ATC Phraseology

[Larry Dighera]

I heard the following exchange this morning:


ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"

silence

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I heard the following exchange this morning:
>
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"
>
> silence
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."
>
>
> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate?
>

No.


>
> Must controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>

No.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I heard the following exchange this morning:
>
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"
>
> silence
>
> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."
>
> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."
>
>
> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>
>


They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
certainly can cut down on mis-communication.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
> aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
> certainly can cut down on mis-communication.
>

The issue was the wind speed, not the direction. The controller issued the
wind correctly.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
>> aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
>> certainly can cut down on mis-communication.
>>
>
> The issue was the wind speed, not the direction. The controller issued the
> wind correctly.
>
>
You are right I mis-read.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?


I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the AC
wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have been
painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original answer.

I still would have said "150 at 4" the first time. I'd bet 90% of pilots would
never ask for the answer to be amplified unless they had good reason... say
heavy turbulence, passing cells or whatever. So for 90%, that would have been
the end of it.

But if I don't understand or am not sure I understand a reply, I'd ask for an
amplified answer in a heartbeat.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? *Must
> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?

I've never heard a controller or ATIS or ASOS or AWOS state wind is
"at zero four" when they mean "at four".

However, maybe the Citation pilot had static or otherwise bad
reception -- he wanted to make sure it wasn't "four zero". In other
words, he *might* have heard "wind 150 at 4<static burst or heterodyne
squeal>". In which case you might ask for clarification without being
pedantic.

I can't remember if that squeal that is caused by stepping on someone
else's transmission is called "heterodyne" or not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the
> AC wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have
> been painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original
> answer.
>

If there had been 40 knots of wind it would have been issued as "four zero",
not "forty".

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...

> If there had been 40 knots of wind it would have been issued as "four
zero",
> not "forty".

It *should* have been issued as "four zero".

I've heard plenty of non-standard phraseology from ATC.

The wind speed makes a lot more difference to the guy in the plane than it
does to the guy in the tower. I would have asked.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the
>> AC wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have
>> been painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original
>> answer.
>>
>
> If there had been 40 knots of wind it would have been issued as "four zero",
> not "forty".


Most likely but it wouldn't be the first time I've heard nonstandard phrasing.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[gatt[_2_]]

"Bill Watson" > wrote in message
...
> I'm all for precision and brevity. The Citation pilot is always entitled
> to clarification but he/she was probably being a jerk here. Not only are
> 04 40 very different numbers, they are very different wind speeds, you
> have to have your head up your ass not to have already envisioned which
> number would be correct at the airport you are getting ready to land at.
> ATIS generally helps too.


Might that have been an appropriate ATC comeback?

"Please check ATIS on XXX.XXX and confirm you have information Asshat."
(Okay, probably not the last bit...)

-c

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bill Watson wrote:
>I'm all for precision and brevity. The Citation pilot is always
>entitled to clarification but he/she was probably being a jerk here.

I don't get that at all. Radio is not perfect. It's quite possible that
the Citation pilot heard "winds 150 at *static* 4. I would probably ask the
same question he did. Not to be pedantic, but to indicate to ATC exactly
what part of the transmission I thought I missed.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bob Fry]

Perhaps the Citation guy simply thought it might be "one four";
hearing only "four" he thought he missed the first digit and wanted to
confirm. No big deal.

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> I heard the following exchange this morning: ABC-Tower:
LD> "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

LD> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

LD> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

LD> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind
LD> *ZERO* 4?"

LD> silence

LD> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind
LD> *ZERO* 4."

LD> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


LD> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
LD> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?



--
I spent thirty-three years in the marines, most of my time being a
high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
~ General Smedley Butler, Marine

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 4:43*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
>
> Perhaps the Citation guy simply thought it might be "one four";
> hearing only "four" he thought he missed the first digit and wanted to
> confirm. *No big deal.
>

Perhaps, but that would mean the controller paused unnecessarily while
issuing the winds. There shouldn't be room for a "one" between "at"
and "four".

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
>> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>
>
>I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the AC
>wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have been
>painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original answer.


I agree with you about the appropriateness of querying the controller
if there is any question, but in this case, if you had heard the
rather flip pilot and resignation of the controller, it would be
pretty apparent that his question wasn't about a misunderstanding.
This is borne out somewhat by the fact that the controller failed to
respond to the pilot's initial question.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I heard the following exchange this morning:
>>
>>
>> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."
>>
>> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."
>>
>> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."
>>
>> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"
>>
>> silence
>>
>> Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."
>>
>> ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."
>>
>>
>> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate?
>>
>
>No.
>
>
>>
>> Must controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>>
>
>No.
>

Thanks for the information.

Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
experience?

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? *Must
>> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>

It's possible the Citation pilot was not being pedantic, but simply
wanted to check. Contributors here are assuming that the "04" is to
distinguish it from "40" - but that's not the only possibility. The
Citation pilot could also be checking that there was not some other
vocable he didn't quite get - like "one-four". . .

The OP didn't tell us what the overall "tone" of the exchange was -
could be that the Cessna pilot was being a prick - but it could just as
well be he wasn't sure if there was a "one" in there . . .

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I agree with you about the appropriateness of querying the controller
> if there is any question, but in this case, if you had heard the
> rather flip pilot and resignation of the controller, it would be
> pretty apparent that his question wasn't about a misunderstanding.
> This is borne out somewhat by the fact that the controller failed to
> respond to the pilot's initial question.


You're right that I didn't hear the tone used by the pilot; I'll take your word
for it he was just acting like a prick. God knows there's enough of them out
there.

I remember sitting in a hold with a bunch of other aircraft all waiting their
turn for a shot at one of the ILS approaches to Charlotte. There were
thunderboomers EVERYWHERE. Everybody wanted down ASAP. It was getting pretty
tense.

Anyway, there was this one USAir jet that was cleared for the approach who
apparently had been broken off from a previous approach. A whiny voice asked"
Can I assume we'll actually be allowed to complete this approach?"

The next sound heard over the airways was "BITCH, BITCH, BITCH!"

When the controller answered the guy you could hear people in the background
laughing. The fearless aviator had nothing more to say.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-13, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?

We don't know what the Citation pilot heard, for all we know he heard
"Wind 150 at 4squeeecrackclecclick", and just wanted a clarification.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
>>> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>>
>> I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the AC
>> wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have been
>> painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original answer.
>
>
> I agree with you about the appropriateness of querying the controller
> if there is any question, but in this case, if you had heard the
> rather flip pilot and resignation of the controller, it would be
> pretty apparent that his question wasn't about a misunderstanding.
> This is borne out somewhat by the fact that the controller failed to
> respond to the pilot's initial question.

So now you have graduated from netkop to atccop.

Move'n On Up

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
>>>> controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?
>>>
>>> I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller
>>> answered; the AC wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty"
>>> (although it should have been painfully obvious), and so the
>>> controller clarified his original answer.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you about the appropriateness of querying the controller
>> if there is any question, but in this case, if you had heard the
>> rather flip pilot and resignation of the controller, it would be
>> pretty apparent that his question wasn't about a misunderstanding.
>> This is borne out somewhat by the fact that the controller failed to
>> respond to the pilot's initial question.
>
> So now you have graduated from netkop to atccop.
>
> Move'n On Up
>

Bwwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
> experience?
>

Only one that I can immediately recall. Some twenty years ago I was at
Chicago Center working the OSH sector. I had an arrival to MKE, the route
was GRB direct BJB direct MKE. BJB is the arrival fix for MKE arrivals from
the north, by Letter of Agreement jets are to cross BJB at 10,000 feet. I
issued the descent clearance as he crossed the Center boundary about ten
miles south of GRB, "cross West Bend VOR at and maintain one zero thousand."
The pilot responded, in a rather snotty tone, "I wasn't aware that West Bend
had DME." I confirmed that it did not have DME, to which he asked, "Then
how do you expect us to cross it at ten?" I replied, "I expect you to
practice the fine art of navigation, please advise if that presents a
problem to you." "Outta two four oh for ten" was his reply, in a much less
snotty tone.

Our only other discourse was the communications transfer. Had he something
more to say about the descent clearance I was prepared to point out that if
a simple time-speed-distance problem was too challenging for him, proceeding
to BJB VOR did not preclude use of DME from GRB VORTAC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> We don't know what the Citation pilot heard, for all we know he heard
> "Wind 150 at 4squeeecrackclecclick", and just wanted a clarification.
>

Doubtful. If the Citation pilot had heard, "Wind 150 at
4squeeecrackclecclick", he might have asked, "is that wind 4*ZERO*?", but he
wouldn't have asked, "is that wind *ZERO* 4?".

[Bob F.]

It's most like that the Citation pilot heard it exactly correct and was just
making a point (incorrectly) and wasting everyone's time, including this
thread.

