ATC

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a flight
if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not ready
to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
TIA

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-28, Mike Gilmour > wrote:
> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a flight
> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not ready
> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?

This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and balance)
that the flight crew needs to enter into the flight management system. The
crew usually has that before they push back from the gate, but occasionally
the airline doesn't get it to them until later. They can't take off without
it, because they can't verify that the aircraft is within its center of
gravity range or that the accelerate-stop distance is shorter than the
available runway length.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-28, Mike Gilmour > wrote:
>> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
>> flight
>> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not
>> ready
>> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>
> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and balance)
> that the flight crew needs to enter into the flight management system. The
> crew usually has that before they push back from the gate, but
> occasionally
> the airline doesn't get it to them until later. They can't take off
> without
> it, because they can't verify that the aircraft is within its center of
> gravity range or that the accelerate-stop distance is shorter than the
> available runway length.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)


Thanks Jay, it now makes perfect sense. It's interesting to know of the
variations in ATC speak in different locations.

Mike

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and balance)
>

Hmm. First I heard that explanation.

I would have thought they were referring to the ATIS as "the numbers" (not
"their"). It's quite common in the US to say "We've got the numbers" or "do
you have the numbers" when in ICAO English it should be "Information Quebec
(or whatever) received". But luckily, every holder of a US certificate is
ICAO English proficient by FAA definition.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-03-28, Mike Gilmour > wrote:
>> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
>> flight if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say
>> they're not ready to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>
> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and
> balance) that the flight crew needs to enter into the flight
> management system. The crew usually has that before they push back
> from the gate, but occasionally the airline doesn't get it to them
> until later. They can't take off without it, because they can't verify
> that the aircraft is within its center of gravity range or that the
> accelerate-stop distance is shorter than the available runway length.

The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
certainly wrong.

ATC does, however, need to know if the pilot has the current ATIS
(Automated Terminal Information Service) information: ceiling,
visibility, wind, altimeter setting, runway in use, and any special
airport information.

The use of "have numbers" is mentioned in AIM section 4-1-13:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html

"While it is a good operating practice for pilots to make use of the
ATIS broadcast where it is available, some pilots use the phrase "have
numbers" in communications with the control tower. Use of this phrase
means that the pilot has received wind, runway, and altimeter
information ONLY and the tower does not have to repeat this information.
It does not indicate receipt of the ATIS broadcast and should never be
used for this purpose."

[Dave S]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
> certainly wrong.

So if a flight was ready to push back,.. or number 2 or 3 for takeoff,
they wouldnt possibly decline a departure clearance or takeoff clearance
in the manner described?

Because we all know how people stick to exactly what the AIM and the
pilot controller glossary.. right?
>
> The use of "have numbers" is mentioned in AIM section 4-1-13:
>
> Use of this phrase
> means that the pilot has received wind, runway, and altimeter
> information ONLY and the tower does not have to repeat this information.

If they didn't have the numbers, as referenced in this manner, ATC could
just GIVE em the numbers and clear em anyways.. because we all know that
"have numbers" doesnt subsstitute for "having information alpha" or
bravo or whatever..

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-28, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and balance)
> I would have thought they were referring to the ATIS as "the numbers" (not
> "their").

Thats why I was careful to see what the original query was. The ATIS doesn't
count as "their numbers"; the weight and balance info does.

FWIW, I was always taught to indicate I had the ATIS with, for example,
"Ellington Tower, Zodiac five five Zulu Charlie, inbound from the southeast
for landing with Foxtrot." "I have the numbers" is not sufficiently precise:
it doesn't tell them *which* numbers you have, and if the ATIS changes, they
need to know if you got the right ones.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-28, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
> certainly wrong.

You haven't had an airline flight pause on the taxiway waiting for this
information? I have, as recently as last week.

ATC would indeed care if the aircraft wasn't ready to go yet because it
couldn't legally depart. For them to ask if the crew had "their numbers" yet
(note, not "the numbers") would make sense if, for example, they were going
to hold off obtaining IFR release from Departure until the flight was ready,
and the crew had advised them they weren't because they hadn't gotten that
information.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jim Logajan]

Dave S > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>
>> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
>> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
>> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
>> certainly wrong.
>
> So if a flight was ready to push back,.. or number 2 or 3 for takeoff,
> they wouldnt possibly decline a departure clearance or takeoff clearance
> in the manner described?

The OP described two different transmissions - one from the ATC asking a
question and one presumably initiated by the aircraft. I'm still not sure
why ATC would ask or be interested in whether the aircraft has the sort of
numbers Jay mentions.

