You want us to descend now?
 

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

:D

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.

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?"

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..

There is a definite trend.

Pilots becoming loathe to interfere with the automatics?

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
:(

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.:mad:

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.

055166k says:

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.

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.

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!!!

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"!!

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!

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!.

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.

Hoover

Thank you for bringing some sanity back to this thread.

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

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?

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

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

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!

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.

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?:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

:cool: "Flight 123, request direct ABC"

:rolleyes: "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"


:rolleyes: "FLT123, cleared direct ABC"

:cool: "Direct ABC, Flt 123"

And you want us to do this for every flight?

:D :D :D

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

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)

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.......

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!!!!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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'.

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"