Proper terminology for approaches?

midlifeflyer said:
So far, I have never heard anyone use the phrase "1 minute weather." Not saying it isn't used, just that I nave not heard it even once in the air in the 20+ years I have been flying.
Click to expand...

I have only recently learned of the phrase via a DPE who advocated it. After I learned about it I actually have heard a few people use it. I think it's possible I've heard people use it before and just never noticed.
 
One guy I flew with used the phrase "one minute weather" but he's the only one.
 
dmspilot said:
I have only recently learned of the phrase via a DPE who advocated it. After I learned about it I actually have heard a few people use it. I think it's possible I've heard people use it before and just never noticed.
Click to expand...
I have heard and said "have the [Airport] weather" and have heard ATC query, "do you have the current [Airport] weather?" when approaching a nontowered airport IFR.

But the "1-minute weather?" Nope. I definitely would have noticed it precisely because it is unusual.

I guess I can see some usefulness for the phrase. It indicates that you listened to AWOS (updated every minute) as opposed to looking at the METAR (updated once an hour) on an ADS-B feed. Even though you are reporting "1 -minute weather" 20 miles out, I guess it's at least a little more current (sometimes).
 
I prefer the 59 second weather. Way more accurate than the one minute version. ;)
 
midlifeflyer said:
But the "1-minute weather?" Nope. I definitely would have noticed it precisely because it is unusual.
Click to expand...

Do you really pay that close attention to other people's radio calls when they're irrelevant to you? But I digress. The first time I heard it in the wild, I suspected that maybe the person using it had been an examinee of the aforementioned DPE.
 
dmspilot said:
Do you really pay that close attention to other people's radio calls when they're irrelevant to you? But I digress. The first time I heard it in the wild, I suspected that maybe the person using it had been an examinee of the aforementioned DPE.
Click to expand...
How much attention do you have to pay to notice when the usual chatter is broken up by an unusual turn of phrase? I suppose every report of "I heard something funny on the radio today" - some of which make it into aviation magazine columns - is based on exactly that.

But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean by "irrelvant." Some years ago I was receiving a checkout in a new-to-me make/model. We headed back to our home base. There was the usual Tower-aircraft chatter and, like many pilots, I paid no attention unless my tail number was mentioned (which I'm guessing is what you mean by "irrelevant). My CFI asked me after one of them, "Where is that last airplane?" Of course I had no idea. He made a point of telling me that, even at a towered airport, good situational awareness means being aware of where other airplanes are. I thought it made a lot of sense. So yes, while I don't pay "close attention" I pay "enough attention" to have a general idea what is going on around me.

Obviously not a universal preference but for me that level of mild attention to my surroundings has become natural. I've seen pilots trying to get the next Center or TRACON frequency right when being handed off when I would already have it in the flip flop just from hearing the "irrelevant" frequency changes of airplane ahead of me on the same route. Noticing when someone on the radio says something unusual is pretty simple.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So far, I have never heard anyone use the phrase "1 minute weather." Not saying it isn't used, just that I nave not heard it even once in the air in the 20+ years I have been flying.
Click to expand...
I've heard controllers use the phrase in this area in the past year or so.
 
dmspilot said:
I mean another aircraft on frequency operating at an airport 20 miles apart from yours, for example.
Click to expand...
I don't know that until I hear them and I don't bother taking the mental time to actively turn my ears on and off.

You see me working at listening but I'm not. We obviously just hear the world in different ways, whether by training, practice or inclination. You have difficulty understanding how an unusual phrase triggers something in my brain so I notice it even when listening casually, or barely listening at all. Beyond knowing that different people perceive the world around them differently, I have just as much difficulty understanding how you don't hear those kinds of things.
 
Everskyward said:
I always assumed that to be a clue to look for an airplane in a bank, turning downwind to base.
Click to expand...
Yep. Like a lot of plain English phrases controllers use, it means exactly what it sounds like. At least that what I have always seen when I heard it, looked at where an airplane would be turning and, son of a gun, there it was! ;):D
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't know that until I hear them and I don't bother taking the mental time to actively turn my ears on and off.

You see me working at listening but I'm not. We obviously just hear the world in different ways, whether by training, practice or inclination. You have difficulty understanding how an unusual phrase triggers something in my brain so I notice it even when listening casually, or barely listening at all. Beyond knowing that different people perceive the world around them differently, I have just as much difficulty understanding how you don't hear those kinds of things.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you have never missed or misheard a radio call, not one directed to you, nor one from someone else to someone else?

I'm not saying that you overlooked the phrase being used. I'm saying there is a possibility, however remote, that you might have missed it; it seems like human nature to me. But if you think it's not possible, then I concede, as you know your own brain better than I do.
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
Cessna 123 ,10 miles south,inbound for landing,information mike.
Click to expand...