So you think Jay was almost certainly right and I am almost certainly
wrong? That is possible, but I'd like a bit of evidence that that is what
the alleged exchanges are all about.

> Because we all know how people stick to exactly what the AIM and the
> pilot controller glossary.. right?

Um, okay...

>> The use of "have numbers" is mentioned in AIM section 4-1-13:
>>
>> Use of this phrase
>> means that the pilot has received wind, runway, and altimeter
>> information ONLY and the tower does not have to repeat this information.
>
> If they didn't have the numbers, as referenced in this manner, ATC could
> just GIVE em the numbers and clear em anyways.. because we all know that
> "have numbers" doesnt subsstitute for "having information alpha" or
> bravo or whatever..

Interesting analysis. I'll wait to see if those who have actual experience
with airlines see this thread and can shed light. Prior to the start of
this thread I already knew what I thought was the common meaning of "have
numbers" - which is even mentioned in the AIM, among other places. Are you
saying there is a different meaning in use? If so, is there a reference
that mentions it?

[Scott Skylane]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
>>On 2008-03-28, Mike Gilmour > wrote:
>>
>>>Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
>>>flight if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say
>>>they're not ready to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>>>What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>>
>>This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and
>>balance) that the flight crew needs to enter into the flight
>>management system. The crew usually has that before they push back
>>from the gate, but occasionally the airline doesn't get it to them
>>until later. They can't take off without it, because they can't verify
>>that the aircraft is within its center of gravity range or that the
>>accelerate-stop distance is shorter than the available runway length.
>
>
> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
> certainly wrong.
/snip/
Jim, the answer Jay gave is almost certainly *correct*. ATC absolutely
cares about weight & balance, if, said aircraft is number one for
takeoff, but unable to do so since they don't have the necessary data.
Now you've got the guy at the front of the line holding up the whole
airport! I've heard several heated exchanges take place in these
situations between ATC and the offending airliner. If a ground
controller knows that a departing flight doesn't yet have their
"numbers", he may taxi them via an alternate route, so as not to
obstruct the other departures.

As for the ATIS "numbers", this is typically verified when the flight
receives it's IFR clearance, so Ground Control can assume they already
have this information.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-03-28, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
>> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight,
>> balance, or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is
>> almost certainly wrong.
>
> You haven't had an airline flight pause on the taxiway waiting for
> this information? I have, as recently as last week.
>
> ATC would indeed care if the aircraft wasn't ready to go yet because
> it couldn't legally depart.

While you may be right, I'm having a difficult time understanding why ATC
would concern itself with something unrelated to traffic control - unless
the PIC first brought it up. In any case, I thought weight, balance, and
such "numbers" were strictly a PIC responsibility.

> For them to ask if the crew had "their
> numbers" yet (note, not "the numbers") would make sense if, for
> example, they were going to hold off obtaining IFR release from
> Departure until the flight was ready, and the crew had advised them
> they weren't because they hadn't gotten that information.

Okay - it would make more sense (to me, anyway) only if it was the pilot
who first brought up not having their "numbers" as the reason they might
not be as ready as they claimed. I also assumed the more well known meaning
of "have numbers" was involved here.

[Jim Logajan]

Scott Skylane > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
>> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
>> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
>> certainly wrong.
> /snip/
> Jim, the answer Jay gave is almost certainly *correct*.

Okay - I sit corrected.

> ATC absolutely cares about weight & balance, if, said aircraft is
> number one for takeoff, but unable to do so since they don't have the
> necessary data.

I see. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say ATC only cares that the
aircraft isn't ready and the specific reason in this case is common enough
that it has a colloquialism or slang term attached to it?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> The OP described two different transmissions - one from the ATC asking a
> question and one presumably initiated by the aircraft. I'm still not sure
> why ATC would ask or be interested in whether the aircraft has the sort of
> numbers Jay mentions.
>

I can think of one. The AC had previously refused a clearance because of
the lack of "the numbers." Though I tend to agree with you that in both
cases they were probably talking about ATIS,

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-28, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>> ATC absolutely cares about weight & balance, if, said aircraft is
>> number one for takeoff, but unable to do so since they don't have the
>> necessary data.
> I see. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say ATC only cares that the
> aircraft isn't ready and the specific reason in this case is common enough
> that it has a colloquialism or slang term attached to it?

