ATC ambiguities.

M

mtuomi

En-Route
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,056
Location
Dallas, TX
Display Name
Display name:
dera
I don't know if such thread exists, but I thought it would be useful to have a "clinic thread" of ambiguous ATC instructions.
I had another one today in KFRG.

To hear it yourself, pick up LiveATC.net 22th Feb 2130-2200 recording from KFRG TWR. My callsign is Ventura 7, listen from 03:20->.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfrg/KFRG-Twr1-Feb-22-2014-2130Z.mp3

I report downwind when joining, the instruction is: "V7, continue".

I believe "continue" means "continue your approach as per published VFR traffic pattern", not "continue downwind until further instructions are given". "continue" is not correct phraseology, it is an abbreviation. And the expected continuation is continuing approach, not continuing downwind. Atleast this is my opinion.

I continued my approach, turned base, turned final, and got a very annoyed "7VT did you turn base?!", I said affirm (I was actually at 200ft and finals at this point), and got told "I did not instruct you to do so", and after landing "please listen up next time".
This roughly at 7:15->

After landing, she still kept giving me hard time over this. (around 10:15->) I would love to know, what "continue" means. Even from LiveATC record I cannot hear the additional instructions and additional traffic she claimed she gave me.

What's the opinion about this?
 
mtuomi said:
I don't know if such thread exists, but I thought it would be useful to have a "clinic thread" of ambiguous ATC instructions.
I had another one today in KFRG.

To hear it yourself, pick up LiveATC.net 22th Feb 2130-2200 recording from KFRG TWR. My callsign is Ventura 7, listen from 03:20->.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfrg/KFRG-Twr1-Feb-22-2014-2130Z.mp3

I report downwind when joining, the instruction is: "V7, continue".

I believe "continue" means "continue your approach as per published VFR traffic pattern", not "continue downwind until further instructions are given". "continue" is not correct phraseology, it is an abbreviation. And the expected continuation is continuing approach, not continuing downwind. Atleast this is my opinion.

I continued my approach, turned base, turned final, and got a very annoyed "7VT did you turn base?!", I said affirm (I was actually at 200ft and finals at this point), and got told "I did not instruct you to do so", and after landing "please listen up next time".
This roughly at 7:15->

After landing, she still kept giving me hard time over this. (around 10:15->) I would love to know, what "continue" means. Even from LiveATC record I cannot hear the additional instructions and additional traffic she claimed she gave me.

What's the opinion about this?
Click to expand...

NASA it and let them figure it out and retrain if needed. See and avoid should be expanded to include hear and discuss as well.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Hmm. According to the P/CG:

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.
Click to expand...
 
mtuomi said:
I don't know if such thread exists, but I thought it would be useful to have a "clinic thread" of ambiguous ATC instructions.
I had another one today in KFRG.

To hear it yourself, pick up LiveATC.net 22th Feb 2130-2200 recording from KFRG TWR. My callsign is Ventura 7, listen from 03:20->.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfrg/KFRG-Twr1-Feb-22-2014-2130Z.mp3

I report downwind when joining, the instruction is: "V7, continue".

I believe "continue" means "continue your approach as per published VFR traffic pattern", not "continue downwind until further instructions are given". "continue" is not correct phraseology, it is an abbreviation. And the expected continuation is continuing approach, not continuing downwind. Atleast this is my opinion.

I continued my approach, turned base, turned final, and got a very annoyed "7VT did you turn base?!", I said affirm (I was actually at 200ft and finals at this point), and got told "I did not instruct you to do so", and after landing "please listen up next time".
This roughly at 7:15->

After landing, she still kept giving me hard time over this. (around 10:15->) I would love to know, what "continue" means. Even from LiveATC record I cannot hear the additional instructions and additional traffic she claimed she gave me.

What's the opinion about this?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That would have been unclear to me. Based on my limited experience, I've been instructed to "EXTEND downwind, I'll call your base" or, when on a long final, to "continue approach" (I think that's what they say). Weird.

If you still have turns to make, "continue" is really unclear.
 
The controller was wrong, but using "Continue" in such a manner may have become a common practice that the FAA has recognized and is attempting to correct-- because, although the controller's manual (7110.65) has listed "Continue" as an acceptable instruction for decades, a recent edition of the manual added the NOTE shown below.

