words you
>selected.

I'm quite calm. As for you second statement, it's rubbish. You are
attributing to me assertions not supported by the words I have written.
Those assertions depend on a curious reading of my words (at best) --
readings I have specifically disclaimed -- or words I didn't write.

You are playing the Humpty Dumpty game. The words mean what I want
them to mean when I want them to mean it. You give the appearance
of playing word games without giving the slightest bit of flexibility
to what anyone else says if you deem it to be the slightest bit "off".
Yet, you seem to not apply that standard to yourself. Sad.
>
>> It has moral force, in that a failure to heed the AIM can lead to
>> considerable peer pressure to conform to the Pretty Good Suggestions
>> it contains. That has no regulatory force, in that you won't face
>> certificate action for it, but you may well face other action, such
>> as having an FBO decide that you aren't fit to rent their aircraft.
>
>What about the legal force you attributed to the AIM?
>
Please cite the words where I attributed "legal force" to the AIM.
I claim that you can't. I didn't make that claim.

Your question comes perilously close to "Have you stopped beating
your wife yet?"

It's absurd.

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> Howdy!
>
> In article . net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>
>>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> Since we're offering suggestions, let me suggest that you avoid putting
>>> words in other people's mouths.
>>
>>Calm down. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, we're using the words
>>you
>>selected.
>
> I'm quite calm. As for you second statement, it's rubbish. You are
> attributing to me assertions not supported by the words I have written.
> Those assertions depend on a curious reading of my words (at best) --
> readings I have specifically disclaimed -- or words I didn't write.
>
> You are playing the Humpty Dumpty game. The words mean what I want
> them to mean when I want them to mean it. You give the appearance
> of playing word games without giving the slightest bit of flexibility
> to what anyone else says if you deem it to be the slightest bit "off".
> Yet, you seem to not apply that standard to yourself. Sad.
>>
>>> It has moral force, in that a failure to heed the AIM can lead to
>>> considerable peer pressure to conform to the Pretty Good Suggestions
>>> it contains. That has no regulatory force, in that you won't face
>>> certificate action for it, but you may well face other action, such
>>> as having an FBO decide that you aren't fit to rent their aircraft.
>>
>>What about the legal force you attributed to the AIM?
>>
> Please cite the words where I attributed "legal force" to the AIM.
> I claim that you can't. I didn't make that claim.
>
> Your question comes perilously close to "Have you stopped beating
> your wife yet?"
>
> It's absurd.
>

Oh, but I CAN cite the words where you attributed "legal force" to the AIM,
you DID make that claim. The following verbatim quote was posted by one
Michael Houghton on Monday, October 17, 2005 1:12 PM:

"Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yes. And "careless or reckless" is just a matter of opinion. The AIM can
> be used to bolster the FAA's opinion, and when a case is decided on that
> basis, the AIM becomes part of that case law inasmuch as it forms the
> basis for the opinion the FAA claims. It then gains regulatory force.
> The more such cases, the more force it has.
>

So anytime a pilot does something that differs from a practice, technique,
procedure, etc., from the AIM he can be charged with operating an aircraft
in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another? Can a pilot be so charged without operating contrary to a
practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
the AIM?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Explain why it does.
>

I'll happily answer your question after you answer mine.


>
> The law in question, which says that the AIM is to be followed.
>

Correct. He is cited with violating the local ordinance, not with violating
the AIM.


>
> Don't most governments?
>

Not that I'm aware of. Can you cite some examples of laws passed without
purpose?


>
> I asked my question precisely.
>

You asked your question in a manner that demonstrated ignorance of the
rulemaking process. I told you what was needed to make the procedures in
the AIM regulatory.


>
> It was
> "Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a ruling
> that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of the AIM,
> then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?"
>

No.

[Jose]

> So anytime a pilot does something that differs from a practice, technique,
> procedure, etc., from the AIM he can be charged with operating an aircraft
> in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
> another? Can a pilot be so charged without operating contrary to a
> practice, technique, procedure, etc., from the AIM?

Yes, of course.

But if it's in the AIM, it's much more an open and shut case. "Good
practice" has already been defined, and you didn't do it. It becomes up
to you to make the case that all that went into the AIM is trumped by
your particulars that day, where what you did ended up badly.

OTOH, if you =did= engage in FAA approved "good practice", then it's
more up to the FAA to show that your particulars should have trumped
what they have already defined.

In practice, has it made a difference? I really don't know, since I
have not studied the cases (a point which you keep making). However,
the theory is certainly compelling, especially in light of the general
way the world is going these days.

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

[Jose]

> You asked your question in a manner that demonstrated ignorance of the
> rulemaking process. I told you what was needed to make the procedures in
> the AIM regulatory.

.... which is no reason not to answer the question itself. In any case,
I am not completely ignorant of the rulemaking process, and the
ignorance I do have is not a factor here. We are not differing on that
point, despite appearances. Where we are differing is on how the words
"regulatory force" are being used.