That's not a bad way to put it. ATC cares about the delay, and an airliner
not getting the information it needs in time to taxi directly to the runway
and take off is one common cause for that delay.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bob Gardner]

AIM 3-9-1, Jay.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-28, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and
>>> balance)
>> I would have thought they were referring to the ATIS as "the numbers"
>> (not
>> "their").
>
> Thats why I was careful to see what the original query was. The ATIS
> doesn't
> count as "their numbers"; the weight and balance info does.
>
> FWIW, I was always taught to indicate I had the ATIS with, for example,
> "Ellington Tower, Zodiac five five Zulu Charlie, inbound from the
> southeast
> for landing with Foxtrot." "I have the numbers" is not sufficiently
> precise:
> it doesn't tell them *which* numbers you have, and if the ATIS changes,
> they
> need to know if you got the right ones.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Marty Shapiro]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>
>> The OP described two different transmissions - one from the ATC
>> asking a question and one presumably initiated by the aircraft. I'm
>> still not sure why ATC would ask or be interested in whether the
>> aircraft has the sort of numbers Jay mentions.
>>
>
> I can think of one. The AC had previously refused a clearance because
> of the lack of "the numbers." Though I tend to agree with you that in
> both cases they were probably talking about ATIS,
>

When I was based at a class C airport (SJC), I would here this from the
airliners. They were wating for the numbers (weight, fuel, CG) from their
dispatcher and would decline or request a delay in departure clearance by
telling ATC that they were waiting for their numbers and ATC would ask if
they had their numbers to resequence them for departure.

For ATIS, if they didn't give the information name to CD or Ground, they
would be told the frequency to get it and to call back when they got it.
On calling approach, we would use "with the numbers" if we had just heard
ATC give a verbal update on the ATIS information to an aircraft ahead of us
or had forgotten the information name but had the winds and altimeter
settings.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-03-28, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>>> ATC absolutely cares about weight & balance, if, said aircraft is
>>> number one for takeoff, but unable to do so since they don't have
>>> the necessary data.
>> I see. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say ATC only cares that
>> the aircraft isn't ready and the specific reason in this case is
>> common enough that it has a colloquialism or slang term attached to
>> it?
>
> That's not a bad way to put it. ATC cares about the delay, and an
> airliner not getting the information it needs in time to taxi directly
> to the runway and take off is one common cause for that delay.


ATC doesn't need to ask if you have that. you would. They're not your
mommy.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> The ATIS doesn't
> count as "their numbers"; the weight and balance info does.

True enough.

> FWIW, I was always taught to indicate I had the ATIS with, for example,
> "Ellington Tower, Zodiac five five Zulu Charlie, inbound from the southeast
> for landing with Foxtrot." "I have the numbers" is not sufficiently precise:
> it doesn't tell them *which* numbers you have, and if the ATIS changes, they
> need to know if you got the right ones.

Agreed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Gardner]

How about the Air Traffic Control Handbook instead of the AIM:

3-9-1. DEPARTURE INFORMATION
Provide current departure information, as appropriate, to departing
aircraft.
a. Departure information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if
the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code.
b. Issue departure information by including the following:
1. Runway in use. (May be omitted if pilot states "have the numbers.")
2. Surface wind from direct readout dial, wind shear detection system, or
automated weather observing system information display. (May be omitted if
pilot states "have the numbers.")
3. Altimeter setting. (May be omitted if pilot states "have the numbers.")

Bob Gardner


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> AIM 3-9-1, Jay.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-03-28, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>> This refers to the flight performance data (primarily, weight and
>>>> balance)
>>> I would have thought they were referring to the ATIS as "the numbers"
>>> (not
>>> "their").
>>
>> Thats why I was careful to see what the original query was. The ATIS
>> doesn't
>> count as "their numbers"; the weight and balance info does.
>>
>> FWIW, I was always taught to indicate I had the ATIS with, for example,
>> "Ellington Tower, Zodiac five five Zulu Charlie, inbound from the
>> southeast
>> for landing with Foxtrot." "I have the numbers" is not sufficiently
>> precise:
>> it doesn't tell them *which* numbers you have, and if the ATIS changes,
>> they
>> need to know if you got the right ones.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-28, Bob Gardner > wrote:
> How about the Air Traffic Control Handbook instead of the AIM:
>
> 3-9-1. DEPARTURE INFORMATION
> Provide current departure information, as appropriate, to departing
> aircraft.
> a. Departure information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if
> the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code.
> b. Issue departure information by including the following:
> 1. Runway in use. (May be omitted if pilot states "have the numbers.")
> 2. Surface wind from direct readout dial, wind shear detection system, or
> automated weather observing system information display. (May be omitted if
> pilot states "have the numbers.")
> 3. Altimeter setting. (May be omitted if pilot states "have the numbers.")

I was wondering what you were referring to, since there's no 3-9-1 in the
AIM, nor anything relevant anywhere close...