CONTINUE.
NOTE−
Additional information should normally be issued with instructions to continue. Example: “continue, report one mile final”; “continue, expect landing clearance two mile final”; etc.

Apparently, the controller at KFRG didn't get the memo.
 
I agree. So far every time they have said "extend your downwind I will call your base". Now it was simply "continue". To me "continue" without any added instructions implies "continue your expected approach routing", which was the published VFR pattern, which I followed.
Yes, assumption is the mother of all f-ups, but the radio was very busy and I went by the implication. This is a lesson I learnt from today and from now on will ask for clarification.

Other thing here is, can anyone hear the traffic she wanted me to follow, or the instruction to do so?

What concerns me is, that I think she might have gone "off sequence" and believed I was somewhere else where I was, and that she gave the "over the mall" traffic to someone else.
 
I had a strange one a while back. I was on flight following with Philadelphia Approach and was told to "Report airport in sight to Philadelphia Approach on xxx.xx", which was a different frequency. Didn't know whether I was supposed to switch frequencies then, but definitely should have asked. I ended up monitoring both and they turned me loose on the new frequency without me saying airport in sight. Oh well.
 
I had a similar dust up with a controller at Northeast Philly who misuses "continue" in exactly the same fashion. He thinks it means "continue downwind I'll call your base". He also thinks you may not turn downwind to base without being to cleared to land.

Bottom line, it is our responsibility to have situational awareness of all the traffic and see and avoid, regardless of what instructions the controller is giving.

Otherwise, you can be hung out to dry, like this Cirrus driver in Fla:

http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147-9C4C-2A5517FD5DEE}
 
:yeahthat:

A quick, non standard follow up of "continue downwind?" with emphasis on the interrogative inflection would have been my way to handle it.
 
catmandu said:
:yeahthat:

A quick, non standard follow up of "continue downwind?" with emphasis on the interrogative inflection would have been my way to handle it.
Click to expand...

And if that doesn't work, " I'm a student pilot on my first solo. I don't understand." :rofl: Works every time. :rofl:

;)
 
My opinion is the controller erred by not doing what the FAA says in the Pilot/Controler Glossary about the word "continue":
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.
Click to expand...
However, given that definition, you could not have been certain what the controller wanted you to do, so you erred, too, by not immediately asking for clarification:
14 CFR 91.123(a) said:
When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
Click to expand...
So, I'd start by filing a NASA ASRS report on this including both the definition and the regulatory excerpt above. Then call the Tower Chief and discuss it further, admitting you realize now you should have asked for clarification, but asking that controllers be reminded that if they want aircraft to continue on the downwind, they must say "Venture 7, continue downwind," not just "Venture 7, continue", so the pilot doesn't have to add more communications to the very busy FRG Tower frequency by obtaining clarification when merely told "Venture 7, continue".

BTW, the fact that others here report other towers misusing the word "continue" in the same fashion lends support to filing the NASA ASRS report so this apparently systemic problem can be dealt with. I would urge anyone hearing a controller just say "continue" without the additional clarification discussed in the P/CG do the same every time it happens until it stops happening.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I'd go beyond C'Ron's suggestion, I'd report it to the facility. Berating pilots over the air even if it's the pilot's mistake is UNPROFESSIONAL and counter to safety. To do so when YOU are the one who screwed up is totally unreasonable. I ended up having a nice session with the tapes and the Dulles tower (gives you an idea how long ago this was) supervisor over one of these incidents.

PCT's head encouraged us to call the QA person whenever we had issues with what they were doing. Fortunately, the attitude of the facility is pretty good and I've had little cause (at least in the sectors I frequent) to complain.
 
Last edited:
Nothing ambiguous. The controller used improper phraseology from the .65. Continue is used in the air when a clearance is temporally withheld. They normally update that with additional instructions on to report or expect your clearance. But it means what it says; continue your pattern.

If the controller wanted you to "continue" on your downwind, they should have said "extend downwind." This is all in Ch 3 of the .65.
 
She actually gave a continue and "I'll call your base" to another aircraft as well. :D Get her out of there!

