Runway Numbering - Radio Procedure

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the listener
thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents this
possibility.
Obviously this problem only occurs with a limited number of runway
alignments.

The "Runway Zero Two" for someone speaking at 120 words per minute occupies
1/2 second more than "Runway Two."

[Jim Burns]

We've got Rwy 03/21 and 30/12 at STE. I always say Zero Three when using
that runway for exactly the reason you indicate.
Jim

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the listener
> thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents this
> possibility.
> Obviously this problem only occurs with a limited number of runway
> alignments.
>
> The "Runway Zero Two" for someone speaking at 120 words per minute
occupies
> 1/2 second more than "Runway Two."
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the listener
> thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents this
> possibility.
>

Why does announcing "Runway Two Zero" allow the last digit to be cut off
while announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents the last digit from being cut
off?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> We've got Rwy 03/21 and 30/12 at STE.
>

No, you've got Rwy 3/21 and 30/12 at STE.

[BTIZ]

what is the problem of thinking rwy two or rwy zero-two are they not the
same runway?
BT

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the listener
> thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents this
> possibility.
> Obviously this problem only occurs with a limited number of runway
> alignments.
>
> The "Runway Zero Two" for someone speaking at 120 words per minute
> occupies 1/2 second more than "Runway Two."
>
>

[Lakeview Bill]

No, because there are no runways named "zero-two" in the US...



"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:VjR5f.13018$MN6.12287@fed1read04...
> what is the problem of thinking rwy two or rwy zero-two are they not the
> same runway?
> BT
>
> "Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the listener
> > thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents this
> > possibility.
> > Obviously this problem only occurs with a limited number of runway
> > alignments.
> >
> > The "Runway Zero Two" for someone speaking at 120 words per minute
> > occupies 1/2 second more than "Runway Two."
> >
> >
>
>

[John T]

Daniel L. Lieberman wrote:
>
> If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the
> listener thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents
> this possibility.

....but it introduces the possibility of the listener hearing "runway zero".
How is that any better?

It's best to use the numbers painted on the runway.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Mike W.]

If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in the
transmission.

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Daniel L. Lieberman wrote:
> >
> > If one announces "Runway Two Zero" but the "Zero" is cutoff the
> > listener thinks "Runway Two". Announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents
> > this possibility.
>
> ...but it introduces the possibility of the listener hearing "runway
zero".
> How is that any better?
>
> It's best to use the numbers painted on the runway.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>
>

[BTIZ]

>
> It's best to use the numbers painted on the runway.
>
> --
> John T

Roger,... landing on runway 2 over L
or wooould that be.. runway 2 divided by L?

For everyone else.. That would be Runway Two Left
I hate it when people call "on the downwind for two" or "two zero", and
don't specify Left or Right downwind or Left or Right Runway
BT

[John T]

"Mike W." > wrote in message

>
> If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in
> the transmission.

Similarly, if you're in the pattern for runway 20 and you hear somebody
announce "[your airport] traffic, N123 base, runway 2[garbled]", you can
assume you've missed something. You still haven't made a case for using
anything but the numbers painted on the runway.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Icebound]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "Mike W." > wrote in message
>
>>
>> If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in
>> the transmission.
>
> Similarly, if you're in the pattern for runway 20 and you hear somebody
> announce "[your airport] traffic, N123 base, runway 2[garbled]", you can
> assume you've missed something. You still haven't made a case for using
> anything but the numbers painted on the runway.
>


Well, yes, the case is easy to make.

If everybody used the leading zero all the time, then you KNOW FOR SURE
anytime you hear less than two digits, then you have missed something.

If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.

Shortening a direction-based entity in this way is unnatural and causes
confusion. Even the FAA's own NACO chart-selection web site, uses the
leading zeros in the index, and then omits them on the charts..

[Jose]

> Why does announcing "Runway Two Zero" allow the last digit to be cut off
> while announcing "Runway "Zero Two" prevents the last digit from being cut
> off?

It doesn't. It prevents the last digit from being cut off =unawares=.
It acts as a checksum of sorts. If all runways are two digits, then any
transmission missing a digit is suspect. If some are one and some are
two, then there are some cases where an error would not be noted; this
is especially the case with runway 2-20, both of which exist on most
airports for which one exists.

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

[Jose]

> I once flew to an ratehr rundown airport with a 2-20. The Unicom was
> so badly garbled that I even after asking Unicom to "say again" three
> or four times, I had no idea whether the guy was saying "zero two" or
> "two zero."

"Runway one plus one, or runway ten plus ten?"

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

[vincent p. norris]

>.... this is especially the case with runway 2-20, both of which exist on most
>airports for which one exists.

I once flew to an ratehr rundown airport with a 2-20. The Unicom was
so badly garbled that I even after asking Unicom to "say again" three
or four times, I had no idea whether the guy was saying "zero two" or
"two zero."

No wind tee, wind sock to bedraggled to make out from pattern
altitude.

Based on winds in the general area, I suspected he was saying "zero
two" so I asked him "Runway 2?" and he came back with the same number
of garbled sylables as before.

