QNH 1000 - digit by digit or 'wun tousand'?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old Nuremburg Defence ploy, eh?
If what I was doing was unsafe, but kept doing it in the name of "it's not my job to change it", then I would accept the nazi analogy.
But as it appears to be safer than as per "CAP", I think there was no need for such comment
I hope we can still be pals !
L.T
Most certainly - should have put one of those grinning face thingies next to a lighthearted comment!
But the anomaly is that if one does something different from that which is mandated "in the interests of safety" (as determined by oneself), the fact is that it might well have the opposite effect if it is not what everyone else is doing (e.g. outside the parochial shores of the UK). The point I was making was that if OJTIs are advocating something that is contrary to CAA requirements, ICAO requirements and the expectations of most non-UK pilots, then anybody experiencing this has some responsibility to flag it up as a safety issue.
There - made the point without mentioning the war.
Regards
2 s
Most certainly - should have put one of those grinning face thingies next to a lighthearted comment!
But the anomaly is that if one does something different from that which is mandated "in the interests of safety" (as determined by oneself), the fact is that it might well have the opposite effect if it is not what everyone else is doing (e.g. outside the parochial shores of the UK). The point I was making was that if OJTIs are advocating something that is contrary to CAA requirements, ICAO requirements and the expectations of most non-UK pilots, then anybody experiencing this has some responsibility to flag it up as a safety issue.
There - made the point without mentioning the war.
Regards
2 s
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a control room with no radar...
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that whenever I've tuned into one of them computer voice ATIS's I've heard the QNH given as "QNH Wun Tousand"? Am I right or am I wrong? Not 100% sure what it is! 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP413 is renowned as being a frustratingly inaccurate document, despite its constant revisions. Many chapters have techniques in conflict with MATS phraseology.
It even gives an example of an acknowledgement from an aircraft to ATC being read as "G-ABCD." ie callsign only! What an ancient and nonsensical suggestion.
It would seem the person tasked with revising CAP413 is a Monday afternoon part time retiree or certainly someone who doesn't attach much importance to closing the loop between CHIRP and MATS etc.
PS My take on the subject matter is that pressure settings with a value of 1000 or less should be suffixed with the word millibars. This means one uses "one tousand millibars" to avoid any confusion with an altitude as the suffix has been included to remove the potential ambiguity. Can't remember if I was trained this or read it somewhere but if someone can quote different from an official source I am open to changing my method.
It even gives an example of an acknowledgement from an aircraft to ATC being read as "G-ABCD." ie callsign only! What an ancient and nonsensical suggestion.
It would seem the person tasked with revising CAP413 is a Monday afternoon part time retiree or certainly someone who doesn't attach much importance to closing the loop between CHIRP and MATS etc.
PS My take on the subject matter is that pressure settings with a value of 1000 or less should be suffixed with the word millibars. This means one uses "one tousand millibars" to avoid any confusion with an altitude as the suffix has been included to remove the potential ambiguity. Can't remember if I was trained this or read it somewhere but if someone can quote different from an official source I am open to changing my method.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltie,
Took up your first point with a NATS manager, who assured me that the MATS Pt 1 takes precedence over the CAP413.
Another aspect which may confuse the issue is NATS annoying habit of introducing extra bits and pieces of verbiage as company 'best practice'. Can't be arsed myself to look up to see what they say about pressure settings. Any other NATSI's know if the Reichstag has anything to say about passing QNH?
Took up your first point with a NATS manager, who assured me that the MATS Pt 1 takes precedence over the CAP413.
Another aspect which may confuse the issue is NATS annoying habit of introducing extra bits and pieces of verbiage as company 'best practice'. Can't be arsed myself to look up to see what they say about pressure settings. Any other NATSI's know if the Reichstag has anything to say about passing QNH?
From CAP413
And on what authority does he claim that one CAP takes "precedence" over another?
Both documents specify exactly the same on the subject of this thread, i.e. are in accord with ICAO.
2 s
Phraseology for air traffic controllers (consistent with CAP 413)
is also published in the Manual of Air Traffic Services (CAP 493).
is also published in the Manual of Air Traffic Services (CAP 493).
Both documents specify exactly the same on the subject of this thread, i.e. are in accord with ICAO.
2 s
