PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
You guys are way too sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
Last edited:
You guys are way to to sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
@steingar is the self-appointed POA worrier
- Aviate
- Navigate
- Communicate
- [about 100 other priorities, including the party you are hosting next week]
- Worrying about the controller being upset with you
You guys are way to to sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
And people wonder why some pilots are so reluctant to declare an emergency...You guys are way to to sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
I'm a controller and if I sense an angry "coworker" when I'm flying, I poke the bear! hahaha, I won't ruin their day but I'll make it worse. We make too much money to sit around and be rude to pilots.....You guys are way too sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
Sometimes it’s understandable but still funny. I had a Ft. Worth controller get a little snappy with me for not answering a radio call. I wanted to say something like sorry dude but you were pushing the wrong button or there was a glitch on your end because I’ve been listening and didn’t hear a call. I understood that he was a little frustrated because he was busy and it appeared I was ignoring him but the problem was entirely on his end.I'm a controller and if I sense an angry "coworker" when I'm flying, I poke the bear! hahaha, I won't ruin their day but I'll make it worse. We make too much money to sit around and be rude to pilots.....
It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.But there is such an altitude as 8,504. There is an ambiguous and unambiguous way to say it.
Nobody said OMG planes will fall out of the sky if you use one phraseology over the other. Just that one is better, which you called a myth.It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.
But between, "leaving 8500 for 6500," and, "8,500 descending 6,500," many consider the latter is "better."
Nobody said OMG planes will fall out of the sky if you use one phraseology over the other. Just that one is better, which you called a myth.
But between, "leaving 8500 for 6500," and, "8,500 descending 6,500," many consider the latter is "better." Especially when you realize comms aren't always 5x5.
Because it's not unambiguous. The purported solution also lends itself to misinterpretation, because, for example, "descending five thousand" sounds like you're reducing your altitude by 5,000 feet. Is this ever going to be a big deal? Proably not, but as you point out, neither is the alleged split second misinterpretation of "for."I agree. When using numbers anyone will hear that 'for' as a number for at least a split second until they understand what is actually being said. Is that ever gonna be a big deal? Probably not. But why not just state it in an unambiguous way in the first place?
I don't get the point of arguing so strongly for 'for'.
Because it's not unambiguous. The purported solution also lends itself to misinterpretation, because, for example, "descending five thousand" sounds like you're reducing your altitude by 5,000 feet.
Your CFI May be a bit paranoid, but one should always keep those issues off the radio. “Possible small maintenance issue” as an example. Keep it generic and leave the door open to continue if you wish.The worst ATC worrier I've known was my first CFII. He worried about getting busted to the point of paranoia. If he knew our altimeter was reading 50 feet low, he would have me hold altitude indicating 50 feet higher than assigned. Once, when we were training on an IFR clearance below a Bravo shelf, and the issue was our Mode C, he had me hold an altitude about 300 feet BELOW assigned altitude so that ATC wouldn't try to pin an altitude bust on him. It never occurred to him to simply report "N9539H is indicating 3000" if the controller called us on what our hardware was reporting.
That said, he was highly critical of me the time I announced a diversion because of a fuel gauge issue, saying that the FAA was going to bust me for taking off again without having the problem looked at, diagnosed, and fixed (even though it was a temporary glitch, likely caused by a stuck sender). And he was almost right about that - the ASI who called me did put me under the microscope, though in the end nothing came of it.
Sometimes if you think they're out to get you... you're right, even if you ARE paranoid.
I have yet to see an altimeter that can discern 4 feet. Perhaps they’re out there, but it would be news to me.It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.
It doesn’t affect it whatsoever.But somehow a pilot reading back an IFR Clearance wouldn't be annoying?
A guy at the Blackjack table last week was giving me crap about not splitting 6's when the dealer was showing a 4.
I told him to mind his own business; my hand doesn't affect his outcome as much as he might believe it does.
Nor do we report altitudes to the foot, nor flight levels as "four five thousand." The same reasoning applies either way.No it's doesn't, because we don't tell a controller how many feet we are reducing our altitude. "8000 descending 5000" is always understood that you're going to that altitude, not descending that many feet. And unambiguous.
Exactly. FF is bottom priority for ATC workload. I’ve found in a lot of places that you can’t expect ATC to give you traffic advisories.
Personally, if I want traffic advisories or ATC coordination, I’ll file IFR.
I have yet to see an altimeter that can discern 4 feet. Perhaps they’re out there, but it would be news to me.
Your CFI May be a bit paranoid, but one should always keep those issues off the radio. “Possible small maintenance issue” as an example. Keep it generic and leave the door open to continue if you wish.
"I need to use the restroom."Had to do that recently. Diverted to "check on something". No further questions.
I can't imagine a controller not wanting to know about altitude changes during VFR FF, which is at the pilot's discretion, but nice to know from a controller standpoint. When I controlled I certainly did.