would you consider this semantics?

[adk]

@A80TRACON would it be acceptable on your end to issue the clearance as "delete speed restriction, then comply with published speeds at (waypoint name)?"

 

[AM011309]

Then there's the guy who says "triple nickel suga pop"

Omg I want to punch that guy in the head. Twice.

@A80TRACON would it be acceptable on your end to issue the clearance as "delete speed restriction, then comply with published speeds at (waypoint name)?"

I'm curious too.. I find that even if I say delete speed/speed your discretion/delete speed restriction it is still interpreted as just "for now". I thought the phraseology specified to give the crossing with 'delete speed restriction' but they still slow at that point. So I guess if I say "cross or descend whatever, delete speed at -waypoint-", that should be clear?

 

[RRPower]

A few points here:

1.) the way you issued the clearance, I would delete the speed restriction at the fix and I would assume that once I hit 10K that I will accelerate to my normal speed (usually 290).

2.) I would never proceed direct to a fix unless specifically given "proceed direct to XYZ", or "after ABC, fly direct to XYZ". If there is any confusion then confirm.

3.) Sloppy radio verbiage usually go hand in hand with sloppy flying and I do not tolerate either.

4.) Anyone that says Sugar Pop or says the letter versus the phonetically correct name needs to be throat punched.

 

[RetiredATLATC]

@A80TRACON would it be acceptable on your end to issue the clearance as "delete speed restriction, then comply with published speeds at (waypoint name)?"

That's perfectly acceptable when giving a clearance reference a STAR/SID, my consternation is just overall sloppy phraseology on both ends. Like I said, good phraseology will keep you out of court heaven forbid something bad happens and if you do end up there it's not because of your phraseology.

The only issue is if told to delete speed restrictions a pilot may also delete the "accelerate to 250kts asap after takeoff" that is also on the SID as well, which we don't want. That's why I specify the waypoint speed I want deleted.

Just read it back the way it was issued.

Now who wants to hear me talk about a certain airline (they had a killer whale on the side) who, once again, was told short approach. Slowed to 150kts on the 27L downwind on his own and while on the base heading turned himself in towards the airport without a clearance and almost tboned an A380 . Sigh

 

[AM011309]

Thanks for the phraseology input. I find it so funny how as black and white specific to the letter the 7110 is supposed to be, it can still be argued/interpreted different ways.

I get a kick out of the euphemisms for SWA. Luv, killer whale, etc. hahaha

 

[adk]

That's perfectly acceptable when giving a clearance reference a STAR/SID, my consternation is just overall sloppy phraseology on both ends. Like I said, good phraseology will keep you out of court heaven forbid something bad happens and if you do end up there it's not because of your phraseology.

The only issue is if told to delete speed restrictions a pilot may also delete the "accelerate to 250kts asap after takeoff" that is also on the SID as well, which we don't want. That's why I specify the waypoint speed I want deleted.

Just read it back the way it was issued.

Ah, didn't realize it was a departure. Just to be sure, you want the aircraft to accelerate above 250 knots before HYZMN so long as they're above 10,000?

Would "normal speed above 10,000" work?

 

[RobertB]

Would "normal speed above 10,000" work?

I would say no because the SID would dictate that normal speed is 250 knots until HYZMN or STYLZ or wherever.

 

[queeno]

I have no idea what you folks are talking about..........in my day we didnt have those fancy dancy RNAV SIDs we actually controlled the aircraft with speeds and Vectors, seemed to work ok !!!!!!