"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number,
but
as a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".

If you don't think of the runway number as a number (corresponding to an
approximate heading), then how do you form an expectation about which
direction to fly to enter, say, a downwind leg for a particular runway?

Good point...

I was dealing with "runway numbers" while communicating, where it probably
is best to think of them as a "name".

But, as you point out, one would want to think of it as a number while
aviating...

But if you're going to think of runway numbers as names while communicating
but as numbers while aviating, then why not make the same distinction for
the numbers that designate headings, altitudes, airspeeds, etc.?

There are some numbers in aviation that are really just names (airway
designations, aircraft model designations, tail numbers, etc.). But runway
numbers are really numbers.

--Gary