7 hours ago, ckyliu said:

The term relates to the traffic circuit ("pattern" as it's known in the USA, i.e. downwind, base, finals) and is defined as being closer than 4 miles to touchdown and aligned with the runway heading.

As others have surmised, I was referring to the plural usage of "final".

7 hours ago, ckyliu said:

forgive me for answering a question with a question but how does this work in the USA as I'm not aware of any transition layer - is it forbidden to cruise at 17,000 ft?

In the U.S., 17,000 is always a valid altitude.  The transition altitude is always 18,000 and the transition level is always FL180.  To insure vertical separation when the pressure falls below standard, ATC stops assigning FL180 and FL190 becomes the lowest usable flight level.  If the pressure gets really low (< 28.92"), FL200 becomes the lowest useable flight level.  It wastes a little bit of airspace; but we seem to manage okay.

 

7 hours ago, ckyliu said:

I believe "and maintain" was considered superfluous, therefore maintain is only used where an aircraft is already at that altitude/level. "

I definitely agree with you in principal.  Unfortunately, many here in the U.S. are more interested in litigation than using common sense.  As a controller, if I tell a pilot to "Climb to FL240" and he does that but continues the climb up to FL260, he could claim that he did exactly what I told him to do and I would probably be the proud recipient of an operational error.  Sad; but true.

 

7 hours ago, ckyliu said:

"Climb and maintain One Five Fifteen Thousand" I heard all the time stateside but surely its just "One Five Thousand" per FAA spec?

Yes, "One Five Thousand" would be the correct way.  I think a lot of controllers add the "Fifteen" for clarity... I don't personally subscribe to that school of thought.  It just makes the transmission longer... like using "decimal" instead of "point" 😄.

Edited February 23, 20224 yr by MadDog

12 hours ago, MadDog said:

Okay... I'll jump in with a couple of new questions.

Why do Europeans refer to the final approach phase of flight as being "on finals"?

Is it really that difficult to get everybody over there to agree on a single transition level/altitude? 😉

Bonus comment:  The U.S. phraseology is actually much more precise when issuing altitude assignments... Climb and maintain/Descend and maintain.

In my experience most Europeans use 'final' rather than 'finals.' You get lots of European SIMMERS saying 'finals' but most professionals seem to use 'final.' That's purely anecdotal though. 

The altitude assignment thing I'm not on board with at all, but the 'climb and maintain' and 'descend and maintain' aren't just simple climb/descent clearances. The 'and maintain' means that you're expected to leave your current altitude immediately and disregard any altitude constraints. The fact that I have to say that suggests it's not more precise!

In any case, if it's a simple climb or descent clearance why do you need to be told to maintain? If I'm 'cleared to descend FL200,' then surely you don't need to be told to maintain it? Would you otherwise get down to FL200 then think 'screw it, let's climb to FL230.'

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/Climb_Descend_Via_FAQ.pdf

8 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

In any case, if it's a simple climb or descent clearance why do you need to be told to maintain? If I'm 'cleared to descend FL200,' then surely you don't need to be told to maintain it? Would you otherwise get down to FL200 then think 'screw it, let's climb to FL230.'

Yes, without the "maintain", you could technically get away with it (see my previous response).  In reality, both pilot and controller would probably be chastised if that were to happen.  As for Climb/Descend Via... those are very different instructions... not really sure how they relate to this discussion.

1 hour ago, IanHarrison said:

That is preposterous . Maths is British, math is a deviation of the Colonies, which we Brits never had a chance to correct, due to a certain insurrection..

Well, here in the US, "maths" sounds preposterous.  No kid says, "hey mom, guess who I have this year for a maths teacher" or "I'm going to do my maths homework".  As an American English speaker, that's sounds silly to me, but I'm biased because I speak American English.  Saying "one twenty one decimal five" also sounds silly.  Getting off topic, but more people should be focused on actually learning how to do math(s) than arguing about where it deserves an "s" at the end.  Basic arithmetic seems to be a lost art (at least over here, but I freely admit that a lot of Americans are imbeciles). 

32 minutes ago, MadDog said:

Yes, without the "maintain", you could technically get away with it (see my previous response).  In reality, both pilot and controller would probably be chastised if that were to happen.  As for Climb/Descend Via... those are very different instructions... not really sure how they relate to this discussion.

You couldn't 'technically get away with it.' It's an explicit clearance to an explicit level. You wouldn't vacate a cleared level after being cleared to it any more than you would wander off on a heading after being told to intercept the localiser. Everywhere else in the world manages it. 

