Descent Question

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by seagull

I hope it's obvious who wins this debate...

It sure is, the guy who changed the debate to suit his point of view! J/K

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Stone Cold

Re-read my post...I never said on "every call up". .

Sorry, didn't mean "every callup". Meant every initial callup when on an assigned heading. That's what Don Brown was pontificating about. Every pilot that he criticized apparently thought that the controller appreciated and desired the information, but they were incorrect. The only way to really know what someone thinks is to ask them, and, when asked, controllers generally say they don't need this information.

There are other ways to handle the situations you described, rather than providing information that is unneeded at least 1/2 the time (by your own estimate), and only indirectly provides you with what you want.

If a controller gives some indication of having abandoned his duties, inform him then, instead of the majority of the time when he knows what he's doing. If on an extended vector and you think you've been forgotten about, request "on course." If he demonstrates ignorance of where you're cleared to, then tell him.

That's what they do to us. They generally don't get into pilot's business until we start to demonstrate incompetence and then they ask "Cessna 1234X, uh, where ya going?" Seems like we owe them the same courtesy.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I get the feeling that its something they wanna know.

I disagree with making decisions based on "feeling" rather than on information. I "felt" really weird when I started dropping "with you" from my communications, but I did so based on information that it had no informational content. I got over the weird feeling.

Although you may regard that communication issues are a tempest in a teapot, valuing feeling over objective information can be the cause of more significant problems in all walks of life, not just piloting.

[Dugie8]

I'm guilty of the "direct to XYZ" on freq changes. Got that bad habbit from a crusty old Captain who did my IOE, coopearte and graduate took over and now I am trying to kick the habbit.

The heading thing, only when told to tell the next controller OR when it has been a while on that heading, switch freq. and I really want to get back on course ie "ABCD heading 330, request direct XYZ".

"Announcing" the leaving of one altitude for another after a PD, I do it simply to bring the controllers attention to the fact I am moving vertically now, little extra level of safety in my mind. There have been plenty of times when I made the call and got back a change in altitude to go to from the controller or to wait a minute or two. I would prefer to have that, than to have the controller have to wait for the ModeC to start reading and then correct the sitation.

[mikecweb]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'll continue to give controllers information that I feel is important for safe and efficient routing of my flight and you'll listen to the radio and shake your head at the idiot tieing up the freq with useless information such as headings and fixes. If it gets me to my destination quicker I'm not going to stop because someone doesn't find it in the AIM or someone wrote an article saying its useless info.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'll continue to give controllers information that I feel is important for safe and efficient routing of my flight and you'll listen to the radio and shake your head at the idiot tieing up the freq with useless information such as headings and fixes. If it gets me to my destination quicker I'm not going to stop because someone doesn't find it in the AIM or someone wrote an article saying its useless info.

Mikec. According to your profile, you're 23 years old, essentially just starting out.

I think you should listen to those with a LOT more experience than you have.

Tgrayson is absolutely right on this. Now, I will SOMETIMES add in the heading, as I will an assigned airspeed, but it is for the reason mentioned above, I DON'T like the assignment, and want to subtley prod ATC to modify the clearance.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by seagull

Mikec. According to your profile, you're 23 years old, essentially just starting out.

I think you should listen to those with a LOT more experience than you have.

Tgrayson is absolutely right on this. Now, I will SOMETIMES add in the heading, as I will an assigned airspeed, but it is for the reason mentioned above, I DON'T like the assignment, and want to subtley prod ATC to modify the clearance.

So, let me get this straight, you don't follow the AIM to the letter? It sure sounds like you do exactly what we are saying...to help you get where you're wanting to go.

I have a ton of respect for you, since you've been there, done that, and probably have a few tee-shirts , but then you go and basically say you do what we are talking about??? AM I missing something?

As far as Tgrayson goes, I have a ton of respect for him also, as he has a wealth of knowledge on the regs and the proper way of doing things....having said that, there are times when I will do as I posted above and let the controllers know what's going on. Why not eliminate any ambiguity? Why would you exchange 3-4 transmissions to clarify both you and the controller know where you're going? Or, why would you not hint around about headings?

