Descent Question

Murdoughnut

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
Here's a situation I faced the other night - I want to know if I was in the wrong so I can avoid the same thing in the future.

About 40-miles from the field, Approach clears me to descend at my discretion and report the field in site. Since I was in a 172 at 4,500ft, I decided to begin a slow descent when I was about 20 miles out, which I did. At 11 miles out, I reported field in site, and ATC asked me if I had begun descending. I reported that I had, and was descending through 3,000 feet. The controller made the comment "well that's good to know" and seemed frustrated that I had begun my descent.

I didn't realize that I had to report my descent when I was cleared to descend at my discretion. It was the same controller the whole time. Was I win the wrong?
 
I wouldn't say you were in the wrong at all. BUT - It may be a good idea to just tell them when you are leaving your cruise altitude. Not that it is required, especially after being issued an instruction to descend.
 
VFR doesnt need to report leaving an altitude for a new one. That is an IFR report only. With that being said, often when flying VFR in Class B or on with center, I still maintain IFR practices such as descending or climbing at 500 FPM and making similar reports.

Sounds like you just has a pissy controller.
 
It was 1:00am, maybe he was a bit cranky. Good advice, though - I should let them know when I leave altitude anyways.

It's funny because about the time this happened I was patting myself on the back because I caught the fact that, while approach game me direct to my destination, they never actually said "cleared into the bravo". I called them up to confirm before crossing over.
 
If you were VFR you must receive the "cleared into the class B" prior to entry. Cleared direct to your destination is an IFR term. An aircraft on an IFR plan doesnt need to be "cleared into the class B".

Maybe they thought you were IFR?
 
Murdoughnut said:
Good advice, though - I should let them know when I leave altitude anyways.
Click to expand...

Technically, the AIM requires you to report when leaving one assigned altitude for another. I can't see that this is limited to IFR flights.

However, controllers have consistently stated that they issue PD descents when they don't care when the pilot starts his descent, meaning there is no conflicting traffic. In this case, the "report leaving" doesn't serve much function. In other situations, your altitude becomes available for assignment to other aircraft once you report leaving it.

When given a PD descent, I will usually not inform the controller when I begin my descent. He's already told me he doesn't care, so why bother him? He'll see the Mode C before long.

Rather than reading too much into the controller's comment, I suggest you call up the facility and ask the watch supervisor, or better yet, the controller himself. Many pilots tend to get wordy on the radio based on unjustified inferences about what the controller wants to know, such as heading, for instance. Just have one controller ask "say heading", many pilots start volunteering it to every other controller for the rest of their careers.
 
tgrayson said:
Technically, the AIM requires you to report when leaving one assigned altitude for another. I can't see that this is limited to IFR flights.
Click to expand...

While it doesnt specifically say "IFR" in the AIM, to me its implied. AIM 5-3-3 also discusses change in TAS by 10 knots or 5 percent from the filed flight plan. Can you imagine if all the VFR guys were making those reports?

It also says in 5-3-3(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or FL for a newly assigned altitude or FL.

Typically, VFR aircraft aren't assigned altitudes like IFR aircraft are.
 
tgrayson said:
Many pilots tend to get wordy on the radio based on unjustified inferences about what the controller wants to know, such as heading, for instance. Just have one controller ask "say heading", many pilots start volunteering it to every other controller for the rest of their careers.
Click to expand...
I always state my heading when I'm on an assigned one or I state the fix/airport I'm direct to. I was told and have heard numerous times that ATC wants your assigned heading on initial callup when you are IFR.
 
ChinookDriver said:
I would say they can be assigned, aren't always. (Or even usually depending on the airport/airspace.)
Click to expand...

True. But my experience in Class B is that a hard altitude is almost always assigned and I bet that's true most everywhere, because most B's are busier than MEM. The times where this has not occurred stand out in my memory. Class C, much less often, but I don't fly into them much.
 
tgrayson said:
True. But my experience in Class B is that a hard altitude is almost always assigned and I bet that's true most everywhere, because most B's are busier than MEM. The times where this has not occurred stand out in my memory. Class C, much less often, but I don't fly into them much.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what time of day you're talking. Go in/out during a Fed Ex push and it's one of the busiest airspaces!:D
 
mikecweb said:
I was told and have heard numerous times that ATC wants your assigned heading on initial callup when you are IFR.
Click to expand...