As for climb/descend via, I didn't mention those at all. I mentioned exclusively 'climb/descend and maintain,' which you used in your original post. 

 

This math/maths thing could be dialled down i like to think. All children at school follow the rules of the language they are born into, and as adults we dont have

much choice either (on both sides of the Atlantic). We have our fair share of imbeciles in the UK too (not on Avsim of course)☺️

Of course there are more than semantic differences between aviation in the UK and the US.

An obvious one is the traditional US GA  "circuit" in the traffic pattern tends to be tighter and begins descent at a  different point to what is common in the UK.

 

 

Aviation English is really only an extension of our native use of the English language. This Quora excerpt on the relative differences between the American Webster and the British Oxford and other UK centric dictionary's might help shed some light on how we arrived at such differences in aviation speak despite the preciseness we all need and expect.  The author is perhaps a bit US biased and some might certainly disagree with his last paragraph, but also seems sort of qualified to comment at this level.  Personally I have read somewhere that the Webster is considered a better dictionary if only because it reflects a truer derivative of the word. For example, (although it grinds my gears to say so), 'Mom' must surely represent Mother better than 'Mum'. However, the author (or is that authour, now obsolete in favour (favor) of the US version) does seem to praise the quality of the British dictionaries.   

So here's to precise British English and the more floral American version 🙂 

   

"Merriam Webster (MW) is a great American English dictionary with some citations of British English vocabulary and usage. It also has an excellent online dictionary.

MW takes its names from that most eminent American Lexicographer: Noah Webster, the father of the American English dictionary. Also of course from its publisher: Merriam. Noah Webster was driven by a zeal not only to reflect the distinct American idiom but also by his assurance that “the best language of Great Britain shall also be that of the United States”. He did not set out to create a different language! This is evidenced by the continuing unity between the two styles of English.

All of that said however, today the MW is very much US-centric and somewhat inward looking in its scope. I guess the supporters of MW (including myself) would argue that, by definition, the MW’s mission statement can be none other than the ‘tracking’ of the continuously evolving American language. To that end it is indeed very successful.

On the other hand, Oxford and indeed all other British dictionaries tend to be universalist in spirit, reflecting all varieties of English, found in the UK, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world; with a particular emphasis on the varieties of US English!

Owing to the solid literary traditions in Britain and the English language being its natural home, there are many excellent dictionaries, e.g. Oxford, Collins, Chambers, Cambridge, Longman, MacMillan and many others. Of all of them, Oxford tends to be a bit highbrow despite being very comprehensive. Collins and Longman are the most learner friendly. Collins in particular is the most elegant in its user friendliness. It is the most beautiful dictionary I have ever read. It is extremely learner friendly, without any loss in its thoroughness. It is also quite meticulous in US/UK and varieties of English, provides equivalent pronunciations using IPA, usage examples, thesaurus and has an encyclopaedic slant.

The British dictionaries go out of their way in their thoroughness in reflecting American English quite comprehensively, side by side with British English: reflecting subtle differences in meaning, spelling, pronunciation, etc., in instances where they are found. Most of these dictionaries also tend to have solely country-specific versions in their collections as well for US, Canada, etc.

Britain maybe the natural home of the English language, but the centre of gravity of the ‘sphere of English’ is well and truly not in the UK; but probably somewhere mid-Atlantic, if not altogether on US soil itself. This is not only to do with the number of native speakers but also in the volume of idiomatic and word innovations made in the United States. Americans are most excellent at identifying new phenomena and ascribing new terminology to them, very quickly.

British English is very precise and therefore you could argue it’s very rigid for the same reason. American on the other hand is very floral and is continuing in the tradition of the 18th/19th centuries and therefore, whilst being a little bit imprecise, it is also very liberal and malleable on the tongues of its speakers. This gives the speaker the freedom to mould and evolve the language based on their personal need. Once this gets traction, the innovations become idiomatic and is set in the language for all time.

The British usually resist – as unnecessary – the American innovations at the beginning: in a short time however, they too use them as though those have existed all along. So much so that today’s American linguistic innovations would doubtless become tomorrow’s standard British English. This is one of the main reasons why British dictionaries meticulously list American usage."

