You want us to descend now?

[055166k]

apology

max angle old chap, thought this would be read mainly by atco types , therefore a little tongue in cheek! During 33 operational years I seem to have to use longer and longer and more and more complex message formats,courtesy of our regulator friends,to the effect that the actual executive instruction element of the message is buried. I still use dinosaur -speak short R/T calls which seem to work OK, but I do not like a straightforward and short unambiguous correctly formatted instruction to be either questioned or ignored without good reason. After your [hopefully] short readback I am on my next concentration task within a nanosecond. This really is not a job to be done by negotiation. I have enough problems with the Swanwick wonderkit and so I want to maintain good relations with pilot types,I once got a flight deck ride on a pink BAC 1-11 so I know how busy you chaps can be. Actually that is the only free flight I have ever had///come back Court line!

[NorthernSky]

As pilots, we want to stay at cruise altitude and descend with the ideal profile.

All of the above debate seems to spring from one annoyance: If ATC give us a descent instruction, in the form 'Descend FL330', we reply, 'Roger descend FL330, is that pilot's discretion?, and ATC say 'Affirm, that's when ready'... then we're not being provided the SERVICE that we should be, in the first place.

In a nutshell, the controller should ALWAYS specify 'when ready' when it applies. Not to do so costs us money.

Because they don't, we ask. If they did, we wouldn't ask. The majority of descent instructions, in AC at least, should be 'when ready', if the controller is planning properly and has good understanding of aircraft performance and profiles.

On similar lines, I'm a little fed up of asking for directs - and getting them! If we can go direct, why weren't we cleared direct before we asked?

That said, the service in the UK is still superior to that anyhere else in my experience, and (especially at the moment) it is remarkable how the service is bearing up.

[Guy D'ageradar]

Northernsky,

I think you'll find that the original source of this thread was not the querying of an instruction, ie "is that when ready?" but the acceptance and readback but non compliance with an instruction to decend. Sure it can be annoying if you query something but if I mean descend when ready, I'll say descend when ready. That is why we have standard phraseology.

As for "The majority of descent instructions, in AC at least, should be 'when ready', if the controller is planning properly and has good understanding of aircraft performance and profiles." it shows your ignrance of what we do. Just try figuring in two or three minutes of "compliance time" on every descent clearance, coupled with normal jet cruise speeds and calculate the distance involved. Now try to fit a significant number of aircraft into a restricted amount of airspace containing numerous crossing (and conflicting) routes, everyone asking for direct routeings, a few active danger areas and maybe some weather for a bit of spice! Then throw in the wildcard - the non-responding crew or worse, the non compliance with a clearance (be it speed control, descent or whatever) and our separation minima are long gone. Most of the time, we let it go. Occasionally, after several "hairy moments" caused by any combination of the above, we get a it antsy. At times, we have a very hard job to do and the last thing we need is the "artistic interpretation" of a clear and concise instruction to throw a spanner in the works.

On to your complaint about direct routeings. How direct is direct? Next waypoint? International FIR boundary? Commencement of STAR? Destination? How the hell are we supposed to know where you want to go direct to if you don't ask? I for one am more than happy to clear you direct to wherever I can - but I cannot read your mind, almost certainly cannot clear you direct to destination, so which intemediate point am I supposed to pick?

ATC is a service industry. We know that. Some of us pride ourselves on trying to give the best quality of service that we can. We also try to do so as courteously as possible. At times that becomes very difficult when the guy at the other end of the link doesn't keep his part of the bargain.

[BOAC]

28L - nice and simple and 'on the button'! Is there no CAP guidance on the R/T format?

A lot of the problems, in my opinion, come from the 'secret' - i.e. often not published on flight crew documentation, altitude 'targets' such as 'MARGO 260'. Sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not, and how long has THAT taken to get into the Thales book for EDI/GLA? It happens a lot outside UK at national handover points, completely unknown to crews unless they 'remember' it from before.

28L' s idea would be easy to follow. FMC is not an issue then. Descend now=descend now. Very simple.

[ferris]

This "us and them stuff" is pathetic.
Agree some of you guys sound like you need a holiday. If you are not enjoying it- get out. Life's too short.

