Report Leaving Assigned Altitude?

[John Clonts]

1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent descents?
E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending
2000"?

2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?

3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I report
my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"?
Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?

Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Dave Butler]

John Clonts wrote:
> 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent descents?
> E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending
> 2000"?

Report leaving 7000, assuming that was an assigned altitude. 5000 was never
assigned, so there's no need to report leaving it.

>
> 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?

Assuming 5000 was an assigned altitude, yes.

>
> 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I report
> my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
> eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?

Report leaving 7000, assuming it was an assigned altitude. You have discretion
to 3000, so you may stop at an intermediate altitude. No need to report leaving
altitudes that weren't assigned.

>
> Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...

[Richard Kaplan]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...

In answering these questions, consider these definintions from the
Pilot/Controller Glossary in the AIM:

PILOT'S DISCRETION - When used in conjunction with altitude assignments,
means that ATC has offered the pilot the option of starting climb or descent
whenever he wishes and conducting the climb or descent at any rate he
wishes. He may temporarily level off at any intermediate altitude. However,
once he has vacated an altitude, he may not return to that altitude.

CRUISE - Used in an ATC clearance to authorize a pilot to conduct flight at
any altitude from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including the altitude
specified in the clearance. The pilot may level off at any intermediate
altitude within this block of airspace. Climb/descent within the block is to
be made at the discretion of the pilot. However, once the pilot starts
descent and verbally reports leaving an altitude in the block, he may not
return to that altitude without additional ATC clearance. Further, it is
approval for the pilot to proceed to and make an approach at destination
airport ...

CLEARED (Type Of) APPROACH - ATC authorization for an aircraft to execute a
specific instrument approach procedure to an airport; e.g., "Cleared ILS
Runway Three Six Approach."


> 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent
descents?

You may choose to report subsequent descent but you are not required to do
so; if you give such a report, however, then you may not climb back again
without obtaining an additional ATC clearance.


> 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?

You may descend when you choose to do so; there is no need for you to report
leaving 5000.


> 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I
report
> my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
> eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending
5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?

Yes, you may level off at an intermediate altitude. No, you are not
required to make a report if you choose to do so.


> Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...


As above, you are not required to make any of these reports. Generally it
is good practice to make such reports anyway, unless the frequeny is busy,
in which case the controller may not appreciate the extra reports -- that is
a judgment call you can make in each situation. Note that in the case of a
cruise clearance, providing such an extra report may actually result in
limiting your altitude options as noted above.

As a related but interesting issue, have you ever received a CRUISE
clearance? If so, where did you get it and did you request it or was it
assigned? I have obtained all sorts of interesting clearances from ATC,
but whenever I request a CRUISE clearance the reply I usually get from ATC
implies they never heard of it or at least that they never use this -- sort
of like filing "OTP" for an IFR altitude although I have had some greater
success there.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...

> Assuming 5000 was an assigned altitude, yes.

"Cleared for the visual" supercedes any prior altitude assignment. No
report is required when you begin your descent.

> Report leaving 7000, assuming it was an assigned altitude.

All you must do is acknowledge the clearance to descend at pilot discretion
to 3000. After that, there is no requirement to report when you choose to
use that discretion to leave 7000.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Ray Andraka]

Visual approach is an approach clearance, which means you are also cleared to
descend. No need to report leaving unless explicitly directed to do so by ATC.

Dave Butler wrote:

> > 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> > Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> > frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> > right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?
>
> Assuming 5000 was an assigned altitude, yes.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[John Clonts]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
>
[Q and A snipped, thanks for your input!]

>
> As a related but interesting issue, have you ever received a CRUISE
> clearance? If so, where did you get it and did you request it or was it
> assigned? I have obtained all sorts of interesting clearances from ATC,
> but whenever I request a CRUISE clearance the reply I usually get from ATC
> implies they never heard of it or at least that they never use this --
sort
> of like filing "OTP" for an IFR altitude although I have had some greater
> success there.
>

Hello Richard,

After having read that they were so rare, I got "offerred" one on my SECOND
ifr flight after I got my IR last year!

I had filed from KTPL (Temple) to 44TE (a grass strip about 80 nm away,
elevation 900). As I recall the weather was around 4000 scattered. When I
was about 30 miles from 44TE at 6000, it went something like this:

CTR: "N7NZ, let me know if you need a cruise clearance"
N7NZ: "Roger, N7NZ". <wracks brain for implications>

Few minutes later:
N7NZ: "Center, N7NZ request cruise clearance to 44TE now"
CTR: "Roger, N7NZ is cleared to 44TE, cruise 4000. Cancel this frequency or
on the ground via Flight Service"

I descended into VMC and cancelled on the frequency.

Though it wasn't a factor that day, I believe that in worse weather I would
have then descended to the MIA (which is about 2500 in that vicinity), and
if not visual by then, just climb, reestablish contact with center if
necessary, and work on "plan B" which would involve an instrument approach
to a nearby airport.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Richard Kaplan]

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com
"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> ----------------
> AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
>
> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a
> specific ATC request:
>
> 1. At all times.
>
> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
newly
> assigned altitude or flight level.
> ...
> ----------------
>
> Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply (assuming
the
> O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
>
> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is
> superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
> [sorry for top-posting]
>
>
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>Assuming 5000 was an assigned altitude, yes.
> >
> >
> > "Cleared for the visual" supercedes any prior altitude assignment. No
> > report is required when you begin your descent.
> >
> >
> >>Report leaving 7000, assuming it was an assigned altitude.
> >
> >
> > All you must do is acknowledge the clearance to descend at pilot
discretion
> > to 3000. After that, there is no requirement to report when you choose
to
> > use that discretion to leave 7000.
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...

> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
newly
> assigned altitude or flight level.

I agree this is an interesting question and raises an area of some
ambiguity.

However, my interpretation in all the cases discussed in this thread is that
an intermediate altitude is not an assigned altitude and an approach
clearance certainly is not an assigned altitude.

In other words, I interpret the above AIM section to require the pilot to
provide a readbak of any altitude change. That readback might be "N102KY
out of 5000 for 3000" or it might be "N102KY out of 5000 for 3000 pilot
discretion" or it might be "N102KY will cruise 3000" -- any of these in my
opinion satisfy the AIM requirement.

> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is
> superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".

Take the somewhat more extreme example of a DME step-down approach. Surely
you will agree that there is no need to report to ATC each time you proceed
to a new step-down altitude. Why not? Beause these step-down altitudes
were not "assigned" by ATC; you were instead "cleared for the approach"
which is approval to descend as published on the approach plate without any
further discussion with ATC. "Cleared for the visual" is just another
extension of this underlying theme -- you may descend at will upon being
"Cleared for the visual" as long as you do not violate another FAA rule in
the process such as minimum altitude requirements.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dave Butler]

----------------
AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports

a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a
specific ATC request:

1. At all times.

(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly
assigned altitude or flight level.
....
----------------

Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply (assuming the
O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").

The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is
superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".

Thanks

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
[sorry for top-posting]


Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Assuming 5000 was an assigned altitude, yes.
>
>
> "Cleared for the visual" supercedes any prior altitude assignment. No
> report is required when you begin your descent.
>
>
>>Report leaving 7000, assuming it was an assigned altitude.
>
>
> All you must do is acknowledge the clearance to descend at pilot discretion
> to 3000. After that, there is no requirement to report when you choose to
> use that discretion to leave 7000.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dave Butler wrote:
> ----------------
> AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
>
> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without
> a specific ATC request:
>
> 1. At all times.
>
> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
> newly assigned altitude or flight level.
> ...
> ----------------
>
> Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply (assuming
> the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
>
> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is
> superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".

