Unclear Clearance

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.

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...
* Ron Rosenfeld :
Hm... interesting. "optimum rate consistent with the operating
characteristics of the aircraft". This is fuzzy.

Nothing wrong with giving the pilot discretion over the rate of descent.
However, there is a requirement to notify ATC if climb/descent rates
will
be less than 500 fpm.

OK, that makes sense. Never heard of that requirement yet, thanks for
that. Will check our regulations here about comparable requirements.

You seem to be defining "optimum" as equivalent to "economic". I see no
such implication in the US.

Well, what other interpretations of "optimum rate of descend" would
you have in mind? If they didn't have anything specific in mind, they
could have written "any rate consistent with the operating
characteristics". Which would be kinda superfluous as you should never
climb/descend with a rate not being consistent with the operating
characteristics.

I believe FAAO 7110.183 has all the performance expectations for various
aircraft from ATC's perspective. Good luck finding it.. I have a 6 year old
version and cant find it online right now.




--
Mike Teague - Vancouver WA, USA
-- Opie and Anthony - XM202 - O&A Party Rock!
-- Phil Hendrie = Radio Genius

"Mike Teague" wrote in message
news
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...
* Ron Rosenfeld :
Hm... interesting. "optimum rate consistent with the operating
characteristics of the aircraft". This is fuzzy.

Nothing wrong with giving the pilot discretion over the rate of
descent.
However, there is a requirement to notify ATC if climb/descent rates
will
be less than 500 fpm.

OK, that makes sense. Never heard of that requirement yet, thanks for
that. Will check our regulations here about comparable requirements.

You seem to be defining "optimum" as equivalent to "economic". I see
no
such implication in the US.

Well, what other interpretations of "optimum rate of descend" would
you have in mind? If they didn't have anything specific in mind, they
could have written "any rate consistent with the operating
characteristics". Which would be kinda superfluous as you should never
climb/descend with a rate not being consistent with the operating
characteristics.

I believe FAAO 7110.183 has all the performance expectations for various
aircraft from ATC's perspective. Good luck finding it.. I have a 6 year
old
version and cant find it online right now.



Ahh, I found it, sorry, it's now appendix A in the 7110.65.

--
Mike Teague - Vancouver WA, USA
-- Opie and Anthony - XM202 - O&A Party Rock!
-- Phil Hendrie = Radio Genius

Mike Teague wrote:
"Mike Teague" wrote in message
news
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...
* Ron Rosenfeld :
Hm... interesting. "optimum rate consistent with the operating
characteristics of the aircraft". This is fuzzy.

Nothing wrong with giving the pilot discretion over the rate of
descent.
However, there is a requirement to notify ATC if climb/descent rates
will
be less than 500 fpm.

OK, that makes sense. Never heard of that requirement yet, thanks for
that. Will check our regulations here about comparable requirements.

You seem to be defining "optimum" as equivalent to "economic". I see
no
such implication in the US.

Well, what other interpretations of "optimum rate of descend" would
you have in mind? If they didn't have anything specific in mind, they
could have written "any rate consistent with the operating
characteristics". Which would be kinda superfluous as you should never
climb/descend with a rate not being consistent with the operating
characteristics.

I believe FAAO 7110.183 has all the performance expectations for various
aircraft from ATC's perspective. Good luck finding it.. I have a 6 year
old
version and cant find it online right now.



Ahh, I found it, sorry, it's now appendix A in the 7110.65.

--
Mike Teague - Vancouver WA, USA
-- Opie and Anthony - XM202 - O&A Party Rock!
-- Phil Hendrie = Radio Genius
You like Phil Hendrie too?

"Herb Sewell" wrote in message
oups.com...

You like Phil Hendrie too?



obviously.. heard from walter bellhaven lately? I hear he is doing lectures
on botany in the day-room these days


--
Mike Teague - Vancouver WA, USA
-- Opie and Anthony - XM202 - O&A Party Rock!
-- Phil Hendrie = Radio Genius

"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.