'Climb and report level...'

[Hippy]

If the OP is a civilian pilot talking to a military controller, then shouldn't he use CAP413 phraseology in response to the JSP instructions? Just a thought.

Also, the "report level" bit is used far to frequently by my colleagues IMHO. It seems that most controllers just tag it on through habit even though a perfectly good SSR label is available.

[tmmorris]

Thanks for supportive messages above - I like to think my instructor was just trying to think of something to criticize...

As I do most of my flying talking to military units (Benson, Brize, Lyneham, for example) it's probably worth my being conversant with the military way anyway.

Is the relevant JSP available as a PDF anywhere?

Tim

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Originally Posted by tmmorris

the instructor I was told off by is also an airline pilot as his day job, so I guess he was right!
Tim

Dont count on it!

[waldorf]

Hippy,

I might just be spiffballing here but I believe many controllers add the term 'report level' to avoid potential ambiguity. If an ac at 5000ft is told "descend 2000ft", will the ac level at 3000ft (5000 - 2000) or at 2000ft? If an ac at 5000ft is instructed to " descend, report level, 2000ft" surely there is little doubt as to where the ac might end up? As controllers (and hopefully pilots too) we all know where we expect the ac to level but I believe the addition of 'report level' helps prevent such misunderstanings?

[CL300]

Originally Posted by anotherthing

'Reaching' is one of those annoying phrases that airline pilots who are given a climb to an intermediate level like to use to try to get continuous climb. I usually answer with the phrase "I do have a RADAR, thank you very much" if I have the time. Particularly Iberia pilots from EGLL I have noticed

Today's aircrafts are (for most of them fully automated (as you know)). Climbing out of low levels up to FL300 our rate of climb is often in excess of 2500 ft/mn. Our vertical navigation system is bound to take ANY level interception at ANY given rate just by changing its internal logic. When our Vertical navigation shows 'ASEL' sometimes 1500 ou 2000 ft before assigned altitude, the Flight director logic changes and initiate a level off, reduce the thrust on the engines the full monthy.. Therefore, the saavy and lazy pilot is quering the ATC to get an unrestricted climb, like that he does not have to push an extra button to reinitiate the climb. The VNAV, vertical navigation, is giving pilots the optimum climb/time/fuel schedule for a given weight, on top of it it does automatically levels off in step climb profiles and in descent manages the speed and altitude constraints (ie FL80 at sandy). All this works fine as long as we are on the published route and not in radar heading...

Downside. on a step climb profile we usually dial in the altitude selector the last altitude ( 3000 - 4000 - 5000 ) we will dial 5000 and the aircraft will do ALL the level off AUTOMATICALLY... (magic huuuu) BUT with the new radar ATC sees 5000 and start to freak out that we will not level, and start filling a potential level bust....

In descend, as soon as we go out of the published track, we have to give manual inputs to the AFCS (Autopilot) to comply with descent clearances and so on.

So when we call reaching, it is just to prevent all this logic to step in, and have more ressources to deal with what we are paid for : the unexpected..