First, I do not use it in an absolute sense. This should be apparant
from the discussion, and from earlier posts where I explicitly stated
it. I use it to mean something like "has the effect of putting the
pilot who goes against the reccomendations at a significant disadvantage
in arguing a legal case which stems, at least in part, from not
following the guidelines."

When you hear the words "regulatory force", you interpret it as meaning
something like "is a legal law resulting from the FAA rulemaking
process". While the words "regulatory force" can =also= be used in this
manner, it's not what I mean here. Many words are like that.

Often, the arguments I have seen here with you fall into the category of
interpreting somebody else's words in a manner different from what that
other poster intended. I see it so often it appears to be deliberate on
your part. Perhaps it is not and you actually have a hard time
inferring intended meaning from context. Whatever.

Let me try this way:

>> "Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a ruling
>> that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of the AIM,
>> then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?"
>
> No.

In the same situation, would you expect that a pilot violating the AIM
while being responsible for some sort of harm caused by his or her
piloting would have a harder time defending themselves to the FAA than
if they had been following the AIM? If so, is there a word you would
replace "regulatory" with in my question above, which would convey that
idea, and to which you would answer "yes" in my thus modified question?

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

[Michael Houghton]

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>Oh, but I CAN cite the words where you attributed "legal force" to the AIM,
>you DID make that claim. The following verbatim quote was posted by one
>Michael Houghton on Monday, October 17, 2005 1:12 PM:
>
>"Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
>has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary."
>
That statement does *not* assert that the AIM *does* have legal force.
It allows the possibility that it might have legal force, but no more
than it allows for moral force. The value of the statement does not
rely on the AIM having (specifically) *legal* force. You twist my words
to beat your horse.

I made that statement as a broadly worded statement that did not claim
what sort of force (if any) the AIM actually has in a specific situation.

Pray read my words with greater care.

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> That statement does *not* assert that the AIM *does* have legal force.
> It allows the possibility that it might have legal force, but no more
> than it allows for moral force. The value of the statement does not
> rely on the AIM having (specifically) *legal* force. You twist my words
> to beat your horse.
>
> I made that statement as a broadly worded statement that did not claim
> what sort of force (if any) the AIM actually has in a specific situation.
>
> Pray read my words with greater care.
>

You selected words that attributed legal force to the AIM, there's no
denying that.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > once again completely
twisted things by leaving out one word:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That statement does *not* assert that the AIM *does* have legal force.
>> It allows the possibility that it might have legal force, but no more
>> than it allows for moral force. The value of the statement does not
>> rely on the AIM having (specifically) *legal* force. You twist my words
>> to beat your horse.
>>
>> I made that statement as a broadly worded statement that did not claim
>> what sort of force (if any) the AIM actually has in a specific situation.
>>
>> Pray read my words with greater care.
>>
>
>You selected words that attributed legal force to the AIM, there's no
>denying that.
>
That's absolute rubbish. Period. Stop. End of story. I presumed that your
command of the English language was better than this. Either you are a
complete idiot or you are a troll. I'm hard pressed to find another
conclusion.

To reiterate: the statement you cited *does* *not* *attribute* legal force
to the AIM. It allows the *possibility* that it has legal force, but it
does not assert that. You cannot infer that I attribute legal force to the
AIM from that statement. Your interpretation simply does not follow.

You are welcome to repeat your inane comment, but repetition does not
make it valid, nor true, nor a logical deduction.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's absolute rubbish. Period. Stop. End of story. I presumed that your
> command of the English language was better than this. Either you are a
> complete idiot or you are a troll. I'm hard pressed to find another
> conclusion.
>
> To reiterate: the statement you cited *does* *not* *attribute* legal force
> to the AIM. It allows the *possibility* that it has legal force, but it
> does not assert that. You cannot infer that I attribute legal force to the
> AIM from that statement. Your interpretation simply does not follow.
>
> You are welcome to repeat your inane comment, but repetition does not
> make it valid, nor true, nor a logical deduction.
>

You're absolutely wrong. It would have been best for you to simply admit
the error and move on.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That's absolute rubbish. Period. Stop. End of story. I presumed that your
>> command of the English language was better than this. Either you are a
>> complete idiot or you are a troll. I'm hard pressed to find another
>> conclusion.
>>
>> To reiterate: the statement you cited *does* *not* *attribute* legal force
>> to the AIM. It allows the *possibility* that it has legal force, but it
>> does not assert that. You cannot infer that I attribute legal force to the
>> AIM from that statement. Your interpretation simply does not follow.
>>
>> You are welcome to repeat your inane comment, but repetition does not
>> make it valid, nor true, nor a logical deduction.
>>
>
> You're absolutely wrong. It would have been best for you to simply admit
> the error and move on.

Steven, Steven, Steven..

I've been following this thread for quite a while, and you do
have a tendency to egg a lot of people on with a holier than thou
attitude. That may sort of work for you in the facility that you're at,
but bloody hell, give people credit for being more than what you think
you are. You're not the only knowledge base here. You may think you're
right all the time, but even you are wrong. It's rather pathetic of you
to think that others can't be right about something you must think
you're the only authority on, and insist on having to cite references
for each and every individual thing.