It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
required to execute the approach.


Matt

[Bob Gardner]

Something that has been missed in the responses to your post is that when
given a cruise clearance you can bob up and down between the assigned cruise
altitude and the MEA without any report at all UNTIL you report leaving the
assigned cruise altitude...at that point, ATC can assign 7000 (in your
example) to another aircraft. Don't report leaving until you know for sure
that you won't be going back up. The most practical use of a cruise
clearance is when you suspect that the ride or the weather would be better
at a lower altitude, so you descend without saying a word to ATC and take a
look...if conditions are better, you say "Cessna blah blah requests 5000 (or
whatever) as a hard altitude" and stay there. If they are not, you go back
up or choose an intermediate altitude. Bottom line is that you own the block
of airspace between the assigned cruise altitude and the MEA and can do
whatever you want to do within that block without report UNTIL you make the
report...then you have given up the cruise altitude. Read the "Cruise"
definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
> 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent
descents?
> E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending
> 2000"?
>
> 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?
>
> 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I
report
> my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
> eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending
5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?
>
> Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...
>
> Thanks!
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> ----------------
>> AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
>>
>> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities
>> without a specific ATC request:
>>
>> 1. At all times.
>>
>> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for
>> a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
>> ...
>> ----------------
>>
>> Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply
>> (assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
>>
>> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment
>> is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
>
>
> It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
> to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
> are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
> required to execute the approach.

I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please read what I
wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the visual,
you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned altitude".

My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach", then
when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".

I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual approach is a
"newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the above
example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are saying? OK.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Dave Butler]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
>
> newly
>
>>assigned altitude or flight level.
>
>
> I agree this is an interesting question and raises an area of some
> ambiguity.

I think the ambiguity is whether a visual approach (for example) is a "newly
assigned altitude".

>
> However, my interpretation in all the cases discussed in this thread is that
> an intermediate altitude is not an assigned altitude and an approach
> clearance certainly is not an assigned altitude.

I agree completely about intermediate altitudes. With respece to approach
clearances, I wouldn't say "certainly", but I'll give you that.

>
> In other words, I interpret the above AIM section to require the pilot to
> provide a readbak of any altitude change. That readback might be "N102KY
> out of 5000 for 3000" or it might be "N102KY out of 5000 for 3000 pilot
> discretion" or it might be "N102KY will cruise 3000" -- any of these in my
> opinion satisfy the AIM requirement.

I disagree about "out of 5000 for 3000 pilot discretion". I think that readback
merely acknowledges the clearance and does not provide any information about
when I might exercise my discretion to actually leave that altitude. When I
leave the altitude, perhaps minutes later, I assert that a seperate report is
required.

>
>
>>The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is
>>superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
>
>
> Take the somewhat more extreme example of a DME step-down approach. Surely
> you will agree that there is no need to report to ATC each time you proceed
> to a new step-down altitude. Why not? Beause these step-down altitudes
> were not "assigned" by ATC; you were instead "cleared for the approach"

I agree the step downs are not assigned altitudes and never asserted anything
different.

> which is approval to descend as published on the approach plate without any
> further discussion with ATC. "Cleared for the visual" is just another
> extension of this underlying theme -- you may descend at will upon being
> "Cleared for the visual" as long as you do not violate another FAA rule in
> the process such as minimum altitude requirements.

I think the question of whether a report is required hinges on whether a
clearance for a visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I don't think
it's clear cut, but I see the rationale for your interpretation.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...

> I think the ambiguity is whether a visual approach (for example) is a
"newly
> assigned altitude".

There is no ambiguity whatsoever about a being "Cleared for the visual" --
you may descend at will and you need not acknowledge this to ATC.

The only question of ambiguity comes up with the "pilot discretion"
clearance, although I believe the initial acknowledment "out of 5000 for
3000 pilot discretion" meets the requirement in the AIM. I am acknowledging
that I will descend to 3000 but that the rate of the descent will be at my
discretion -- whether that is 500 FPM or 1000FPM or 10FPM or 0FPM or whether
the rate varies during the descent, I am still complying with the altitude
clearance I was assigned.

Let us suppose you are correct that an initial acknowledgment "out of 5000
for 3000 pilot discretion" is not sufficient but instead I need to report
when I choose to begin the descent. Well, if that were true, then what
would happen when I accept the altitude assignment "N102KY will maintain
3000 BLOCK 5000"? With a block altitude, do I have to report every time I
change altitude?

> I think the question of whether a report is required hinges on whether a
> clearance for a visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I don't
think
> it's clear cut, but I see the rationale for your interpretation.


Again, there may be some ambiguity re: a delayed descent after a "pilot
discretion" clearance. There is no ambiguity re: a "Cleared for the Visual"
clearance -- you may descend at will without notifying ATC other than
acknowledging the clearance. The same is true as well if you are cleared
for an instrument approach -- you may descend at will per published routes
and/or published safe altitudes with no further acknowledgment to ATC.

In fact, that is an interesting corollary to this thread. Suppose you are
flying enroute cleared DIRECT to your destination and ATC gives you the very
short instruction "N102KY Cleared Approach XXY Airport." I maintain that in
this situation you may descend at will as you choose for any visual or
instrument approach and you need not report any altitude changes to ATC.
You need only acknowledge the approach clearance and then you may descend at
will.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Butler" wrote:
> I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual ...
> ...I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for
> the visual, you have to report, since you're "vacating a
> previously assigned altitude".

That would be a tortuous reading of the paragraph. My personal
experience is that I've flown scores of visual approaches without
reporting leaving my last assigned altitudes - ATC's never said
anything.

> My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the
> visual approach", then when I (later) start the descent,
> "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".

I don't recall ever hearing anyone say that on a visual approach.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Bob Gardner]

"Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?

Bob Gardner

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > Dave Butler wrote:
> >
> >> ----------------
> >> AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
> >>
> >> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities
> >> without a specific ATC request:
> >>
> >> 1. At all times.
> >>
> >> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for
> >> a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
> >> ...
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply
> >> (assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
> >>
> >> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment
> >> is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
> >
> >
> > It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
> > to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
> > are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
> > required to execute the approach.
>
> I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please read
what I
> wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the
visual,
> you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned
altitude".
>
> My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach",
then
> when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".
>
> I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual
approach is a
> "newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the above
> example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are
saying? OK.
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>

[Greg Esres]

<<I agree this is an interesting question and raises an area of some
ambiguity.>>

Regardless of what the AIM says, the important question is what ATC
uses these reports for.

Controllers in the past have said that under some circumstances, they
can use the pilot's report of leaving an altitude for separation
purposes.

However, a PD descent isn't one of them. Controllers have said that
they cannot use a pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a PD
descent/climb and therefore the reportis not useful. (However,
according to the .65, this isn't true in a NON-radar environment.)

Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same
category?

[Dave Butler]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
> leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?

Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned altitude".

OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind) the key
thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to [altitude]
clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my actions. I can either
start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to me) it seems reasonable that
I might be required to report, and I read the AIM paragraph that way.

