Jkarl Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Thought that was odd? Where do these guys come up with this stuff! Haha FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education Pilot Plays Game of Chance Notice Number: NOTC3964 Proper terminology is our topic for today. In this case, we discuss use of the term BINGO FUEL by a pilot. As you know, BINGO is a game of chance, and pilots in flight should not be taking chances! As you might expect, the word BINGO is not found in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. It is also military slang for the minimum fuel required for a comfortable and safe return to base. To clarify, even if the controller had understood the pilot’s use of "BINGO FUEL" in the following example, the phrase does not indicate an emergency fuel condition, and the controller would not have changed his instructions. The expectation would be a normal landing that does not require emergency handling. Recently a pilot used that term while approaching to land at an airport. One can only imagine that the pilot had watched too many old flying movies. In this instance, there was a Runway Incursion and a Pilot Deviation, which will most likely result in an enforcement action (or Remedial Training) by the FAA. The C-210 landed on the active runway after being told to go around (twice) by the Tower due to insufficient separation from the preceding aircraft, a C-172 executing a previously approved stop and go maneuver. The Tower issued both go around instructions prior to the C-210 crossing the Runway threshold. The C-210 landed on the runway after announcing “BINGO FUEL.” Noting that the C-210 was not going around, the Tower told the C-172 to start an immediate take-off roll prior to the C-210 landing. Aggressive braking by the C-210 pilot led to the aircraft making a 180-degree turn on the runway resulting in a blown right main gear tire. Closest proximity to the preceding aircraft reported by the Tower was 300 feet. To repeat, BINGO FUEL is not standard phraseology and pilots should not use the term. In addition, in this case, the pilot did not declare an emergency (which would have helped the controller to understand the circumstances) and after landing locked both wheels while braking to avoid the preceding aircraft. Furthermore, the pilot landed after the Tower instructed him to go around. Please remember to avoid slang while communicating; it only leads to confusion and in the case above, could have resulted in a collision on the runway with potentially dire results. Furthermore, don’t be afraid of the “E” word – Emergency. Even if paperwork is required after landing (and it typically is not), that’s less expensive than the blown tire, as in this case, or the potential damage caused by a collision. We could go on about the situation created by what appears to have been a low fuel condition, and what caused that, but today’s topic is proper terminology.
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 The C-210 pilot probably read the term off of a military pilot's morale patch.
Hacker Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Pretty awesome when you can not only use a term that the controller doesn't understand, but also the pilot using it clearly doesn't understand.
EvilEagle Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I always call Bingo to tower in my Bonanza. Is that not normal? 1
Clayton Bigsby Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Lots of other non-standard-phraseology phrases derived from military phrases like "no joy on..." or "tallyho!" are used all the time, and ya just learn them and move along...guess I don't understand why if an inbound was saying something about his fuel state, that you'd launch somebody out right in front of him. Just because the E-word wasn't used doesn't mean you can't give somebody priority if it seems they might need it. Especially with the outbound being a C172...he can wait, it's not like it's a Lifeguard King Air or something. Story doesn't say when the Centurion guy admitted to low fuel...if he only said it on short final after the first go-around order, then it's on him.
StoleIt Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 guess I don't understand why if an inbound was saying something about his fuel state, that you'd launch somebody out right in front of him. Just because the E-word wasn't used doesn't mean you can't give somebody priority if it seems they might need it. Especially with the outbound being a C172...he can wait, it's not like it's a Lifeguard King Air or something. C-172 executing a previously approved stop and go maneuver. Reading comprehension > you
Clayton Bigsby Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Oops! Missed that. So, unable stop and go, other options approved...just because it was previously approved doesn't mean that can't be changed. Edited August 1, 2012 by Clayton Bigsby
Prozac Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Controller may or may not have inferred that the 210's fuel state was low based on the "Bingo" call. It's possible that the controller had never heard the term and truly did not know what the pilot meant. In any case, I'm sure that the FAA is interested in why the pilot planned his mission so poorly in the first place that he was in a position where he felt he was unable to execute a go-around due to his fuel state. 1
itsokimapilot Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Controller may or may not have inferred that the 210's fuel state was low based on the "Bingo" call. It's possible that the controller had never heard the term and truly did not know what the pilot meant. In any case, I'm sure that the FAA is interested in why the pilot planned his mission so poorly in the first place that he was in a position where he felt he was unable to execute a go-around due to his fuel state. Sounds like a typical TACC mission to me. 1
FUSEPLUG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Lots of other non-standard-phraseology phrases derived from military phrases like "no joy on..." or "tallyho!" are used all the time, and ya just learn them and move along... Is "got him on the fish-finder" military-based as well? 1
frog Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) At least he landed at the correct airport Edited August 2, 2012 by frog 5
M2 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 B-I-NGO! B-I-NGO! B-I-NGO and BINGO was his name-o! And for some reason, when I was looking for a picture for this post, Google offered this... I'd bingo the hell out of that! Cheers! M2 1
Snooter Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 At least he landed at the correct airport zing...
Clayton Bigsby Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) At least he landed at the correct airport He apparently had the gear down too. Not a given in a C210 (or a C-17) Edited August 3, 2012 by Clayton Bigsby
Prozac Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Here's another military term not allowed on the radio from urban dictionary: "I can't see shit." An exclamation often said by pilots when flying in heavy rain, fog or cloud. Usually to their co-pilot, but not to air traffic controll on the radio. Usually said when the other pilot claims to know where the landing runway is, while the exclaimant has no idea. Is an indicator that the person saying the phrase is both lost, and can't see anything comprehensable out the window Copilot: Runway is off to the right sir Pilot: Where? I can't see shit! This is a common occurance in the tanker where it is likely that only one of the wipers will work and Murphy's law states that it will be on the least experienced pilot's side. Adds livelieness to the end of a 16 hour mission. On another note, I just returned from my first real flying TDY in a while and I was pleasently surprised to find that TACC's planned fuel loads were entirely reasonable. Also, on at least 2 of the legs, the ETPs were correctly computed. Probably just lucked out with a halfway decent flight manager.
StoleIt Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 This is a common occurance in the tanker where it is likely that only one of the wipers will work and Murphy's law states that it will be on the least experienced pilot's side. Adds livelieness to the end of a 16 hour mission. On another note, I just returned from my first real flying TDY in a while and I was pleasently surprised to find that TACC's planned fuel loads were entirely reasonable. Also, on at least 2 of the legs, the ETPs were correctly computed. Probably just lucked out with a halfway decent flight manager. Funny, today my TACC Form 200 had several extra points that weren't in the 1801. Guess that's why we have two checklist steps for flight plans these days...
Prozac Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Funny, today my TACC Form 200 had several extra points that weren't in the 1801. Guess that's why we have two checklist steps for flight plans these days... FIR boundaries?
StoleIt Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 FIR boundaries? Nope, it was a domestic flight plan. No real excuse for them to jack that up.
BQZip01 Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Nope, it was a domestic flight plan. No real excuse for them to jack that up. Perhaps if you had a professional navigator...
itsokimapilot Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Perhaps if you had a professional navigator... Hahahahaha, I'm sure that would've solved the problem!
Prozac Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Perhaps if you had a professional navigator... We do: 2
LockheedFix Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Funny, today my TACC Form 200 had several extra points that weren't in the 1801. Guess that's why we have two checklist steps for flight plans these days... That's why I teach new guys to always enter the flight plan manually off the 1801/175 that they filed. Flight managers do zero QC of their planning for the Herk.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now