Unclear Clearance

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1132165254.489969@sj-nntpcache-3...

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


I'd call those clearances implicitly discretionary. I'd call a clearance
that included "descend at pilot's discretion" explicitly discretionary.



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.


The controller didn't amend the clearance, she just verified that descent
was at pilot's discretion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1132165254.489969@sj-nntpcache-3...

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



I'd call those clearances implicitly discretionary. I'd call a clearance
that included "descend at pilot's discretion" explicitly discretionary.

OK, suit yourself.

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.



The controller didn't amend the clearance, she just verified that descent
was at pilot's discretion.

The clearance as originally stated was not for a discretionary descent. It's not
what's in the controller's head that counts, it's what she says. When she
"verified" that that the descent was to be discretionary, she was in effect
changing the clearance. That may not have been the controller's intention, but
that's what a pilot receiving the clearance should infer.

Dave, out.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1133385648.868087@sj-nntpcache-3...

OK, suit yourself.


No, you suit yourself, I'll adhere to the established definitions.



The clearance as originally stated was not for a discretionary descent.
It's not what's in the controller's head that counts, it's what she says.
When she "verified" that that the descent was to be discretionary, she was
in effect changing the clearance. That may not have been the controller's
intention, but that's what a pilot receiving the clearance should infer.


As I said previously, the controller used nonstandard phraseology. The
controller from the start intended for the descent to be at pilot's
discretion, she verified that it was when the pilot asked for clarification.
The clearance was not amended.

As I said previously, the controller used nonstandard phraseology. The
controller from the start intended for the descent to be at pilot's
discretion, she verified that it was when the pilot asked for clarification.
The clearance was not amended.

IF the controller intends to say "turn heading 270 intercept the
localizer" but instead actually says "turn heading 170 intercept the
localizer" and the pilot, sensing that 170 is not an approprite heading
and that 270 is probably what was intended, asks "confirm heading 270,
straight west" and the controller says "affermative, heading 270
intercept the localizer", was the clearance amended?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

IF the controller intends to say "turn heading 270 intercept the
localizer" but instead actually says "turn heading 170 intercept the
localizer" and the pilot, sensing that 170 is not an approprite heading
and that 270 is probably what was intended, asks "confirm heading 270,
straight west" and the controller says "affermative, heading 270 intercept
the localizer", was the clearance amended?


Yes.

IF the controller intends to say "turn heading 270 intercept the
localizer" but instead actually says "turn heading 170 intercept the
localizer" and the pilot, sensing that 170 is not an approprite heading
and that 270 is probably what was intended, asks "confirm heading 270,
straight west" and the controller says "affermative, heading 270 intercept
the localizer", was the clearance amended?

Yes.

It is in that sense that the OP (I think - it's an old thread I'm not
going to dig up) had used the word "amended", and you claimed that it
did not count as an amended clearance. The two situations are quite
parallel.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

It is in that sense that the OP (I think - it's an old thread I'm not
going to dig up) had used the word "amended", and you claimed that it did
not count as an amended clearance. The two situations are quite parallel.


There is no similarity.