Descent Question

[seagull]

Airline pilots are some of the worst offenders of not using proper radio phraseology. Every once in a while you fly with a guy who does it to the letter of the law...and you really take notice.

There really should be a military to civilian course on the proper use of "clearance of request" however. When a pilot uses that phrase it sounds like scratching fingers on a chalkboard.

Not sure they're the "worst", but it's pretty bad out there.

 

[seagull]

The overlying point I wanted to convey and I believe you will agree with me is that you can't fly your whole career according to the AIM. I know it's easy to make a reference to it and is definetly a great tool in aviation but as you know better than me there are alot of times when we gotta throw the AIM out and get the job done so to speak.

Mike, I overall agree with your last post, however, the above needs to be clarified a bit. I would answer a very qualified "yes" to the above, with the strong caveat that you MUST understand why the AIM or PANS-OPS guidance was there to begin with. Phraseology is one thing, and, as long as the controller is a native English speaker, you can get away with a lot. That said, try flying in the U.K., Australia, N.Z. or even Canada (to a lesser extent) a bit and you'll quickly discover that U.S. ATC slang is not used there, but each country has their OWN version of ATC slang. While a lot of it is intuitive, not all of it is, which is why it's a problem for it to be used in the first place! Incidentally, controllers are guilty of this as well.

However, phraseology, by itself, usually is not going to cause an accident if other procedures are adhered to. In the theme of AIM procedures that many pilots (and controllers roll along with) deviate from, I would bring your attention to those pilots that do things like go straight in on an approach, even though they did not meet one of the small handful of times you are allowed to do that on a SIAP. They argue that they are aligned, etc., without fully understanding WHY that routing was not listed as NoPt, for example.

There are a LOT of similar issues, and many pilots think that they are legal and O.K. because ATC clears them for it. This is a misunderstanding of both procedure design and what an ATC clearance really means. There are also examples outside of modifying approaches, but you get the idea. Too often people are doing things to shortcut the system or modify it in ways that they think are better without fully understanding the "why". I think that is what also gets Tgrayson actively responding to things here!

I have seen this in the airline world, with pilots modifying certain procedures without fully understanding how the system worked, windshear guidance comes to mind immediately, on that, but also taxi procedures, etc. In fact, the AA 587 accident is a good example of this.

If you have come up with something valid, then you can submit a change to the document, that will be reviewed and applied if deemed appropriate, by the way.

 

[BobDDuck]

I only make the heading or speed call if there is a reason to do so. IE, I think the forgot to pass off the fact that I was on a heading to the next controller, we are going way out of our way, the are going too fast/slow for what the environment dictates etc. As far as changing altitudes, if given a PD descent to cross a fix I'll call out of the cruise altitude only if it is slow on the frequency.

Clearance of request

Clearance ON request maybe? If so, I agree with you. Not only is it no where in the AIM but it doesn't even make sense. You may have filed it, it hasn't been requested yet. That's C/D's job to go request and then to let you know that they have done so.

On the hold

Is this a military thing? Yet another one I don't understand. Personally, I'm trying to start a movement for people reading back "Doing the PeeWee". Follow closely now...

Position and Hold---->Take It Out and Hold It---->Doing the PeeWee
:insane:

 

[B767Driver]

Clearance ON request maybe?
:insane:

Yep...can't type....corrected it.

 

[seagull]

"On the hold" seems to be a slang term with military roots. Not sure if it's officially written anywhere (never bothered to check). Obviously, things like "tally ho" were official military terms, or were at one time.

Actually, I like the sound and clear meaning of the ICAO term "line up and wait". In fact, overall, the ICAO terminology is better than the U.S. version of ATC English.

 

[I_Money]

Tally Ho has roots in fox hunting - when you see the fox you stand up in yoru stirrups, turn towards the fox and call Tally Ho!

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Check in with your current altitude, assigned altitude (any crossings or discretions to be added here), and full callsign... that is all that needs to be said. Anything else just clogs the freq.




If you've been assigned a speed several sectors prior or have been on a heading for an unusually long time, then it may be appropriate to add that to the mix as it may have gotten lost in one of the handoffs.

When a controller makes a handoff, they tell the next controller all the pertinent clearances and assignments for you.


Always use your full callsign.

 

[Dugie8]

Check in with your current altitude, assigned altitude (any crossings or discretions to be added here), and full callsign... that is all that needs to be said. Anything else just clogs the freq.




If you've been assigned a speed several sectors prior or have been on a heading for an unusually long time, then it may be appropriate to add that to the mix as it may have gotten lost in one of the handoffs.

When a controller makes a handoff, they tell the next controller all the pertinent clearances and assignments for you.


Always use your full callsign.

That is the crux of everyone's argument. The whole point of the ATC system and common phraseology is to take out the need to "think in the moment" and make additions to the callups as YOU feel necessary. However, the system is run by humans and requires some "thinking in the moment" to keep working as intended. I would much more prefer to have a slightly clogged frequency than someone blunder off course because the controller FORGOT to tell the next one about a heading or speed restriction.

No such thing as too much information here fellas. A little discretion by all and A LOT LESS judgement passing by all, will go a long ways here.

 

[BobDDuck]

Actually, I like the sound and clear meaning of the ICAO term "line up and wait". In fact, overall, the ICAO terminology is better than the U.S. version of ATC English.

I dunno, "line up and wait" is what I do every time I try to get out of LGA, PHL or ATL.

 

[AmazingPilot]

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?

You don't need to report altitude changes when operating VFR, however if receiving advisories from ATC you should keep in mind that the controller is basing his/her traffic advisories off of your aircraft.
So if last radio transmission had you at a certain altitude and then you decide to descend with adivisng ATC it tends to makes the controller's job more difficult.
Remember that VFR advisories are workload permitting, so I find it good professional courtesy to give ATC a hand whenever you can.