Hearing no other traffic after two circuits, I finally just landed on
runway 2 and tried to teach the guy how to announce runways.

Had he said "Runway two," I would have known from the number of
syllables which runway he meant.

vince norris

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It doesn't. It prevents the last digit from being cut off =unawares=. It
> acts as a checksum of sorts. If all runways are two digits, then any
> transmission missing a digit is suspect. If some are one and some are
> two, then there are some cases where an error would not be noted; this is
> especially the case with runway 2-20, both of which exist on most airports
> for which one exists.
>

Wouldn't the gap in the transmission do that?

[Jose]

>> It doesn't. It prevents the last digit from being cut off =unawares=. It
>> acts as a checksum of sorts. If all runways are two digits, then any
>> transmission missing a digit is suspect. If some are one and some are
>> two, then there are some cases where an error would not be noted; this is
>> especially the case with runway 2-20, both of which exist on most airports
>> for which one exists.
>>
>
> Wouldn't the gap in the transmission do that?

Maybe. But not certainly. People don't always speak with the same
cadence, so time is a poor checksum.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
> If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in the
> transmission.
>

Two things, actually, the runway and the airport.

[Jose]

>> If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in the
>> transmission.
> Two things, actually, the runway and the airport.
>

Yes, but missing the airport does not imply a transmission error. The
airport simply may not have been transmitted. Poor form, but not a data
error.

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

[Joe Johnson]

Hi Jose. I like your checksum argument. It's two digits for me from now
on, and we should urge everyone to adopt this convention.

[Jose]

> Hi Jose. I like your checksum argument. It's two digits for me from now
> on, and we should urge everyone to adopt this convention.

It's actually somebody else's idea, though I recognized it as like a
checksum. However, "zero two" and "two zero" can be confused with each
other even when each is clearly heard.

You've all heard of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He stayed up all
night wondering if there really was a dog.

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

[Tauno Voipio]

Jose wrote:
>> Hi Jose. I like your checksum argument. It's two digits for me from now
>> on, and we should urge everyone to adopt this convention.
>
>
> It's actually somebody else's idea, though I recognized it as like a
> checksum. However, "zero two" and "two zero" can be confused with each
> other even when each is clearly heard.

There is another pair: 13-31.

At least here, the combinations 02-20 and 13-31 are avoided
by naming the runway to the next available direction, so it
may be up to 10 degrees off course. An example is Mariehamn,
Aland Islands: the runway is 021/201 degrees, but the naming
is 03-21.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[vincent p. norris]

>> I once flew to an ratehr rundown airport with a 2-20. The Unicom was
>> so badly garbled that I even after asking Unicom to "say again" three
>> or four times, I had no idea whether the guy was saying "zero two" or
>> "two zero."
>
>"Runway one plus one, or runway ten plus ten?"

You don't think it's likely that the Unicom guy would say anything
like that, do you? If he had it wouldn't have helped; same number of
syllables either way.

vince norris

[Jose]

>>"Runway one plus one, or runway ten plus ten?"
>
> You don't think it's likely that the Unicom guy would say anything
> like that, do you? If he had it wouldn't have helped; same number of
> syllables either way.

No, but if I were repeately unable to ascertain "two zero" or "two
static" I would ask that question.

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

[Stefan]

Jose wrote:

> No, but if I were repeately unable to ascertain "two zero" or "two
> static" I would ask that question.

I would simply ask north or south.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, yes, the case is easy to make.
>
> If everybody used the leading zero all the time, then you KNOW FOR SURE
> anytime you hear less than two digits, then you have missed something.
>

How do I know the digits haven't been transposed? If I hear, "Podunk
traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind runway zero
two, stop-and-go, Podunk", how do I know the pilot didn't mean to say,
"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind runway
two zero, stop-and-go, Podunk." Podunk does have a runway two zero, but it
has no runway designated zero two.


>
> If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
> no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.
>

What might I have missed if I hear,"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero
one victor, entering downwind runway two, stop-and-go, Podunk."


>
> Shortening a direction-based entity in this way is unnatural and causes
> confusion. Even the FAA's own NACO chart-selection web site, uses the
> leading zeros in the index, and then omits them on the charts..
>

That may be only a software requirement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Maybe. But not certainly. People don't always speak with the same
> cadence, so time is a poor checksum.
>

That problem is better solved by making sure you speak with the same cadence
than by adding a superfluous digit.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, but missing the airport does not imply a transmission error. The
> airport simply may not have been transmitted. Poor form, but not a data
> error.
>

Not a data error? If the pilot doesn't identify the airport I may have to
ask him where he's going. If he does identify it and it's not the airport
I'm going to I can ignore him. The location is important data.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi Jose. I like your checksum argument. It's two digits for me from now
> on, and we should urge everyone to adopt this convention.
>

Except those operating at Kodiak, of course.

[Jose]

>> No, but if I were repeately unable to ascertain "two zero" or "two static" I would ask that question.
>
>
> I would simply ask north or south.