It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely requires a
report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since that is arguably not
a newly assigned altitude.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Butler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>----------------
>>>>AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
>>>>
>>>>a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities
>>>>without a specific ATC request:
>>>>
>>>>1. At all times.
>>>>
>>>>(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for
>>>>a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
>>>>...
>>>>----------------
>>>>
>>>>Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply
>>>>(assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
>>>>
>>>>The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment
>>>>is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
>>>to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
>>>are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
>>>required to execute the approach.
>>
>>I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please read
>
> what I
>
>>wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the
>
> visual,
>
>>you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned
>
> altitude".
>
>>My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach",
>
> then
>
>>when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".
>>
>>I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual
>
> approach is a
>
>>"newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the above
>>example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are
>
> saying? OK.
>
>>Dave
>>Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>>
>
>
>


--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Dave Butler]

OK, I can see that I am swimming upstream, here, so this will be my last shot
(see inline). Thanks for the thought-provoking responses.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I think the ambiguity is whether a visual approach (for example) is a
>
> "newly
>
>>assigned altitude".
>
>
> There is no ambiguity whatsoever about a being "Cleared for the visual" --
> you may descend at will and you need not acknowledge this to ATC.

Which is tantamount to saying "a clearance for a visual approach is not a newly
assigned altitude". OK. I can accept that. BTW, whether or not you may "descend
at will" has never been in dispute.

>
> The only question of ambiguity comes up with the "pilot discretion"
> clearance, although I believe the initial acknowledment "out of 5000 for
> 3000 pilot discretion" meets the requirement in the AIM. I am acknowledging
> that I will descend to 3000 but that the rate of the descent will be at my
> discretion -- whether that is 500 FPM or 1000FPM or 10FPM or 0FPM or whether
> the rate varies during the descent, I am still complying with the altitude
> clearance I was assigned.

Complying with the altitude clearance is not an issue. The issue is whether a
report is required for leaving the assigned altitude.

>
> Let us suppose you are correct that an initial acknowledgment "out of 5000
> for 3000 pilot discretion" is not sufficient but instead I need to report
> when I choose to begin the descent. Well, if that were true, then what
> would happen when I accept the altitude assignment "N102KY will maintain
> 3000 BLOCK 5000"? With a block altitude, do I have to report every time I
> change altitude?

No, you only need to report "leaving an assigned altitude for a newly assigned
altitude". When you change altitudes within a block, you're not doing that.

>
>
>>I think the question of whether a report is required hinges on whether a
>>clearance for a visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I don't
>
> think
>
>>it's clear cut, but I see the rationale for your interpretation.
>
>
>
> Again, there may be some ambiguity re: a delayed descent after a "pilot
> discretion" clearance. There is no ambiguity re: a "Cleared for the Visual"
> clearance -- you may descend at will without notifying ATC other than
> acknowledging the clearance. The same is true as well if you are cleared
> for an instrument approach -- you may descend at will per published routes
> and/or published safe altitudes with no further acknowledgment to ATC.

The question is not about whether you may descend at will. It's the required
report that's at issue.

> In fact, that is an interesting corollary to this thread. Suppose you are
> flying enroute cleared DIRECT to your destination and ATC gives you the very
> short instruction "N102KY Cleared Approach XXY Airport." I maintain that in
> this situation you may descend at will as you choose for any visual or
> instrument approach and you need not report any altitude changes to ATC.
> You need only acknowledge the approach clearance and then you may descend at
> will.

Again, whether you may descend at will is not at issue. If you're leaving an
assigned altitude for a newly assigned altitude, you're supposed to report. I'll
grant that an approach clearance is not clearly a "newly assigned altitude".

[[email protected]]

I don't think I would "bob up and down" on a cruise clearance. I would request
a block altitude assignment if I want to "bob up and down." A cruise clearance
is also an instrument approach clearance, so once I leave the last assigned for
all I know the controller may be using my Mode C as a de facto report out of
that altitude. I don't have to worry about that possible ambiguity with a block
altitude assignment.

And, I learned a long time ago not to buy into any situation that can become
ambiguous. That doesn't help me nor does it help the controller.

I can certainly descend to an intermediate altitude on a curise clearance, then
level off. But, "bob back up?" not me.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Something that has been missed in the responses to your post is that when
> given a cruise clearance you can bob up and down between the assigned cruise
> altitude and the MEA without any report at all UNTIL you report leaving the
> assigned cruise altitude...at that point, ATC can assign 7000 (in your
> example) to another aircraft. Don't report leaving until you know for sure
> that you won't be going back up. The most practical use of a cruise
> clearance is when you suspect that the ride or the weather would be better
> at a lower altitude, so you descend without saying a word to ATC and take a
> look...if conditions are better, you say "Cessna blah blah requests 5000 (or
> whatever) as a hard altitude" and stay there. If they are not, you go back
> up or choose an intermediate altitude. Bottom line is that you own the block
> of airspace between the assigned cruise altitude and the MEA and can do
> whatever you want to do within that block without report UNTIL you make the
> report...then you have given up the cruise altitude. Read the "Cruise"
> definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent
> descents?
> > E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending
> > 2000"?
> >
> > 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> > Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> > frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> > right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?
> >
> > 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I
> report
> > my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
> > eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending
> 5000"?
> > Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?
> >
> > Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> > experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> > cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...
> >
> > Thanks!
> > John Clonts
> > Temple, Texas
> > N7NZ
> >
> >

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:
> I don't think I would "bob up and down" on a cruise clearance. I
> would request a block altitude assignment if I want to "bob up and
> down."

A cruise clearance *is* a block altitude assignment.

> A cruise clearance is also an instrument approach clearance, so once
> I leave the last assigned for all I know the controller may be using
> my Mode C as a de facto report out of that altitude.

You own the altitude until you report leaving it. Your mode C does not
count as reporting leaving the altitude.

[Bob Gardner]

I have received a bunch of PD clearances, and I always reported when I
started down, whether required or not. Seemed like the thing to do.

Bob Gardner

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
> > leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?
>
> Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
altitude".
>
> OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind)
the key
> thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to [altitude]
> clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my actions. I can
either
> start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to me) it seems reasonable
that
> I might be required to report, and I read the AIM paragraph that way.
>
> It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely
requires a
> report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since that is
arguably not
> a newly assigned altitude.
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dave Butler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>----------------
> >>>>AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
> >>>>
> >>>>a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities
> >>>>without a specific ATC request:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. At all times.
> >>>>
> >>>>(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for
> >>>>a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
> >>>>...
> >>>>----------------
> >>>>
> >>>>Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply
> >>>>(assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
> >>>>
> >>>>The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment
> >>>>is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
> >>>to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
> >>>are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
> >>>required to execute the approach.
> >>
> >>I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please
read
> >
> > what I
> >
> >>wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the
> >
> > visual,
> >
> >>you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned
> >
> > altitude".
> >
> >>My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach",
> >
> > then
> >
> >>when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".
> >>
> >>I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual
> >
> > approach is a
> >
> >>"newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the
above
> >>example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are
> >
> > saying? OK.
> >
> >>Dave
> >>Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367
>

[Bob Gardner]

With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report....

5-5-6 Exceptions
{New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003}
a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an aircraft on a
cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in paragraph 5-15-4,
System Requirements, subparagraph e and f.

Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that controller's do not
necessarily buy a Mode C readout all the time.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
> I don't think I would "bob up and down" on a cruise clearance. I would
request
> a block altitude assignment if I want to "bob up and down." A cruise
clearance
> is also an instrument approach clearance, so once I leave the last
assigned for
> all I know the controller may be using my Mode C as a de facto report out
of
> that altitude. I don't have to worry about that possible ambiguity with a
block
> altitude assignment.
>
> And, I learned a long time ago not to buy into any situation that can
become
> ambiguous. That doesn't help me nor does it help the controller.
>
> I can certainly descend to an intermediate altitude on a curise clearance,
then
> level off. But, "bob back up?" not me.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > Something that has been missed in the responses to your post is that
when
> > given a cruise clearance you can bob up and down between the assigned
cruise
> > altitude and the MEA without any report at all UNTIL you report leaving
the
> > assigned cruise altitude...at that point, ATC can assign 7000 (in your
> > example) to another aircraft. Don't report leaving until you know for
sure
> > that you won't be going back up. The most practical use of a cruise
> > clearance is when you suspect that the ride or the weather would be
better
> > at a lower altitude, so you descend without saying a word to ATC and
take a
> > look...if conditions are better, you say "Cessna blah blah requests 5000
(or
> > whatever) as a hard altitude" and stay there. If they are not, you go
back
> > up or choose an intermediate altitude. Bottom line is that you own the
block
> > of airspace between the assigned cruise altitude and the MEA and can do
> > whatever you want to do within that block without report UNTIL you make
the
> > report...then you have given up the cruise altitude. Read the "Cruise"
> > definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent
> > descents?
> > > E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000
descending
> > > 2000"?
> > >
> > > 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I
report
> > > Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> > > frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> > > right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?
> > >
> > > 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I
> > report
> > > my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so,
do I
> > > eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending
> > 5000"?
> > > Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?
> > >
> > > Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> > > experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> > > cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > John Clonts
> > > Temple, Texas
> > > N7NZ
> > >
> > >
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dave Butler wrote:
>>
>>> ----------------
>>> AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
>>>
>>> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities
>>> without a specific ATC request:
>>>
>>> 1. At all times.
>>>
>>> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level
>>> for a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
>>> ...
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply
>>> (assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned").
>>>
>>> The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment
>>> is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach".
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way
>> to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you
>> are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as
>> required to execute the approach.
>
>
> I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please
> read what I wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and
> cleared for the visual, you have to report, since you're "vacating a
> previously assigned altitude".
>
> My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach",
> then when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000".
>
> I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual
> approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue
> that in the above example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is
> that what you are saying? OK.

Yes, this is my assertion.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
> leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?

Good analogy. You made the point better than I did.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
>> leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?
>
>
> Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
> altitude".

No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for the
approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes from
that point until you are on the runway.


> OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind)
> the key thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to
> [altitude] clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my
> actions. I can either start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to
> me) it seems reasonable that I might be required to report, and I read
> the AIM paragraph that way.

Yes, you are grasping for straws. :-)


> It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely
> requires a report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since
> that is arguably not a newly assigned altitude.

Hopefully, one of the resident ATC folks will chime in with what they
believe is correct.


Matt

[Richard Kaplan]

One of the reasons why it is not required to report descending when you are
cleared for the visual approach is because it is quite plausible that you
will be out of radio contact when you begin your descent. When the
controller says "Cleared for the approach" not only is he assuring there are
no airplanes on your intended course to the airport, but also he is
transferring terrain avoidance responsibility solely to you, whereas
previously he shared this responsibility with you.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...

> Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same
> category?

Almost for sure these fall into the same categories.

If you are cleared for an approach into an airport without radar approach
service, the entire airport get shut down to IFR traffic until you cancel
IFR, so spacing is a non-issue.

If you are cleared for an approach into an airport with radar approach
service, you will probably be vectored for an instrument approach or
visually separated by a tower. If you conduct a visual approach into a
non-towered field and do not cancel IFR, again the airport remains shut down
so spacing is a non-issue.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same
> > category?
>
> Almost for sure these fall into the same categories.
>
> If you are cleared for an approach into an airport without radar approach
> service, the entire airport get shut down to IFR traffic until you cancel
> IFR, so spacing is a non-issue.
>

That is often true, but not always true. Timed approaches permit multiple IFR
operations into some airports without radar services. Timed approaches used to
be common, sort of went away, and are now used a lot again. San Luis Obispo,
California ia an example that comes to mind.

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report....
>
> 5-5-6 Exceptions
> {New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003}
> a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an aircraft on a
> cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in paragraph 5-15-4,
> System Requirements, subparagraph e and f.
>
> Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that controller's do not
> necessarily buy a Mode C readout all the time.

That book has rules then it has rules.

[Dave Butler]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
>>> leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
>> altitude".
>
>
> No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
> original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for the
> approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes from
> that point until you are on the runway.

My "original point" is that we should do what the AIM says with regard to
reporting leaving assigned altitudes for a newly assigned altitude. The AIM says
(paraphrasing) that you should report when leaving an assigned altitude *for a
newly assigned altitude*.

I viewed a clearance for a visual approach as a newly assigned altitude. As a
result of this discussion, I no longer hold that view. I never viewed a falling
glideslope needle as a newly assigned altitude.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent
descents?
> E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending
> 2000"?
>
> 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report
> Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this
> frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will,
> right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?
>
> 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I
report
> my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I
> eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending
5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?
>
> Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR
> experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above
> cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary...
>

Are you in radar contact and do you have Mode C altitude reporting
equipment? If yes to both of those, then you're already reporting.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Regardless of what the AIM says, the important question is what ATC
> uses these reports for.
>
> Controllers in the past have said that under some circumstances, they
> can use the pilot's report of leaving an altitude for separation
> purposes.
>
> However, a PD descent isn't one of them. Controllers have said that
> they cannot use a pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a PD
> descent/climb and therefore the reportis not useful.
>

A pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a PD descent/climb cannot be used
to assign the altitude reported leaving, but it can be used to assign an
altitude that provides minimum vertical separation from that altitude, so it
is still useful.


>
> (However,
> according to the .65, this isn't true in a NON-radar environment.)
>

Where is that written?


>
> Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same
> category?
>

They are discretionary descents.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> If you are cleared for an approach into an airport without radar approach
> service, the entire airport get shut down to IFR traffic until you cancel
> IFR, so spacing is a non-issue.
>

That's not true. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for approach at
airports not served by radar, you just have to provide separation. Radar
isn't the only way to separate traffic.


>
> If you conduct a visual approach into a non-towered field and do
> not cancel IFR, again the airport remains shut down
> so spacing is a non-issue.
>

You can have multiple aircraft cleared for visual approaches at non-towered
fields.

[Greg Esres]

<<A pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a PD descent/climb cannot
be used to assign the altitude reported leaving, but it can be used to
assign an altitude that provides minimum vertical separation from that
altitude, so it is still useful.>>

Hmmm...is there some section that expressly allows that, or is it
allowed because not expressly forbidden? ;-)

I would have interpreted the following section to apply to that
scenario as well, since the implication is not to permit verbal
reports to be sufficient for separation purposes, period, in PD
descents.

-------------<snip>-------------------
b. Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft
previously at that altitude is observed at or passing through another
altitude separated from the first by the appropriate minima when:
....
3. The aircraft previously at that altitude has been issued a
climb/descent at pilot's discretion.
-------------<snip>-------------------

Can you shed light on the logic?

<<Where is that written?>>

-------------<snip>-------------------
Non-Radar
6-6-2 Exceptions
Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously
at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude
separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when:
....
c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been:
1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's
discretion.

