Tower: "Take down this number"

Perhaps but you only drop the zero for runway directions, not for wind or anything else so I read it as it was written. I will admit though that 280 does make his story make more sense but I still can't see a Citation having trouble with 13 knot winds.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Perhaps but you only drop the zero for runway directions, not for wind or anything else so I read it as it was written. I will admit though that 280 does make his story make more sense but I still can't see a Citation having trouble with 13 knot winds.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a wind direction report that didn't end with a zero.
 
MarkZ said:
I don't think there is any wake turbulence separation minima between a Citation and a Skyhawk. Both aircraft are considered "small" when it comes to wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mark, I'm sure you are correct from a legal and ATC standpoint, but the fact remains some Citations have a landing weight 20 times that of a C172.
I don't fault the concern..

That said, last I knew runway heading meant "runway heading". I know European rules it means runway track. Has that changed?
If not, that would explain the Citations drift to the infield.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Even more confusing now. You wrote that the winds were 28 at 13, you were landing on 18L and the Citation on 18R. So not only did you have a pretty good quartering tailwind but the wind would be blowing from you towards the Citation. So not only would wake turbulence not be an issue, I also do not see how the Citation would have drifted towards you. Sounds like a bunch of folks were screwing the pooch that day.
Click to expand...
:confused: If you're on final for 18L, wind out of 280 is from the right.

edit: Read the rest of the replies and it seems a lot of people read "28" literally. I assumed it was 280. <shrug>
 
azure said:
:confused: If you're on final for 18L, wind out of 280 is from the right.>
Click to expand...

Yup, and the wind was almost a direct crosswind, not a 'strong quartering tailwind' SkyDog. Even if the Citation's wake drifted over to 18L it wouldn't be much of a factor IMO. Sounds to me like the CFI is very unprofessional and caused you undo worry about the Citation. I doubt the Citation was in any trouble from the tower. Due to the Citation having the tailwind they didn't' compensate early enough (turn to final earlier) and overshot 18R ending up between the two runways. That's probably what the tower wanted to discuss with them.
 
mscard88 said:
Yup, and the wind was almost a direct crosswind, not a 'strong quartering tailwind' SkyDog. Even if the Citation's wake drifted over to 18L it wouldn't be much of a factor IMO. Sounds to me like the CFI is very unprofessional and caused you undo worry about the Citation. I doubt the Citation was in any trouble from the tower. Due to the Citation having the tailwind they didn't' compensate early enough (turn to final earlier) and overshot 18R ending up between the two runways. That's probably what the tower wanted to discuss with them.
Click to expand...

It would have been a quartering tailwind if from 28 as the OP wrote. He did not write 280. Please see previous posts. I read what the OP actually wrote and not what he possibly meant to write as all of the Kreskins did. Again, you do not truncate wind directions or any other headings except for runway headings.
 
So what are you saying 28 is? Not following you. This is what he wrote right? 28 vs 280, eh, think he meant 280.

This day starts out with wind out of 28 at 13. We took off from 27 and headed back east to the practice area. He asked if i wanted to try some cross wind landings. I said sure and we headed back. At 5 miles out called the tower and asked for a cross wind touch and go. He told me to enter downwind for 18L. Turning base I heard the tower tell another plane he had a skyhawk touch and go on parallel runway.

So that tells me he saying the wind was 280 at 13, and almost a direct crosswind if they were landing 18L. Make sense?
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
It would have been a quartering tailwind if from 28 as the OP wrote. He did not write 280. Please see previous posts. I read what the OP actually wrote and not what he possibly meant to write as all of the Kreskins did. Again, you do not truncate wind directions or any other headings except for runway headings.
Click to expand...

Wind is issued to the nearest 10 degree direction. That's why we assumed 280 vs 028.
 
mscard88 said:
So what are you saying 28 is? Not following you. This is what he wrote right? 28 vs 280, eh, think he meant 280.

This day starts out with wind out of 28 at 13. We took off from 27 and headed back east to the practice area. He asked if i wanted to try some cross wind landings. I said sure and we headed back. At 5 miles out called the tower and asked for a cross wind touch and go. He told me to enter downwind for 18L. Turning base I heard the tower tell another plane he had a skyhawk touch and go on parallel runway.

So that tells me he saying the wind was 280 at 13, and almost a direct crosswind if they were landing 18L. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Again, in one of my previous posts I admit that 280 makes more sense than does 28 in the context of everything else he wrote. However, when I first read his posts and when I made my initial post, I took what he wrote (28) to be what he meant to write. I have never seen or heard anyone drop the zero when referring to wind directions before regardless of whether wind is only reported to the nearest 10 degrees. Would everyone have read 30 to be 300?
 
I agree but the fact remains he wrote 28 meaning 280. That's how I read it.
 
I got a "take down this number" today. Ended up just being a friendly explanation about how Atlanta TRACON uses their airspace and how they'd like me to change my descend profile if possible next time. Obviously was sweating a little bit when I called them, but they started by saying "you haven't done anything wrong, but it would make our planning easier if next time..."
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top