I shorten it up even more than that. "Palomar tower, Mooney 6719N, 10 south, landing with mike"

If you're in the air, and you're calling them to land, they know you are inbound. They also know you're dealing in miles. No need to add words that can be assumed. Hell if I hear it's busy I'll even shorten it up to "Tower, 6719N, 10 South, mike" Again, unless you tell them otherwise they are going to assume you're landing. If they want more I'll give it, but if they are busy already usually they will assume the obvious and tell me what I expect which is "19N, make left traffic 24"
 
It shouldn't be too big of a deal to run a light single with a 65 KIAS approach speed at 110 KIAS all the way until base, then pitch up, pull the power and dump the flaps. You might even be able to do a slip. Most Class B airport runways are 9-10k+ long. C172 and Cherokee type planes only need about 500 foot or so of landing roll with your average headwind, so you have over a mile to bleed the speed off and still land safely while over the threshold. But, as everyone above has said, don't do anything that you're uncomfortable with. If you need to, tell ATC and just fly what you're used to. Sure, ATC will get ****ed off, but you're the PIC and it's your judgement and discretion to land your plane safely.
 
I've never heard "one minute weather" either. That's a whole lot of weather if it takes one minute to listen to it.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Never have I heard that from anyone.
Click to expand...

I've heard "wing up" from tower controllers hundreds of times. Generally it's a traffic call, and means the plane you're looking for is in the process of turning.

"Mooney 19N, Palomar Tower, traffic to follow 1 O'clock 2 miles wing up base to final."
 
Sounds goofy. Wouldn't one half of the wing be down? Pilots are pretty smart to know that you probably need to bank an aircraft in order to turn base.

I'll never use that.
 
What I always find interesting in these discussions is the concept some posts reflect that everything a controller says must be in the ATC Handbook; that anything and everything that can possibly be said has a standard phrase. And if it doesn't, well, you're not allowed to say anything.
 
dmspilot said:
I have only recently learned of the phrase via a DPE who advocated it. After I learned about it I actually have heard a few people use it. I think it's possible I've heard people use it before and just never noticed.
Click to expand...

"One-minute weather"? AIM 4-2-3.

Bob Gardner
 
Everskyward said:
I always assumed that to be a clue to look for an airplane in a bank, turning downwind to base.
Click to expand...

Yup. And they're a lot more visible when banked. More "in sights" and fewer "lookings". It's a good technique for a controller to time the traffic and sequencing calls when the traffic is more easily seen.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What I always find interesting in these discussions is the concept some posts reflect that everything a controller says must be in the ATC Handbook; that anything and everything that can possibly be said has a standard phrase. And if it doesn't, well, you're not allowed to say anything.
Click to expand...

You deduced this from what I said?
 
The fact that your post was right under mine. Unlike GA pilots, everything controllers say is recorded. If something were to happen, a transcript of what they say is made and submitted to the powers that be. Although "cowboy phraseology" may be cool, it could be downright embarrassing if it were submitted in a transcript and detrimental to the controller's career if found to be a contributing factor in an accident. I'm not perfect, I use a lot of cowboy phraseology and perhaps someday it will bite me in the ass.

We've had this discussion before about the book largely written by lawyers which states what to say and how to say it. So yeah, potentially a controller who says "three" instead of "tree" could be detrimental to their career. I don't like it, I don't have to like it, I just have to do it.
 
Again... Too many here are making a big deal out if nothing.

Novices will always sound like novices, regardless of phraseology.
Pros will always sound like pros, regardless of phraseology.
 
Kritchlow said:
Again... Too many here are making a big deal out if nothing.

Novices will always sound like novices, regardless of phraseology.
Pros will always sound like pros, regardless of phraseology.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, many novices will eventually sound like pros :)

I had a student who sounded like an ATP the very first time he keyed the mike. Just had "the voice" and the intonation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Hopefully, many novices will eventually sound like pros :)
Click to expand...
Indeed... My intention was not to belittle the new guys, but rather point out that after some time it becomes second nature.
 
Second nature doesn't always mean correct. (I won't argue that it ever means "bad," though, so don't take this post in that way.) I occasionally hear the pros flying into non-towered airports requesting any traffic in the area to speak up. Practice makes perfect, and unfortunately sometimes that means practicing a bad habit means perfecting the bad habit.
 
iamtheari said:
Second nature doesn't always mean correct. (I won't argue that it ever means "bad," though, so don't take this post in that way.) I occasionally hear the pros flying into non-towered airports requesting any traffic in the area to speak up. Practice makes perfect, and unfortunately sometimes that means practicing a bad habit means perfecting the bad habit.
Click to expand...
I am a proponent of that at non towered, but I REALLY don't want to get into that debate again.

That said, it's not all about phraseology. It's as much about being fluid and natural.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What I always find interesting in these discussions is the concept some posts reflect that everything a controller says must be in the ATC Handbook; that anything and everything that can possibly be said has a standard phrase. And if it doesn't, well, you're not allowed to say anything.
Click to expand...

Not every situation has a standard .65 phrase but not using proper terminology where the situation requires it can have bad results. As Tim said, in an accident, his facility is going to scrutinize his phraseology with a fine tooth comb.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/201...y-contributed-to-risk-of-collision-at-ottawa/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top