As for the 'if direct tracking is available, why weren't we given it without asking?'etc- there could be lots of reasons. ie.
1. priorities. The main thing I am doing is making sure people aren't crashing. Thereafter comes a list of things which I might be doing, depending on the situation. Things like coord, planning, monitoring plans to ensure they work, jamming more aeroplanes into the small sky etc etc. Somewhere near the bottom of that list are the nice things, like direct tracking (which in itself may create coord, plan revision etc).
2. We, here, work under edicts which say "no direct tracking, unless due traffic" ie. it will help with our sep. These edicts were issued due to incidents caused by direct tracking subverting the inbuilt safety design of the airways, SIDs/ STARS etc, or the inherent increase in controller workload.
3. In some places, going off the airways can be a health hazard (ask Iran Air).
4. Various other less important reasons.

So please, don't get raggy if you suggest something that is then granted.

I was always taught it is part of your professionalism to offer EXPEDITION when able. All part of the service!

[Standard Noise]

Pilots and ATCOs miss readbacks every day, but thankfully most of these are sorted out. What I don't expect however, is for the pilot to be so pompous about it, as if it's my fault that he did not hear the instruction. Let's not forget, you guys should be maintaining a listening watch on the frequency at all times . That should not be beyond any of you, if it is, then a change of career surely beckons!
Had the pilot involved just said "Sorry, we must have missed that", or something similar, then no problem, it wasn't the end of the world.

I'll admit to assuming that a readback had been given on this occasion and while that is uncharactaristic of me, I do not expect to be spoken to like that by any pilot. If there is to be mutual respect and understanding, then a bit of decency in the way you speak to the ATCO is needed. This whole "I'm perfect because I'm a pilot" attitude does not help anyone.

Thankfully, the incident I am talking about is uncommon among the flight crews who frequent the airport at which I work. We have a reasonably relaxed and friendly atmosphere created by both ATCOs and crews. It would be a shame to see it affected by one idiot.

[divingduck]

requesting descents....

As My northern neighbour has eloquently stated...our job as ATC's is the Safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic through our "patch".

It may or may not need to be pointed out that it goes in that particular order too, ie direct tracking gets last priority unless it helps with an immediate traffic confliction.

Back to the subject, the thing that really irritates me, especially when busy (and when isn't it here?) is having pilots nag for descent, be given "xxx descend to Fl200..." and have them then sit there for up to 30 odd miles before deciding to tip it over! (Airbus pilots in particular take note)

Yes I know that those glass cockpit thingies are hassling you but if you are not prepared to go now, don't ask, or do as some do, "request descent in 20 miles", don't know about anyone else but I am perfectly happy with that.

ps most of us issue "when ready" or "pilot discretion" when we mean just that...if we DON'T say it we don't mean it.

[Captain Stable]

Standard Noise, as you rightly point out, it is important to keep a professional attitude to the guy on the other end at all times, if for no other reason, that if he is having a hard time, to add to his sense of pressure reduces safety.

Are you quite sure that your reminder to the pilot in your incident had not the least overtone of demanding to know what he was still doing there? I'm not trying to apportion blame - I'm just suggesting that it sounds as if there might have been a steady escalation of verbal tension on the RT that day...

You don't know what pressures we may be under at any particular given moment, just as we don't know what's going on in your world at that time. Important, therefore, I would suggest, to make a conscious effort to de-escalate any tension.

I agree with BOAC and 28L that the two phrases should be "Descend now FLnnn" or "Descend when ready FLnnn". Very little more RT and much clearer.

[AF1]

Some replies ...

Thank you all for your very valuable input into the thread; some very interesting replies.

Standard Noise - somewhat off topic, but I think its an interesting situation you describe; your comments really do smack of a 'them and us' situation. When I started out I thought along the same lines. Pilots should do everything we tell them, should always listen out on frequency, and respond immediately to any instruction.

Simple fact is, it doesn't work like that. Whats funny, is that both of us (ATCOs and pilots) often have the same impression of the other side - that is to say, that when not talking on the RT, no-one is doing anything else !

