Radio Procedure - Runway ID

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
t...

That's nonsense. You must say the november.


Why?



What country do you live in?

The United States of America.



Oh, you must have forgotten that there are other countries than the US.


Nope.



Don't assume everyone here lives in the US.


I never have,



Plenty of non-US pilots here too.


Yup.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
Thank you for proving my point. Again.

No, thank YOU for proving MY point. Again.

You are so darned cooperative...I see hours of entertainment coming up...

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

".Blueskies." wrote in message . ..

Looks like this doc addresses the design and layout of 'aerodromes'; I cannot find any reference to radio
communications there...

It does address the design and layout of 'aerodromes', including runway designators and markings. It calls for a
leading zero for single-digit runways. The US does not follow that particular ICAO standard.


Yea, that is what I was reading, but is there a mandate to use the leading zero when referring to that runway via some
sort of regulation or standard?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Are you saying
controllers should use a leading zero, which would be another
phraseology
error, when issuing improper clearances for runways with
single-digit
designations?



Well, there is an apparent local rule in my neck of the woods where
if there's a control tower, no leading "zero." Nontowered field
you must use it. See, there's a big flight school based at two
fields near each other, one tower the other not. The students
practice both places, of course. On the freq you'll hear the same
student say "zero five" on unicom, but later return to the towered
field and acknowledge ATC instructions by referring only to its
"runway six" like tower does.

I think it's the CFIs who advise this. Has to be. A couple of
them tell the students that if there's a displaced threshold, you
are to taxi up to the white line and then apply full power. On one
runway, that's 900 feet and comical to watch.

They also for our other rwy, say "one zero." At the big air
carrier field which has its rwy 10, they don't. Whichever, but I
think it could only possibly be "misheard" if the field also had a
rwy 2.

No one can make this stuff up.

Fred F.

On the winds aloft forecast, they do. Your bank book is entirely
irrelevant.

If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are irrelevant.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
...

Problem is, that some tower controllers do use 'cleared to land
runway xx'. Listen to the JFK or BOS feeds, and you'll hear exactly
that on a daily basis. Some call it 'non-standard phraseology', others
call it 'technique'.

What would you do? send them back for retraining? They are
giving a valid landing clearance (runway assigned, and 'cleared to
land').


So what specifically do you see as the problem there? Are you saying
controllers should use a leading zero, which would be another phraseology
error, when issuing improper clearances for runways with single-digit
designations?

You have taken my post out of context. If you re-read it, and
its parent, it is regarding 'cleared to land runway xx', vs. 'runway
xx, cleared to land. This doesn't have anything to do with the leading
zero.. yet.

By your own definition, it is non-standard phraseology. Yet,
certified controllers are using this non-standard phraseology on a
daily basis. Your very own coworkers are doing the thing you say is
wrong. My question is, you say what they are using is wrong, and they
say (by using it), that it is right. Which one of you is right? and if
one is wrong, who should be retrained?


There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.


Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?

Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
are valid.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDUYeIyBkZmuMZ8L8RAk2MAJ4k9DdHwkbswOxmSF+jF/XBypg4HwCgwo8N
cLT9jl7/IHOLQ6AZGNvefLc=
=McTZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are
irrelevant.

I see that you are being intentionally obtuse. Oh, and your bank book ought
to have the right numbers in it, otherwise you are also guilty of making a
false statement.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

No, thank YOU for proving MY point. Again.

You are so darned cooperative...I see hours of entertainment coming up...

Glad to do it.

If my bank book has the wrong numbers in it, the winds aloft are
irrelevant.

I see that you are being intentionally obtuse.

No, I was being ineffectively humorous. You can represent ten degrees
below zero by the number 3 if you want (and it's reasonable to do so in
certain contexts), however 3 does not equal -10. You can represent it
with a smiley face too; that doesn't make smiley faces into numbers.

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

" There is this as well.. while people can argue that it is
taking up time on the frequency (valid argument), adding the preceding
zero to single digit runways does add clarity to which runway they are
shooting for. As a pilot, I would live with that extra fraction of a
second to hear that another pilot is calling that they are landing on
02 instead of being confused hearing a garbled transmission, and didn't
know if they were going for runway 2 or 20.


Have you noticed that all the justifications for use of the leading zero
involve improper phraseology or garbled transmissions?

Yes, I have, and admit so. I am just saying that there are pros
and cons to using/not using the leading zero, and both those reasons
are valid.


It is similar to the use of the words affirmative and negative. Outside the
US the word affirm is used to draw a distinct difference from negative.
Again if a transmission is cut or garbled there is a better chance to know
what's being said.

A ?tive is a negative not an affirmative.
Surely that's the point of developing a standard phraseology.