Stupid Change in the .65T???

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

Warning I only found this because I'm a nerd but, I think this change in the new "T" is stupid.

4-2-5-b Note 2

WTF is this "annotated as (ATC)" I have never seen it. Does this mean I can't cancel a speed or altitude restriction on an RNAV arrival/departure? Might be nice if someone briefed us on this as that is something I do 50+ times a day for operational reasons (read as "procedure sucks")

SOBS Newcomer

Who ever approved the new way of issuing Landing Clearance for USA/USAF/USN(Military Aircraft) needs to change it back to Wind, Landing Surface, Clearance rather than the new Landing Surface, Wind, Clearance......

Examples...

1) Army 12345 #2 to follow a B06 landing departure end, use caution mowers right of runway approach end runway 27, Wind 090@04, Cleared to land.

Without looking back at the sentence ?Which runway were you cleared to land on?

2) Army 12345 #2 to follow a B06 landing departure end, use caution mowers right of runway approach end, Wind 090@04, Runway 27 Cleared to Land.

Which sentence issues clearer instruction to the pilot to follow and understand?


The 2nd example has been in use for many, many years but a recent change to the 7110.65 has just change this and seems to be causing confusion. I?m requesting to change it back to Wind, Landing Surface, Clearance for Clarity and Safety. If your wonding about the winds 27 is the calm wind runway and all our instrument approaches go there, with 09 being 3 miles from an artillery impact restricted area.

polo708 Epic Member tower

Yeah... Ive been saying "wind, rwy, clearance" forever. Then just the other day someone said to me that I had to say the runway number first, wind, then clearance. I called bullshit, pulled out the book and looked like a moron when I saw it was changed.

GolfJuliet F*** Terrorism

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Simple as that!

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

the USA/USAF/USN is for those "facilities" NOT for those "aircraft". of course, if your an FAA tower that is owned/run primarily at a military airfield then your screwed. ie. i think TUS has to do it the military way.

mikecoyne34 Trusted Contributor BNA

as long as you're getting the information across and not putting planes together i would say to put it in whatever order makes you feel comfortable.

duranme Trusted Contributor San Diego (SCT)

I'm still adjusting to the whole not being able to say "report it in sight"

KeepEmSeparated Rookie

duranme Trusted Contributor San Diego (SCT)

Once you give traffic your no longer supposed/allowed to say "report it in sight" (and then apply visual sep/clear for visual approach)

You can still ask "do you have it in sight?" But if the pilot says no then, by the book, you have to give the traffic all over again and ask "do you have it in sight?"

One way around it is "do you have previously issued traffic in sight?" But its still two transmissions as opposed to one traffic call with "report him sight"

boondr PHD without a degree North of the Equator

Where did you get that info?