 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike Noel
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
 |
|
I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
--
Regards,
Mike
[email]mikenoel (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aaron Coolidge
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Mike Noel <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> wrote:
: I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
<snip>
: Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
: using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
I commonly get told 'continue' in the context of an instrument approach:
(me) Hyannis tower, cherokee 9376J outside bogey ils 24
(them) Cherokee 76J continue report bogey inbound
(me) tower 76J bogey inbound
(them) Cherokee 76J continue expect landing clearance short final following
twin cessna traffic short final
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
(but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on the
other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue" would
not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.
Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance" phrase
you might hear when on IFR.
--
Jim Carter
"Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
--
Regards,
Mike
[email]mikenoel (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter R.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Mike Noel wrote:
| Quote: | Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
|
It is commonly used at Syracuse, NY, a class C airport. Normally, the
tower uses it at first reply to my call-up when s/he cannot clear me to
land at that point due to something (aircraft, vehicle, etc) on or about
to momentarily block the runway.
In response to "continue," I do what it takes to land, but remind myself
that I am not yet cleared and to expect further clearance shortly.
--
Peter
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Noel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
....I just said 'through 5300' meaning to imply that I was descending.
--
Regards,
Mike
[email]mikenoel (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Jim Carter" <jimcarte (AT) swbell (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | I believe it depends on the rest of your message. If you had said "...
through 5300 for landing" and gotten the "continue" with no other
limitations then you were cleared to enter the pattern and make a landing
(but I would expect a "cleared to land" somewhere in the pattern). If on
the
other hand you had said "...through 5300 for 4500" then the "continue"
would
not have cleared you to decend below that point or to enter the pattern.
Other limitations could be similar to any "expect further clearance"
phrase
you might hear when on IFR.
--
Jim Carter
"Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:d9idnfJ0usgGVzLdRVn-vg (AT) comcast (DOT) com...
I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to
4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the
handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words
back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time
I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was
being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and
continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if
I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the
FAA.
--
Regards,
Mike
[email]mikenoel (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Tomblin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 12:23 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
| Quote: | Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
|
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin (AT) xcski (DOT) com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
PROGRAM - n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's
input into error messages. v. tr.- To engage in a pastime similar to banging
one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry Q. Bibb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 2:31 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
In article <c8oquf$ic9$3 (AT) allhats (DOT) xcski.com>, ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com
says...
| Quote: | In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark |
recesses...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G.R. Patterson III
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 3:04 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Paul Tomblin wrote:
| Quote: |
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
|
The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.
George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Tomblin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" <grpphoto (AT) verizon (DOT) net> said:
| Quote: | Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did also.
|
I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin (AT) xcski (DOT) com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Weiss Family
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 4:39 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" <grpphoto (AT) verizon (DOT) net> said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
also.
I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin (AT) xcski (DOT) com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Rosenfeld
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 11:05 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:49:58 -0700, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net>
wrote:
| Quote: | I was returning to my home base this morning and was cleared down to 4500'
from 5500' by Tucson approach (pattern altitude is 3400'). On the handoff
to the tower I called in and said I was 'through 5300'. The only words back
from the Tower were 'Cherokee 54405, continue'. This was the first time I
had received this instruction and assumed (yes, bad idea) that I was being
told to continue inbound to the pattern. I leveled at 4500' and continued
inbound. As I got closer to the pattern I asked the tower controller if I
could descend to pattern altitude. He replied that he had given me
permission on first contact. I continued on down and landed.
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
using the word 'continue' would be too ambiguous for the likes of the FAA.
|
It sounds as if the controller is abbreviating the proper use of the
phrase. From the pilot/controller glossary:
CONTINUE- When used as a control instruction should be followed by another
word or words clarifying what is expected of the pilot. Example: "continue
taxi", "continue descent", "continue inbound" etc.
However, I would assume that CONTINUE means to continue doing whatever it
was that I just told ATC I was doing. In your instance, having been
cleared to 4500' by ATC, I, too, would have asked for clarification as to
whether or not descent below my previously cleared altitude was OK.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dennis brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 11:33 am Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Let us remember the all-versatile NOP. Then we could alter the command by
inserting an instruction during the execution of the code. Great stuff. Used
it often
when writing programs for the computer that would occupy half a room, but
had
only 2K characters for both the program and data. Those were 6 bit
characters, BTW.
Oh, this was the bigger machine. The machine started with 1K characters. And
no,
it was not a wired program, it had a real programming language. 5 characters
per
instruction. 1 character for the operation, 4 for the operand. Address was
by row and column. Used the same logic right on up the line to those fancy
new languages called
Fortran and Cobol.
The Weiss Family wrote in message <10b0aopqtcf1e4d (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>...
| Quote: | Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum ;-)
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:c8p70k$p2a$1 (AT) allhats (DOT) xcski.com...
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" <grpphoto (AT) verizon (DOT) net> said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
also.
I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax
Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin (AT) xcski (DOT) com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Judah
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
The new Algorithmic Traffic Control (ATC) system:
for ALTITUDE = 5500 to 0 step -500FPM
if ( LANDED ON RUNWAY ) then BREAK
if ( CLEARED TO LAND ) then CONTINUE
if ( ALTITUDE = PATTERN ALTITUDE ) then LOOP
next ALTITUDE
(Boy am I geeky!)
ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com (Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:c8oquf$ic9$3
@allhats.xcski.com:
| Quote: | In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Sixkiller
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
"The Weiss Family" <weissfamily97 (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | Both FORTRAN and C have this keyword.
Boy, are we digressing. Is this a computer nerd forum 
|
printf("Yes", %s);
| Quote: |
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:c8p70k$p2a$1 (AT) allhats (DOT) xcski.com...
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" <grpphoto (AT) verizon (DOT) net> said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
The FORTRAN I used didn't have this command. C did/does. IIRC, PL/I did
also.
I have no idea what weird ass version of FORTRAN you used, but every
version of FORTRAN I used, from IBM FORTRAN-G to Fortran-77 to Vax
Fortran
to Watfiv-S had it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin (AT) xcski (DOT) com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom418
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: 'continue' as used by tower controler |
|
|
Stop poking fun about FORTRAN. When I was in school, and writing fortran
code, we did it with punch cards on IBM 129 keypunch machines! With the 8
track tape playing in the background. LOL!!!!!!
"Henry Q. Bibb" <hqbibb (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | In article <c8oquf$ic9$3 (AT) allhats (DOT) xcski.com>, ptomblin+netnews (AT) xcski (DOT) com
says...
In a previous article, "Mike Noel" <mrnoel (AT) attglobal (DOT) net> said:
Is this a commonly used phraseology from ATC? I would have thought
just
Only if they're old FORTRAN programmers.
Oh, man, that tickled a few brain cells *way* back in the dark
recesses...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
