曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

after a hand-off.
Roger what?
✍ “Cruise altitude was 7,000 feet assigned
by New York Center. Hand-off was
about 11 miles northwest of HAR VOR.
The Captain checked in with MDT Approach
and reported level at 7,000 feet.
The Controller replied, ‘Verify level at
8,000 feet.’ The Captain replied,
‘Roger’…The Controller presumed we
were at 8,000 feet at check-in and tried to
clarify our altitude, but was misled by
our Captain’s response to the inquiry
(‘Roger’ was incomplete phraseology).”
(# 229932)

AIM defines the term “Roger” as, “I
have received all of your last transmission,”
and states that it “should
not be used to answer a question
requiring a yes or no answer.”
However, the term is constantly
misused in communications, often
resulting in misunderstanding, annoyance,
or more serious consequences
for both pilots and controllers.
Descent
Roger this…
✍ “Center issued a clearance to descend
to 5,000 feet MSL as the flight neared the
entry point [of special use airspace]. This
clearance was read back and the Controller
was advised that the flight was, ‘Canceling
IFR at this time.’ The Center responded
with, ‘Roger.’ This response did
not seem appropriate and the Controller
was extremely busy…As we descended
through 3,000 feet MSL, Center advised
us that we were only cleared to 5,000 feet
MSL and then asked us if we had canceled.
We repeated that we had, and that
we had heard his acknowledgment of our
cancellation…‘Roger’ is probably the most
misused term in flying today.”
(# 140258)
Roger that…
✍ “Planned descent for normal crossing
restriction of 11,000 feet and 250 knots at
FLATO. Issued 250 knots now, during descent.
250 knots now made the crossing
restriction almost impossible. Busy frequency
to get in a word that we wouldn’t
make the altitude. Finally got in a word,
and ATC responded, ‘Roger.’ Did ‘roger’
mean it was OK or what?” (# 89792)

When pilots realize that an ATC
clearance cannot be complied with,
they are required to advise ATC as
soon as possible. Timely notification
is critical to prevent problems
which could compromise separation
from other traffic. Once pilots
have advised ATC that a restriction
cannot be made, they are often
very anxious for a Controller’s response
either to relieve them of responsibility
or to assign a new restriction.
Roger is not the only
response that offers little in the
way of an answer, as the next report
illustrates.
SAY
WHAT?!
✍“Burbank assigned me a
squawk code. Several minutes
later the Controller
asked me my altitude and I
responded 7,500 feet. He
told me to squawk my altitude.
I replied, ‘Squawking
7500’, and the Controller
confirmed my code…After
landing, Ground directed me
to a specific parking area,
and I was immediately surrounded
by three police cars
with a number of officers
pointing their weapons at
me…They frisked me and
handcuffed me. They really
roughed me up…I would
suggest that Controllers
never use the terminology
‘squawk your altitude.’ ”
(# 147865)
This poor pilot forgot to
review his AIM, which
would have informed him
that:
✽ “Code 7500 will never
be assigned by ATC without
prior notification
from the pilot that his
aircraft is being subjected
to unlawful interference
[hijacking]. The
pilot should refuse the
assignment of Code
7500 in any other situation
and inform the controller
accordingly.”
In fact, ATC will not assign
any transponder codes
beginning with 75, 76, or 77
for anything other than what
they are meant for. Code
7512, or 7622, or 7752, for
example, will not be
assigned because the first
two numbers trigger the
computer—the last two
digits make no difference. ■
22 Issue Number 7
Approach and Landing
In an effort to keep each other wellinformed,
controllers and pilots might
supply information that is out of the
ordinary in order avoid potential
problems or to help clear up any questions
that might arise. Sometimes,
these out-of-the-ordinary advisories
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：ASRS Directline(121)