Saying 2.5 instead of 2500, etc?

mtuomi said:
The only thing that really bothers me is using "for" and "to" when reading back altitudes. Apart from that, keep trying to sound cool with your "two point five", just know that you don't :)
Click to expand...
"To" is recommended in the AIM. Some people claim that it can be mixed up with "two," but in the AIM's system of terminology, we're not supposed to be saying "two five hundred" or "two five thousand," it's supposed to be "two thousand five hundred" and "flight level two five zero." The same applies to "for" vs "four," although the AIM is silent on that one.
 
Always liked fighters when turning base, "gear stop", meaning gear was down for a full stop. Most of the time they'd acknowledge w/ two clicks. They weren't being cute or cool, just another method of communicating. Of course this was USAF ATC.
 
While we're on the subject of concise communication, one of my pet peeves is that flight students nowadays are apparently being taught to read back every single word that ATC says. This goes way beyond what is recommended in the AIM. Listening to them struggling with readbacks in the pattern at my home field leaves me wondering how they have any mental bandwidth left to fly the aircraft, let alone maintain situational awareness. I shudder to think what it must be like the first time they get on a frequency where pilots have to wait for minutes at a time to get a word in edgewise.
 
Palmpilot said:
While we're on the subject of concise communication, one of my pet peeves is that flight students nowadays are apparently being taught to read back every single word that ATC says. This goes way beyond what is recommended in the AIM. Listening to them struggling with readbacks in the pattern at my home field leaves me wondering how they have any mental bandwidth left to fly the aircraft, let alone maintain situational awareness. I shudder to think what it must be like the first time they get on a frequency where pilots have to wait for minutes at a time to get a word in edgewise.
Click to expand...

Maybe not taught it but I think since they don't know what to read back, they just read back the whole thing. Used to ask my students in the Army "what part of that clearance is required to be read back?" Usual reply was "all of it." Its fine with me if they do that but when it's busy and they take so long to reply that ATC says "Army 12345 did you copy???" that becomes a problem.

That and spewing out everything on initial call up for IFR / FF are pet peeves of mine. Flying with a friend earlier this year in a twin Cessna off a non towered field in the moutains. He called up looking to pick up his IFR with a long-winded transmission. I looked out the window and smiled because I knew what was going to be the reply. Sure enough, center came back with "Ok, twin Cessna calling Atlanta Center, you're broken and barely readable, say again your callsign."
 
Lol this thread got a lot more attention than expected...although I stopped reading it after about the 10th reply. I’ve never personally used the 2.5 lingo but just have heard others use it.
 
CC268 said:
Lol this thread got a lot more attention than expected...although I stopped reading it after about the 10th reply. I’ve never personally used the 2.5 lingo but just have heard others use it.
Click to expand...

That's because you're not cool yet. ;)
 
mscard88 said:
That's because you're not cool yet. ;)
Click to expand...

Everyone on PoA is a certified perfect pilot so no way any of these superior pilots would use that kind of lingo.
 
To sound like the big guys, I ditched saying things like two-point-fife, and I now express all altitudes as flight levels.

"Climbing from flight level zero zero nine to flight level zero two fife".




(before you grab a flamethrower, I'm kidding.)
 
Brad Z said:
Don't get me started on the faux euro-trash folks saying "decimal" instead of "point" gawdammit. This is 'Merica. They probably draw horizontal lines through their sevens too.
Click to expand...
Quit complaining and line up and wait.
 
CC268 said:
Lol this thread got a lot more attention than expected...although I stopped reading it after about the 10th reply. I’ve never personally used the 2.5 lingo but just have heard others use it.
Click to expand...
I'll use it on a busy frequency.
 
I hear "One Four Fourteen Thousand Fife Hundred" a lot. Where does saying the thousands two different ways come from?
 
Salty said:
I hear "One Four Fourteen Thousand Fife Hundred" a lot. Where does saying the thousands two different ways come from?
Click to expand...

Did the pilot hear Four thousand or fourteen thousand? Especially if flying a loud plane with a borderline radio or signal, and non-noise cancelling headsets ;-) I recently was flying on the East coast and ATC told me to climb to 4000, so I replied climbing to 14,000, before I caught myself. Flying mostly in the mountains 4000 did not compute right away with my brain, since 4000 feet is usually below ground level. ;-)
 
Rockymountain said:
Did the pilot hear Four thousand or fourteen thousand? Especially if flying a loud plane with a borderline radio or signal, and non-noise cancelling headsets ;-) I recently was flying on the East coast and ATC told me to climb to 4000, so I replied climbing to 14,000, before I caught myself. Flying mostly in the mountains 4000 did not compute right away with my brain, since 4000 feet is usually below ground level. ;-)
Click to expand...
No. I hear it pretty consistently. The whole thousands then each number in the thousands separately, then "thousand" then the hundreds.

10,000 -> one zero ten thousand
12,500 -> one two twelve thousand fife hundred

I believe the AIM says it should be

10,000 -> one zero thousand
12,500 -> one two thousand fife hundred

Now that I think about it though, the preceding does seem better, if your transmission drops the leading "one" they'd misinterpret by 10,000 feet in the second method.
 
Salty said:
I hear "One Four Fourteen Thousand Fife Hundred" a lot. Where does saying the thousands two different ways come from?
Click to expand...
The original FAA recommendation was to do that with 11,000. Apparently, "one one thousand" was sometimes being misheard due to the repeated ones, so they started recommending that it be spoken as "one one thousand, eleven thousand." More recently people have been doing it with other altitudes as well, and that is currently listed as an optional practice in the controller's manual.

http://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0204.html
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
No. I hear it pretty consistently. The whole thousands then each number in the thousands separately, then "thousand" then the hundreds.

10,000 -> one zero ten thousand
12,500 -> one two twelve thousand fife hundred

I believe the AIM says it should be

10,000 -> one zero thousand
12,500 -> one two thousand fife hundred

Now that I think about it though, the preceding does seem better, if your transmission drops the leading "one" they'd misinterpret by 10,000 feet in the second method.
Click to expand...

Yep I hear this a lot too. Someone on PoA needs to tell all the controllers that this type of behavior does not follow the AIM. :)
 
CC268 said:
Yep I hear this a lot too. Someone on PoA needs to tell all the controllers that this type of behavior does not follow the AIM. :)
Click to expand...
Someone needs to tell the FAA to make the AIM consistent with the controller's manual.
 
Just for the record
Screenshot 2018-01-26 13.40.44.png
 
Salty said:
I hear "One Four Fourteen Thousand Fife Hundred" a lot. Where does saying the thousands two different ways come from?
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
The original FAA recommendation was to do that with 11,000. Apparently, "one one thousand" was sometimes being misheard due to the repeated ones, so they started recommending that it be spoken as "one one thousand, eleven thousand." More recently people have been doing it with other altitudes as well, and that is currently listed as an optional practice in the controller's manual.

http://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0204.html
Click to expand...

As I recall there were a spate of near misses somewhere over the 10,000 and 11,000 assignments that led to that one.

It has definitely grown well beyond the “one zero, ten thousand” and “one one, eleven thousand” guidance from waaaay back when, though.
 
Salty said:
I hear "One Four Fourteen Thousand Fife Hundred" a lot. Where does saying the thousands two different ways come from?
Click to expand...
The most common readback/hearback errors on altitude assignments are confusing 10,000 and 11,000. The additional phraseology is available to help reduce those errors.

"One-zero thousand, ten-thousand" or "One-one thousand, eleven-thousand".

The phraseology isn't in the AIM but is in 7110.65 as well as supplementary publications. It is approved phraseology.

7110.65
2-4-17
NOTE-Altitudes may be restated in group form for added clarity if the controller chooses.

​
 
I've never considered myself cool enough to say 2.5, 3.5, etc., but then again, I never practice my cool sounding jet jock voice either. I guess it's obvious that I'm not a member of the cool club. ;)
 
I always report altitudes per the AIM when not in the Flight Levels. So, 2,300 = Two Thousand Three Hundred, 11,000 = One one thousand, etc.

In the Flight Levels it depends on how I'm checking in. If it's just level with a new controller at FL190, I'll report something like "Level one niner zero". If I'm changing altitude, I'll report something like "Flight Level one niner zero descending one six thousand."

Want to make sure people know my altitudes, most of all the controller.
 
I speak properly on the radio. It's two thousand fife hundred. Or more accurately around here, one zero thousand, fife hundred.

Never cared much to sound super cool like a button pusher in the flight levels.
 
Palmpilot said:
"To" is recommended in the AIM. Some people claim that it can be mixed up with "two," but in the AIM's system of terminology, we're not supposed to be saying "two five hundred" or "two five thousand," it's supposed to be "two thousand five hundred" and "flight level two five zero." The same applies to "for" vs "four," although the AIM is silent on that one.
Click to expand...
The reason is because the pronunciation of four is fower.
 
I just let it rip. Whatever comes out, comes out.

23-5, 23 and a half, whatever.

I’ve said it a couple times in this thread, and I’ll say it again... I laugh when I hear joe PP trying to be so perfect on verbiage, yet his voice us quivering... then he gets scolded for not maintaining altitude.

Point is, lighten up a bit and fly the darn airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top