airfields with a tower that doesn't control pilots?

Happy Dog wrote:

The "operator" can't give the kind of "clearance" ATC gives. But they can
grant permission to land and I don't know of any regulation that makes it
illegal for them to use the word "cleared" when doing so. I've never heard
them say "cleared" without following it with "at your discretion".

In ICAO terminology, the word "cleared" is reserved for ATC clearances
and it is most confusing and dangerous if the term is used carelessly by
other persons. At uncontrolled fields, AFIS just says "land at your
discretion" or simply "welcome", but without any clearance.

And sometimes they can give or refuse permission to land (private
facility) and sometimes they can't (public one).

Of course, they can always refuse the premission to land (except on
emergencies, of course). In this case, they simply say "you're not
allowed to land".

Stefan

"Stefan"
The "operator" can't give the kind of "clearance" ATC gives. But they
can grant permission to land and I don't know of any regulation that
makes it illegal for them to use the word "cleared" when doing so. I've
never heard them say "cleared" without following it with "at your
discretion".

In ICAO terminology, the word "cleared" is reserved for ATC clearances and
it is most confusing and dangerous if the term is used carelessly by other
persons. At uncontrolled fields, AFIS just says "land at your discretion"
or simply "welcome", but without any clearance.

They shouldn't use the word "cleared". But they can and do.It doesn't
confuse me. Would anyone here really find it confusing?

And sometimes they can give or refuse permission to land (private
facility) and sometimes they can't (public one).

Of course, they can always refuse the premission to land (except on
emergencies, of course). In this case, they simply say "you're not allowed
to land".

Not at a public facility.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

They shouldn't use the word "cleared". But they can and do.

I know, some do. Very bad habit, though.

It doesn't
confuse me. Would anyone here really find it confusing?

The point is not whether you or me would find it confusing while sitting
in front of a computer and reading usenet. The point is whether it can
cause confusions in a stressy environment, with maybe even people
involved who can barely understand and speak English. The whole point of
a well defined radio terminology is to try to avoid all possibilities of
confusion. If you read accident reports, a surprising lot of them was
caused by misunderstandings which could have been avoided by the use of
the proper terminology.

Of course, they can always refuse the permission to land (except on

Not at a public facility.

This depends on national laws.

Stefan

"Stefan"

The point is not whether you or me would find it confusing while sitting
in front of a computer and reading usenet. The point is whether it can
cause confusions in a stressy environment, with maybe even people involved
who can barely understand and speak English. The whole point of a well
defined radio terminology is to try to avoid all possibilities of
confusion. If you read accident reports, a surprising lot of them was
caused by misunderstandings which could have been avoided by the use of
the proper terminology.

Agreed.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

Agreed.

Say again??? Whatever happened to usenet??? :-)

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Happy Dog wrote:

Agreed.

Say again??? Whatever happened to usenet??? :-)

Now, there's a man who won't take yes for an answer.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.