Proper terminology for approaches?

MAKG1 said:
It's the first I've heard of a towered airport being happy with "the numbers." I don't see too many without ATIS these days.
Click to expand...

It's covered in the controller handbook, FAA 7110.65 what "have the numbers" means. But they don't expect a pilot to say that IF ATIS is available.
 
luvflyin said:
This is the first I've heard of "weather & notams". How new is it? Controllers?, is there a new change that requires ensuring pilots have them?
Click to expand...
I have had controllers ask, "Do you have the weather and NOTAMS?" when approaching an airport without a tower when on an IFR flight plan. In fact that's a fairly common question. Sometimes they just ask if you have the weather and what approach you are planning.
 
All y'all "with Mike" or "with information Mike". Drop the WITH. Don't need it. Not "with you" when checking in, not "with Information Mike" either!

"Information Mike" is all that's needed.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
All y'all "with Mike" or "with information Mike". Drop the WITH. Don't need it. Not "with you" when checking in, not "with Information Mike" either!

"Information Mike" is all that's needed.
Click to expand...

Honestly most controllers don't care if you include "with". More concerned that you actually do have the ATIS. Still pilots out there that check in without listening to the ATIS.
 
With Mike has less syllables than information mike. Brevity.
 
I think it's fascinating that the pilots here (at least some of them) care more about "conserving bandwidth" than the controllers.

I have also never heard this discussed much in real life. But that's like a lot of other things I see being discussed here. Maybe that's what makes it interesting for me. :p
 
I'll bet T-dub a hamburger* that the gang at the As the Propeller Turns hangar will adopt a camel named Mike because of this thread.

*or a pineapple upside down pancake from The Beacon Cafe
 
TangoWhiskey said:
All y'all "with Mike" or "with information Mike". Drop the WITH. Don't need it. Not "with you" when checking in, not "with Information Mike" either!

"Information Mike" is all that's needed.
Click to expand...
EdFred said:
With Mike has less syllables than information mike. Brevity.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I'm with Ed on this one, but I don't really care. I say "with" because it's shorter and nobody else cares either, even though it's not AIM standard.

The funniest one recently was this...

Approach: "Cessna 79 Mike, contact Centennial Tower now, 118.9."
Me: "Eighteen Niner,79M"
(Had already told approach I had "Mike" earlier and airport in sight...)
(Flip the flip flop that was already set...)
APA: "Attention all aircraft, Information November now current. Wind: XXX @ XX"
Me: Centennial Tower, Skylane 1279M, 11 northwest, landing, with Mike and the new winds and we will pick up November..." ;) LOL.

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be prepared when your arrival timing sucketh. ;)
 
I never used to say "information" before the ATIS identifier but found that the ATIS code frequently gets lost if you don't. "[airport] ground, [callsign], taxi with [atis]" was frequently followed by "[callsign], [airport] ground, runway 18, taxi via Alfa, Information [atis] is current". Adding "information" seems to increase the chance that the controller will hear it. Happens more often at bigger airports where the ground traffic situation and taxi route are more complex. Same thing with initial call to approach.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
All y'all "with Mike" or "with information Mike". Drop the WITH. Don't need it. Not "with you" when checking in, not "with Information Mike" either!
"Information Mike" is all that's needed.
Click to expand...
I am a bit puzzled. How do you say "with two Mikes" then?
Going into an IMC meeting with my pilot buddy Mike and having received AWOS information Mike, I called up the tower and told him "landing with two Mikes". Was that wrong? :D
 
If I was with you, then you'd have a Mike-a-palooza
 
Everskyward said:
I have had controllers ask, "Do you have the weather and NOTAMS?" when approaching an airport without a tower when on an IFR flight plan. In fact that's a fairly common question. Sometimes they just ask if you have the weather and what approach you are planning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've heard that more than once also.

I hear "do you have the weather" pretty much all the time heading into a nontowered airport. Just the non-towed airport equivalent of asking if you have the ATIS. Standard stuff.

I hear "do you have the NOTAMs" less often - typically when it is the type of NOTAM that would be heard on the ATIS - part of ATC's duty to provide "pertinent information" that might affect the approach and landing.

Both covered in the ATC Handbook.
 
Everskyward said:
I think it's fascinating that the pilots here (at least some of them) care more about "conserving bandwidth" than the controllers.
Click to expand...

Controllers don't worry about it. But they have a bible to tell them exactly what words to use 90% of the time and they know how busy the frequency is much better than we do.

But yeah, it can get silly at times. But if you are thinking in terms of how to make communications short and succinct, you are both more likely to do so without even thinking about it. And those who don't will have a difficult time making it short when they need to. If you have a friend who says the common "with you" phrase, next time you fly with them ask them, just as an experiment, to leave it out on that one flight. Bring the popcorn. :D

As Spock, the great student of human nature, noted in a different context:

"It was far easier for you as civilised men to behave like barbarians,
than it was for them to behave like civilised men."​
 
midlifeflyer said:
If you have a friend who says the common "with you" phrase, next time you fly with them ask them, just as an experiment, to leave it out on that one flight. Bring the popcorn. :D
Click to expand...
LOL, one thing I won't do is critique someone's radio work unless.
1. They ask
2. They are a student
3. They are truly horrible, and I haven't come across anyone like that.
 
I payed attention today to my radio verbiage for the first time in eons. For the past several years I just did my thing and never thought twice. In numerous occasions I put the word "for" between two altitudes.... But so did most other people. I never said "with you", but neither did anyone else that I heard. I had a few instances where I used sporadic, no meaning words, but so did everyone else I heard.

Bottom line.. Talk normally, don't be a robot, and don't sweat the small stuff. I'm convinced (unless you read the controller a novel) the only people who care about such small nonsense are right here on this thread.
 
Kritchlow said:
I payed attention today to my radio verbiage for the first time in eons. For the past several years I just did my thing and never thought twice. In numerous occasions I put the word "for" between two altitudes.... But so did most other people. I never said "with you", but neither did anyone else that I heard. I had a few instances where I used sporadic, no meaning words, but so did everyone else I heard.
Click to expand...
"For" with an altitude appears in a number of AIM and ATC Handbook examples of proper verbiage.

The problem arose out of an accident in which ATC (not the pilot) used incorrect verbiage. If I recall it correctly, the instruction was "descend two four hundred" which the pilot too as "descend to four hundred." Using the correct "descend to two thousand four hundred" (with or without the "to") would have been clear.

A lot of folks took that as a reason to leave out "to" and "for." Personally I do that but it is really not necessary.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
Well, if you want "Ed Fred" as the apha part, a search of available numbers 1-99 turned up these as available

15EF 31EF 32EF 36EF 38EF 39EF 40EF 41EF 43EF 47EF
52EF 53EF 63EF 65EF 67EF 68EF 82EF 83EF 84EF 91EF
93EF 94EF 95EF 96EF 97EF 98EF 99EF
Click to expand...

Is there a way to search using weird criteria like that? I've always just used it by searching for a particular tail number.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Is there a way to search using weird criteria like that? I've always just used it by searching for a particular tail number.
Click to expand...
Yes, on the FAA's available N number search page, you can specify the last one or two letters (if you want letters) and then a range of numbers to search. Then the script will determine which in that range are not claimed.

When I first got into flying, I did search for 616EM (Gig EM) but that had been registered a looong time ago by another Aggie. And likely will be part of the family for a few generations.
 
Interesting, thanks. I did not know that, maybe I just didn't look hard enough. Haven't really used it that much, but I do remember sitting down with my dad trying to figure out a tail number for his airplane as it was being built. And all we did was peck numbers into it one at a time to see if they were taken.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Using the correct "descend to two thousand four hundred"
Click to expand...
In the US the correct phraseology would be "Descend and maintain two-thousand four-hundred". That accident did not occur in US airspace so the standard phraseology was likely different.

Outside the US you hear lot of phraseology which is different from what is standard in the US. That is what has made me such a big proponent of standard phraseology. Today, for example, in a non-radar environment, I was asked to "report level". I initially thought she was asking me to report when level at the altitude to which we were descending. I had already made at least a half-dozen such reports on the flight. I was initially confused as we were on final approach with our approach clearance so we wouldn't be leveling off until landing. I then realized that she was asking for me to report the level that we were passing, i.e "Say altitude" in US-speak. Normally they say, "report level passing" not "report level". That's simple change tripped me up for a second or two. No big deal today but that's the kind of thing that you deal with when non-standard phraseology is used, or you fly in airspace with different phraseology standards. You never know what the small difference in phraseology is going to lead to a big misunderstanding.
 
Larry in TN said:
I never used to say "information" before the ATIS identifier but found that the ATIS code frequently gets lost if you don't. "[airport] ground, [callsign], taxi with [atis]" was frequently followed by "[callsign], [airport] ground, runway 18, taxi via Alfa, Information [atis] is current". Adding "information" seems to increase the chance that the controller will hear it. Happens more often at bigger airports where the ground traffic situation and taxi route are more complex. Same thing with initial call to approach.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. Being a military guy, I'm all about brevity. But I see too many GA pilots who take it over the top and it becomes counterproductive. Sometimes the extra superfluous words (if not drawn out or overdone) give the controller a little more time to digest what you are saying. Maxing out the brevity does absolutely no good if the controller makes you repeat yourself.
 
denverpilot said:
Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be prepared when your arrival timing sucketh. ;)
Click to expand...

