Is this an increasing trend? Seems to me to be the case.
Simple ATC Instruction : "Flight 123, Descend FL290"
Likely responses:
"You want us down now ?"
"Is that at pilots discretion ?"
etc. etc.
and only sometimes
"Roger, descend FL290, Flight 123"
I had a flight today at level 350, following an initial descent due to crossing traffic. I then gave the instruction "Decend FL220" which was duly read back, as I wanted him out of the way of more crossing traffic at 340. Fine. 2 minutes later though, he's still at 350. Why? Because he wasn't sure if the descent was at pilots discretion or not.
I seem to encounter this more and more, where you cannot rely on an aircraft to descend.
Worse is the case where a cruising aircraft requests descent clearance coming up on the TOD, gets it, and then sits there for another minute or so.
For me, and I think most of us, once we give the descent instruction, we 'treat' the aircraft as having left that level (I don't mean in the correct sense, rather in the situational awareness type sense - ie. "That's that problem sorted". If he's still there in 2 or 3 minutes time, it screws up your plans and gives you a mild heart attack on the odd occasion.
I appreciate that pilots don't like to go over the TOD still cruising, and be chasing the correct profile with a higher descent rate, but please:
1. If you request descent, and get it, then leave your level straight away, or within 20-30 seconds at the latest.
2. If you are given a descent clearance, assume it as an instruction to descend, now, at normal rate (say 1000' - 1500' fpm), unless told otherwise, even if the instruction comes a little earier than you plan.
I'd be interested in comments from both sides that might further my understanding of the scenario!
Cheers