She sounds a bit unprofessional as well. If you have a problem with a pilot you handle it with a phone call and not chastising them over the air.
 
Definitely an ASRS report (to help address the problem in general). And, nothing wrong with a friendly call to the tower cab, a simple conversation about what you heard vs. what you expected, and how it was confusing. Everyone can learn...
 
I had one the other year. I was cleared for a "modified base entry" at KEMT, which is standard when you come from the East. "I'll call your final" he said. It was pretty busy and obviously he either forgot or got swamped. Now I'm way past final and centreline, on a crosswind that's against traffic for base traffic at the same altitude - not a good place to be. Can't get a word in edge-wise. I finally do a 45 degree and get out of there.

What would have been the correct way according to the rules? Just turn final?

Another little thing that happened when I'd just moved to the US and started flying here some years ago. "Nxxxx, I have a King Air on 5 mile final, can you do a short approach?". I'd learned to fly in Europe, but never heard that instruction before. Didn't know what it meant. So I asked and the controller explained and all was well. I bet they thought "who is this douche that flies a twin but still doesn't know what a short approach is?" :D But it's just a good reminder that you only learn so much from instruction, there will be stuff you need to learn on your own by flying. Like Tower Enroute IFR clearances. Never heard of them in all my IFR studies. It took my DPE asking for one for a short repo flight before I even knew such a thing existed. They're like the best things ever.
 
Last edited:
mtuomi said:
I agree. So far every time they have said "extend your downwind I will call your base". Now it was simply "continue". To me "continue" without any added instructions implies "continue your expected approach routing", which was the published VFR pattern, which I followed.
Yes, assumption is the mother of all f-ups, but the radio was very busy and I went by the implication. This is a lesson I learnt from today and from now on will ask for clarification.

Other thing here is, can anyone hear the traffic she wanted me to follow, or the instruction to do so?

What concerns me is, that I think she might have gone "off sequence" and believed I was somewhere else where I was, and that she gave the "over the mall" traffic to someone else.
Click to expand...

Odd phraseology for sure, I've never had that. The controller is always specific.

That said, were there any other exchanges between you and the tower between her saying "continue" and her asking if you'd turned base?

200'? Did you at any point ask if you were cleared to land?

I don't care if it's busy, or if I look stupid. If I didn't hear it, or didn't understand it, I'll ask for clarification.
 
stratobee said:
I had one the other year. I was cleared for a "modified base entry" at KEMT, which is standard when you come from the East. "I'll call your final" he said. It was pretty busy and obviously he either forgot or got swamped. Now I'm way past final and centreline, on a crosswind that's against traffic for base traffic at the same altitude - not a good place to be. Can't get a word in edge-wise. I finally do a 45 degree and get out of there.

What would have been the correct way according to the rules? Just turn final?
Click to expand...
Given the apparent hazard of conflict with other traffic, I'd say 91.3(b) would apply and the correct thing to do would be whatever minimizes the chance of a mid-air collision. Exactly what that might be is hard to say from my perspective here in my office at my computer, so I won't speculate further.

Another little thing that happened when I'd just moved to the US and started flying here some years ago. "Nxxxx, I have a King Air on 5 mile final, can you do a short approach?". I'd learned to fly in Europe, but never heard that instruction before. Didn't know what it meant. So I asked and the controller explained and all was well.
Click to expand...
And that is as it should be.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Odd phraseology for sure, I've never had that. The controller is always specific.

That said, were there any other exchanges between you and the tower between her saying "continue" and her asking if you'd turned base?

200'? Did you at any point ask if you were cleared to land?

I don't care if it's busy, or if I look stupid. If I didn't hear it, or didn't understand it, I'll ask for clarification.
Click to expand...

Good point.....

If I don't hear those magical words,:yes: I prompt the tower guys/gals..
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Odd phraseology for sure, I've never had that. The controller is always specific.

That said, were there any other exchanges between you and the tower between her saying "continue" and her asking if you'd turned base?

200'? Did you at any point ask if you were cleared to land?

I don't care if it's busy, or if I look stupid. If I didn't hear it, or didn't understand it, I'll ask for clarification.
Click to expand...

Based on the LiveATC recording and my own recollection, there were nothing between "continue" and "did you turn base?!". The landing clearance came right after I said "affirm" to "did you turn base".