They normally don't, that's why you don't find it in the AIM. Every now and then a controller will ask, but that's not to be taken as a hint that you should have told them in the first place.

A instrument student of mine years ago picked up this same idea from flying with another pilot. I told him that it generally wasn't true, according to numerous controllers and the AIM, but encouraged him to call a friend of his who was a Center controller. He came back with, "They don't want no heading." :)
 
mikecweb said:
I always state my heading when I'm on an assigned one or I state the fix/airport I'm direct to. I was told and have heard numerous times that ATC wants your assigned heading on initial callup when you are IFR.
Click to expand...

Trust me, Mike, keep doing it where you're flying every night...I don't know how many times they thanked me for it, since it was one less thing they had to ask. The few times I didn't say it, that was something they asked every time.

It may not say it in the AIM, but there have been numerous times where I'm on a heading and the controller thinks I'm direct somewhere, or vice versa...it's saved a ton of headaches, and I'll continue doing it, until specifically told not to by my Captain, or the FAA.
 
meritflyer said:
If you were VFR you must receive the "cleared into the class B" prior to entry. Cleared direct to your destination is an IFR term. An aircraft on an IFR plan doesnt need to be "cleared into the class B".

Maybe they thought you were IFR?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right - hmm, interesting.
 
Stone Cold said:
I'll continue doing it, until specifically told not to by my Captain, or the FAA.
Click to expand...
You were already told not to do it by the FAA, since the FAA told you what to say and neither heading nor clearance limit were part of it. Don Brown, on AvWeb, has complained about this practice on a couple of occasions. The first time was in his very first article:

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/182633-1.html

Then he mentioned it again in

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/186645-1.html

A handful of anecdotes should not determine standard operating practices, because the greatest authority on ATC communications is ATC itself and the AIM is their document. Don Brown merely expounds on what is written and why.


Here’re the relevant parts, if you don’t want to follow the link
=================================================
Don Brown, Center Controller, wrote on AvWeb on August 22, 2001

When I say talk less, here's an example that comes to mind: "Airliner five eighty three three three zero looking for lower and we're on a heading of three four zero do you still need that?" Of course, that's usually followed by, "Blocked." More importantly, does it remotely resemble what is in the book? From my conversations with pilots here on AVweb, I've run into several professional pilots that believe telling a controller their assigned heading is required and/or a good practice when they check in. Again, refer to the book. Do you see it anywhere?

Of course, it could be our own fault. Controllers, that is. Does this sound familiar? "Contact Atlanta Center 132.97 and tell 'em your heading."

There are two reasons for that. Both of them are wrong. First, it's been common practice for years on the midnight shifts to put the box haulers on a vector for several hundred miles direct to their destinations. Oh yeah, we can do that when we're working a tenth of the airplanes that we work during the day. Anytime a controller puts an aircraft on a vector, the controller is required to coordinate that heading with the next controller (assuming the aircraft is to stay on that heading until entering the next sector). To avoid coordinating (lots of phone calls), controllers began telling the pilot to tell the next controller their heading when they check in on the next frequency.

What's that old saying? What were once vices are now habits? After being "trained" to do this for years, there are pilots who do it that way on every frequency change. Now that the box haulers are flying during the daytime, even more pilots are copying it.

...Monkey See, Monkey Do
The second reason is related and is just as wrong. You see, the "monkey see, monkey do" principle works both ways. Controllers have seen other controllers do this for years, apparently without any ill effect. They get a little behind, don't have time to coordinate and they take a little shortcut. "Contact Atlanta Center 124.37 and tell 'em your speed." Hey, it works for headings, why not a speed assignment?