ACTOs should remember that pilots often have a high workload, especially in the descent & approach phase of the flight. Whether its the approach briefing, calling ops, getting the ATIS etc. there is often only one pair of ears on the RT and a call or two may be missed. Its human nature, and it doesn't do either side any favours to berate them for missing a call. However, I would say in your case that the pilot's response was OTT as well.

Pilots should perhaps also consider that just because we ain't on the radio, don't mean we're not working either! There is often a lot of work in co-ordination, 'scanning and planning', etc. And there's the gossip to catch up on at shift-change

Max Angle is correct. We are here to provide a service. We are not deities that sit back and decide the fate of a flights progress at our whim. We work within our guidelines, to the best of our abilities, and provide the best service that we can. Well, most of us do, anyhow. The tone of your comment could be a little more gentle though!

FWA NATCA - that's one way of sorting it all right! I have only ever had a situation once where I would have liked to do this, but didn't, and it was the reverse - an aircraft, who had been given a descent clearance, subsequently refused to stop descending until the third time of asking, basing his logic on the fact that descent had previously been given!

Problem with the situation I referred to initially though, is that Im not talking about the situation where I need the aircraft to descend right NOW, as in 20 miles to a cross I've seen late or something. Its a normal, planned, control instruction. I have crossing traffic in say, 4-5 minutes, so I take positive action and sort it now with a normal, "unhurried" descent. So throwing the book at him for not descending immediately is not fair.

The issue, at the end of it all, is that the control instruction "descend", which is very simple, is now, apparently, ambiguous. It shouldn't be.

I should not need to say "Descend NOW", because then what do I say when I really want him to go down NOW ?

There is a kind of 'ranking' for urgency, in the phraseology that I use ...

1. Descend when ready
2. Descend
3. Descend now
4. Descend now, expedite through FLxxx
5. Descend immediately FLxxx, due traffic (avoiding action)

Hope that makes our perspective a bit clearer.

NW1 - very valid points. As an aside, if you "request descent in 12 miles", guaranteed some smart ar$e controller will come back and say "Roger, do that" - ie. call me when you want descent, not before. I promise you!

Personally I'd be happy with that advance warning, but would still prefer a request at the TOD only. Keeps it simpler.

Is it not possible that you just say nothing until say 3 miles to TOD, then request it. If RT is busy, or you get a "stand by" ie. - let me check my scope cause I wasn't planning ahead your descent, then what's the worst case scenario? You're chasing the profile for a few thousand feet - so what? And how often will this happen? Very rarely ... and its much safer

Finally,
NorthernSky - a most interesting perspective on how ATC should operate.

On the descend when ready bit ...

In my airspace, "Descend when ready" will only be heard when the controller is bored out of his brains and has sod all else to do. Its an unnecessary transmission. You request descent, you get it. Easy.

You say if ATC comes back and says "affirm, pilots discretion" after issuing a descent clearance, that you're not getting the service. Rubbish. Here's how it works.

I plan ahead, and I know I need to have you at say 260 crossing x point for the next sector. I give you a decent to 260, and you say "is that pilots discretion"? I then have a look at it, and agree to make it pilots discretion, but be level 15 before x point. What happens then? I sit there watching you approach x point and then perform an airshow dive to 260 just making it in time. All my time has been spent worrying whether you are going to remember to descend or not, whether I should ring the next sector to co-ordinate just in case etc. So its easier just to say "Descend FL260", and see you on your way.

That's not lack of service, that's safe service.


Re. direct routings

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the problem in issuing long directs as regards co-ordination. Before I sign off, here's an example.