I posted the link to the LiveATC recording with timestamps, you'll hear it very well there.

I was aware I was not cleared to land, I was prepared to go around if I didn't receive the clearance.
I fly in Europe every now and then, and over there you are not cleared to land before previous plane clears the runway. That is why I'm quite used on getting landing clearance over threshold, so at 200ft I still had plenty of time.
 
I listened to the recording. It would be improper to try to figure out what exactly transpired. I would say, if you have any questions, ask the controller.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
FRG tower, especially one of those girls can be a nightmare. The instructions were vague and incomplete. What I suggest, is call the tower supervisor, get his email address and send him the link.
 
You don't need the link. They have tape playback, assuming it's within 14 days.
 
I just listened. Makes me appreciate my local controllers. My 2 local airports handle a lot of students and corporates. If they don't stick to standard phraseology, they hear about it. Once in a while I hear a pilot chew out a controller on freq. I cringe when that happens because every time I've heard it, I knew the pilot was wrong. The only time I heard a controller really lose his cool was when I was on a 2 mile final and someone else cut in front of me from a right base - and the guy hadn't even been cleared into the D. That was entertaining radio.

In your case, having to listen to her scold you, "I told you to continue your downwind. Listen up next time!", when clearly that's not what she said, got ME wanting to call the tower.
 
MarkZ said:
You don't need the link. They have tape playback, assuming it's within 14 days.
Click to expand...

Give the link, makes it easier than just telling them "on this day, around this time". It also locks it into proof it happens just in case the supervisor decides to say he didn't find it because he was too lazy to review the tapes on his own.
 
If you call the facility at any time except for immediately after the incident, the supervisor or manager will ask what date, and what time (approximately) this happened. Though they may have the frequency traffic, the FAA doesn't use LiveATC when investigating incidents.
 
Matthew said:
I just listened. Makes me appreciate my local controllers. My 2 local airports handle a lot of students and corporates. If they don't stick to standard phraseology, they hear about it. Once in a while I hear a pilot chew out a controller on freq. I cringe when that happens because every time I've heard it, I knew the pilot was wrong. The only time I heard a controller really lose his cool was when I was on a 2 mile final and someone else cut in front of me from a right base - and the guy hadn't even been cleared into the D. That was entertaining radio.

In your case, having to listen to her scold you, "I told you to continue your downwind. Listen up next time!", when clearly that's not what she said, got ME wanting to call the tower.
Click to expand...

I trained at Ormond Beach and Daytona Beach, and I have nothing but praise for the controllers over there, especially KOMN.

Going to KDAB tomorrow, hope it's still the same down there :)

Quite frankly, her comments after my landing were the reason why I'm going to call them asap. She told other traffic to follow traffic elsewhere, not me. This is clearly audible in the tape. So I believe she got myself mixed up with someone else, and that is worth a report.

Especially after the scolding, which I think was unprofessional, especially when she commented about it to other planes as well.
 
It should be noted that, although the situation in the OP wasn't one, there ARE times when use of the single word "Continue" is entirely appropriate-- I used it all the time at O'Hare, where almost all approaches are straight-ins.

I'm still old school, in that I didn't clear an airplane to land until I was sure that everything was going to work out: the arrival ahead was going to clear the runway, the departure ahead was actually on takeoff roll, the traffic operating on intersecting runways wasn't going to be a factor, etc. Those are things I often wouldn't know when an arrival called at the outer marker. But the single word "Continue" told the pilot all he needed to know at that point: he was to continue the approach, but he wasn't cleared to land yet. Once I was sure that all the dominoes were falling in the proper direction, I'd issue landing clearance (usually before the aircraft was a mile final).
 
flibmeister said:
It should be noted that, although the situation in the OP wasn't one, there ARE times when use of the single word "Continue" is entirely appropriate-- I used it all the time at O'Hare, where almost all approaches are straight-ins.

