Originally Posted by Centaurus (Post 10687144)

I haven't a clue of the rationale for changing what was a perfectly understandable Australian ATC phraseology all those years ago.

Originally Posted by Wizofoz (Post 10687097)

There is one controller in Melbourne (132.2 last night) who has a thing about aircraft reporting, while identified, that they are leaving their cruising flight level.

His favourite trick is to not give a progressive descent clearance- to wait till you are approaching you assigned level and ask for further clearance before saying "OH! Missed your leaving call!" and giving you further descent.

I actually fronted him last night (frequency was quiet and I didn't prolong it" and transmitted "That's nit required". He replied with "It's in the AIP".

I've searched and while a "leaving" call is party of standard phraseology, I didn't interpret it as being a requirement in a RADAR environment, and no other center in the country seems bothered.

I think at best he's being bloody minded, but is he even technically correct?

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Originally Posted by The AIP

4. CHANGE OF LEVELS 4.1
ATC Approval Required
4.1.1 The pilot in command must commence a change of level as soon as possible, but not later than one (1) minute after receiving that instruction from ATC, unless that instruction specifies a later time or place.
4.1.2 ATC may require that an assigned level must be reached by a specific time, distance or place. If a pilot in command doubts that the restriction can be met, ATC must be advised immediately.
4.1.3 ATS advised expectation of a level restriction does not authorise a pilot to climb or descend to meet that restriction.
4.1.4 An expectation of a level restriction is not required to be read back.
4.1.5 A requirement to report at a time or place given in the same clearance as a descent/climb instruction does not require the new level to be reached by the specified time or place.
4.1.6 The pilot in command of an aircraft, receiving an instruction from ATC to change level, must report:
a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of climb, cruise or descent; and
b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.
4.1.7 ATC may provide vertical separation between two climbing aircraft, not otherwise separated, by means of a step-climb. Pilots in command, who are subjected to a step-climb, must adopt the following procedure: a. The pilot in command of the lower aircraft must report approaching each assigned level in the sequence. b. The pilot in command of the higher aircraft, on hearing the lower aircraft report approaching each assigned level, must report the last vacated level.
4.1.8 Step-descents reverse the above para 4.1.7 procedure.
4.1.9 ATC may specify a rate of climb or descent. Other considerations are as follows:
a. The phrase “STANDARD RATE”, when included in a clearance, specifies a rate of climb or descent of not less than 500FT per minute, except that the last 1,000FT to an assigned level must be made at 500FT per minute.
b. In the case of a step-climb or descent, the specified rate will be applicable to all level clearances issued in the course of the step climb or descent. If unable to comply with the prescribed rate, the pilot in command must advise ATC.
4.1.10 Cruise Climb is not used in Australian administered airspace. Where possible, block level clearances will be issued upon request.
4.2 ATC Approval Not Required
4.2.1 In airspace where ATC approval is not required to change level, the pilot of an IFR flight must report present position and intention to ATC approximately one (1) minute prior to making any change

Originally Posted by lucille (Post 10687169)

Indeed, welcome to Australian ATC. The most pedantic in the world. Lucky for them its a huge area with very little traffic.

The odd thing is that Aussie controllers who leave and become expats in the Middle East and Asia are quite the opposite, they're all first class and a joy to work with. This points to either the system or senior managers with "issues".

Originally Posted by Ixixly (Post 10687121)

It might not be required in the AIP but if he has given you a clearance then asked you to report leaving a level for further clearance there could be a particular reason or it could just be his process to allow him to do his job better, he could be slightly overloaded with the areas he's been given and is doing that to make sure he doesn't miss something. Not going to defend it necessarily but whilst he might be being a bit bloody minded it seems you might also being the same in the whole "It's not in the AIP as far as I'm aware so I'm going to call you out on it".

Originally Posted by Wizofoz (Post 10687213)

Thanks all- does raise the question- why does this seem to be the only ATCO in the country that gives a @@@@ about it.