If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
ALTRAK pitch system flight report | optics student | Home Built | 2 | September 21st 03 11:49 PM |