Page 46 - Volume 17 Number 4

You use the wrong words; you must have a vernacular disease. She was complete- ly sure that she was making sense, and so was I.TemptingThe other day, I had a lady on board escorting some of her company’s property. The property was in our aft cargo compart- ment, the one just below the right engine; she was in coach, just to the left of that same engine, on top of the cargo. Why she needed to be so near – yet so far from – the cargo compartment is a conundrum. It wasn’t like she could get out and rescue the cargo if the need arose. It wasn’t actually her property anyway, or even her company’s property. It was our govern- ment’s property. Her employer had been hired to transport it with all due diligence, security and scowling-seriousness. The look on her face was priceless when I, not seriously enough, asked if there were any special considerations for the cargo if we didn’t end up at our scheduled destina- tion. What I meant, of course, was, if we had to divert to another airport for somejustifiable reason, was there anything special I needed to do as the Captain because of the cargo. I could have worded my question with a more civilian choice of words, but it was sufficient to get the expression I wanted to see; but, I did honestly need the answer to the question. I have had the opportunity to carry this type of cargo before, so while a bit uncommon, this was not my first time. The cargo? Ninety-six million dollars in U.S. cash. Tempting, but not as tempting as when I transported almost half a billion. Yes, we delivered it to the right place and on time; most of it anyway.Rookies from ProsEven when we deal with other profes- sionals, most are not comfortable with the extreme accuracy and brevity in communication used by aviators. On the other hand, some pilots also slip up and use incorrect terminology. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a pro in the flight levels answer ATC’s request for a ride-report by telling them that they were IFR but smooth. Oh, really? How could you get above 18k without being IFR? Do you mean you are IMC... of course you do. And in answering the ATC request to say your airspeed, the response was “point seven-six.” No, dear; airspeed is the three digits with no decimal point. Details like this distinguish rookies from pros. And this one from ATC: Taxi to runway 19 via Bravo, hold short of Delta-eight; plan to follow Southwest. Holding short, we waited. Finally, Southwest moved from out of the way of D-8 but the controller hadn’t said follow Southwest, they had only said plan to follow Southwest. So here we sit, planning to follow Southwest. There was no one else on the radio, yet we had to ask for the rest of the clearance to continue. It seems ATC is not listening. Who else called? Say again, Iwas on the land-line. Did somebody else try to check in? Although, you not dare miss a radio call from them; I recently heard a controller say: Pay attention up there, I’m busy downhere! Maybe he didn’t get his extra hash brown either.Is cleared to the Albuquerque VOR the same thing as cleared to Albuquerque? It’s hard to tell without asking ATC. Navigationally speaking, Albuquerque is three places: the first is the airport itself – entered into the GPS as KABQ. The second is the ABQ VOR, which is a physical station transmitting a radio signal; it’s on the ground but not on the airport. You need a VOR signal and a receiver to navigate to the VOR. The third is ABQ the virtual fix, entered in the GPS as ABQ, also not on the field, but not on the ground either; it’s a phantom. When directly over a VOR at 60,000 feet, the DME reads 10 nm; when directly over a GPS fix at any altitude, it reads zero –is this two different places in space? If the VOR is the clearance instead of the ABQ virtual fix, don’t you need a VOR receiver? If you are too far away and not receiving the VOR signal, how can you navigate to the thing? If it stopped transmitting, would you not need a new clearance to the fix instead of the physical VOR radio?PilotezeThis discussion of colloquial conversation may be controversial. Is it readily relevant to our readers? According to Rodney, perhaps not. But, since we are intelligent enough to speak in piloteze, surely we have the linguistic legerdemain to learn the language of neighbors, flight attendants, spouses and the new, non-attentive ATC. If we have difficulty interpreting the mean- ing of ATC’s aviation tongue, however, better for us to get clarification – lest we pull out in front of someone, fly too close to another aviator or wander off the prescribed path. And, as a result, end up teaching yogurt, handing out hash browns or, even worse, never getting a word in edgewise. CJKevin Dingman has been flying for 40 years. He’s an ATP typed in the B737 and DC9 with 19,000 hours. A retired Air Force Major; he flew the F-16 then performed as a USAF Civil Air Patrol Liaison Officer. Contact Kevin at Dinger10d@gmail.com.44 • TWIN & TURBINEAPRIL 2013