As for twisting words around, you *DO* do that. You've done
that with me on a number of occasions, trying to make people seem like
fools, when they know what they have said, and how they meant what they
said. Yes, people comprehend things differently, but just because it
isn't the way YOU comprehend it does not make them wrong.

In short, grow up, and also admit that others can be right as
well as you, and move on.

As for the thread, Yes, the AIM is a guideline, but if someone
were to be taken to task either by the FAA, the court, or what have
you, you can guarantee that if it were something in the AIM that was
violated, the prosecuting party would definitely use it as reference
for what was violated, therefore giving the AIM legal ground and
subjecting the defendent to ramifications from violating it. Guideline
or not, it is still a legal document published by the FAA, and will be
used as such.

Before you ask, no I do not have any references for you to
cite. It is sheer common knowledge that either has been, or will be
applied when something like this comes up. If you want a reference,
look for one yourself. But enough of your making people look like
fools. It's tiresome, tedious, and outright immature for someone in
your position.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDXb/PyBkZmuMZ8L8RAmA9AJ4h0up1wUbBvI5J0fg3nd+kBp9stQCfa R1T
sGkd/VvBQ5M+ZypjUsFgkvg=
=lI74
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > demonstrated a delusion
that he can read minds:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That's absolute rubbish. Period. Stop. End of story. I presumed that your
>> command of the English language was better than this. Either you are a
>> complete idiot or you are a troll. I'm hard pressed to find another
>> conclusion.
>>
>> To reiterate: the statement you cited *does* *not* *attribute* legal force
>> to the AIM. It allows the *possibility* that it has legal force, but it
>> does not assert that. You cannot infer that I attribute legal force to the
>> AIM from that statement. Your interpretation simply does not follow.
>>
>> You are welcome to repeat your inane comment, but repetition does not
>> make it valid, nor true, nor a logical deduction.
>
>You're absolutely wrong. It would have been best for you to simply admit
>the error and move on.
>
You must be talking to yourself there, Steve.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[rps]

On Oct 17, 3:34 pm, Steven P. McNicoll said:
"Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to
the AIM."

In response, Todd Pattist wrote wrote "There aren't any."

Don't be so quick. Here are some cases that hold that violation of the
AIM can be used to charge a pilot with violating his or her duty of
care:

Management Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d at 1175
(sorry, I don't have the full legal cite for this one, but this cite
should help you find it accurately);
Dyer v. United States, 832 F.2d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.1987);
First of America Bank-Cent v. United States, 639 F.Supp. at 453;
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. United States, 462 F.Supp. 674; and
Thinguldstad v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 551, 552-53 (S.D.Ohio 1972).

[Lakeview Bill]

How about some links?

I have not been able to find anything about any of the cases you cited.



"rps" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 17, 3:34 pm, Steven P. McNicoll said:
> "Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to
> the AIM."
>
> In response, Todd Pattist wrote wrote "There aren't any."
>
> Don't be so quick. Here are some cases that hold that violation of the
> AIM can be used to charge a pilot with violating his or her duty of
> care:
>
> Management Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d at 1175
> (sorry, I don't have the full legal cite for this one, but this cite
> should help you find it accurately);
> Dyer v. United States, 832 F.2d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.1987);
> First of America Bank-Cent v. United States, 639 F.Supp. at 453;
> Associated Aviation Underwriters v. United States, 462 F.Supp. 674; and
> Thinguldstad v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 551, 552-53 (S.D.Ohio 1972).
>

[rps]

If you're willing to pay money, try www.westlaw.com or
www.lexisnexis.com. Otherwise, head to a law library with public
access. Failing that, ask your attorney to provide copies of the
cases.

[Tom]

I agree. If one looks at the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) as an
example, once finds notations called "Interpretations" usually at the end of
a specific regulation. These have been found to be legal and binding by the
courts.
If one looks at the AIM as interpretations of the FAR's (and I don't think
that is a reach) it seems like one could be held accountable by the FAA, if
one were to disregard information found in the AIM.
Whether the city of Kodiak could enforce anything written in the AIM and/or
the FAR's is another question. Historically States do not specifically
enforce Federal law, they usually make their own, but must be less than or
equal in severity to Federal laws. (i.e., if there is a Federal ban on
executions of criminals, States cannot enact laws to execute people and then
actually put them to death.)

Tom

"rps" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 17, 3:34 pm, Steven P. McNicoll said:
> "Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to
> the AIM."
>
> In response, Todd Pattist wrote wrote "There aren't any."
>
> Don't be so quick. Here are some cases that hold that violation of the
> AIM can be used to charge a pilot with violating his or her duty of
> care:
>
> Management Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d at 1175
> (sorry, I don't have the full legal cite for this one, but this cite
> should help you find it accurately);
> Dyer v. United States, 832 F.2d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.1987);
> First of America Bank-Cent v. United States, 639 F.Supp. at 453;
> Associated Aviation Underwriters v. United States, 462 F.Supp. 674; and
> Thinguldstad v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 551, 552-53 (S.D.Ohio 1972).
>