The problem is the controller working 124.37 is up to his eyeballs in airplanes. You try to check in: "Blocked." You try to check in again: "Blocked." You try again and get through but you forgot the speed. Five minutes later the controller notices something is wrong and says, "Airliner five seventy three say speed." Whoops. As you sheepishly admit that the previous controller asked you to pass along that you were assigned 250 knots, the controller starts trying to pry the 727 (that he just vectored in behind you) off of your tail. Completely forgetting for the moment about the two coming together on the other side of the sector.

The second controller working the sector sees that the R-side controller (the radar/radio side controller) is now jammed up so he calls back to the previous sector and gets Airliner 237 slowed down to 250 knots and put on heading to give his R-side a little breathing room. Ten seconds later the Conflict Alert goes off on the two from the other side of the sector. The R-side looks over at it says, "Oh, &*^$," and sees that he's really going to have to rack the northbound guy around to avoid having a deal (Operational Error). As he reaches for the transmit button he hears:

"Ah ...Center this is Airliner two thirty seven with you at three one zero we've been assigned two hundred and fifty knots and a heading of two five zero we're running a little late and we've got some international passengers that are running tight on their connections any chance we can pick the speed back up and maybe get direct MACEY or anything you could do to help us out would sure be appreciated."

"Bizjet 123 turn left immediately heading two seven zero."

"Blocked."

"Uh ... Center bizjet 123 is climbing we're responding to a TCAS RA."

Amazing what one little short cut can lead to isn't it? The insidious part of it is that it's done with the best of intentions (better service to more airplanes) and 99 times out of 100 we can get away with it. It's that one time that you don't get away with it that makes you understand why the rules were written the way they are. (As a side note, it's usually about a day after an incident like this that a controller with a brand-new appreciation for the rules comes up to me and says "We've got to do something.")


=================================================
He later wrote again in Article #33 on February 4, 2004



"Asheville Approach, Cessna 12345 level 6,000 direct PDK."

It always tickles me when pilots do that. Tell me they're direct somewhere or on a heading. I know where the habit of telling controllers your heading came from but I can't explain the "direct XXX." Let's check the book.


AIM 5-3-1.b

2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.


I don't see anything there about "direct PDK." Anything about a heading? How about you?
 
Interesting read.
Take this is for what it's worth however. Since I've started telling controllers my heading/direct to, I have not once been told not to tell them this information. Of the few times I've left it out I've been questioned what my heading was everytime. I fly through busy sectors all the time and if the frequency is congested there are ways to help controllers out. Avoiding "uhhh", "with you", "checkin in", " in the box", "on the meter", "on board", and all the other nonsense clogs frequencies. Giving approach an assigned heading especially if its away from my destination doesn't clog the frequency.
 
First, it's been common practice for years on the midnight shifts to put the box haulers on a vector for several hundred miles direct to their destinations. Oh yeah, we can do that when we're working a tenth of the airplanes that we work during the day. Anytime a controller puts an aircraft on a vector, the controller is required to coordinate that heading with the next controller (assuming the aircraft is to stay on that heading until entering the next sector). To avoid coordinating (lots of phone calls), controllers began telling the pilot to tell the next controller their heading when they check in on the next frequency.
Click to expand...

That would be me!!! And that would be the reason I do it. I always got an initial heading out of MSP's airspace, and they'd keep me on a heading going in a different direction or forget about me. It's happened before, and I use it to remind them what's going on.

Now, if I'm on my filed course, and not expecting anything special, it's a normal call (without heading, or direct, etc.). It's not an every controller call, but when needed. I went into Chicago every night, and got quite a few thank you's from the controllers for doing what you say not to. My route, as filed, was DuPage (about 30 miles West of MDW), then direct MDW. Plot that out and see where it ends up...right in the approach path for O'Hare. It gave them a friendly reminder that if you don't tell me any different, I'm heading into O'Hare's space.

Now that I'm flying during the day, I'll probably cut out most of that, since I won't be expecting anything special, but I would go by the controllers that I dealt with, in busy airspace, and the same place Mike is going into every night, rather than one controller's opinion.

I'm all about keeping as short and sweet as possible on the radio, with all pertinent information and anything that might help the controller and myself out, and I even some times say Good Morning, and Good Day!! That's not in the book, either!

Edit to add: Any ATCers care to chime in on the heading or direct calls???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top