Better.

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

[Jose]

>>If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
>> no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.
>>
> What might I have missed if I hear,"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero
> one victor, entering downwind runway two, stop-and-go, Podunk."

"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind
runway two ZERO, stop-and-go, Podunk."

He's actually coming the other way, head on to you who hears "runway
two, stop and go..."

> How do I know the digits haven't been transposed?

I suppose you don't, and that's the argument for omitting the leading
zero. Further, you could hear it correctly and transpose it in your own
mind.

Which one trumps the other? I don't think either is trump. Do what
other pilots expect to hear, whether by local practice or AIM.

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

[Jose]

> Not a data error? If the pilot doesn't identify the airport I may have to
> ask him where he's going. If he does identify it and it's not the airport
> I'm going to I can ignore him. The location is important data.

Correct. Not a data error (more precisely, not an indication that what
was understood is different from what was transmitted). It may well be
an error on the part of the person transmitting to omit the data, but
that's not the kind of error that pertains to "zero two".

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
. ..
>
> "Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind
> runway two ZERO, stop-and-go, Podunk."
>
> He's actually coming the other way, head on to you who hears "runway two,
> stop and go..."
>

Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.


>
> I suppose you don't, and that's the argument for omitting the leading
> zero. Further, you could hear it correctly and transpose it in your own
> mind.
>
> Which one trumps the other? I don't think either is trump. Do what other
> pilots expect to hear, whether by local practice or AIM.
>

Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Note that all of the scenarios used to support the use of the leading zero
rely on improper phraseology. If proper phraseology is used the leading
zero provides nothing positive, but if it is used it creates the possibility
for confusion as it can be transposed with the other digit. That
possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
10/28.

Bottom line, the leading zero should not be used.

[vincent p. norris]

>I would simply ask north or south.

The garbling prevented my distinguishing between "zero two" and "two
zero," so I surely wouldn't have been able to distinguish "north"
from "south."

vince norris

[Jose]

> Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
> He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.

Yes, but =she= (the next week) spoke slower, and with a more varied cadence.

> Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Well, the discussion here shows that there =is= some question about it,
just not in your mind. I tend to agree with you that non-use is
probably better. However, it is not without benefit.

As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
the same.

> That
> possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
> intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
> 10/28.

Good point.

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

[Gerald Sylvester]

Jose wrote:
> As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
> Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
> the same.

correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since
the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
anything wrong with following international standard as international
aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

Gerald Sylvester

[George Patterson]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
> not give a damn about international standard.

As have the aviation boards of every other country, as far as they can. It's the
only way they can keep their turf.

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.

[Stefan]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> BTW, I've heard many
> complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
> non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
> and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

The main problem with US pilots is that they often speak some
undefinable mumblejumble instead of English...

Stefan

[John Clonts]

Yeah, or even being able to distinguish "landing from the south" vs
"landing to the south" :)

[Andrew Sarangan]

Since when did US prevent foreign-registered aircrafy from landing in
the US?

Can you cite specific examples of US pilots phrasology causing dangerous
conditions?






Gerald Sylvester > wrote in
:

>
> correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
> in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards.
> Since the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to
> international standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they
> see fit and not give a damn about international standard. For this, I
> don't see anything wrong with following international standard as
> international aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW,
> I've heard many complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way
> too much non-international standard phraseology making it hard to
> understand and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.
>
> Gerald Sylvester
>
>
>



--
Andrew Sarangan
CFII
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/

[Gerald Sylvester]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Can you cite specific examples of US pilots phrasology causing dangerous
> conditions?

no as often it is ignored. Can you imagine if every time non-standard
phraseology is used other pilots are requesting clarification?
One instance where English was not used was when my friend
flying for a major was going into Mexico City. He was the PNF.
The PF on the approach made a sharp turn. My friend asked
what the turn was for. The PF said the controller told the preceding
a/c about a severe windshear alert but the call was in spanish. The
other a/c cancelled their approach. If the
PF didn't understand spanish, it very well could have
been dangerous.

Another instance was living in Germany. I was half way through
my PPL and went flying with a friend of a friend. Looking back,
the guy was a moron. He barely understood English and couldn't
copy the clearance nor follow the clearance out of Salzburg and
then busted the Class B (I think it is B) MUC airspace due to
his lack of English. Although no near miss happened but if
the airspace was more dangerous, it certainly could have been
bad.

Although this is non-US pilots not being fluent in English ATC
phraseology, the same happens the other way for sure.

Gerald Sylvester

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>
> correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
> in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since
> the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
> standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
> not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
> anything wrong with following international standard as international
> aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
> complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
> non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
> and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.
>

How long had you gone without sleep when you wrote that?

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:17:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
>> in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since


Hmmm... Living in Michigan, I see a lot of planes coming in that have
something different than N numbers. I wonder who let them land.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>> the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
>> standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
>> not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
>> anything wrong with following international standard as international
>> aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
>> complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
>> non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
>> and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.
>>
>
>How long had you gone without sleep when you wrote that?
>