Had the opposite once...listened to ATIS information Sierra...check back in closer to arrival and got information Tango on com 2...then Approach chimes in on com 1:

APPR: "Sklane 12XYZ, confirm you have information Sierra for Fullerton?"
ME: " Negative...I have Information Tango...it just updated...XYZ"
APPR: "Whoops, Thanks"
 
Shawn said:
Had the opposite once...listened to ATIS information Sierra...check back in closer to arrival and got information Tango on com 2...then Approach chimes in on com 1:

APPR: "Sklane 12XYZ, confirm you have information Sierra for Fullerton?"
ME: " Negative...I have Information Tango...it just updated...XYZ"
APPR: "Whoops, Thanks"
Click to expand...

ATIS is recorded by the tower at most locations. So there a small delay (usually less than a minute) letting the boys n girls in the radar room know what the new ATIS code is. Unless the radar is collocated in the tower cab.
 
Everskyward said:
They are truly horrible, and I haven't come across anyone like that.
Click to expand...

Ah, I heard that guy Friday! He was receiving flight following, got handed off from one sector to another at Bay Approach... Controller kind of busy...

"NorCal Approach, Cessna N 3591Q, 8 south of Concord, 4,500, squawking 5434, Cessna 182, equipment type Alpha, VFR to Napa, flight following, we're red, white and blue with pilot and two passengers on board...

NorCal: Cessna 91Q, *all* I want to hear from you when you're handed off is your call sign and altitude, got that!?

It did leave me wondering, though, whether that pilot wears boxers or briefs... But he'll probably tell Napa Tower that...

Paul
 
I'm based far from any control towers or approach radars. I watched Sporty's "VFR Communications" DVD. It's worth every penny plus its weight in gold. It made me feel very comfortable the first time I flew into an airport with a tower. I will probably watch it again the first time I venture into class B airspace. The IFR Communications volume is not nearly so useful but the VFR one is fantastic. Learn what's necessary, what's not, and the correct way to say it.
 
PaulMillner said:
Ah, I heard that guy Friday! He was receiving flight following, got handed off from one sector to another at Bay Approach... Controller kind of busy...

"NorCal Approach, Cessna N 3591Q, 8 south of Concord, 4,500, squawking 5434, Cessna 182, equipment type Alpha, VFR to Napa, flight following, we're red, white and blue with pilot and two passengers on board...

NorCal: Cessna 91Q, *all* I want to hear from you when you're handed off is your call sign and altitude, got that!?

It did leave me wondering, though, whether that pilot wears boxers or briefs... But he'll probably tell Napa Tower that...

Paul
Click to expand...
My favorite and somewhat similar:

The student pilot had apparently been instructed by his CFI to use "student pilot" whether he needed it or not on his solo cross country.
Receiving flight following from (Colorado) Springs Approach, the communication went something like this:

34SP: Springs approach. Skyhawk 1234SP. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 1234SP. Springs Approach.
34SP: Skyhawk 1234SP. 20 north of Colorado Springs. 8,000 feet. Request flight following to Pueblo. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Remain east of the Class Charlie.
34SP: Remain east of the Class Charlie. 34SP. Student Pilot
...time goes on...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Turn left 20 degrees. Vectors for traffic.
34SP: Left 20 degrees. 34SP. Student Pilot.
...a little later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Traffic no factor. Resume own navigation.
34SP: Resume own navigation. Skyhawk 34SP. Student pilot.
...later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Contact Pueblo Approach on 120.1.
34SP. Pueblo on 120.1. 34SP. Student Pilot.

That was repeated with Pueblo Approach and then with Tower and Ground, all the way to parking. "Student pilot" appended to every single readback. I guess he figured he'd make sure they didn't forget.
 
midlifeflyer said:
My favorite and somewhat similar:

The student pilot had apparently been instructed by his CFI to use "student pilot" whether he needed it or not on his solo cross country.
Receiving flight following from (Colorado) Springs Approach, the communication went something like this:

34SP: Springs approach. Skyhawk 1234SP. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 1234SP. Springs Approach.
34SP: Skyhawk 1234SP. 20 north of Colorado Springs. 8,000 feet. Request flight following to Pueblo. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Remain east of the Class Charlie.
34SP: Remain east of the Class Charlie. 34SP. Student Pilot
...time goes on...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Turn left 20 degrees. Vectors for traffic.
34SP: Left 20 degrees. 34SP. Student Pilot.
...a little later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Traffic no factor. Resume own navigation.
34SP: Resume own navigation. Skyhawk 34SP. Student pilot.
...later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Contact Pueblo Approach on 120.1.
34SP. Pueblo on 120.1. 34SP. Student Pilot.

