Upcoming workshops?

[Keith Smith]

That was just a bit of fun, not meant to detract from the value or possibility of hosting an ATC comms workshop

My original concern was that the current user base might not be interested in a comms course, but that a workshop would bring attention from a new client base who aren't already familiar with PE. It sounds like that concern may have not been warranted, so that's good news.

[jtek]

Good idea! Good basic procedure helps when things get a bit more complex.

Pet niggles....

"with you"
"climbing 2 6000" umm was that 6000 or 26,000?

from a not so perfect procedure man, but one who tries

Strangely enough, the AIM recommends the "climbing to"/"descending to" phraseology. But I agree; it's problematic and I avoid it.

[Jeff N]

Good idea! Good basic procedure helps when things get a bit more complex.

Pet niggles....

"with you"
"climbing 2 6000" umm was that 6000 or 26,000?

from a not so perfect procedure man, but one who tries

Strangely enough, the AIM recommends the "climbing to"/"descending to" phraseology. But I agree; it's problematic and I avoid it.

So just drop the "to"?

"Centurion 9356Y climbing 6000" sounds to me like I might be climbing through 6000.

Oh and for the record I vote heartily for a comms workshop.

[Pieces]

I usually say "1600 climbing 4000" (one thousand six hundred, climbing four thousand). That way it is clear you're not at 4000 and climbing.

[jtek]

I usually say "1600 climbing 4000" (one thousand six hundred, climbing four thousand). That way it is clear you're not at 4000 and climbing.

Exactly.

[Jeff N]

Ah, got it.

Now that I think about it, I say; "climbing through 2000 for 6000" as I doubt anyone will think I'm climbing to 46,000 in the GA planes I fly.

[jtek]

Ah, got it.

Now that I think about it, I say; "climbing through 2000 for 6000" as I doubt anyone will think I'm climbing to 46,000 in the GA planes I fly.

And even if you were in a fancy jet, you would say "for flight level four six zero". I think I see now why the AIM has no problem recommending "for" in the phraseology. There really isn't a realistic scenario where that is going to be misunderstood.

[Keith Smith]

I have to agree, flight levels resolve the ambiguity. I've settled on "[current altitude] climbing/descending [target altitude]" long ago.

[Ryan Geckler]

And if someone was climing to FL460 there would be some broken regulations

[Rush]

Any workshops coming up? Was wondering if these will start back up any time soon.