It's interesting to see this quote, though; it expands upon what's in AIM
4-1-13, especially paragraph h.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 28, 12:16 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> communications. Since ATC doesn't concern itself with weight, balance,
> or any other flight performance factors, your explanation is almost
> certainly wrong.
>
> ATC does, however, need to know if the pilot has the current ATIS
> (Automated Terminal Information Service) information: ceiling,
> visibility, wind, altimeter setting, runway in use, and any special
> airport information.
>

The KGRB ATIS includes a statement advising air carrier aircraft to
make sure they have their numbers before calling ready for taxi. It
was added because Northwest became notorious for taxiing without them
and blocking other departures while they waited for them.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 28, 1:09 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> The OP described two different transmissions - one from the ATC asking a
> question and one presumably initiated by the aircraft. I'm still not sure
> why ATC would ask or be interested in whether the aircraft has the sort of
> numbers Jay mentions.
>

The aircraft can't depart without that information. ATC does not want
to taxi aircraft that can't depart because they block other aircraft
from departing.


>
> So you think Jay was almost certainly right and I am almost certainly
> wrong? That is possible, but I'd like a bit of evidence that that is what
> the alleged exchanges are all about.
>

What sort of evidence would satisfy you?

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:06:50 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Mar 28, 1:09 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>> The OP described two different transmissions - one from the ATC asking a
>> question and one presumably initiated by the aircraft. I'm still not sure
>> why ATC would ask or be interested in whether the aircraft has the sort of
>> numbers Jay mentions.
>>
>
>The aircraft can't depart without that information. ATC does not want
>to taxi aircraft that can't depart because they block other aircraft
>from departing.

My experience is that the OP may have heard a ground or clearance
delivery frequency.

[F. Baum]

On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a flight
> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not ready
> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".

FYI, Radio closeout of the AWABS is mostly standard out of KBOS,
especially on the shuttle. The ATIS is retrieved via ACARS and the
rest is on the flight plan. " Having the numbers" indicates that the
flight would be ready for departure upon taxi. This is important when
departing North out of KBOS.
Frank

[Ed Sharkey]

On Mar 28, 5:16*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> communications.

Hi Folks

I'm the guy that dropped the pebble in the pond on this one.

I'm doing my UK PPL and listen to Live ATC feeds in 'background' when
doing tedious work at home. Due to UK law we can't get feeds from any
UK airfields so it's intersting to tune in and hear you guys waking up
across the pond.

It was a question I posed on the UK GA web site (www.ukga.com).

I was listening to Boston ATC and what I heard was a flight taxying
for departure telling the Tower that they needed more time because,
"We don't have our numbers", not "the numbers".

Later the Tower controller calls him back and ask him, "Have you got
your numbers" (not "the numbers") and advising the flight he'll have
to pull him over to let other flights through if he wasn't ready in a
jiffy.

Now there seems to be at least a couple of occasions where the time
delay between the flight first saying they weren't ready and their
still not being ready when the controller called them back was
significant, i.e to my way of thinking much longer than it would have
taken for the crew to tune to ATIS and get the lastest information.
Indeed why would they have pushed back without the ATIS?

My thought was that it must have something to do with the load figures
and the weight/balance calcs. And that the Tower didn't want the guy
to get to the head of the queue at the hold point and not be certain
he was ready to go.

So I think I'm with Jay on his explanation.

However it does show how confusing using shorthand phrases like 'the
numbers' can be!

Glad to know it's generated some stimulating debate!

Cheers

Ed

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:09 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> So you think Jay was almost certainly right and I am almost certainly
>> wrong? That is possible, but I'd like a bit of evidence that that is
>> what the alleged exchanges are all about.
>>
>
> What sort of evidence would satisfy you?

Very little. I posted a retraction yesterday after someone else provided
further enlightenment.

[F. Baum]

On Mar 29, 10:42*am, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:16*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> > communications.
>
> Hi Folks
>
> I'm the guy that dropped the pebble in the pond on this one.
>
>
>
> Now there seems to be at least a couple of occasions where the time
> delay between the flight first saying they weren't ready and their
> still not being ready when the controller called them back was
> significant, i.e to my way of thinking much longer than it would have
> taken for the crew to tune to ATIS and get the lastest information.
> Indeed why would they have pushed back without the ATIS?
>
> My thought was that it must have something to do with the load figures
> and the weight/balance calcs. *And that the Tower didn't want the guy
> to get to the head of the queue at the hold point and not be certain
> he was ready to go.