I'm still old school, in that I didn't clear an airplane to land until I was sure that everything was going to work out: the arrival ahead was going to clear the runway, the departure ahead was actually on takeoff roll, the traffic operating on intersecting runways wasn't going to be a factor, etc. Those are things I often wouldn't know when an arrival called at the outer marker. But the single word "Continue" told the pilot all he needed to know at that point: he was to continue the approach, but he wasn't cleared to land yet. Once I was sure that all the dominoes were falling in the proper direction, I'd issue landing clearance (usually before the aircraft was a mile final).
Click to expand...

Good comment!
As an ATC (I assume), would you say that "continue" when entering downwind should normally be intrepeted as "continue as per published VFR traffic pattern", or "continue until told otherwise"?
 
Got lots of radar experience but I've only worked in a ramp tower. I would understand continue to mean, don't change anything. If you call the facility, give them the time and date, and ask them if there was a way you could have helped better. Most managers will look +/- 15 minutes from the incident. And who knows, maybe FRG has some local weird phraseology thing that no one knows about?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Geico266 said:
Ask for clarification if there is doubt.
Click to expand...

Yeah absolutely! Can't assume anything when it comes to traffic and busy airports. Glad you got away with it but a simple, " continue on the downwind," or "even understand continue approach" would either elicit a " negative continue on downwind," or something similar from ATC.
 
MarkZ said:
Got lots of radar experience but I've only worked in a ramp tower. I would understand continue to mean, don't change anything. If you call the facility, give them the time and date, and ask them if there was a way you could have helped better. Most managers will look +/- 15 minutes from the incident. And who knows, maybe FRG has some local weird phraseology thing that no one knows about?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And that's the exact problem -- the controller's idea of what needs to not change and the pilots idea of the same are not always in sync, where a little more verbosity can make things crystal clear (read: safer, and can help congest the radio less due to less clarification).
 
mtuomi said:
Good comment!
As an ATC (I assume), would you say that "continue" when entering downwind should normally be intrepeted as "continue as per published VFR traffic pattern", or "continue until told otherwise"?
Click to expand...
Regardless of what any particular controller thinks a pilot should interpret that "continue" to mean, the ATC Handbook and the Pilot/Controller Glossary both tell the controller not to use that word alone. But regardless of that, 91.123(a) absolutely requires the pilot to obtain clarification immediately when the controller says something whose meaning isn't certain to the pilot.
 
Again, continue is used to inform an aircraft to continue their approach. Such as "N12345, continue, expect your clearance on 1 mile final." It is NOT used to instruct an aircraft to continue on downwind. Continue is used when the controller cant clear the aircraft because of their current traffic situation. They're simply withholding the clearance until the appropriate time. The controller is this case shouldn't even use "continue, I'll call your base." Correct phraseology is "extend downwind..."

The phraseology is in ch 3 of the 7110.65.
 
mtuomi said:
I trained at Ormond Beach and Daytona Beach, and I have nothing but praise for the controllers over there, especially KOMN.

Going to KDAB tomorrow, hope it's still the same down there :)

Quite frankly, her comments after my landing were the reason why I'm going to call them asap. She told other traffic to follow traffic elsewhere, not me. This is clearly audible in the tape. So I believe she got myself mixed up with someone else, and that is worth a report.

Especially after the scolding, which I think was unprofessional, especially when she commented about it to other planes as well.
Click to expand...

I think I've heard of our local flight schools/FBOs having meetings with the tower guys just to make sure things are running smoothly. Sometimes, problems are with CFIs that pull past the hold short line after landing, then have a post-landing briefing on the taxiway and tie up the exit. Other times it's controllers getting impatient with students. If there are continuing problems with a particular controller, or there are local customs that aren't familiar to non-local pilots, regular talks can lighten things up.
 
mtuomi said:
Good comment!
As an ATC (I assume), would you say that "continue" when entering downwind should normally be intrepeted as "continue as per published VFR traffic pattern", or "continue until told otherwise"?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think use of the word "Continue" was nonsensical in the manner it was used; she might have just as well said "Roger". Her use of the term in the manner she did begs for further qualifiers, which she should have provided without prompting.
 
flibmeister said:
Actually, I think use of the word "Continue" was nonsensical in the manner it was used; she might have just as well said "Roger". Her use of the term in the manner she did begs for further qualifiers, which she should have provided without prompting.
Click to expand...
...and without the clarification the controller should have provided, the pilot is required to demand that clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top