announcements, discussions and recordings of PilotEdge real-time workshops
Keith Smith
Posts: 9939 Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:
Post
by Keith Smith » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:34 am
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
Posts: 72 Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:12 am
Location: KSMO
Post
by jtek » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:42 am
bruce wrote: 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.
Josh Hinman
PPL ASEL IA (KSMO)
Jeff N
Posts: 304 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:17 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA / KSNA
Post
by Jeff N » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:50 am
jtek wrote: bruce wrote: 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
Posts: 342 Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Location: Ely, IA (KCID)
Post
by Pieces » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:52 am
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
Posts: 72 Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:12 am
Location: KSMO
Post
by jtek » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:53 am
Pieces wrote: 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.
Josh Hinman
PPL ASEL IA (KSMO)
Jeff N
Posts: 304 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:17 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA / KSNA
Post
by Jeff N » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:05 pm
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
Posts: 72 Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:12 am
Location: KSMO
Post
by jtek » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:42 pm
Jeff N wrote: 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.
Josh Hinman
PPL ASEL IA (KSMO)
Keith Smith
Posts: 9939 Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:
Post
by Keith Smith » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:07 pm
I have to agree, flight levels resolve the ambiguity. I've settled on "[current altitude] climbing/descending [target altitude]" long ago.
Ryan Geckler
Posts: 262 Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:42 pm
Post
by Ryan Geckler » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:59 pm
And if someone was climing to FL460 there would be some broken regulations
Ryan Geckler | ERAU CTI Graduate
PilotEdge Air Traffic Control Specialist
Rush
Posts: 35 Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:49 am
Post
by Rush » Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:49 am
Any workshops coming up? Was wondering if these will start back up any time soon.