That was repeated with Pueblo Approach and then with Tower and Ground, all the way to parking. "Student pilot" appended to every single readback. I guess he figured he'd make sure they didn't forget.
Click to expand...

He was just nervous. All of us have been there.
 
On the topic of nerves:


On my first solo cross country I was omw home under flight following when I heard the controller tell me "traffic at 3 o'clock, southbound, altitude 4,500. Type 737. Cleared to ascend VFR at your discrection."

This being my first solo cross country, in a 172, and being terrified of ending up on the news for being too close to a friggin' jet....

Me: "Bugsmasher 234, roger uh.... will climb to 6,000."

ATC: "Roger."

*wait dummy, that's not a VFR altitude*

Me: "Bugsmasher 234, correction... climbing 6,500--" *that's for EASTBOUND, not westbound, you maroon! "err... I mean 7,500" *wait... does that go into the Bravo here?* "I mean I'll stay at 6,000." *wait! That was the original dilemma you idiot!*

ATC: "You can climb to whatever altitude you want. That's why it's at YOUR discrection."

*facepalm*

It was pretty cool seeing a UPS 737 pass directly below me though.
 
midlifeflyer said:
My favorite and somewhat similar:

The student pilot had apparently been instructed by his CFI to use "student pilot" whether he needed it or not on his solo cross country.
Receiving flight following from (Colorado) Springs Approach, the communication went something like this:

34SP: Springs approach. Skyhawk 1234SP. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 1234SP. Springs Approach.
34SP: Skyhawk 1234SP. 20 north of Colorado Springs. 8,000 feet. Request flight following to Pueblo. Student Pilot.
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Remain east of the Class Charlie.
34SP: Remain east of the Class Charlie. 34SP. Student Pilot
...time goes on...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Turn left 20 degrees. Vectors for traffic.
34SP: Left 20 degrees. 34SP. Student Pilot.
...a little later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Traffic no factor. Resume own navigation.
34SP: Resume own navigation. Skyhawk 34SP. Student pilot.
...later...
TRACON: Skyhawk 34SP. Contact Pueblo Approach on 120.1.
34SP. Pueblo on 120.1. 34SP. Student Pilot.

That was repeated with Pueblo Approach and then with Tower and Ground, all the way to parking. "Student pilot" appended to every single readback. I guess he figured he'd make sure they didn't forget.
Click to expand...

Was that a Doolie flying one of the USAFA birds?
 
AIM 4-3-26 suggests the proper phraseology is to tell ATC you have "the one-minute weather" when you're talking about an airport with AWOS/ASOS, though that is under the heading of uncontrolled airports with AWOS/ASOS. There isn't a section in the AIM that discusses towered airports with AWOS/ASOS and no ATIS, is there? If not, I would expect the same terminology to apply.
 
ircphoenix said:
...Cleared to ascend VFR at your discrection."...
Click to expand...
I've never heard them say "ascend." They normally say "climb," probably because "ascend" can be easily mistaken for "descend."
 
EdFred said:
The AIM also suggests turning your back to the airport when you should be looking for other planes, so forgive me if I don't think the AIM was written by Jesus.
Click to expand...

I don't think it really suggests that, though it seems it's simply silent on what to do if you're coming from the opposite side of the airport. I take it you do crosswind entries in that case? Do you enter midfield or over the departure end?
 
Palmpilot said:
I've never heard them say "ascend." They normally say "climb," probably because "ascend" can be easily mistaken for "descend."
Click to expand...

She could have said climb. I facepalmed so hard that I may have damaged that section of my memory encoding device.
 
dmspilot said:
AIM 4-3-26 suggests the proper phraseology is to tell ATC you have "the one-minute weather" when you're talking about an airport with AWOS/ASOS, though that is under the heading of uncontrolled airports with AWOS/ASOS. There isn't a section in the AIM that discusses towered airports with AWOS/ASOS and no ATIS, is there? If not, I would expect the same terminology to apply.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BigBadLou said:
I am a bit puzzled. How do you say "with two Mikes" then?
Going into an IMC meeting with my pilot buddy Mike and having received AWOS information Mike, I called up the tower and told him "landing with two Mikes". Was that wrong? :D
Click to expand...

Yes.

How do you know tower didn't confuse that with broadcasting to them in stereo, holding a mike in each hand? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top