Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Capt.Doug,

OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?

Sounds professional.


Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Which airline do you fly for, again?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Let's split hairs- I am aware of the Flying Tigers' accident. However,
'four' followed by 'twelve' is hard to confuse. 'four one two thousand'
doesn't make sense either. Professionals are admonished to be concise and
efficient in their transmissions. In that sense, and because Maniac did say
that he was already issued the crossing restriction, "Leaving FL290" would
be better.

D.

Capt.Doug writes:

MCP = max continuous power?

Mode Control Panel--the gadgets on the glare shield that control the
autopilot. So I set the ALT HOLD parameter on that to prevent the FMS
from going below a certain altitude on its own.

The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

Up to now, I've been setting the altitude above my cruise for the
climb, and then below the airfield for my descent, thus preventing it
from ever limiting the FMS. But it now appears that I should be using
it to make sure I don't overstep any ATC instructions. So if they say
climb and maintain 5000, I set 5000 until I get new instructions, thus
preventing the FMS from taking me all the way to cruise altitude
before I've been cleared for it.

I note, however, that I'm often cleared for a higher altitude before
reaching the previously cleared altitude, so sometimes I just keep a
hand near the altitude setting on the MCP, ready to adjust it if I
have to, while letting the FMC do its thing.

A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
before everyone hits the arrival's gate.

The quality of controllers in simulation is quite variable, but the
good ones are just as good as real controllers (sometimes they _are_
real controllers, who, for some reason, like to simulate their work
when they aren't doing it for real--I guess some people really like
their jobs).

The most common is a clearance to cross a fix at an assigned altitude
(crossing restriction). Say for example you are cruising at FL290 and the
controller isues you a clearance to cross a fix at 12000'. It is your
perogative as to when to start your descent so long as you cross the fix at
the assigned altitude.

OK, I've had those. I'll remember to treat them as an implicit
clearance to descend or climb to the specified altitude at my
discretion.

During the climb, ATC sees the final altitude we requested on our flight
plan. They try to get us up there, traffic permitting. After that we request
from ATC any altitude changes we want and they work us to that altitude,
traffic permitting.

Do you often need a different altitude from the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

"DESCEND via the Korry 3"

Ah ... see, I would have interpreted that as more restrictive, i.e.,
meaning that I should change altitudes but that my heading should not
change. I guess it's the other way around. And I suppose it doesn't
make much sense that you'd be cleared to descend via the STAR and yet
not be cleared to follow it laterally, now that I think more about it.

No, because seperation wasn't lost.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

Sounds professional.

Cool. Now if I can just say it with a Texas drawl.

In the IFR world, altitude is all important. There are crossing restrictions
and block altitudes, but most of the time we follow

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

In the real world we usually follow the arrival procedures with the
altitudes as published. When flying the big jets, just remember that you
will need 3 miles for every 1000' you want to descend plus another 5 miles
to slow for the 250 knot speed restriction at 10000'.

I have discovered that it's much harder to move large jets towards the
ground than it is to move them towards the sky.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message Do you often need a different altitude from
the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

Often times our actual weight will be slightly different from the flight
planned weight requiring 2000' up or down for fuel optimization. Turbulence
is another reason to change altitudes, sometimes 10000' or more. A 2000'
change in altitude usually doesn't make enough difference in headwinds to
justify the increased fuel burn of changing altitudes. Sometimes we are just
plain stuck at an inefficient altitude because of same direction traffic.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

Along the lines of 'Now you know- don't do it again".

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

D.

Capt.Doug wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?


MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

Mode Control Panel

Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Gus
EGYC

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.

So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
a fix in the arrival procedure)

Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
descent part still has me a bit confused.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gus Cabre writes:

Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.

However, I use the PMDG 737-800 add-on aircraft, which is equipped
like the real thing (practically a different world as compared to the
default 737 in the simulator). I also use the Dreamfleet Baron 58
add-on, which, again, is also in a category of its own. Both are
renowned for their uncompromising realism with respect to the real
aircraft.

I also have a separate joystick and throttle, and rudder pedals.
Anything fancier is hard to justify at this time.

I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

How do you know?

Judah writes:

How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.