Hi Kuwait340, I think you have to see this for what it is. Based on your description of the controllers RTF, it appears he was instructing you how to arrange your decent profile in order to meet certain speed requirements….essentially he was telling you how to fly the acft.
As PIC of that flight, it is your decision how best to meet those speed requirements. If for whatever reason you felt you were unable to meet those speeds on a continuous decent or even meet certain speeds issued at certain altitudes or FL’s, then it is your responsibility to advise the ATC of this. This is the one area where ICAO is clear on certain issues….that being that irrespective of any ATC clearance the final responsibility of the safety of the flight and its passengers rests with the PIC of that flight, NOT the ATC.
It would appear that one of two scenarios’ is present;
1) Either the ATC concerned really just thumb-sucked his reasoning when questioned about it and fell back on what I have seen so many ATC’s do and say….”…..its in the manual….”. Most pilots, because of the very broad and somewhat detached world of ATC mechanics never really pursue it, believing that the controller knows of some existing and obscure document that in fact does say that….and invariably leave it at that.
2) This controller friend of yours either washed out or withdrew from flight training many years ago and it still haunts him to this day, manifesting itself particularly when his actions are questioned by a pilot…often digging his heals in on a scenario that he knows full well is groundless.
I obviously could be way off on both, but it has all the marking of what I have seen happen in the past so often and bizarrely enough, still happens today. What always amazes me is that pilots invariably accept the reasoning presented before them, despite the somewhat ominous odour of non-existence. I do however understand it as who wants to get involved in a to-and-fro over a somewhat obscure procedure, which ultimately never came close to narrowing any safety margin.
The clear cut written evidence that you are asking for is not that easy to produce. ICAO, despite the fact that its language now incorporates procedures relating to all forms of automation…..ADS, ADS-B, ADS-B TcasIIv7, Data Link (CPDLC), Mode S..etc,etc…..it is still a language that when read on the basics of ATC methodology and procedures smacks of post-war broad-brush language….meaning, that it is designed to cater for all levels of ATC service, in particularly those countries that still don’t have adequate VHF, HF and radar coverage. (Mostly in still largely underdeveloped or developing countries often referred to as Third World)
Therefore the exact and precise language you are searching for will cause you some trauma in finding….however, there are sections that do support you correct understanding of what should transpire and are worth a read; try Annex II– ICAO Pans-ATM Doc 4444 – Determination of level Occupancy, Use of Radar in ATS 7.11 and Adherence to a Flight Plan 3.6.2 to end of section.
If however this is an important issue to you I would simply try a different approach, ask the controller concerned to direct you to the document that he says it is in with such conviction.
I would however still like to congratulate you on the manner in which you handled your inquiry, that being …..waiting until you have landed and then phoning the concerned controller. I am, like most ATC’s, very pro being questioned either when it is not understood or when it is deemed counter to standard procedure………but more often than not, I have seen either overzealous pilots or controllers take a minor issue to ridiculous proportions on frequency………..very silly and highly unprofessional.
All the professional opinion, directions and advice aside, my personal opinion and advice to you is, if you really have to, satisfy your understanding on this issue and don’t pursue it with your friend.
It is a minor issue and the chances are very high that you are going to cause your friend a great deal of embarrassment, especially since he, already in a telephone call, seemed to cement his belief that he is right. An issue this minor doesn’t warrant the potential destruction of a friend-ship.
Last edited by CuitoCuanavale; 20th December 2007 at 12:56.