Correct way to say 10,000'

Fly4Pay said:
Several years ago, a zoo was building a railroad through their African section. They had to come up with a name. Everyone put in their two cents, and someone put on the sheet "WGASA?". The staff loved it--sounded African and cool, so they named it the Wgasa Railway.

Only to find out later that the person who jotted that on the sheet meant, "who gives a $#($ anyway?"

Honestly, guys... be clear, concise, and NOBODY cares.

Say one zero thousand.

Say ten thousand.

Heck say just "ten". (as in "passing five for ten." I promise no controller is gonna say "OH MY GOD HE'S AT TEN FEET!!!!!!!!!!)

For those of you who would like to trot out the AIM verbiage, remember that the same section ALSO makes it very clear that it's only a guide, not a binding directive.
Click to expand...

100% agreement.
 
bLizZuE said:
AIM
Click to expand...

Again, as AIM makes clear, it is NOT a mandatory document. It is merely a recommendation. The point in any and all communications is to be clear and to get the point across.

If someone says "for" and "to", if it gets the point across, it's fine.

If they say "with you" and it gets the point across, it's fine.

Lotsa people (not referring to you bLizZue...) on this board seem to love to try to make a mountain out of a molehill just to show how much they "know." Book "knowledge" is great. Experience is better.
 
fish314 said:
I think the point is that saying "1 thousand for 3000" sounds like "1 thousand, 43,000". Also confusing could be the word "to":

"Leaving FL350 decending to 3000" could be "Leaving FL350 decending 23000". Anyways, that's the idea behind not using "to" and "for", so as not to be confused with "2" and "4". If memory serves me correctly there was an accident out in one of the Koreas, or maybe Thailand, where this was a contributing factor.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this as nobody should be pronouncing 23000 feet as "two three thousand." If it is a flight level then "flight level two three zero" or "two three zero." Nobody should say "four three thousand" for FL430.
 
Fly4Pay said:
Again, as AIM makes clear, it is NOT a mandatory document. It is merely a recommendation. The point in any and all communications is to be clear and to get the point across.

If someone says "for" and "to", if it gets the point across, it's fine.

If they say "with you" and it gets the point across, it's fine.

Lotsa people (not referring to you bLizZue...) on this board seem to love to try to make a mountain out of a molehill just to show how much they "know." Book "knowledge" is great. Experience is better.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Geezzz guys, who cares?! Honestly.....
 
Fly4Pay said:
Again, as AIM makes clear, it is NOT a mandatory document. It is merely a recommendation. The point in any and all communications is to be clear and to get the point across.

If someone says "for" and "to", if it gets the point across, it's fine.

If they say "with you" and it gets the point across, it's fine.

Lotsa people (not referring to you bLizZue...) on this board seem to love to try to make a mountain out of a molehill just to show how much they "know." Book "knowledge" is great. Experience is better.
Click to expand...
Amen!

If the controller says "One-zero, ten thousand" - I respond "One zero, ten thousand."

If the controller says "one-zero thousand" - I respond "one-zero thousand"

Hell, sometimes I say "Eagle Flight 123, four point five for ten thousand"

Whatever works.
 
Why not just repeat exactly what the controller says? That makes it painfully clear that what they said is what you heard and understood?
 
Nick said:
I don't really agree with this as nobody should be pronouncing 23000 feet as "two three thousand." If it is a flight level then "flight level two three zero" or "two three zero." Nobody should say "four three thousand" for FL430.
Click to expand...


True. But that's the idea behind it, and like I said it was contributory in an airline accident once. Of course it was overseas in Southeast Asia somewhere, so the controllers weren't exactly fluent in english. As for whether or not it's a flight level or not depends on what country you are in. Transition level/transition altitude is 18000'/FL180 here in the US. It's not the same in other countries. (Of course most places I've been it's usually LOWER than it is in the US, but I haven't been everywhere....yet:D)

As long as you're clear it really shouldn't matter. Of course if you ever fly overseas using more "proper" terminology really helps. Some of those controllers only know basic, basic english. I once heard a guy in Thailand ask a controller for a 20 degree left turn to avoid "cumulo-granite". I think the controller is STILL confused!
 
Fly4Pay said:
Again, as AIM makes clear, it is NOT a mandatory document. It is merely a recommendation. The point in any and all communications is to be clear and to get the point across.

If someone says "for" and "to", if it gets the point across, it's fine.

If they say "with you" and it gets the point across, it's fine.

Lotsa people (not referring to you bLizZue...) on this board seem to love to try to make a mountain out of a molehill just to show how much they "know." Book "knowledge" is great. Experience is better.
Click to expand...

I think 'to' and 'for' are confusing. I also think that something that is a recommendation, is also good practice. Good airmanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top