-------------<snip>-------------------

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> <<A pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a PD descent/climb cannot
> be used to assign the altitude reported leaving, but it can be used to
> assign an altitude that provides minimum vertical separation from that
> altitude, so it is still useful.>>
>
> Hmmm...is there some section that expressly allows that, or is it
> allowed because not expressly forbidden? ;-)
>
> I would have interpreted the following section to apply to that
> scenario as well, since the implication is not to permit verbal
> reports to be sufficient for separation purposes, period, in PD
> descents.
>
> -------------<snip>-------------------
> b. Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft
> previously at that altitude is observed at or passing through another
> altitude separated from the first by the appropriate minima when:
> ...
> 3. The aircraft previously at that altitude has been issued a
> climb/descent at pilot's discretion.
> -------------<snip>-------------------
>
> Can you shed light on the logic?
>
> <<Where is that written?>>
>
> -------------<snip>-------------------
> Non-Radar
> 6-6-2 Exceptions
> Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously
> at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude
> separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when:
> ...
> c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been:
> 1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's
> discretion.
>
> -------------<snip>-------------------
>

Do you read the material you quote?

[Greg Esres]

<<Do you read the material you quote?>>

Normally. ;-) But the .65 has limited meaning for non-controllers,
which is why it is helpful to have those with vast experience moving
traffic, such as you, flesh out the application of various sections.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Non-Radar
> 6-6-2 Exceptions
> Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously
> at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude
> separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when:
> ...
> c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been:
> 1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's
> discretion.
>

Non-radar separation is not limited to non-radar environments.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-3. PROCEDURAL PREFERENCE

a. Use automation procedures in preference to nonautomation procedures
when workload, communications, and equipment capabilities permit.

b. Use radar separation in preference to nonradar separation when it will
be to an operational advantage and workload, communications, and equipment
permit.

c. Use nonradar separation in preference to radar separation when the
situation dictates that an operational advantage will be gained.

NOTE-
One situation may be where vertical separation would preclude excessive
vectoring.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Normally. ;-) But the .65 has limited meaning for non-controllers,
> which is why it is helpful to have those with vast experience moving
> traffic, such as you, flesh out the application of various sections.
>

You questioned my statement, "A pilot's report of leaving an altitude on a
PD descent/climb cannot be used to assign the altitude reported leaving, but
it can be used to assign an altitude that provides minimum vertical
separation from that altitude, so it is still useful." You asked if there
was "some section that expressly allows that, or is it allowed because not
expressly forbidden?" Your message included a quote of the pertinent
paragraph!

Paragraph 6-6-2 tells controllers to assign an altitude to an aircraft only
after the aircraft previously at that altitude has reported at or passing
through another altitude separated from the first by the appropriate minimum
when the aircraft previously at the altitude has been issued a clearance
permitting climb or descent at pilot's discretion.



FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 6. Nonradar

Section 6. Vertical Separation

6-6-1. APPLICATION

Assign an altitude to an aircraft after the aircraft previously at
that altitude has reported leaving the altitude.

PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT LEAVING/REACHING (altitude/flight level).

REPORT LEAVING ODD/EVEN ALTITUDES/FLIGHT LEVELS.

(If aircraft is known to be operating below the lowest useable flight
level),

SAY ALTITUDE.

or

(If aircraft is known to be operating at or above the lowest useable
flight level),

SAY FLIGHT LEVEL.

or

If aircraft's position relative to the lowest useable flight level is
unknown),

SAY ALTITUDE OR FLIGHT LEVEL.

NOTE-
Consider known aircraft performance characteristics, pilot furnished
and/or Mode C detected information which indicate that climb/descent
will not be consistent with the rates recommended in AIM.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Preference, Para 2-1-3.
FAAO 7110.65, Vertical Separation Minima, Para 4-5-1.
FAAO 7110.65, Separation, Para 7-7-3.
FAAO 7110.65, Separation, Para 7-8-3.
FAAO 7110.65, Separation, Para 7-9-4.


6-6-2. EXCEPTIONS

Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously
at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude
separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when:

a. Severe turbulence is reported.

b. Aircraft are conducting military aerial refueling.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Military Aerial Refueling, Para 9-3-11.

c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been:

1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's
discretion.

2. Cleared to CRUISE (altitude). However, do not use Mode C to
effect separation with an aircraft on a cruise clearance.

NOTE-
An aircraft assigned a cruise clearance is assigned a block of
airspace from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including the
assigned cruising altitude, and climb/descent within the block is at
pilot's
discretion. When the pilot verbally reports leaving an altitude in
descent, he/she may not return to that altitude.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Cruise.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dave Butler wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
>>>> leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
>>> altitude".
>>
>>
>>
>> No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
>> original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for
>> the approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes
>> from that point until you are on the runway.
>
>
> My "original point" is that we should do what the AIM says with regard
> to reporting leaving assigned altitudes for a newly assigned altitude.
> The AIM says (paraphrasing) that you should report when leaving an
> assigned altitude *for a newly assigned altitude*.

Well, first, the AIM is advisory, not regulatory. However, I also agree
that it is good practice to adhere to the AIM suggestions. I don't
believe that the AIM section you are paraphrasing applies here as I
believe that a visual approach essentially has given you a new altitude
clearance, actually altitude range from where you are at the time of
accepting the clearance down to the airport elevation and thus you are
no longer leaving an assigned altitude.


> I viewed a clearance for a visual approach as a newly assigned altitude.
> As a result of this discussion, I no longer hold that view. I never
> viewed a falling glideslope needle as a newly assigned altitude.

Yes, the visual approach is a newly assigned altitude range which goes
clean down to the runway.


Matt

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Non-Radar
> > 6-6-2 Exceptions
> > Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously
> > at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude
> > separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when:
> > ...
> > c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been:
> > 1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's
> > discretion.
> >
>
> Non-radar separation is not limited to non-radar environments.
>
> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
>
> Chapter 2. General Control
>
> Section 1. General
>
> 2-1-3. PROCEDURAL PREFERENCE
>
> a. Use automation procedures in preference to nonautomation procedures
> when workload, communications, and equipment capabilities permit.
>
> b. Use radar separation in preference to nonradar separation when it will
> be to an operational advantage and workload, communications, and equipment
> permit.
>
> c. Use nonradar separation in preference to radar separation when the
> situation dictates that an operational advantage will be gained.
>
> NOTE-
> One situation may be where vertical separation would preclude excessive
> vectoring.

Aways, there is the question, what constitutes an operational advantage? I
don't mean it in this particular context, per se, but in all of FAAese.

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> Well, first, the AIM is advisory, not regulatory. However, I also agree
> that it is good practice to adhere to the AIM suggestions.

Oh, here we go again, reinventing the wheel. ;-) When the AIM pontificates
what any reasonable person would consider to be directive material, it is just
that--directive. The AIM cannot state "thou shall do this" because of
countless directives from the Department of Justice and even the federal
courts. To do so, would be issuing federal regulations without following the
Administrative Procedures Act.

Having said all that, if the AIM strongly suggests you do it, and you don't,
you can be charged with violating a relevant FAR. It's been done by the FAA
many times, and quite successfully.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...>

> That's not true. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for approach at
> airports not served by radar, you just have to provide separation. Radar
> isn't the only way to separate traffic.

> You can have multiple aircraft cleared for visual approaches at
non-towered
> fields.

