What’s the bet this time?
So “to” is used with altitude but not FL? Who thought of that and why, I wonder? It is instructive to debate why.
Snoopy wrote:
Nobody (except for UK?) ever says it.
I think it’s normal IFR parlance across Europe, isn’t it?
Funnily enough, I just looked up EASA’s interpretation and it’s the worst of all worlds:
I don’t think that can possibly be right, I’ll keep digging
The 2007 ICAO manual (fourth edition) still has Descend to 2000ft. Is there a more recent one?
AMC1 SERA.14001
Guillaume wrote:
AMC1 SERA.14001
But didn’t ICAO change as well?
I’m not sure when / if ICAO changed at some point.
Since most of us are flying in Europe, that’s SERA Part-C phraseoly we should use.
Per AMC, we shall use “altitude” or “flight level” between the “climb to” and the number/level so that there is no ambiguity.
Whatever it says in the rules, to and for is stupid/dangerous. Unless it’s “yay we got ‘em on the fishfinder” (which is funny tbh) I much prefer the US “style”, it’s clear, quick and efficient, and they know a bit about flying over there. Sure, it’s because english is the native language. ICAO phraseology is for china, and while you talk standard phrases there isn’t much communication. I recall a tempered british voice transmitting “blind” in shanghai one morning after multiple f-ups during taxi: “if you don’t get your act together there will be a serious accident soon” (non profanity version for forum). I’m not blaming the colleagues from china (and other asian countries) atc, they do a good job in the system they work in…
Guillaume wrote:
we shall use
Isn’t there also a new substitute for “shall” nowadays?