--
BobF.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> We don't know what the Citation pilot heard, for all we know he heard
>> "Wind 150 at 4squeeecrackclecclick", and just wanted a clarification.
>>
>
> Doubtful. If the Citation pilot had heard, "Wind 150 at
> 4squeeecrackclecclick", he might have asked, "is that wind 4*ZERO*?", but
> he wouldn't have asked, "is that wind *ZERO* 4?".
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It's most like that the Citation pilot heard it exactly correct and was
> just making a point (incorrectly) and wasting everyone's time, including
> this thread.
>

And making an ass of himself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:ZbeCj.10195$iD2.4491@trndny09...
>
> It *should* have been issued as "four zero".
>
> I've heard plenty of non-standard phraseology from ATC.
>

Like what?


>
> The wind speed makes a lot more difference to the guy in the plane than it
> does to the guy in the tower. I would have asked.
>

A sharp pilot that thinks he may have missed a digit prior to the "four"
might have responded "confirm wind *ONE* 4" or "confirm wind *TWO* 4", but
he would know wind speeds are not issued with leading zeros.

[Bob F.]

A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
...yeah that's about right.

--
BobF.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:ZbeCj.10195$iD2.4491@trndny09...
>>
>> It *should* have been issued as "four zero".
>>
>> I've heard plenty of non-standard phraseology from ATC.
>>
>
> Like what?
>
>
>>
>> The wind speed makes a lot more difference to the guy in the plane than
>> it
>> does to the guy in the tower. I would have asked.
>>
>
> A sharp pilot that thinks he may have missed a digit prior to the "four"
> might have responded "confirm wind *ONE* 4" or "confirm wind *TWO* 4", but
> he would know wind speeds are not issued with leading zeros.
>

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:

>A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
>..yeah that's about right.


You can see the sock from a distance where a Citation might ask for a
wind check?

[Bob F.]

oops sorry, thought this was during taxi. Someone deleted too much thread
and I lost context.

--
BobF.
"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F." >
> wrote:
>
>>A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
>>..yeah that's about right.
>
>
> You can see the sock from a distance where a Citation might ask for a
> wind check?

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:56:40 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:

>oops sorry, thought this was during taxi.

I'll agree with that. <G>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:

>A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
>..yeah that's about right.

The Citation was about ten miles from the airport when this exchange
occurred, so I doubt the pilot could have seen it from there. I've
never seen a Citation overfly the field to check the wind indicator.

[Bob F.]

Yes, we've been through all that in this thread. Your server may be slow.

--
BobF.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:51:59 -0400, "Bob F." >
> wrote:
>
>>A sharp pilot would have looked at the wind sock and said "to himself"
>>..yeah that's about right.
>
> The Citation was about ten miles from the airport when this exchange
> occurred, so I doubt the pilot could have seen it from there. I've
> never seen a Citation overfly the field to check the wind indicator.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:09:09 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Thanks for the information.
>>
>> Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
>> experience?
>>
>
>Only one that I can immediately recall. Some twenty years ago I was at
>Chicago Center working the OSH sector. I had an arrival to MKE, the route
>was GRB direct BJB direct MKE. BJB is the arrival fix for MKE arrivals from
>the north, by Letter of Agreement jets are to cross BJB at 10,000 feet. I
>issued the descent clearance as he crossed the Center boundary about ten
>miles south of GRB, "cross West Bend VOR at and maintain one zero thousand."
>The pilot responded, in a rather snotty tone, "I wasn't aware that West Bend
>had DME." I confirmed that it did not have DME, to which he asked, "Then
>how do you expect us to cross it at ten?" I replied, "I expect you to
>practice the fine art of navigation, please advise if that presents a
>problem to you." "Outta two four oh for ten" was his reply, in a much less
>snotty tone.
>
>Our only other discourse was the communications transfer. Had he something
>more to say about the descent clearance I was prepared to point out that if
>a simple time-speed-distance problem was too challenging for him, proceeding
>to BJB VOR did not preclude use of DME from GRB VORTAC.
>


Interesting. It sounds like the pilot was a little confused, and his
response, while inappropriate, did reveal _his_ misunderstanding and
less than adequate situational awareness, but I don't read it as an
attempt to needlessly harass the controller (you).

In the scenario I provided, it seemed that the pilot just wanted to
annoy the controller for no good reason. Perhaps they knew each
other, or this exchange was a legacy of some previous confrontation
between them.

Thanks for the story.