Originally Posted by
anotherthing
As long as the ATCO understands what he/she is doing, there is nothing wrong with the practice.
I can't agree - actions need to to be clearly understood by all involved, and not just by one individual at his end of the speaking tube.
Originally Posted by
Scuzi
If an ATCO chooses to implement this technique and fully understands what he/she is doing then what is the problem? Is it the old fogies afraid of doing anything which requires thinking outside of the box?
The same answer applies. Also, convention is not about stuffiness or being an old fogie - it is about both sides of the professional relationship understanding what each other is doing. If one side is unclear what the other side is up to, then several holes in your swiss cheese are already lined up.
Originally Posted by
Lookatthesky
For instance, if the pressure is low and you decide to use FL70 against an inbound at Fl80 that's perfectly safe providing you don't then stick an a/c at 6000ft underneath the one at FL70!!
So why not climb your outbound to 6000', which is still safe - but much more conventional - then everyone (including pilots and your less "adventurous" ATCO colleagues) will be clear about what is happening?
Overall, I really can't see that much is to be gained by this technique, other than (on average) about 500' of intermediate climb or descent, and then only for a very short while. Against this, I believe there is a genuine danger of causing confusion by issuing a clearance unconventionally to an altitude/level which is within the Transition Layer.
Safety must be foremost ...
JD