I suppose this depends where one flies -- perhaps controller preference or
local letters of agreement have an effect?

I know at the unontrolled airports where I fly, I have never been able to
get even a visual approach clearance when another airplane is on approach
under IFR.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Stan Gosnell]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
news:5cN2c.197384$jk2.708530@attbi_s53:

> With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report....
>
> 5-5-6 Exceptions
> {New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003}
> a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an
> aircraft on a
> cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in
> paragraph 5-15-4, System Requirements, subparagraph e and
> f.
>
> Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that
> controller's do not necessarily buy a Mode C readout all
> the time.

They may buy the Mode C readout, but they can't trust the
aircraft to stay at the altitude they're reading. A cruise
clearance permits descending and climbing at pilot's discretion.
We use it all the time in the Gulf of Mexico, for instrument
approaches where we can't talk to center once we start a
descent, or often at altitude. We don't often climb back up,
but we might if we lose comm with both center and our company
flight following, and have to climb to regain contact. On a
cruise clearance, the aircraft may either climb or descend,
without the controller having any control over it, thus he can't
rely on the altitude readout to separate traffic.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Stan Gosnell]

"John Clonts" > wrote in
:

> 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report
> subsequent descents? E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 2000"?

No. The cruise clearance gives you everything between 7000' and
the surface. It's good practice to report leaving an altitude,
so ATC can use it, but it's not required. Once you report
leaving an altitude on a cruise clearance, you can't go back to
it.

> 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25
> miles out I report Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual
> approach to Temple, remain this frequency til you're closer
> in". At this point I may descend at will, right? When I
> do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000?

No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required
by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance
clears you to the ground.

> 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots
> discretion". Do I report my descent? Can I level off at
> an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I eventually report
> leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"?
> Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"?

You can descend from 7000' to 3000' whenever you're ready, but
you need to report when you do. You would report leaving 7000'
for 3000', and shouldn't stop at intermediate altitudes.

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>
>
> No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required
> by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance
> clears you to the ground.

An approach clearnace does not clear you to land. The tower has to
clear you to land, usually directly but they could relay a landing
clearance through approach control.

If you're speaking of a non-towered airport, landing clearances are
irrelevant.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> I suppose this depends where one flies --
>

No doubt, I was speaking of the US.

[Newps]

>
> Stan Gosnell wrote:
>
>
>>
>>No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required
>>by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance
>>clears you to the ground.


In that respect there is no difference between a visual approach and any
other type of approach.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...>

> No doubt, I was speaking of the US.

More like rural vs. urban US, mountainous vs. flat, busy vs. remote
airport, controlled by Center vs. Approach, etc.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> More like rural vs. urban US, mountainous vs. flat, busy vs. remote
> airport, controlled by Center vs. Approach, etc.
>

None of that matters, all operations are governed by the same order.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...>

> None of that matters, all operations are governed by the same order.


And subject to local letters of agreement, individual Center policies, etc.

For example, several times I have requested a VFR-On-Top altitude assignment
in the New York area and I have been told flat out by the controllers that
their policies do not permit them to issue such clearances. Similarly,
there are areas of the country where as Visual Climb to a new IFR altitude
can be a very useful tool, yet in other areas of the country I have again
been told flat out that they never issue such clearances.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Stan Gosnell]

Newps > wrote in
news:qpl3c.160015$4o.202529@attbi_s52:

>>>No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude
>>>required by the approach, including landing. A visual
>>>approach clearance clears you to the ground.
>
>
> In that respect there is no difference between a visual
> approach and any other type of approach.
>
Yes, the way I said it was redundant.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> And subject to local letters of agreement, individual Center policies,
etc.
>

Please post some of them.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote in message
...

> You can descend from 7000' to 3000' whenever you're ready, but
> you need to report when you do. You would report leaving 7000'

Where is it written that any report is needed other than the initial
acknowledgment of the pilot discretion clearance? I would maintain that
acknowledging the pilot discretion clearance satisfies the requirement to
report leaving the altitude. In fact, I have on a number of occasions done
just that and not reported to ATC when I began a pilot-discretion descent,
with no complaint from anyone.

Has anyone here ever acknowledged a pilot discretion clearance and then
started a descent at some later point and received a complaint from ATC that
a second report was needed prior to beginning a descent?


--
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...

> I can certainly descend to an intermediate altitude on a curise clearance,
then
> level off. But, "bob back up?" not me.

That is fine if you choose not to do so, but the AIM is very clear that such
"bobbing back up" is permissible.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Greg Esres]

<<with no complaint from anyone.>>

I suspect the lack of complaint from ATC is no indication that ATC is
pleased with a pilot's behavior. Probably for the same reason that I
no longer chastise people for improper pattern behavior: The supply
of knuckleheads is inexhaustable, and trying to educate them is like
trying to drain the ocean using a thimble.

[Jim Baker]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
> "Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You can descend from 7000' to 3000' whenever you're ready, but
> > you need to report when you do. You would report leaving 7000'
>
> Where is it written that any report is needed other than the initial
> acknowledgment of the pilot discretion clearance? I would maintain that
> acknowledging the pilot discretion clearance satisfies the requirement to
> report leaving the altitude. In fact, I have on a number of occasions
done
> just that and not reported to ATC when I began a pilot-discretion descent,
> with no complaint from anyone.
>
> Has anyone here ever acknowledged a pilot discretion clearance and then
> started a descent at some later point and received a complaint from ATC
that
> a second report was needed prior to beginning a descent?
>
>
> --
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

No. That is what the black letters all in a row that translate to "pilot
discretion" mean. I've done hundreds of them in small aircraft and heavy
(450,000+ lbs).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suspect the lack of complaint from ATC is no indication that ATC is
> pleased with a pilot's behavior.
>

Why would that behavior displease ATC?

[[email protected]]

>
>
> No. That is what the black letters all in a row that translate to "pilot
> discretion" mean. I've done hundreds of them in small aircraft and heavy
> (450,000+ lbs).

I have a similar background. When I was flying the air carrier aircraft, the
company I worked for had as policy that its crews would report leaving a
previously assigned altitude, whether PD or not.

There reasoning was it removed any possibility of ambiguity.

When there are two options, and there is any doubt as to which is right (or
wrong) exercise the option that has the least cost if wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> I have a similar background. When I was flying the air carrier aircraft,
> the company I worked for had as policy that its crews would report
> leaving a previously assigned altitude, whether PD or not.
>
> There reasoning was it removed any possibility of ambiguity.
>

Where was ambiguity possible?


>
> When there are two options, and there is any doubt as to which is
> right (or wrong) exercise the option that has the least cost if wrong.
>

What is the cost?

[Teacherjh]

Well, lets ask the controllers here (rather than AIM, which we all have access
to). On a cruise clearance, for example Cruise 6000, you observe (mode C) an
aircraft has descended from 6000 to 4000. There is another aircraft which
could use the 6000 altitude. You've received no communications from the
aircraft on a cruise (except the acknowlegement of the clearance). Do you
consider the 6000 foot alititude vacant?

Same question, but the cruise aircraft has reported descending to 4000. Has
his report of a descent vacated the 6000 foot altitude? (no bobbing back up)

Same question, but instead of a cruise question, it's a "descend at pilot's
discretion to 2000". The pilot acknowleges the clearance, and later is
observed at 4000 feet, having not reported the descent.

Same question, same airplane, but in this case the pilot reported descending
from 6000 to 4000.

