ATC Phraseology

I heard the following exchange this morning:


ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"

silence

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I heard the following exchange this morning:


ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"

silence

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate?


No.



Must controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?


No.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I heard the following exchange this morning:


ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"

silence

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate?


No.



Must controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?


No.


Thanks for the information.

Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
experience?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the information.

Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
experience?


Only one that I can immediately recall. Some twenty years ago I was at
Chicago Center working the OSH sector. I had an arrival to MKE, the route
was GRB direct BJB direct MKE. BJB is the arrival fix for MKE arrivals from
the north, by Letter of Agreement jets are to cross BJB at 10,000 feet. I
issued the descent clearance as he crossed the Center boundary about ten
miles south of GRB, "cross West Bend VOR at and maintain one zero thousand."
The pilot responded, in a rather snotty tone, "I wasn't aware that West Bend
had DME." I confirmed that it did not have DME, to which he asked, "Then
how do you expect us to cross it at ten?" I replied, "I expect you to
practice the fine art of navigation, please advise if that presents a
problem to you." "Outta two four oh for ten" was his reply, in a much less
snotty tone.

Our only other discourse was the communications transfer. Had he something
more to say about the descent clearance I was prepared to point out that if
a simple time-speed-distance problem was too challenging for him, proceeding
to BJB VOR did not preclude use of DME from GRB VORTAC.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:09:09 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Thanks for the information.

Have you ever run across this sort of pilot in your years of
experience?


Only one that I can immediately recall. Some twenty years ago I was at
Chicago Center working the OSH sector. I had an arrival to MKE, the route
was GRB direct BJB direct MKE. BJB is the arrival fix for MKE arrivals from
the north, by Letter of Agreement jets are to cross BJB at 10,000 feet. I
issued the descent clearance as he crossed the Center boundary about ten
miles south of GRB, "cross West Bend VOR at and maintain one zero thousand."
The pilot responded, in a rather snotty tone, "I wasn't aware that West Bend
had DME." I confirmed that it did not have DME, to which he asked, "Then
how do you expect us to cross it at ten?" I replied, "I expect you to
practice the fine art of navigation, please advise if that presents a
problem to you." "Outta two four oh for ten" was his reply, in a much less
snotty tone.

Our only other discourse was the communications transfer. Had he something
more to say about the descent clearance I was prepared to point out that if
a simple time-speed-distance problem was too challenging for him, proceeding
to BJB VOR did not preclude use of DME from GRB VORTAC.



Interesting. It sounds like the pilot was a little confused, and his
response, while inappropriate, did reveal _his_ misunderstanding and
less than adequate situational awareness, but I don't read it as an
attempt to needlessly harass the controller (you).

In the scenario I provided, it seemed that the pilot just wanted to
annoy the controller for no good reason. Perhaps they knew each
other, or this exchange was a legacy of some previous confrontation
between them.

Thanks for the story.

Larry Dighera wrote:
I heard the following exchange this morning:


ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; say current wind."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower, wind 150 at 4."

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; is that wind *ZERO* 4?"

silence

Citation-XXX: "ABC-Tower, Citation-XXX; confirm wind *ZERO* 4."

ABC-Tower: "Citation-XXX, ABC-Tower; that's affirmative."


Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?




They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
certainly can cut down on mis-communication.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...

They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
certainly can cut down on mis-communication.


The issue was the wind speed, not the direction. The controller issued the
wind correctly.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
They should. 04 and 40 are very different directions and radios in
aircraft are notoriously bad so adding the 0 where it is supposed to be
certainly can cut down on mis-communication.


The issue was the wind speed, not the direction. The controller issued the
wind correctly.


You are right I mis-read.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Was the Citation pilot's pedantic request appropriate? Must
controllers prepend a "zero" to single-digit wind speeds?


I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the AC
wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have been
painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original answer.

I still would have said "150 at 4" the first time. I'd bet 90% of pilots would
never ask for the answer to be amplified unless they had good reason... say
heavy turbulence, passing cells or whatever. So for 90%, that would have been
the end of it.

But if I don't understand or am not sure I understand a reply, I'd ask for an
amplified answer in a heartbeat.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
news

I'd say both were appropriate. The AC asked; the controller answered; the
AC wasn't sure whether he heard "four" or "forty" (although it should have
been painfully obvious), and so the controller clarified his original
answer.


If there had been 40 knots of wind it would have been issued as "four zero",
not "forty".