ATC subtle hints

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

I heard a tower controller say:
What he said: "I'm not receiving your mode C"
What he meant: "Change that (old) discrete code to 1200"

I thought what he meant was "Why the hell aren't you anywhere near your
assigned altitude?"

The aircraft was in the pattern doing night currency.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Often they do it during a Customs Inspection and other
times, I'm sure during a "ramp check" at 2 AM.


"randall g" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:32:20 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Sometimes drug smugglers sell their airplanes [if they
| didn't just steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a
| chance they will hardwire their own transponder in the
| airplane so it is always on so they can track them. The
new
| owner finds out that their regular panel mounted
transponder
| isn't working and then they find the DEA's mounted
somewhere
| in the belly.
|
|
| ?? How would the DEA get a chance to do that? Do they get
a warrant to
| break into a suspect aircraft and install additional
avionics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
| http://www.telemark.net/randallg
| Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
| http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
| Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, randall g
said:
| ?? How would the DEA get a chance to do that? Do they get
a warrant to
| break into a suspect aircraft and install additional
avionics?
|
| Warrants? The "War On [Some] Drugs" was the training
ground for the sorts
| of unconstitutional excesses that are now part of the "War
On [Some]
| Terrorists".
|
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
| "Being lectured on fiscal responsibility by George Bush is
like being
| lectured on law and order by Tony Soprano." - John Kerry

boy, have i enjoyed reading all this thread just now. (while watching
the cards kick the stuffins outta the metz) laughed my butt off
thinking about some faa guy tracking down the source of a black box to
the d.e.a. (as if??) and he's like " this is illegal! " and the dea
guys are looking at him like he just arrived straight from the planet
zernon.

i've had "say altitude" and the rest of that stuff since, till lately,
i'm a pretty local 3000 ft or below flyer. i just like looking down at
all the interesting stuff.

thanks for the entertainment.

dan (it's 5/0 - birds - bottom of 5th...oops - top of 6th )


Emily wrote:
GeorgeC wrote:
snip
To add insult to injury. I was landing at my home base and the airport had a VOR
on the field.

Because I am masochist, I decided it would be fun to fly a partial panel
single engine NDB approach at my home airport one day. Keep in mind I'd
done the approach at least 30 times, but for some reason was really
struggling on this particular day. Still, I figured I was at least
pointed somewhat towards the runway until tower called me.

Tower: Aztec 12345, is that you breaking off the approach?
Me to safety pilot: What the $#@! is he talking about?
Me to tower: Ah, negative, Aztec 12345 will break off the approach over
the numbers.
Tower: Aztec 12345: Which numbers?
Safety pilot: Um, maybe you need to look up now.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

One of our club's planes did that for a while, but mostly when talking to
Rochester Approach. Approach didn't like it much, because it sets off a
collision alarm - and sometimes the ghost would be squawking 7777, which
sets off other alarms.

Isn't 7777 a military intercept?

Emily wrote:



The FAA is in on it.


But do they violate unsuspecting people who buy a plane that was
previously used for drug smuggling? That's what I was getting at.


No.

Emily wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:

I've seen it a couple of times. The Feds do what they want, a two
pound ATCRBS doesn't cause any W&B issues. Besides, it is the PIC
responsibility.


Of course it's not going to knock the aircraft off CG, but it's still a
requirement to calculate the change.


Not required for a two pound change.

In article ,
kontiki wrote:

Today, right after being cleared for takeoff, and while rolling onto on Rwy 36
at SAV I got a traffic advisory from tower about a 757 on a 3 mile final
to Rwy 9.
(for me, that's the lowest altitude I have ever been when receiveing a
traffic advisory!). I responded with "38H is looking" and made an expeditious
take-off and got a good glance at the big airplane on the way in maybe a mile
out as I crossed the intersection.

Not a subtle hint, but going by SFO one time, Norcal called with
"traffic 2 o'clock and three miles, a heavy 747 restricted below
you, report traffic in sight". It is kind of hard to miss a 747
in CAVU when it is coming right at you and passing 500ft below you.

http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-02-20-06/target2.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Newps wrote:


Emily wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:

I've seen it a couple of times. The Feds do what they want, a two
pound ATCRBS doesn't cause any W&B issues. Besides, it is the PIC
responsibility.


Of course it's not going to knock the aircraft off CG, but it's still
a requirement to calculate the change.


Not required for a two pound change.

Sorry, I guess I was referring to our company specific requirements...my
mistake.

Do you think the DEA will bother to tell the suspect pilot
that they need the logbooks to enter the new W&B for the
tracking device they have installed?


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| I've seen it a couple of times. The Feds do what they
want,
| a two pound ATCRBS doesn't cause any W&B issues.
Besides,
| it is the PIC responsibility.
|
|
| Of course it's not going to knock the aircraft off CG, but
it's still a
| requirement to calculate the change.
|