You want us to descend now?

[AF1]

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

[ferris]

Read somewhere else here that some FMS' (757?) prompt for descent clearance 3 minutes before TOD. If you grant it, then the a/c sits level for another 3 mins, that is a breach of 'commence the manouvre within 1 min' but is commonplace.

[055166k]

c in atc stands for control

all I can say is CONTROL the situation. Use short unambiguous instructions and if you want something done now, then say so.My favourite response to a pilot query on the type of message you refer to is "which part of the instruction did you not understand?"

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It's a problem in the approach phase too - I say "descend now to altitude 3000 ft" and they sit there level ar 4000 ft waiting for the glidepath to come in! The reason I say "descend NOW" is because I want you do go down for traffic reasons. We're playing about at min radar separation and if it starts to get tight we need to get some vertical going quickly, otherwise we get suspended and end up doing lots of paperwork, etc. The fact that you can "see it on TCAS" doesn't avoid this.

Early morning at Heathrow with both runways in use for landing it can be a nightmare - we desperately need those low altitudes for traffic crossing above to the other runway - Jumbo pilots don't like being turned on at 10 miles at 6000 ft - so PLEASE descend when we instruct you to. Thanks..

[ferris]

There is a definite trend.

Pilots becoming loathe to interfere with the automatics?

[120.4]

I wonder if that poor Russian captain may have had a similar thought....

Did he say descend, numer one???? But we are in the cruise, he couldn't have meant us could he? Bang!

Point 4

[Standard Noise]

Had one on Saturday afternoon with a pilot from a well known Exeter based clown outfit. He had been a bit high, but when he asked for track mileage, made no adverse comment. I told him to descend to 2300' on base, but got distracted co-ordinating with TWR. Then I turned the hopeless fool onto a closing hdg and told him he had 10.5 nm to touchdown and he whined about still being at 4000'. I reminded him that I'd given him descent already, he came out with this classic -"I think you'll find you didn't and I didn't acknowledge it. I think you should check your tapes!"

Well, Mr "I'm an ex-Jaguar pilot and I know better than anyone on God's green earth!", I did check the tapes, and YOU failed to acknowledge my instruction and act on it you pompous @rse!

Why oh why is it difficult for them to listen to us, especially when we are the only person they should be talking to.

[spekesoftly]

Standard Noise

Just an impartial observation on your last post. If the pilot did not acknowledge your instruction to descend, how do you know he received your transmission?

With the greatest of respect, making a conscious effort to listen for correct read-backs is all part of the job.

[Max Angle]

055166k says:

My favourite response to a pilot query on the type of message you refer to is "which part of the instruction did you not understand?"

In which case you are just the sort of smart alec that that we don't need on the other end of the radio. I would not dream of talking to a controller that way and I don't expect it come the other way thank-you very much.

In situations where "descend when ready" is a common clearance most ATCOs say "Descend now FLxx" or "due traffic, descend now FLxx" which seems a very good way of putting it. In fact if I get a descent clearance a fair way short of the TOD point I just start down at 1000fpm and pick the profile up further down.

Standard Noise:

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 tone of your comments does you and your profession no credit at all. You are REQUIRED to get a read back on all executive instructions and if tapes show that you didn't then you are at fault not the pilot. If the intruction is not read back it might just as well not have been given. Sound like you need two weeks leave old son.

[Expeditedescent]

Max Angle:

"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"

Are you for real?


If pilots like you are in the majority out there, we are all in serious trouble............


With reference to:
"In situations where "descend when ready" is a common clearance"

If we mean descend when ready we will say it........if we say descend, that means now...............check the AIP.

True arrogance beyond belief.

[atco-matic]

Just a thought,

When I say ''XXX123 climb FL210'' or '' XXX123 turn right heading 090'' or ''XXX123 contact xxx control on 136.555'' i dont include the word NOW yet the pilots do it instantly without question...

So why on earth if i say ''XXX123 descend to FL220'' does it cause so much confusion if I don't say NOW!!!!?????? It's a clear and simple instruction!!!! DESCEND means DESCEND, not descend when ready, or descend when you feel like it or descend when something shows on TCAS!!!

While we're on the subject, I also find it incredibly irritating to hear the classic ''XXX123 still on heading 165'' - Spaghetti Airlines are the worst offenders for this I think!!!

[No 1]

ok Expeditedescent

I used to work with Max Angle, before joining NATS, and he is one of the best pilot's out there.

Standard Noise was at fault for not obtaining a readback.

We have got to stop this them and us attitude, both Pilots and ATC should be working to one goal - SAFETY!!!

Isn't it better for pilots to confirm or clarify an instruction intead of just making an assumption, besides how many times do we say "Say Again"!!

[Kirstey]

To be fair Max Angle, ATC are providing your on board CPUs with a service. You've made it quite obvious that any old prick can fly an airliner!

[Max Angle]

National Air Traffic Services. Face it guys, you provide a service to the aircraft and thier pilots in your sector in the same way I and the cabin crew provide a service to the passengers sitting behind me, anybody who works in the transport sector is doing the same, ATCO's and pilots are no different.

As No.1 says we all have to work together to make the system work well and I am sure that some pilots are far from perfect customers but the last thing we need is the holier-than-thou attitude that a few of you tend to adopt sometimes.