Ed, Good explination . Ill try to clarify some more . At airports
where gate space is at a premium airliners will often push before the
final paperwork is recieved. The final paperwork consists of the WT &
Bal, flap and trim settings, T.O. power settings for each runway, max
weights for each runway , V speeds, and WX updates if applicable. It
comes up on the ACARS and then it is printed out. ATC needs to know if
we have the "Numbers" (Final paperwork) . It wouldnt do much good to
send a plane to a runway they are too heavy for. All of this comes
from a load planner, not the dispatcher.
As far as ATIS goes, it gets printed up at the touch of a screen and
it is pretty much assumed that if a crew calls to taxi or push that
they have it. Good luck with the training.
FB

[buttman]

On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a flight
> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not ready
> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
> TIA

I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a AWOS/ASOS
frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres a letter to
go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, its just a
continuously updated recording of numbers. Since you can't say "We
have information Bravo", you say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I
doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the controller is using this
term as a colloquialism for "ATIS information"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
>> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
>> fligh
> t
>> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not
>> read
> y
>> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> TIA
>
> I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a AWOS/ASOS
> frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres a letter to
> go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, its just a
> continuously updated recording of numbers. Since you can't say "We
> have information Bravo", you say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I
> doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the controller is using this
> term as a colloquialism for "ATIS information"
>

Nope.


Good guess you broadcatedededed there, theough.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
>> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
>> fligh
> t
>> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not
>> read
> y
>> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> TIA
>
> I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a AWOS/ASOS
> frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres a letter to
> go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, its just a
> continuously updated recording of numbers. Since you can't say "We
> have information Bravo", you say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I
> doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the controller is using this
> term as a colloquialism for "ATIS information"

If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you communicating
"the numbers" to? And who cares?

[Ed Sharkey]

On Mar 29, 7:07*pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:42*am, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:16*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > The poster said these were ATC transmissions, not internal company
> > > communications.
>
> > Hi Folks
>
> > I'm the guy that dropped the pebble in the pond on this one.
>
> > Now there seems to be at least a couple of occasions where the time
> > delay between the flight first saying they weren't ready and their
> > still not being ready when the controller called them back was
> > significant, i.e to my way of thinking much longer than it would have
> > taken for the crew to tune to ATIS and get the lastest information.
> > Indeed why would they have pushed back without the ATIS?
>
> > My thought was that it must have something to do with the load figures
> > and the weight/balance calcs. *And that the Tower didn't want the guy
> > to get to the head of the queue at the hold point and not be certain
> > he was ready to go.
>
> Ed, Good explination . Ill try to clarify some more . At airports
> where gate space is at a premium airliners will often push before the
> final paperwork is recieved. The final paperwork consists of the WT &
> Bal, flap and trim settings, T.O. power settings for each runway, max
> weights for each runway , V speeds, *and WX updates if applicable. It
> comes up on the ACARS and then it is printed out. ATC needs to know if
> we have the "Numbers" (Final paperwork) . It wouldnt do much good to
> send a plane to a runway they are too heavy for. All of this comes
> from a load planner, not the dispatcher.
> As far as ATIS goes, it gets printed up at the touch of a screen and
> it is pretty much assumed that if a crew calls to taxi or push that
> they have it. Good luck with the training.
> FB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

FB

Thanks for that. Most interesting.

I guess it gets pretty tense in the cockpit if you're taxying without
"numbers"!

What's ACARS?

Who provides the information they're missing? The company? The
handling agent?

I presume it's 'downlinked' somehow to the on-board flight computer?

Oh, and one more thing.

When the contoller says something like "Give way to company on your
left" what's "company" mean in that context? Does it mean ' aircraft
belonging to the same company as you'?

Training is going well, thanks. Just need to try to find more time to
spend with the books!

Ed

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-30, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
> When the contoller says something like "Give way to company on your
> left" what's "company" mean in that context? Does it mean ' aircraft
> belonging to the same company as you'?

That's it exactly.

There's a section in the AIM that is based on this knowledge, as well. See
section 4-2-5, on interchange or leased aircraft.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[F. Baum]

On Mar 30, 4:07*am, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
>
> FB
>
> Thanks for that. *Most interesting.
>
> I guess it gets pretty tense in the cockpit if you're taxying without
> "numbers"!

Actually its no biggie. The load planner gets together with the
dispatcher a few hours before a flight and after the fuel load is
determined he looks at the loads (Bookings) and sends a loading
schedule to the ground crew so the plane will be loaded within the CG
range. I have never seen one out of CG range, but on the smaller jets
(737, MD-88) it is possible to be too heavy for some of the runways or
intersections.

> What's ACARS?

Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System.

>
> Who provides the information they're missing? *The company? The
> handling agent?

