Radio Procedure - Runway ID

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.


How does use of a leading zero avoid confusion with lower runway numbers?

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. One key role for the instructor is to say "try doing this".
You do, and you verify by your own experience that it works reasonably
well.

"Try saying 'runway zero nine'."

Sure, a student's introduction to radio communication usually comes from the
instructor. And saying 'zero nine' does work reasonably well, even though
it's nonstandard (in the US).

And are all books correct?

They are when they're in a position to declare by fiat what the official
convention is (as the AIM does with regard to US aviation radio
phraseology).

In learning, one synthesizes, but there's only a limited amount of time
available. The instructor helps "cut to the chase", as it were, and
though nothing should be accepted blindly, challenging everything the
instructor tells you becomes rather pointless, especially in the
beginning.

No disagreement there. But we were talking about what pilots should know by
the time they have their certificates. We're certainly expected to have read
the AIM. And although we don't usually memorize every detail therein, we're
expected to know what sort of things are probably there, and how to go back
and find them. Standard radio phraseology is among the most obvious of those
things.

Instructors can also call your attention to errors or lapses in your
technique that aren't evident to you until they're pointed out.

I thought that's what Usenet was for.

Yup. The aviation newsgroups perform a number of useful instructor-like
functions.

--Gary

There is a section in the A.I.M. which clarifies this, and will add
that zero for safety.

Fly safe,

Bush

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:47:32 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote:

Not particularly germane to this discussion, but KIYK is a non-tower
airport. I was up doing bumps and rounds, AKA touch-n-goes yesterday, and
was dutifully calling out my various positions as any good airman in the
pattern should do.

Now, I was calling the runway as 02, like in "....33Xray, turning left base,
runway Zero-Two, Inyokern." Over the radio comes a voice to admonish me
that, "...there is no zero in front of the two." Never wanting to rankle a
fellow pilot, I dropped the zero -- well, most of the time, anyway.
Thirty-year-old habits are hard to break.

Does it matter? Is there a protocol for this?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

For a runway like "3" it might make sense to use the leading zero,
simply to avoid confusion with runway "30" -- but for higher numbers I
guess it's dumb, now that I think about it.


How does use of a leading zero avoid confusion with lower runway numbers?

It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
"cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
designation.

--Gary

"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in message
news:Z_X3f.209$t12.133@trnddc03...

Please provide a reference for that.


International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume I,
Aerodromes

and if no one replies... do you assume that no one is there??

NOT

BT

"Mike W." wrote in message
...
Who knows, somebody might reply. Usually not.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

It doesn't. It's like saying "any traffic in the area please advise."
Serves no purpose but doesn't hurt anything.

Because we still have humans piloting these darned flying machines and
humans are sometimes absent minded.

I just realized that my earlier post could be more clear. The leading
zero in most cases wouldn't hurt. Here, I'd omit the leading zero for
runway two on the off chance that someone misunderstands "zero two" to
mean "two zero."

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

It adds some redundancy. If there's both a 3 and a 30, and the tower says
"cleared to land runway three zero" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot might head for the wrong runway. Under the ICAO rules,
however, the pilot would know that "runway three" is not a correct
designation.


Now you're introducing non-standard phraseology. In the US, the runway
designator precedes the landing clearance. It's "runway three zero cleared
to land", not "cleared to land runway three zero". If the tower says
"runway three zero cleared to land" but gets blocked right after saying
"three", a US pilot hasn't been issue a clearance to land on any runway.

Jose wrote:

But if the student can find documentation to back up all the
instructor's assertions, then the instructor is pretty much superfluous,
no?

Only if the student would have found and read all that documentation without the
instructor saying anything.

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.