Expeditedescent,
It is not arrogance to plainly state the situation. The fact is that aviation was around for quite a long time before ATC was and lots of flying activities, many of them commercial, take place all over the world quite safely with no ATC at all. It is quite possible for us to start up an airliner up, taxy out, take off, fly to a destination and land in total safety without talking to anyone at all. The fact that hundreds of other aircraft want to do the same thing, at the same time, means that it has to be controlled by someone, and a bloody good job of it you all do. Believe me, I appreciate what you do for us

Kirstey,

A little less of the old please!. In fact ATC are ulitimately providing the fare paying public with a service as am I. In years to come the clearances may go direct to the computers on board, not long after that it will be computers who issue the clearances with no human intervention at all. I am willing to bet however that the desks at Swanwick will be empty quite a while before the flightdeck is.

PS. No.1, are you sure you know me, hope my cover isn't blown, think I will return the to safety of the pilots forums!.

[Hoover Pilot]

No problem for me.

If I'm told "descend to FLxx" I descend straightaway. If I wouldn't have chosen that particular point to descend I go down at 500fpm until I intercept my preferred profile.

If ATC aren't happy with my actions they can come back and give "expedite descent..." instructions.

If I am given "descend......your discretion" then I do exactly that. But if I am not given that option then I go down immeadiately.

We have enough hassle in our job without querying ATC instructions which only clutters up the airwaves and causes friction between parties who should be working harmonioulsy.

[spekesoftly]

Hoover

Thank you for bringing some sanity back to this thread.

[FWA NATCA]

Re: You want us to descend now?

AF1,

The next time that you have an airliner, let alone anyone who doesn't start their descent in a timely manner especially when you are basing your seperation on their starting down, use this phraselogy,

"acft ID, possible PILOT DEVIATION, please contact, facility name, and phone number, and ask for".

The point is to not argue or get into a discussion on the radio, save it for when the pilot calls. I guarantee that this will cure the problem, and all the other pilots will take note and start down when instructed.

It's one thing to allow a pilot descretion descent, it's another thing for the pilot to ignore the controllers instruction because they don't want to start down.

Mike

[NW1]

I think AF 1 raises a very good point. Probably best approached from the "how can we sort it" angle than the "how high can we p1ss up against the bog wall" angle.

I rekon the problem has it roots in the increasing prevalence of FMS run profiles. The FMS will ping up a prompt some distance from the computed TOD (about 15nm from memory - I'm personally free of the green godess for a while!!) and it seems de rigeur to ask for descent at that point to reset the alt. alert window and so satisfy the machine, waiting the 2-3mins left in level flight for the A/P to cycle to its vnav profile. So pre-cleared descents have, rightly or wrongly, become the norm. On yer non-FMS jet, you calculate your ideal TOD (using sums), judge R/T traffic load and ask for descent such that you're straight into it. But what price progress?!

So what to do? Well, I can sympathise with the ""descend FLxxx" means just that" school of thought (that's how I'd personally treat it) but it seems that isn't happening. My feeling is that if you ATC chaps/chapesses have a need for a descent, as in AF 1's ""That's that problem sorted". "" scenario above, then "Descend now FLxxx" oughta do it, or if the neck hairs are starting to party then "Due traffic descend now FLxxx" as mentioned above would seem to be clearer. OK OK, it shouldn't be strictly necessary - but surely a syllable or 2 early on is better than frayed nerves later? Also, I think if you ask for descent when the FMS first squeaks, it is only polite to say something along the lines of "Bogbrush123 request descent in 12nms". Helps keep ATC in the loop.

LHR arrivals are another source of confusion. We get this constant descent approach thing rammed down our necks, so if we're on a closing heading with the glide half a dot fly up and we get cleared down to 3000', don't be surprised if we pick a ROD which prevents level-off pre glide capture. If that's not good enough then how about a specified minimum ROD in the clearance, or even "expedite" if you need it. That's the thing - if you need it we'll gladly give it (that's my thinking anyway) but a minor r/t effort early has gotta be better than a bigger effort and frustration later on, no? And low-level altitude capture is still quieter than a mid-air, even to the ears of those weird-beards at HACAN....

But please guys, don't get pissy with us if we ask for confirmation of a descent clearance - the need for us to manage an efficient operation is higher now than ever: even if you consider a syllable or two a waste - it may save the confusion and far greater r/t load of confirmation requests later on which seems to be giving rise to not a little frustration?

[28L]

How's about:
"Descend now, FLxxx" or "Descend, pilots' discretion, FLxxx"? Everyone understands, everyones happy (maybe), and hardly any more RT.

[radar707]

This is an interesting one. I work at a reasonably busy airfield in the Scottish TMA.
As an approach radar controller, when I give a descent instruction I would expect the pilot to comply with that instruction within 2 minutes, anything longer than that (unless there was little other traffic about) then I would query the instruction and confirm that the crew had understood.
As for the them and us bit, yes we both provide a service and we are both good at what we do, I for one couldn't fly a 747 (although my trip on the sim at cranebank suggests I can land one ok), but how many pilots could control???
They are completely different jobs, MAX suggests that the desks at Swanwick will be empty b4 the flight deck is, but just how automated is the flight deck compared to ATC???
The counter argument is but when things go wrong!!!
EXACTLY, WHEN THINGS GO WRONG AND YOU NEED AN EXPEDITIOUS ROUTEING, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE FREQUENCY OF THE ILS, OR THE HOLDING PATERN, YOU NEED A CONFIDENT AND REASSURING VOICE TELLING YOU TRACK MILES, YOUR DESCENT PROFILE ON THE EMERGENCY SRA.
Neither of our jpbs will ever be automated in our lifetimes, the human touch adds safety and when I fly, I'm bloody hapy to know that if the proverbial hits the fan there is a crew up front who know what they are doing and a team on the ground that will do everything in their power to get that aircraft on the ground as safely and expeditiously as possible