Typically we are waiting on the baggage handlers for the final bag/
cargo count.

>
> I presume it's 'downlinked' somehow to the on-board flight computer?

Yes, on to the ACARS and then we print it out. The final paperwork at
an airport like KBOS is several pages long.

FB

[buttman]

On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
> >> fligh
> > t
> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not
> >> read
> > y
> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
> >> TIA
>
> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a AWOS/ASOS
> > frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres a letter to
> > go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, its just a
> > continuously updated recording of numbers. Since you can't say "We
> > have information Bravo", you say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I
> > doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the controller is using this
> > term as a colloquialism for "ATIS information"
>
> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you communicating
> "the numbers" to? *And who cares?

The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
whether the tower is closed or not.

[buttman]

On Mar 29, 9:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks a
> >> fligh
> > t
> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're not
> >> read
> > y
> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
> >> TIA
>
> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a AWOS/ASOS
> > frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres a letter to
> > go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, its just a
> > continuously updated recording of numbers. Since you can't say "We
> > have information Bravo", you say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I
> > doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the controller is using this
> > term as a colloquialism for "ATIS information"
>
> Nope.
>
> Good guess you broadcatedededed there, theough.
>
> Bertie

There is something seriously wrong with you.

[Benjamin Dover]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
>> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks
>> >> a fligh
>> > t
>> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're
>> >> not read
>> > y
>> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> >> TIA
>>
>> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
>> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
>> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres
>> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
>> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers. Since
>> > you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We have the
>> > numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the
>> > controller is using this term as a colloquialism for "ATIS
>> > information"
>>
>> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
>> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>
> The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> whether the tower is closed or not.

Not if you're VFR. Where will you get the numbers going VFR into a field
with no tower (or closed tower) and no ATIS/ASOS? ATC doesn't have them.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 29, 9:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
>> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks
>> >> a fligh
>> > t
>> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're
>> >> not read
>> > y
>> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> >> TIA
>>
>> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
>> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
>> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres
>> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
>> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers. Since
>> > you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We have the
>> > numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the
>> > controller is using this term as a colloquialism for "ATIS
>> > information"
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Good guess you broadcatedededed there, theough.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There is something seriously wrong with you.
>


Mebbe, mebbe not. At least i know what I'm talkng about, though.

Wheras you do not.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
>> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks
>> >> a fligh
>> > t
>> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're
>> >> not read
>> > y
>> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> >> TIA
>>
>> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
>> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
>> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres
>> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
>> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers. Since
>> > you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We have the
>> > numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the
>> > controller is using this term as a colloquialism for "ATIS
>> > information"
>>
>> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
>> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>
> The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> whether the tower is closed or not.
>
Good grief, you're a compleat.. ......... idiot.


Bertie

[Ed Sharkey]

On Mar 31, 10:14*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote
> >> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
> > :
>
> >> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> >> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks
> >> >> a fligh
> >> > t
> >> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're
> >> >> not read
> >> > y
> >> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> >> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
> >> >> TIA
>
> >> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> >> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
> >> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres
> >> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
> >> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers. Since
> >> > you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We have the
> >> > numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the
> >> > controller is using this term as a colloquialism for "ATIS
> >> > information"
>
> >> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
> >> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>
> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>
> Good grief, you're a compleat.. ......... idiot.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well...

Good to know that the art of rational discourse is not yet dead in the
Land of the Free!

Guys, how does this sort of thing help promote the cause of GA flying?

Ed

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 31, 1:10 am, buttman > wrote:
>
> The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> whether the tower is closed or not.
>

There's no provision for denying approach clearance to aircraft that
have not reported having the weather. Aircraft that have not reported
receiving the weather are to be issued the weather.

[buttman]

On Mar 31, 5:43*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 1:10 am, buttman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>
> There's no provision for denying approach clearance to aircraft that
> have not reported having the weather. *Aircraft that have not reported
> receiving the weather are to be issued the weather.

Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he was
intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a few
holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him. The
reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm not a
controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and notams.