"Flight 123, request direct ABC"

"Roger, 123, standby"

Phone call 1.
"Hello Sector 1, did you get the estimate on FLT123?
"123, em, yes. I think so, hang on, oh yes have him now. Through XYZ at 37?"
"Yes, great, he's looking to go direct to ABC, that would take him about 20miles north of XYZ."
"Eh, yeah, that should be ok, check it with Sector 2 though will you"
"No problem"

Phone call 2.
"Hello Sector 2, you won't have details, but Im working a FLT123 that wants a direct clearance to ABC, he'll just cut the edge of your airspace near XYZ"
"FLT123 you say, yeah no details, hang on. (Muttering in the background to radar controller ... )
"Eh, where's he through? "
"Well hes planned though XYZ at 370, but the direct will take him through your airspace about 20 north of that"
"Ok, hang on ... yes, that should be ok, and do Sector 3 know?"
"I'll call them, and do you want to work him"
"No, no need, give him straight to 1"
"Thanks a lot"

Phone call 3.
"Hello Sector 3, do you have details on FLT123"
"Who?"
"FLT123"
"Eh, no, no details"
"OK hes wanting to route via about 20 north of XYZ and going to ABC direct, he'll cross over x at 370, is that ok?"
"How soon?"
"Eh, hang on ... oh, about 12 minutes or so"
"Yeah that's ok
"Thanks"


"FLT123, cleared direct ABC"

"Direct ABC, Flt 123"

And you want us to do this for every flight?

[chiglet]

Same Vein, [slightly] off topic
BCAL inbound to MAN/EGCC lands and 'phones the APC.
"We wanted a 6 mile final"
Reply...... "We have a Cat3 ILS, a brand new SMR, an ACR4000, 264, SSR and an IRVR.
What we do not have is A CHUFFIN' CRYSTAL BALL. YOU WANT 6 miles? Then ASK
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[NorthernSky]

Guy,

I should have said most initial descent clearances in AC...

With regard to starting down on your word of command, we are likely to use the 'capture' feature on the FMS, which does mean we will vacate the level now, but we will only do 1000fpm until we establish on the ideal profile, when we commence the idle thrust descent. Thus, it only works when you need us to vacate, not when you want us down to the cleared level right away.

As to the 'direct to where' question, the centre-fix would be fine. If you can't give us that, then whatever you can will do very well. Leaving us on the full route when it's quiet only burns fuel.

Captain Stable,

Your suggested phraseology is ideal. However, whilst the present standard phraseology is not used to best effect (APR controllers take note) there's little point in attempting to achieve change.

AF1,

In your post, there's an element of ATC flying the aircraft for us, instead of issuing timely clearances. Meantime we'll be wondering when the descent clearance is coming. This style of controlling all too often leads to missed clearances, as, whilst forward planning is fine, this relies upon jobs being done 'just in time'. Other things frequently intervene and that which should have been done' just in time' ends up late. That's what causes the last-minute death dive for the level.

Also, see above regarding to 'getting us on our way'. We don't use open descent/VNAV speed/level change if something else wil do a better job.

On the 'direct' issue, I know all about the co-ordination issue (I used to do it). That's why it's especially galling when there's no 'standby', just an 'approved'. I wouldn't ask for something which I knew would cause a significant increase in your workload.

All the above said in a brotherly spirit - we may fly the aircraft, but you're on our team.

NorthernSky (ex-ATCO btw)

[Max Angle]

055166k,

Apology accepted, I think the same is due from me in fact for flying off the handle a bit, I guess the moral is don't sit down and start banging away on prune when you are tired and hacked off at the of a long day. Come to think of it I am always tired and hacked off nowadays.......

[BwatchGRUNT]

A small point on the direct routeings issue.

When you are given direct routeings without first requesting them, in my experience 90%+ are purely to shorten your routeing and not help us resolve conflictions. How about some gratitude, it is certainly an increasing trend that it is taken for granted. We do not have to do it and offer it on the whole as a 'polish' to what I believe is already an excellent service - a thankyou would not go a miss.

To expand this, in our ever increasingly flowed environmaent at LACC, when we get you up from your capped FL180 to as high as FL400 (if you have an orange tail) we are not doing it to make our lives easier. We are taking on extra work that the powers at be tell us not to do. It does however get you there quicker and with more fuel remaining - so the previous point also applies.

If you take us for granted and believe it is your right, it aint going to happen as often as you would like. I know that if I give a late descent or let an a/c level off, or have to vector them half way around the sky - I thank them or apologise accordingly unless that is I am nearly going under.