So, in which cases does 6000 no longer belong to the pilot, in your eyes and
actions?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Greg Esres]

<<Why would that behavior displease ATC?>>

I didn't say it would. I just said the lack of complaint is no
indication either way.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, lets ask the controllers here (rather than AIM, which we all have
> access to). On a cruise clearance, for example Cruise 6000, you
> observe (mode C) an aircraft has descended from 6000 to 4000.
> There is another aircraft which could use the 6000 altitude. You've
> received no communications from the aircraft on a cruise (except the
> acknowlegement of the clearance). Do you consider the 6000 foot
> alititude vacant?
>

No, the aircraft is entitled to climb back to 6000 if so desired. 6000
becomes available when the aircraft verbally reports leaving 5000.


>
> Same question, but the cruise aircraft has reported descending to 4000. >
Has his report of a descent vacated the 6000 foot altitude? (no
> bobbing back up)
>

No, a pilot may not return to an altitude that he's verbally reported
leaving, verbally reporting that he's descending to an intermediate altitude
does nothing.


>
> Same question, but instead of a cruise question, it's a "descend at
pilot's
> discretion to 2000". The pilot acknowleges the clearance, and later is
> observed at 4000 feet, having not reported the descent.
>

5000 and 6000 are now available for other aircraft.


>
> Same question, same airplane, but in this case the pilot reported
> descending from 6000 to 4000.
>

No change.

[Jim Baker]

> wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > No. That is what the black letters all in a row that translate to
"pilot
> > discretion" mean. I've done hundreds of them in small aircraft and
heavy
> > (450,000+ lbs).
>
> I have a similar background. When I was flying the air carrier aircraft,
the
> company I worked for had as policy that its crews would report leaving a
> previously assigned altitude, whether PD or not.
>
> There reasoning was it removed any possibility of ambiguity.
>
> When there are two options, and there is any doubt as to which is right
(or
> wrong) exercise the option that has the least cost if wrong.
>
I agree Sammy. I was just responding to Richard's question about whether
I'd ever received a "complaint" from ATC by starting a PD a few minutes
after receiving it wtihout notifying the controller. I usually did make a
brief "XYZ departing 190" call for precisely the reason you're speaking
about. But when I didn't, due to radio congestion, I never had any
controlling agency ask why.

JB

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't say it would. I just said the lack of complaint is no
> indication either way.
>

And I didn't say that you said it would. Let me rephrase the question, how
could the pilot's behavior, that is, not reporting leaving a previously
assigned altitude on a discretionary descent, possibly displease ATC?

[Jim Baker]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > I have a similar background. When I was flying the air carrier
aircraft,
> > the company I worked for had as policy that its crews would report
> > leaving a previously assigned altitude, whether PD or not.
> >
> > There reasoning was it removed any possibility of ambiguity.
> >
>
> Where was ambiguity possible?
>
In the real world to which most of us belong, ambiguity is not just
possible, it is likely. Busy people doing somewhat stressful work forget
things all the time.

> >
> > When there are two options, and there is any doubt as to which is
> > right (or wrong) exercise the option that has the least cost if wrong.
> >
>
> What is the cost?
>
What is the cost to you as a controller in responding "copy" or whatever
(whatever can = no response at all) to a call of "XYZ departing FLABC",
especially if the radio is not busy? I know the cost to me as the pilot is
a nagging uncertainty that the controller isn't paying full attention,
doesn't know I've started, and will run someone into me. Silly? Unlikely?
Very probably so. But what is the cost for the above radio exchange and my
peace of mind? You (generic) being ****y because I gave you some info on an
otherwise clear radio freq? I can live with that.

JB

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the real world to which most of us belong, ambiguity is not just
> possible, it is likely. Busy people doing somewhat stressful work forget
> things all the time.
>

Swell, but where is ambiguity possible?


>
> What is the cost to you as a controller in responding "copy" or whatever
> (whatever can = no response at all) to a call of "XYZ departing
> FLABC", especially if the radio is not busy?
>

None. So what is the cost of not reporting?


>
> I know the cost to me as the pilot is
> a nagging uncertainty that the controller isn't paying full attention,
> doesn't know I've started, and will run someone into me. Silly?
> Unlikely? Very probably so. But what is the cost for the above radio
> exchange and my peace of mind?
>

How does that give you peace of mind?


>
> You (generic) being ****y because I gave you some info on an
> otherwise clear radio freq? I can live with that.
>

Me be ****y?

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>
> Where was ambiguity possible?

More than once at my airline a PD descent clearance was issued, then a handoff
subsequently made to another sector. The receiving controller did not know
about the PD clearance.

>
>
> >
> > When there are two options, and there is any doubt as to which is
> > right (or wrong) exercise the option that has the least cost if wrong.
> >
>
> What is the cost?

See first answer above.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> More than once at my airline a PD descent clearance was issued, then
> a handoff subsequently made to another sector. The receiving
> controller did not know about the PD clearance.
>

But where's the ambiguity?


>
> See first answer above.
>

It's not answered above.

[John R. Copeland]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message =
...
> Well, lets ask the controllers here (rather than AIM, which we all =
have access
> to). On a cruise clearance, for example Cruise 6000, you observe =
(mode C) an
> aircraft has descended from 6000 to 4000. There is another aircraft =
which
> could use the 6000 altitude. You've received no communications from =
the
> aircraft on a cruise (except the acknowlegement of the clearance). Do =
you
> consider the 6000 foot alititude vacant?
>=20
> Same question, but the cruise aircraft has reported descending to =
4000. Has
> his report of a descent vacated the 6000 foot altitude? (no bobbing =
back up)
>=20
> Same question, but instead of a cruise question, it's a "descend at =
pilot's
> discretion to 2000". The pilot acknowleges the clearance, and later =
is
> observed at 4000 feet, having not reported the descent.
>=20
> Same question, same airplane, but in this case the pilot reported =
descending
> from 6000 to 4000.
>=20
> So, in which cases does 6000 no longer belong to the pilot, in your =
eyes and
> actions?
>=20
> Jose
>=20
>
In my experience, if the controller needs an altitude I will be =
vacating,
I'll either not get a Pilot's Discretion descent, or else I'll get a =
request to
"Report leaving <altitude or flight level>".
I like it that way. There's less opportunity to misconstrue intentions.
---JRC---

[Greg Esres]

<<And I didn't say that you said it would. >>

Ok, as long as we're clear on that. ;-)

<<Let me rephrase the question, how could the pilot's behavior, that
is, not reporting leaving a previously assigned altitude on a
discretionary descent, possibly displease ATC?>>

The only possible thing that I could think of is that if ATC were
waiting to assign that altitude to another aircraft. However, I would
think that ATC would not assign a discretionary descent if that were
the case.

So, the net result is that I can't think of one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only possible thing that I could think of is that if ATC were
> waiting to assign that altitude to another aircraft. However, I would
> think that ATC would not assign a discretionary descent if that were
> the case.
>

Exactly. If the controller needed ten thousand for another aircraft, he
might issue "descend now to niner thousand, then descend at pilot's
discretion maintain four thousand" instead of "descend at pilot's
discretion,
maintain four thousand".

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > More than once at my airline a PD descent clearance was issued, then
> > a handoff subsequently made to another sector. The receiving
> > controller did not know about the PD clearance.
> >
>
> But where's the ambiguity?
>
> >
> > See first answer above.
> >
>
> It's not answered above.