[buttman]

On Mar 31, 4:18*am, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:14*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > buttman > wrote :
>
> > > On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> > >> buttman > wrote
> > >> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
> > > :
>
> > >> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> > >> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller asks
> > >> >> a fligh
> > >> > t
> > >> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say they're
> > >> >> not read
> > >> > y
> > >> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
> > >> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
> > >> >> TIA
>
> > >> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot responds
> > >> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
> > >> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so theres
> > >> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
> > >> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers. Since
> > >> > you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We have the
> > >> > numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my guess is the
> > >> > controller is using this term as a colloquialism for "ATIS
> > >> > information"
>
> > >> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
> > >> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>
> > > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> > > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> > > whether the tower is closed or not.
>
> > Good grief, you're a compleat.. ......... idiot.
>
> > Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well...
>
> Good to know that the art of rational discourse is not yet dead in the
> Land of the Free!
>
> Guys, how does this sort of thing help promote the cause of GA flying?
>
> Ed

eh, thats bertie you're responding to. He's not really into promoting
GA. He's more like the group's mascot dressed in a fuzzy animal suit
that struts around getting laughs from everyone, like they have at
baseball games. Actually, he's not even that. He's the generic
visitor's mascot that always gets beat up by the home team mascot
during the 7th inning stretch.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ed Sharkey > wrote in
:

> On Mar 31, 10:14*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:929d52c7-f66f-4bc7-b3f7-4d1f69722
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote
>> >> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" >
>> >> > wrote:
>
>> >> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller
>> >> >> asks a fligh
>> >> > t
>> >> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say
>> >> >> they're not read
>> >> > y
>> >> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> >> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> >> >> TIA
>>
>> >> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot
>> >> > responds regarding whether they have the information broadcasted
>> >> > on a AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS,
>> >> > so theres a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or
>> >> > there is no tower, its just a continuously updated recording of
>> >> > numbers. Since you can't say "We have information Bravo", you
>> >> > say "We have the numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so
>> >> > my guess is the controller is using this term as a colloquialism
>> >> > for "ATIS information"
>>
>> >> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
>> >> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>>
>> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
>> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
>> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>>
>> Good grief, you're a compleat.. ......... idiot.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well...
>
> Good to know that the art of rational discourse is not yet dead in the
> Land of the Free!
>
> Guys, how does this sort of thing help promote the cause of GA flying?
>


I thought it was obvious.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 31, 4:18*am, Ed Sharkey > wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 10:14*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > buttman > wrote
>> > innews:929d52c7-f66f-4bc7-b3f7-4d1f697
> :
>>
>> > > On Mar 29, 10:09*pm, Benjamin Dover >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> buttman > wrote
>> > >> innews:86c53833-2e0d-4ce2-84fa-c83801fdb
>> > > :
>>
>> > >> > On Mar 28, 5:00*am, "Mike Gilmour" >
>> > >> > wrot
> e:
>> > >> >> Listening to Boston ATC at various times the Tower controller
>> > >> >> asks
>
>> > >> >> a fligh
>> > >> > t
>> > >> >> if they 'have got their numbers" (?) or a flight will say
>> > >> >> they're not read
>> > >> > y
>> > >> >> to proceed because they "don't have their numbers".
>> > >> >> What does this mean as it doesnt translate here in the UK?
>> > >> >> TIA
>>
>> > >> > I've always heard the phrase used when ATC asks or a pilot
>> > >> > responds
>
>> > >> > regarding whether they have the information broadcasted on a
>> > >> > AWOS/ASOS frequency. When the tower is open, its an ATIS, so
>> > >> > theres
>
>> > >> > a letter to go with it. If the tower is closed, or there is no
>> > >> > tower, its just a continuously updated recording of numbers.
>> > >> > Since you can't say "We have information Bravo", you say "We
>> > >> > have the numbers". At KBOS I doubt the tower closes, so my
>> > >> > guess is the controller is using this term as a colloquialism
>> > >> > for "ATIS information"
>>
>> > >> If the tower is closed, or there is no tower, who are you
>> > >> communicating "the numbers" to? *And who cares?
>>
>> > > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
>> > > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
>> > > whether the tower is closed or not.
>>
>> > Good grief, you're a compleat.. ......... idiot.
>>
>> > Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Well...
>>
>> Good to know that the art of rational discourse is not yet dead in
>> the Land of the Free!
>>
>> Guys, how does this sort of thing help promote the cause of GA
>> flying?
>>
>> Ed
>
> eh, thats bertie you're responding to. He's not really into promoting
> GA.

I've done nmore to promote GA, than you will ever do, accident-waiting-to-
happen boi.



He's more like the group's mascot dressed in a fuzzy animal suit
> that struts around getting laughs from everyone, like they have at
> baseball games. Actually, he's not even that. He's the generic
> visitor's mascot that always gets beat up by the home team mascot
> during the 7th inning stretch.


Good god you're an idiot. None of the sabove is the correct answer. I'm not
like anything.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:eca76a4e-7efb-4614-b463-
:

> On Mar 31, 5:43*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 1:10 am, buttman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
>> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
>> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>>
>> There's no provision for denying approach clearance to aircraft that
>> have not reported having the weather. *Aircraft that have not
reported
>> receiving the weather are to be issued the weather.
>
> Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
> pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he was
> intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
> had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a few
> holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him. The
> reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm not a
> controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
> can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
> pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and notams.