I believe our relationship to be a good one, don't let it deteriorate. How about some more of you pay us a visit to sunny swanick and see what its really like now that your doors are locked firmly shut to us!!!!

[atco-matic]

shouldnt this thread be in teh reporting points forum where more pilots can see it as well, mr. moderator??

[Captain Stable]

That's such a good idea that I've placed a link to this thread in the Safety Forum

[Standard_Departure]

US & THEM and, who provises whom with a service?

"I think you need to remember matey that when you are talking to me on the radio that YOU are providing ME with a SERVICE. You are there because I am, not the other way around"

The REALITY is that both pilot's and ATC's are providing a service to the fare paying passengers, who, for the most part, play a big role in paying our salaries.

The sooner we colectively realise this and strive toward working together on common issues, the better off we will ALL be.


On the other issue: "XYZ123 descend to 4000'" (or whatever) is an instruction, not traffic information, request or anything else, AN INSTRUCTION, and as such should be effected with the minimum of delay. I like to think that the inclusion of the word "now" is used on occasions when I would like to alert the pilot to move the control column in the appropriate direction without any delay, and then adjust the rest of the profile to fit in.

SID

[Filtonman]

SD
Quiet right.There is a lack of appreciation of each others working environments in this thread.Also,I am sad to say,an associated attitude problem with some of my pilot peers.
Let me assure you this group are very much in the minority and tend to have CRM problems with other flight crew.They tend to be
1.Old captains (who are not aware of the effect they have on other people)
2.Flying since school types (with a remarkable lack of understanding for any job outside flying)
On long turnarounds more pilots should make the effort to see what you guys actually do.On the other side of the coin I have only ever had one controller on a famil flight ...such a waste of an empty seat.

[pom]

Perhaps a reason for pilots querying these instructions is that there seems to be an increasing trend to descend a/c early due to standard handover procedures - nothing to do with traffic on the day. We are all flying around with the minimum fuel consistent with a safe operation, and having to start descent 50 or more miles earlier than expected takes a big slice out of fuel at a time when there's no opportunity to remedy the situation. Once one is familiar with the route it is possible to anticipate such early descents and plan accordingly. When we do get an early descent the majority of pilots will descend at the minimum rate of descent, in an effort to save as much fuel as possible, but probably negating the reason for being given the descent in the first place.

If ATC are going to operate these standard descent procedures, they should be published to the airlines. Pilots would then be expecting the early descent and could plan their fuel accordingly. If we make the effort to work together, misunderstandings can be avoided, and the ritual trading of insults could be reduced, although I suspect never avoided altogether.

[BOAC]

Pom reinforces my comment on page 2 - our 'reluctance' to descend EARLY is reinforced by all the unknown 'secret' altitudes en-route. How long has it taken to get the Willo2B printed correctly? The '20 before Trent at 200' inbound Manchester. Etc. Etc. It seems that going into Italy from the north, inbound northern Italian airfields, there is some sort of 'hand-over' gate (FL270?) at or around the boundary - again, not published to flight crew and only 'acquired' through experience and WAY too early sometimes for economy.

Places like Frankfurt are generally good with these, they specify in the descent clearance and/or give required rates of descent. Maastricht too. Perhaps a bit more liaison between the ATC 'masters' and the chart publishers would be the answer? Modern airline PLOGS are MORE than able as POM says to include these altitude restrictions in the route/fuel.

As far as the 'I REALLY want you down NOW' bit goes, I did ask if someone could publish the (UK) ATC bible on these transmissions.
The addition of 'now' or 'leave now' (common on some UK south sectors) is fine - and unambiguous -and I'm SURE pilots will comply!

ATC please note - this is not a criticism - we are trying here to 'get it together'.

[Loki]

If I say descend, I mean descend. I thought the old BOAC( the company, not the poster) attitude had gone forever. I do say "when ready" if I`m not too bothered when it happens and I`m not (usually) too disgruntled if the instruction is queried unless RT loading is high. The word "now" is useful, but I reserve that for occasions when stressing it is a good idea. "Immediately" is reserved for very unpleasant situations.

A colleague (since retired) was once heard to reply to the query "do you mean descend now?" with "No, I meant then"