Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1132150865.836980@sj-nntpcache-5...

What was unclear about it?



Well, the controller thought it was discretionary. That you and she
disagree tends to indicate it's not clear.

OK.




I'd never infer discretionary descent unless it was explicitly stated by
the controller.



The controller does not have to state "descend at pilot's discretion" in
order for the descent to be discretionary. A descent clearance with a
crossing restriction is a discretionary descent. A cruise clearance to an
airport without an IAP is a discretionary descent.

OK, agreed. I'd call those clearances explicitly discretionary.




I'd say the clearance
unambiguously required vacating 7000 (before amendment).



What amendment? The pilot asked the controller to verify that the descent
was at pilot's discretion and the controller responded in the affirmative.

Yes, exactly. The clearance as originally stated was not for a discretionary
descent. By responding "right" to the pilots question, the controller amended
the clearance and simultaneously demonstrated lack of understanding of the way
clearances are stated. But OK, I see your point.