You're a flight instructor, or at least you are in your dreams. A flight
instructor should know..

You don't,

So you're either a liar or a really bad instructor.

My money is on "all of the above"


Bertie
>

[buttman]

On Mar 31, 6:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:eca76a4e-7efb-4614-b463-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 5:43*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 1:10 am, buttman > wrote:
>
> >> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
> >> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the airport,
> >> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>
> >> There's no provision for denying approach clearance to aircraft that
> >> have not reported having the weather. *Aircraft that have not
> reported
> >> receiving the weather are to be issued the weather.
>
> > Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
> > pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he was
> > intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
> > had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a few
> > holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him. The
> > reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm not a
> > controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
> > can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
> > pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and notams.
>
> You're a flight instructor, or at least you are in your dreams. A flight
> instructor should know..
>
> You don't,
>
> So you're either a liar or a really bad instructor.
>
> My money is on "all of the above"
>
> Bertie
>
>

at least I know how to not put the gear up while the plane is on the
ground, bertie boi

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 10:07 am, buttman > wrote:
>
> at least I know how to not put the gear up while the plane is on the
> ground, bertie boi

Now if you can show us all how you pull your head of your ass.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 31, 6:58 am, buttman > wrote:
>
> Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
> pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he was
> intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
> had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a few
> holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him. The
> reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm not a
> controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
> can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
> pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and notams.
>

I am a controller, there is no such rule.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:bc083583-9cfc-44b6-8c11-
:

> On Mar 31, 6:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:eca76a4e-7efb-4614-b463-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 31, 5:43*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 31, 1:10 am, buttman > wrote:
>>
>> >> > The center/approach controllers aren't going to clear you for an
>> >> > approach until you tell them you have the weather at the
airport,
>> >> > whether the tower is closed or not.
>>
>> >> There's no provision for denying approach clearance to aircraft
that
>> >> have not reported having the weather. *Aircraft that have not
>> reported
>> >> receiving the weather are to be issued the weather.
>>
>> > Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
>> > pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he
was
>> > intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
>> > had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a
few
>> > holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him.
The
>> > reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm
not a
>> > controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
>> > can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
>> > pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and
notams.
>>
>> You're a flight instructor, or at least you are in your dreams. A
flight
>> instructor should know..
>>
>> You don't,
>>
>> So you're either a liar or a really bad instructor.
>>
>> My money is on "all of the above"
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> at least I know how to not put the gear up while the plane is on the
> ground, bertie boi



Yeah, You must write a book on that and send it to me.


Fjukktard.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 31, 9:25*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:58 am, buttman > wrote:

> > Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
> > pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he was
> > intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
> > had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a few
> > holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him. The
> > reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm not a
> > controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
> > can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
> > pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and notams.
>
> I am a controller, there is no such rule.

Well then it's an unwritten rule. I've witnesses a bunch of times a
controller refusing to clear a IFR plane further until the pilot has
verified he has weather and NOTAMS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:6d3f93e4-36c8-4d9f-b4fd-
:

> On Mar 31, 9:25*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 6:58 am, buttman > wrote:
>
>> > Right, but on one occasion, I remember hearing a controller ask a
>> > pilot if he had the weather and NOTAMS for a particular airport he
was
>> > intending to do a practice approach at. The pilot responded that he
>> > had the weather, but not the NOTAMS. The controller made him do a
few
>> > holds until he had a chance to bring up the NOTAMS to read to him.
The
>> > reason for the NOTAM was the one and only runway was closed. I'm
not a
>> > controller, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that states a plane
>> > can't be cleared for an approach until the controller is sure the
>> > pilot has all the relevant information, including weather and
notams.
>>
>> I am a controller, there is no such rule.
>
> Well then it's an unwritten rule.

No it isn't you fjukktard.


You should be notamed as an aerial hazard.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 9:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> You should be notamed as an aerial hazard.
>
> Bertie

No fair making me laugh apple juice through my nose!!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:e63ed356-1a95-4b86-81d7-a36b3815c016
@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 31, 9:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> You should be notamed as an aerial hazard.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No fair making me laugh apple juice through my nose!!
>
>

I do that.

bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 31, 6:40 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
> Well then it's an unwritten rule. I've witnesses a bunch of times a
> controller refusing to clear a IFR plane further until the pilot has
> verified he has weather and NOTAMS.
>

Probably the same controller each time.