Why report the hold in radar environment?

Alchemy said:
I'm a CFII too, but there's by the book and then there's real world when it comes to ATC communication, and while I strive to stick with the former sometimes the latter is all you can do. Just go to O'hare and taxi around for a little while if you want to discover that concept. The ATC guys on here said themselves that "leaving" a useless call most of the time. If they don't want it, and if 90% of the time they act confused and annoyed when I do it, why should I continue to make it? I think the AIM needs to be amended for the sake of alleviating frequency congestion in this instance.

Most of the other items on that list in 5-3-3 are somewhat unsual occurences....not being able to climb at 500fpm, holding, pulling the speed way back, etc. Conversely, leaving one assigned altitude for another is extremely routine, expected, and happens 3-4 times per flight sometimes. Also notice the AIM says "should", not "must" ;) Somehow I doubt Washington center would be real thrilled with my airmanship if I said "leaving flight level for three five zero for flight two seven zero", "leaving flight level two seven zero for flight for one three thousand", "leaving one three thousand for one one thousand", and "leaving one one thousand for eight thousand" every time I flew the PHLBO2 into EWR.

.....but if I get feedback from the ATC guys on here that I really should be making the call like I used to, I'll start doing it again.
Click to expand...



I like the "leaving" call personally. Reason is it isn't something I necessarily need but it is a nice reminder that the aircraft was given a PD descent. "Descend Via" clearances on the other hand they are completely unnecessary.
 
I'm trying to figure out why people would use random anecdotal information as a valid reason to disregard AIM recommendations? Where does it end?

:dunno:
 
SteveC said:
I'm trying to figure out why people would use random anecdotal information as a valid reason to disregard AIM recommendations? Where does it end?

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Why? Because I want to get along with the controllers as best I can and not tie up busy frequencies just so I can be a boy scout. But like I said, if I get enough feedback on this thread FROM CONTROLLERS I'd change....so far I haven't seen it. I don't see feedback from actual controllers as "random anecdotal information". It's good, real world stuff, which is why I like this forum.

So for I've got a "useless", "do not make it in radar environment", and a "like it, nice reminder, but useless at times".
 
I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that if saying leaving an altitude is in the proper FAA publication, then you should say it just based on the fact that if you don't, and you get into an accident or near miss (because getting into an accident at altitude wouldn't normally warrant a talk with anyone, let alone the FAA), the FAA can use it against you.

Let's use a harsher example. The tower controller wants me to vacate the runway at the next intersection. I am going too fast and need the next one, however, I want to help him out. I oblige, skid off the runway, and have to talk to FAA and explain that I didn't take the taxiway because I wanted to help ATC out.

Again, it's a more extreme example but it's still along the same lines. I'm not trying to play devils advocate here, and I have massacred phraseology in the past (even though I do maintain professionalism most of the time), but I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this.
 
For a PD decent I usually give the vacating call. For a crossing restriction I never do because I figure the controller has a pretty good idea where I'll be starting down.
 
SteveC said:
I'm trying to figure out why people would use random anecdotal information as a valid reason to disregard AIM recommendations? Where does it end?

:dunno:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say recommendations are being disregarded. They are being regarded right now in this thread. There are many things in the AIM that are not regulatory, but not following them can lead to a big regulatory problem. I wouldn't call this scenario one of them. In fact, I have seen some instances where following the AIM to the letter just is not possible. Therefore, I don't not always follow the AIM to the letter. I applaud those who do research to find out why rather than just do because...then again this is my opinion. I get what you're saying and I understand why the AIM exists. I just like to have all of the information available to make an informed decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top