If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:49:58 -0700, "Mike Noel"
wrote: I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500' from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed. Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA. It sounds as if the controller is abbreviating the proper use of the phrase. From the pilot/controller glossary: CONTINUE- When used as a control instruction should be followed by another word or words clarifying what is expected of the pilot. Example: "continue taxi", "continue descent", "continue inbound" etc. However, I would assume that CONTINUE means to continue doing whatever it was that I just told ATC I was doing. In your instance, having been cleared to 4500' by ATC, I, too, would have asked for clarification as to whether or not descent below my previously cleared altitude was OK. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Let us remember the all-versatile NOP. Then we could alter the command by
inserting an instruction during the execution of the code. Great stuff. Used it often when writing programs for the computer that would occupy half a room, but had only 2K characters for both the program and data. Those were 6 bit characters, BTW. Oh, this was the bigger machine. The machine started with 1K characters. And no, it was not a wired program, it had a real programming language. 5 characters per instruction. 1 character for the operation, 4 for the operand. Address was by row and column. Used the same logic right on up the line to those fancy new languages called Fortran and Cobol. The Weiss Family wrote in message ... Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword. Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-) "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said: Paul Tomblin wrote: In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers. The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also. I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran to Watfiv-S had it. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ `And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked* by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The new Algorithmic Traffic Control (ATC) system:
for ALTITUDE = 5500 to 0 step -500FPM if ( LANDED ON RUNWAY ) then BREAK if ( CLEARED TO LAND ) then CONTINUE if ( ALTITUDE = PATTERN ALTITUDE ) then LOOP next ALTITUDE (Boy am I geeky!) (Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:c8oquf$ic9$3 @allhats.xcski.com: In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"The Weiss Family" wrote in message ... Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword. Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-) printf("Yes", %s); "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said: Paul Tomblin wrote: In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers. The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also. I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran to Watfiv-S had it. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ `And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked* by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Stop poking fun about FORTRAN. When I was in school, and writing fortran
code, we did it with punch cards on IBM 129 keypunch machines! With the 8 track tape playing in the background. LOL!!!!!! "Henry Q. Bibb" wrote in message k.net... In article , says... In a previous article, "Mike Noel" said: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers. Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark recesses... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Tomblin wrote: I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran to Watfiv-S had it. I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop structure commands. George Patterson I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" said:
"The Weiss Family" wrote in message ... Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword. Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-) printf("Yes", %s); Evidently it's a forum for *failed* nerds. (The format string comes first in a printf function.) -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "How do you feel about women's rights?" "I like either side of them." -- Groucho Marx, 1890-1977 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
Paul Tomblin wrote: I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran to Watfiv-S had it. I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop structure commands. That's not what CONTINUE did in FORTRAN - it was just a no-op for a statement that needed a line number, like a DO loop target. And CONTINUE was in FORTRAN I, as well as the FORTRAN-66 spec, so either you didn't know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying about being FORTRAN. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote: In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said: Paul Tomblin wrote: I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran to Watfiv-S had it. I used FORTRAN-E, FORTRAN-66, and TOPS-10. None of them had loop structure commands. That's not what CONTINUE did in FORTRAN - it was just a no-op for a statement that needed a line number, like a DO loop target. And CONTINUE was in FORTRAN I, as well as the FORTRAN-66 spec, so either you didn't know your language very well, or the language you were using was lying about being FORTRAN. Not to mention that TOPS-10 was an operating system, not a programming language. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: Not to mention that TOPS-10 was an operating system, not a programming language. Yeah, but DEC had their own version of the FORTRAN compiler for that system. George Patterson I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tower Enroute Control? | Sam Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | June 2nd 04 02:31 AM |
Contract Tower Program - Discussion Thread | running with scissors | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | April 22nd 04 04:04 AM |
Contract Tower Program - Discussion Thread | running with scissors | Military Aviation | 6 | April 22nd 04 04:04 AM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |