Phraseology question

[NorthSouth]

How come it's runway "one five" but it's taxiway "alpha fifteen"?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

No.. I give up... tell us.

[keithl]

Presumably so there's no confusion about whether you're being cleared to enter a runway or a taxiway.

Or did you spot something that indicated it wasn't a serious question, HD?

[JEP]

In our little kingdom - it would be "Taxiway Alpha One Five".

It also seems to be so according to CAP413, but I could have missed something.

[The Greaser]

I suppose if there was also a holding point A1 then it could be a source of confusion. Why are holding points not numbered 01,02 etc as are runways to avoid such mistakes.

[NorthSouth]

Yes, it is a serious question, but strictly speaking I should have said 'Holding Point Alpha Fifteen', not taxiway.

Can't find anything in CAP413 or MATS Part 1 which indicates either way. I've even been sad enough to look in ICAO Doc 4444. Nothing there either that I can see.

NS

[2 sheds]

NS

CAP413, Chapter 2, Para 1.4.2

"All numbers, except those contained in paragraph 4.2 (b) (they mean para 1.4.2(b)), shall be transmitted by pronouncing each digit separately..."

Hence, in your example, "Alpha One Five".

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Or did you spot something that indicated it wasn't a serious question, HD?>>

Did you see the TV prog about the traffic police recently? A guy with a camera nicking motorists for breaking the limit readily admitted that he too had been done for speeding!

You can argue about "correct" phraseology until the end of time, but controllers and pilots will still, occasionally, lapse (some more than others).

[Dave Gittins]

The only exception I know to spelling out each number would be "cleared not above one thousand five hundred feet".

(you can tell what size of aeroplanes I fly).

Other than that it certainly wouldn't be taxiway fifteen but one fife.

[NorthSouth]

2 sheds:"All numbers, except those contained in paragraph 4.2 (b) (they mean para 1.4.2(b)), shall be transmitted by pronouncing each digit separately..."Indeed, but after that it goes on to say "as follows:
a) When transmitting messages containing aircraft callsigns, altimeter settings, flight levels (with the exception of FL 100, 200, 300 etc. which are expressed at ‘Flight Level (number) HUN DRED’), headings, wind speeds/directions, pressure settings,
transponder codes and frequencies, each digit shall be transmitted separately"
Which isn't too much help since it doesn't mention either runway or taxiway designators. Point is, at my local airfield all ATCOs seem to say 'fifteen' for holding points but 'one five' for runways. Suggests it's in the MATS Pt 2?

[2 sheds]

HD
With respect, I would disagree that one can argue about "correct" phraseology, but rather suggest that one can discuss correct (without quotes) phraseology.

NS
I really do not see the problem, although I admit some parts of CAP413 (usually copied from ICAO) could be writen better. Where is the problem with "All numbers, with the exception of...each digit separately."? The paragraph that you quote is merely emphasising specific examples, but clearly cannot be exhaustive. Therefore, any other example of numerical data should comply with the basic criteria. Might we have a clue about the location of your local airfield - I would bet that any such variation such as you quote would certainly not be in their MATS Part 2.

Far more to the point that SRG should be asked to address the fairly recent change, included in a quote above, whereby the UK, in line with ICAO, now requires all pressure settings (by implication, including a value of 1000 mb/hPa) to be pronounced in separate digits. What could be more likely to create confusion between 1010 and 1000 ?

[A good headin]

Just another example of the poor standards of phraseology that can be heard on civil and military freqs these days. It is up to the Sups to kick butts when they hear their controllers using naff phraseology, there is no excuse.

[TheOddOne]

NorthSouth,

It's interesting that you should choose the example of the number fifteen. Years ago, inside Terminal 3 at LHR, there was a gate 15 and a gate 50. They were about half a mile walking distance apart. The number of times pax would pitch up at 15 when they wanted 50 (or vice versa) because they'd mis-heard directions from someone was amazing. They'd sometimes miss their flights, especially if they'd made it all the way down to 15 which was as far as you could get from the DEP lounge (50 was just around the corner by comparison).

An early lesson in numerical confusion.

Today we still have pilots who read back stand assignments using incorrect phraseology. We have complex stand labelling at LGW, not only the number, but left, middle and right as well and if you park on the wrong one you'll likely bang wingtips with the adjacent a/c or put a nice crease down the side of a catering vehicle (I HATE that paperwork!)

It's not pedantry, it's important to get it right. Readback not only confirms you've understood correctly the instructions given, it also reinforces in your mind what it is that you're going to do.

I have to say that generally, UK pilots are best at this and of course our controllers at LGW are superb!

The Odd One

ps, for LGW hands...
A while ago we had to change all the old taxiway numbers for letters, more difficult for us older hands to get our heads round. One controller came up with a cracking good way of sorting out the old 7 & 8.
'Quebec is QUITE near the Tower, Romeo is REALLY near the Tower'.

I'll get me coat

[LateLandingClearance]

of course our controllers at LGW are superb!
Aww. Shucks. :O :O