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?