Just curious as to you throwing what is apparently a pet peeve of yours in a totally unrelated thread, and then not looking at how it can help you?! I never said to do it every time, or on every initial call-up, but gave you a few examples of how 2 words can help, even if 1/2 the time (btw, you took the 1/2 time out of context, as that was just one example I used), instead of jamming the frequency with numerous transmissions to figure out you and ATC are finally on the right page. Anyways, I'm flying during the day now, so you won't have to listen to my headings too much!! Added: You will have to listen to me say Good Day and Good Morning or Afternoon, still though...and it's not in the AIM, heaven forbid...

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by seagull

Mikec. According to your profile, you're 23 years old, essentially just starting out.

I think you should listen to those with a LOT more experience than you have.

Not sure how to take that. Even though I'm just young and starting out at 23, I'm mature enough not to take that as a personal attack.
Here's my point: Is what I say required? Because it's not in the AIM essentially no... Does it clog the frequency and cause controllers heartache? Probably not....For what I do and the airspace I fly in everynight does it help me get to where I'm going faster? FOR SURE! And therefore regardless of my birth certificate I will continue whether or not other pilots on the same frequency find it annoying or useless info.
As far as stating direct XXX on intial callup. I will do this if I'm on something I've been previously assigned but is not what my filed flight plan states.

The part where I don't see the arguement against stating this is when that arguement brakes down when each of you state you do this at some point if your not getting what you want. Does that not clog the frequency??? Or does clogging the frequency not count when the AIM beholders feel its neccessary.

[rant]
I'm not one to step on the feet of those who have done this longer then me. I have nothing but respect for my senior pilots. But in turn I would like some respect extended my way based on my abilities not on what my birth certificate says.
[/rant]

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

[rant]
I'm not one to step on the feet of those who have done this longer then me. I have nothing but respect for my senior pilots. But in turn I would like some respect extended my way based on my abilities not on what my birth certificate says.
[/rant]

Dude, you ain't gonna get it here. Good for the gander is not good enough for the goose, to speak sort of. We all have "bad" habbits that come across the radios (not saying Fife, niner, or Kaybeck, instead of Quebec etc). You, as the PIC, do what you feel is necessary to add a level of safety to the flight, use your discretion. If you feel the extra info is needed, pass it along. At the same time, don't be offended if someone reads you the riot act for not following the AIM to 100% of the letter.

The AIM isn't perfect, neither are pilots or controllers, we all just gotta learn to play nice together.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by Stone Cold

So, let me get this straight, you don't follow the AIM to the letter? It sure sounds like you do exactly what we are saying...to help you get where you're wanting to go

I wasn't responding to your post. I think there are times when it IS appropriate to put it into an intial call, and that is when you would otherwise have to make an additional call to request what you want. Unless I am talking to "radio", meaning a non-ATC person who is relaying to the actual controller, I tend to try to eliminate the number and length of the transmissions. I was fairly clear as to when I use it. I don't follow the AIM (or, PANS-OPS) comm exactly, so I will say "hello" in the native language of the agency I'm talking to, but I also won't do things that I KNOW irritate a lot of controllers, like saying "with you"!

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by seagull

I wasn't responding to your post. I think there are times when it IS appropriate to put it into an intial call, and that is when you would otherwise have to make an additional call to request what you want. Unless I am talking to "radio", meaning a non-ATC person who is relaying to the actual controller, I tend to try to eliminate the number and length of the transmissions. I was fairly clear as to when I use it. I don't follow the AIM (or, PANS-OPS) comm exactly, so I will say "hello" in the native language of the agency I'm talking to, but I also won't do things that I KNOW irritate a lot of controllers, like saying "with you"!

Okay, sorry...I read too much into what you were saying! And, yes the bolded part is my entire goal every time I hit the transmit button.

And I totally agree with not saying "with you", "level", and other nonsense phrases that add nothing to any transmission other than more words.

[frog_flyer]

I always advise when I'm starting a VFR decent.


"skyhawk xxxx leaving xxxx vfr decent..... giggidy"

[seagull]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Not sure how to take that. Even though I'm just young and starting out at 23, I'm mature enough not to take that as a personal attack.
Here's my point: Is what I say required? Because it's not in the AIM essentially no... Does it clog the frequency and cause controllers heartache? Probably not....For what I do and the airspace I fly in everynight does it help me get to where I'm going faster? FOR SURE! And therefore regardless of my birth certificate I will continue whether or not other pilots on the same frequency find it annoying or useless info.
As far as stating direct XXX on intial callup. I will do this if I'm on something I've been previously assigned but is not what my filed flight plan states.

The part where I don't see the arguement against stating this is when that arguement brakes down when each of you state you do this at some point if your not getting what you want. Does that not clog the frequency??? Or does clogging the frequency not count when the AIM beholders feel its neccessary.

[rant]
I'm not one to step on the feet of those who have done this longer then me. I have nothing but respect for my senior pilots. But in turn I would like some respect extended my way based on my abilities not on what my birth certificate says.
[/rant]

There is a time and place to do a LOT of things that aren't in the books. For a lot of them, that's what 91.3 authority is written for, but there are obviously times when you have to deviate from some standard practices that aren't regulatory to make things work. There is a time to use non-standard phraseology (assuming the controller is actually English speaking, of course).

The issue I had with your post is that you stated or implied that you do it EVERY time. That doesn't imply consideration of why you are doing it, it implies rote doing something, more likely because somebody else TAUGHT you to do that, rather than because it actually is the RIGHT thing to do. "Right" doesn't necessarily always mean verbatim "correct" by the AIM or any other guidance material, but it does require you to justify that deviation on a case-by-case basis, and not just do it every time.

Your argument reminds me of certain Captains that add a certain amount of extra fuel every time, regardless of the weather or availability of alternates, or maybe those that refuse to take a certain alternate, regardless of weather, for unknown reasons (usually because they lack a complete understanding of how the system works). In this particular example, quite a few add the "heading" because they, specifically, misunderstand how the system works. This thread did a nice job of explaining how it works. The idea is that you take that knowledge and apply it.

Finally, as most know from other postings, be it about those that persist on insisting that lift is "partially Newton" to proper phraseology, I do continually rant against those that promote things that are incorrect. It is one of the big problems with GA, and one of the reasons that majors will continue to prefer military pilots, as there are a lot more of these things passed down in GA and no QA to fix it (not withstanding the inane use of many former military of saying "on-the-hold" when they mean "position and hold"). It is sad that we see GA pilots defending this!

So, deviate when you have to, but have a concious reason for each specific occurrence, and not just a "because it's worked in the past" sort of response. As Doug can afirm, this comment applies to a lot of airline situations, and I have spent enough time sitting at the long table as one of the guys asking questions of the pilot, with those glasses of water in front of us, to know how the system works!

[mikecweb]

I reread my initial post and I did say "always". Which is a strong word and I definetly should have used other words. Alot of time on here you can write in haste and you then are interpreted the wrong way without your knowledge of it.
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. That doesn't mean if you disagree with something that is directly written in the AIM you should go ahead and completely write it off all the time. But good judgement and decision making are required in aviation.
You can read books by experienced aviators all day every day but you still are going to face decisions that don't have a solution in print. I used to have alot of difficulties with one student trying to solo. She had been through 4 instructors who had all but written her off as an "old bag" with a hopeless dream. I had lunch with her one day when the weather wasn't so great and I got to talking to her outside of a training enviornment finally. I found out the problem. She read too much. This woman read every article/book/website on how to land. So when she got to 200ft on final she was too busy trying to remember what she was supposed to do rather then fly the damn plane. I told her to forget everything she has read and just clear her mind. She solo'd that week.

In any event thankyou for the spirited debate as once again I gained something from this website and hope others will learn something out of this thread too. I hope that you didn't feel any disrespect from my end as there was no intent of doing so.

[B767Driver]

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 on request" however. When a pilot uses that phrase it sounds like scratching fingers on a chalkboard.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

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]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

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

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

Clearance ON request maybe?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by seagull

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]

Originally Posted by Murdoughnut

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.