Runway Numbering - Radio Procedure

"John T" wrote in message
m...
"Mike W." wrote in message


If you hear 'runway zero', then you know you have missed something in
the transmission.

Similarly, if you're in the pattern for runway 20 and you hear somebody
announce "[your airport] traffic, N123 base, runway 2[garbled]", you can
assume you've missed something. You still haven't made a case for using
anything but the numbers painted on the runway.



Well, yes, the case is easy to make.

If everybody used the leading zero all the time, then you KNOW FOR SURE
anytime you hear less than two digits, then you have missed something.

If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.

Shortening a direction-based entity in this way is unnatural and causes
confusion. Even the FAA's own NACO chart-selection web site, uses the
leading zeros in the index, and then omits them on the charts..

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

Well, yes, the case is easy to make.

If everybody used the leading zero all the time, then you KNOW FOR SURE
anytime you hear less than two digits, then you have missed something.


How do I know the digits haven't been transposed? If I hear, "Podunk
traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind runway zero
two, stop-and-go, Podunk", how do I know the pilot didn't mean to say,
"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind runway
two zero, stop-and-go, Podunk." Podunk does have a runway two zero, but it
has no runway designated zero two.



If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.


What might I have missed if I hear,"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero
one victor, entering downwind runway two, stop-and-go, Podunk."



Shortening a direction-based entity in this way is unnatural and causes
confusion. Even the FAA's own NACO chart-selection web site, uses the
leading zeros in the index, and then omits them on the charts..


That may be only a software requirement.

If the leading zero is NOT used and you hear only ONE digit, then you have
no way of knowing whether you missed something, or not.

What might I have missed if I hear,"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero
one victor, entering downwind runway two, stop-and-go, Podunk."

"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind
runway two ZERO, stop-and-go, Podunk."

He's actually coming the other way, head on to you who hears "runway
two, stop and go..."

How do I know the digits haven't been transposed?

I suppose you don't, and that's the argument for omitting the leading
zero. Further, you could hear it correctly and transpose it in your own
mind.

Which one trumps the other? I don't think either is trump. Do what
other pilots expect to hear, whether by local practice or AIM.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

"Podunk traffic, Waco niner eight zero one victor, entering downwind
runway two ZERO, stop-and-go, Podunk."

He's actually coming the other way, head on to you who hears "runway two,
stop and go..."


Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.



I suppose you don't, and that's the argument for omitting the leading
zero. Further, you could hear it correctly and transpose it in your own
mind.

Which one trumps the other? I don't think either is trump. Do what other
pilots expect to hear, whether by local practice or AIM.


Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Note that all of the scenarios used to support the use of the leading zero
rely on improper phraseology. If proper phraseology is used the leading
zero provides nothing positive, but if it is used it creates the possibility
for confusion as it can be transposed with the other digit. That
possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
10/28.

Bottom line, the leading zero should not be used.

Nope, there wasn't enough room between "runway" and "stop" for "two zero".
He definitely said "downwind runway two, stop-and-go". There was no zero.

Yes, but =she= (the next week) spoke slower, and with a more varied cadence.

Non-use of the leading zero trumps the use of it, no question about it.

Well, the discussion here shows that there =is= some question about it,
just not in your mind. I tend to agree with you that non-use is
probably better. However, it is not without benefit.

As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
the same.

That
possibility is not limited to runway 2/20 either, as the field may have an
intersecting runway it could be confused with, such as runways 1/19 an
10/28.

Good point.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
As for being nonstandard, that's just a matter of changing the standard.
Elsewhere they use a different standard, but the laws of physics are
the same.

correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since
the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
anything wrong with following international standard as international
aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

Gerald Sylvester

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard.

As have the aviation boards of every other country, as far as they can. It's the
only way they can keep their turf.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

The main problem with US pilots is that they often speak some
undefinable mumblejumble instead of English...

Stefan

Since when did US prevent foreign-registered aircrafy from landing in
the US?

Can you cite specific examples of US pilots phrasology causing dangerous
conditions?






Gerald Sylvester wrote in
:


correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards.
Since the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to
international standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they
see fit and not give a damn about international standard. For this, I
don't see anything wrong with following international standard as
international aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW,
I've heard many complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way
too much non-international standard phraseology making it hard to
understand and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.

Gerald Sylvester






--
Andrew Sarangan
CFII
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
...

correct. Since the US does allow non-US registered airplanes to land
in the US, does it make sense to follow international standards. Since
the AIM is not regulatory, it makes sense to conform to international
standards. Instead the FAA has decided to do as they see fit and
not give a damn about international standard. For this, I don't see
anything wrong with following international standard as international
aircraft can misunderstand the US phraseology. BTW, I've heard many
complaints from non-US pilot saying US pilots use way too much
non-international standard phraseology making it hard to understand
and dangerous for when US pilots fly abroad.


How long had you gone without sleep when you wrote that?