Paul Goodman

Physicist, Historian, Indologist and Educationalist

Updated Feb 2021

 

Edited February 24, 20224 yr by Lord Farringdon

9 hours ago, SpaceForceCapt said:

Well, here in the US, "maths" sounds preposterous.  No kid says, "hey mom, guess who I have this year for a maths teacher" or "I'm going to do my maths homework".  As an American English speaker, that's sounds silly to me, but I'm biased because I speak American English.  Saying "one twenty one decimal five" also sounds silly.  Getting off topic, but more people should be focused on actually learning how to do math(s) than arguing about where it deserves an "s" at the end.  Basic arithmetic seems to be a lost art (at least over here, but I freely admit that a lot of Americans are imbeciles). 

 

Edited February 24, 20224 yr by IanHarrison
deleted.

9 hours ago, SpaceForceCapt said:

Well, here in the US, "maths" sounds preposterous.  No kid says, "hey mom, guess who I have this year for a maths teacher" or "I'm going to do my maths homework".  As an American English speaker, that's sounds silly to me, but I'm biased because I speak American English.  Saying "one twenty one decimal five" also sounds silly.  Getting off topic, but more people should be focused on actually learning how to do math(s) than arguing about where it deserves an "s" at the end.  Basic arithmetic seems to be a lost art (at least over here, but I freely admit that a lot of Americans are imbeciles). 

All you have done here is show that British and American humour is not even close.😄

On 2/22/2022 at 10:14 PM, Stearmandriver said:

No, the data indicating a safety enhancement is what makes it a better way.  Data isn't interested in opinion or any individual's sacred cow... it just is what it is.  The data indicated that the "pos and hold" verbiage was contributing to confusion, and seeing the expected change in the data after adopting the ICAO verbiage bears it out. 

Often though, if there is no clear data one way or the other about which way might be better, standardization means that doing it the way everyone else does IS better.  Enhanced standardization in aviation is a safety benefit all by itself. 

The U.S. is slowly being dragged kicking and screaming, towards ICAO standards in many ways, and this is good for us even though we (like all humans) dislike change.  😉

fair enough but it still stands true that "just because everyone is doing it" makes whatever "it" is,  correct or incorrect. 

Edited February 24, 20224 yr by Isaiah53six

23 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

 

 

For example, (although it grinds my gears to say so), 'Mom' must surely represent Mother better than 'Mum'.

Not really true that, and least not in practical usage terms, which is what most languages derive from. To understand why, you need to be aware of the reason for the existence of that word, and why, in nearly every language, the equivalent word for the female parent, also begins with the letter M:

The single syllable 'meh' sound is one of the easiest for an infant to form, and this is usually encouraged by the mother repeating it back when the infant tries it out, to get the child to acknowledge her. From that, you end up with the word for mother in most languages evolving from a sound beginning with M. The O sound on the other hand, is quite difficult for a young infant to form, U is a bit easier, but the much easier sound for an infant to form, is A, which is why 'mama' and various versions of that sound are typically the most common for the word in most languages. so Mama would probably be the most representative of all the versions.

Check it out and see how common the different forms are:

https://www.1800flowers.com/blog/flower-facts/how-to-say-mom-in-different-languages/

lol

ns

4 hours ago, Chock said:

Not really true that, and least not in practical usage terms, which is what most languages derive from. To understand why, you need to be aware of the reason for the existence of that word, and why, in nearly every language, the equivalent word for the female parent, also begins with the letter M:

The single syllable 'meh' sound is one of the easiest for an infant to form, and this is usually encouraged by the mother repeating it back when the infant tries it out, to get the child to acknowledge her. From that, you end up with the word for mother in most languages evolving from a sound beginning with M. The O sound on the other hand, is quite difficult for a young infant to form, U is a bit easier, but the much easier sound for an infant to form, is A, which is why 'mama' and various versions of that sound are typically the most common for the word in most languages. so Mama would probably be the most representative of all the versions.

Check it out and see how common the different forms are:

https://www.1800flowers.com/blog/flower-facts/how-to-say-mom-in-different-languages/

Good stuff Chock.  Frankly,  I'm in admiration of anyone who speaks English as a second language given that those of us who have spoken it as a first language all our lives still often don't grasp many of its nuances. Both of my kids and our grand children have started with 'Mu..ma..' usually when crying. Imitation is of a course strong determinant of final usage and my now 5 year old granddaughter is listening to US kids programmes on TV so that 'Barby' is in fact Boby and despite trying to correct her she wont entertain any derivation of that!!  So persuasive and pervasive is the US twang through films and TV. Go figure.  Arrrrrgh! (face palm).  

 

The truth about the first dictionary:

 

 

Edited February 25, 20224 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick