Report Leaving Assigned Altitude?

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.

"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".

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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

"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

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