Whatever.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jim Baker wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>I have a similar background. When I was flying the air carrier
>>
> aircraft,
>
>>>the company I worked for had as policy that its crews would report
>>>leaving a previously assigned altitude, whether PD or not.
>>>
>>>There reasoning was it removed any possibility of ambiguity.
>>>
>>
>>Where was ambiguity possible?
>>
>
> In the real world to which most of us belong, ambiguity is not just
> possible, it is likely. Busy people doing somewhat stressful work forget
> things all the time.

I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
What do you think is ambiguous about it?

Matt

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
> It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
> What do you think is ambiguous about it?
>
> Matt

The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the context of a
PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.

[Jim Baker]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> > I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
> > It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
> > What do you think is ambiguous about it?
> >
> > Matt
>
> The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the context
of a
> PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.

Correct. That is what I was referring to.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
>>It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
>>What do you think is ambiguous about it?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the context of a
> PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.
>

Yes, it did seem to switch gears. However, neither is ambiguous, so I'm
still curious to see an example of ambiguity.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jim Baker wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
>>>It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
>>>What do you think is ambiguous about it?
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the context
>
> of a
>
>>PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.
>
>
> Correct. That is what I was referring to.
>
>

Ok ... so where's the ambiguity in a PD clearance?


Matt

[Jim Baker]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Baker wrote:
> > > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>
> >>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
> >>>It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
> >>>What do you think is ambiguous about it?
> >>>
> >>>Matt
> >>
> >>The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the
context
> >
> > of a
> >
> >>PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.
> >
> >
> > Correct. That is what I was referring to.
> >
> >
>
> Ok ... so where's the ambiguity in a PD clearance?
>
>
> Matt

OK, I looked up the word "ambiguity" in the dictionary (online) and the
second def is "uncertainty". Without rereading all the threads, I believe
the point Sammy and I were trying to make is that, through our years of
flying, we've found that sometimes controllers make mistakes, as do pilots.
With ref to PD, we have found that occassionally if a PD isn't started
pretty soon after it's been issued, a controller can forget he issued it,
change shifts or stations and not give a good briefing, or whatever. I have
been asked, a few times, several minutes after being issued a PD and prior
to starting down, if I have started it yet. This while above FL180. This
query from ATC caused uncertainty, some might say ambiguity, in my mind
because I believed he was tracking my altitude. Perhaps he was just being
polite and was telling me to get my ass down, dunno. At any rate, I'm of
the opinion, through 30+ years of flying in the U.S. and Central/South
America, that communication with ATC is good. Therefore, if I don't start a
PD immediately after it's been issued, I remove the uncertainty from my
mind, and possibly from the controllers mind ("have you started yet?"), by
making a short radio transmission on an uncongested frequency. I don't
think it costs the controllers anything to hear this, and it provides me
comfort knowing I've alerted the controller to what I'm doing.

That's it. No more discussion from me on such a trivial point. I want to
do it, it doesn't violate anything, it makes me feel that things are safer,
and, speaking for Sammy (perhaps I shouldn't), that's the end of the
conversation on this silly subthread.

JB
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jim Baker wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jim Baker wrote:
>>
> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
>>>>>It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not ambiguous.
>>>>>What do you think is ambiguous about it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt
>>>>
>>>>The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the
>>>
> context
>
>>>of a
>>>
>>>
>>>>PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct. That is what I was referring to.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ok ... so where's the ambiguity in a PD clearance?
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> OK, I looked up the word "ambiguity" in the dictionary (online) and the
> second def is "uncertainty". Without rereading all the threads, I believe
> the point Sammy and I were trying to make is that, through our years of
> flying, we've found that sometimes controllers make mistakes, as do pilots.
> With ref to PD, we have found that occassionally if a PD isn't started
> pretty soon after it's been issued, a controller can forget he issued it,
> change shifts or stations and not give a good briefing, or whatever. I have
> been asked, a few times, several minutes after being issued a PD and prior
> to starting down, if I have started it yet. This while above FL180. This
> query from ATC caused uncertainty, some might say ambiguity, in my mind
> because I believed he was tracking my altitude. Perhaps he was just being
> polite and was telling me to get my ass down, dunno. At any rate, I'm of
> the opinion, through 30+ years of flying in the U.S. and Central/South
> America, that communication with ATC is good. Therefore, if I don't start a
> PD immediately after it's been issued, I remove the uncertainty from my
> mind, and possibly from the controllers mind ("have you started yet?"), by
> making a short radio transmission on an uncongested frequency. I don't
> think it costs the controllers anything to hear this, and it provides me
> comfort knowing I've alerted the controller to what I'm doing.

OK, ambiguity in your mind isn't the same, however, as ambiguity in the
procedure. Whenever anyone makes a mistake, be it pilot or controller,
you have introduced lots of uncertainty, but that isn't the same as
having an uncertain procedure.


Matt

[Jim Baker]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Baker wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Jim Baker wrote:
> >>
> > wrote in message
...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think his point is that a cruise clearance is simply not ambiguous.
> >>>>>It is spelled out very clearly and the rules are clear, not
ambiguous.
> >>>>>What do you think is ambiguous about it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Matt
> >>>>
> >>>>The thread is getting mature, but I believe "ambiguous" was in the
> >>>
> > context
> >
> >>>of a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>PD clearance, not a cruise clearance.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Correct. That is what I was referring to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ok ... so where's the ambiguity in a PD clearance?
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > OK, I looked up the word "ambiguity" in the dictionary (online) and the
> > second def is "uncertainty". Without rereading all the threads, I
believe
> > the point Sammy and I were trying to make is that, through our years of
> > flying, we've found that sometimes controllers make mistakes, as do
pilots.
> > With ref to PD, we have found that occassionally if a PD isn't started
> > pretty soon after it's been issued, a controller can forget he issued
it,
> > change shifts or stations and not give a good briefing, or whatever. I
have
> > been asked, a few times, several minutes after being issued a PD and
prior
> > to starting down, if I have started it yet. This while above FL180.
This
> > query from ATC caused uncertainty, some might say ambiguity, in my mind
> > because I believed he was tracking my altitude. Perhaps he was just
being
> > polite and was telling me to get my ass down, dunno. At any rate, I'm
of
> > the opinion, through 30+ years of flying in the U.S. and Central/South
> > America, that communication with ATC is good. Therefore, if I don't
start a
> > PD immediately after it's been issued, I remove the uncertainty from my
> > mind, and possibly from the controllers mind ("have you started yet?"),
by
> > making a short radio transmission on an uncongested frequency. I don't
> > think it costs the controllers anything to hear this, and it provides me
> > comfort knowing I've alerted the controller to what I'm doing.
>
> OK, ambiguity in your mind isn't the same, however, as ambiguity in the
> procedure. Whenever anyone makes a mistake, be it pilot or controller,
> you have introduced lots of uncertainty, but that isn't the same as
> having an uncertain procedure.
>
>
> Matt

That couldn't be more obvious. I never was speaking to an ambiguous
procedure. I believe we were speaking (the thread is) about radio calls
removing uncertainty and the "cost" of doing business in that manner.

JB

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...>

> That's it. No more discussion from me on such a trivial point. I want to
> do it, it doesn't violate anything, it makes me feel that things are
safer,

I think that is all just fine as a practice. A good bit of the discussion
in this thread, however, suggested that such a repeat call to ATC when
beginning a delayed PD descent was *required* -- it is not required, but
yes, it is acceptable practice if you prefer to do things that way.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com