Procedure debate

[ksu_aviator]

“climb at pilot’s discretion” in the altitude information
of an ATC clearance, it means that you have the option
to start a climb when you wish, that you are authorized
to climb at any rate, and to temporarily level off at any
intermediate altitude as desired, although once you​

vacate an altitude, you may not return to that altitude.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/CH-03.pdf

So if we accept that vacating an altitude is a required report, than the argument that you own the altitude is invalid. In the climb or decent, once you leave an altitude you can not return without a clearance.

 

[dhc8fo]

Because when you acknowledge the clearance, you are no longer flying at an assigned altitude.

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, but just like the original question, WHERE do you see THAT written?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Not to be an azz either, but where do you guys find that just acknowledging the clearance suffices as the report?

Why wouldn't it!

You rec'd a clearance to descend and you acknowledged it. Done.

You can interpret the AIM all day, somewhere common sense has to apply.

Meanwhile, if you are still afraid to descend when cleared, just keep asking.

Id like to hear of any case where someone was questioned for descending without a courtesy call once CLEARED lower, PD or not.

whatever makes ya comfy. No big deal.

 

[K.V.]

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, but just like the original question, WHERE do you see THAT written?

See what written?? That when you accept a new clearance you are no longer on your old clearance?

 

[Tristar]

Why wouldn't it!

You rec'd a clearance to descend and you acknowledged it. Done.

You can interpret the AIM all day, somewhere common sense has to apply.

Meanwhile, if you are still afraid to descend when cleared, just keep asking.

Id like to hear of any case where someone was questioned for descending without a courtesy call once CLEARED lower, PD or not.

whatever makes ya comfy. No big deal.

I've always taken it that this is EXACTLY the scenario when you would need to report vacating your last assigned altitude. Regarding common sense, under normal circumstances when would you ever leave your last assigned altitude without receiving and acknowledging the new clearance? If simply acknowledging the clearance covers is, why is that paragraph even in the AIM? There must be some reason for it to be there.

 

[K.V.]

I've always taken it that this is EXACTLY the scenario when you would need to report vacating your last assigned altitude. Regarding common sense, under normal circumstances when would you ever leave your last assigned altitude without receiving and acknowledging the new clearance? If simply acknowledging the clearance covers is, why is that paragraph even in the AIM? There must be some reason for it to be there.

Again, once you've accepted the PD clearance, the altitude you're flying at is no longer you last assigned altitude. From that point forward your last assigned altitude is the one the controller cleared you to descend to.

 

[GravityHater]

You know what, I am going to ask a controller what they expect, next flight and report back! In fact I will ask several different ones (I get a PD every flight)
K.V. I hear about these aim busts on various forums but do not have the resources to find a reference right now..can anyone else confirm?

 

[K.V.]

Regarding common sense, under normal circumstances when would you ever leave your last assigned altitude without receiving and acknowledging the new clearance?

How about if for whatever reason you are unable to maintain your last assigned altitude, ie. temperature inversion, turbulence, mountain wave, ect. Albeit that's not exactly a 'normal circumstance', but does it need to be?

You know what, I am going to ask a controller what they expect, next flight and report back! In fact I will ask several different ones (I get a PD every flight)
K.V. I hear about these aim busts on various forums but do not have the resources to find a reference right now..can anyone else confirm?

You just don't want to let go of that beer do you?

 

[waka]

In this case a 'vacating' call would be redundant and for that matter, not required.

When a controler gives you a PD clearance and you accept it, at that time you've accepted the entire clearance limit for that block altitude. Also, by accepting the PD clearance you have vacated the previosly assigned altitude. You are no longer flying at that assigned altitude and are now opperating in the block altitude.

That's not true and it doesn't even make sense.You have not vacated a previously assigned altitude until the airplane physically leaves that altitude.

 

[Booker]

If simply acknowledging the clearance covers is, why is that paragraph even in the AIM? There must be some reason for it to be there.

The only situation in which I've seen vacating calls used in a practical manner is when the controller is utilizing the latter option contained in 7110.65 5-5-5(b):

Assign an altitude to an aircraft after the aircraft previously at that altitude has been issued a climb/descent clearance and is observed (valid Mode C), or reports leaving the altitude.

Don Brown wrote that when you have a cluster of airplanes in a holding stack, it's difficult to observe a particular target's mode C readout, so when you release an airplane out of the pattern and then downshift everyone, it's quicker to assign each airplane a lower altitude if they all just report vacating their assigned altitudes, rather than waiting and trying to see each data block show the descent. Or something like that.

No, this doesn't have anything to do with the OP's question. Sorry.

 

[ksu_aviator]

See what written?? That when you accept a new clearance you are no longer on your old clearance?

Well, not exactly true. With "Pilot's Discretion" you are cleared to fly the new clearance when ever you like. You are still cleared to fly at your current altitude, you are also cleared to fly at any altitude between your present altitude and the assigned altitude.

Do you have to report leaving the altitude? Yes. In fact, you are supposed to report leaving an altitude on any altitude change (while not on an approach). I don't personally do it because it seems to me that if you accept the clearance the logical conclusion is that you are vacating your previous altitude, but I have heard plenty of pilots make the report.

As for finding it in the FARs, you won't. Here's why. They don't create a regulation for every procedural aspect of flight. There's no regulation that says you have to put the gear down...is there? No. Some of that stuff just has to be assumed and if you do do something stupid like leaving the gear up on landing, they've always got the catch all 91.13 Careless and Reckless Operation.

Back to "Pilot's Discretion" for a moment. Reporting leaving your first altitude is required. Also, should you level off at some altitude in between, reporting leaving that altitude is required as well. It is in the AIM, it is required and it can be a violation (though probably won't be unless you cause a serious problem and the FAA has nothing else on you).

 

[waka]

Originally Posted by GravityHater
BUT some say the FAA has busted people for what IS in the AIM

I'm going to have to throw the BS card down on this one man.

I'm going to have to trump your BS card with my BS flag. The FAA can and has indeed violated pilots for not following the AIM. The reg is 91.13, Careless and reckless operation. This one covers most of what is not actually written. Also, what if a pilot is involved in a civil suit and the case was related to a pilot not following the "recommendations", in the AIM? Do you think that the defendant would win the judge's heart because he testifies, "uh, well, I figured that the AIM is not regulatory"?

I'm not saying that one would get violated for not giving a courtesy call that you're vacating an altitude. However, GravityHater's point stands.

 

[K.V.]

When a controler gives you a PD clearance and you accept it, at that time you've accepted the entire clearance limit for that block altitude. Also, by accepting the PD clearance you have vacated the previosly assigned altitude. You are no longer flying at that assigned altitude and are now opperating in the block altitude.

That's not true and it doesn't even make sense.You have not vacated a previously assigned altitude until the airplane physically leaves that altitude.

I should have added the word 'clearance' to the end of that sentence. "by accepting the PD clearance you have vacated the previously assigned altitude clearance."

 

[K.V.]

Well, not exactly true. With "Pilot's Discretion" you are cleared to fly the new clearance when ever you like. You are still cleared to fly at your current altitude, you are also cleared to fly at any altitude between your present altitude and the assigned altitude.

Do you have to report leaving the altitude? Yes. In fact, you are supposed to report leaving an altitude on any altitude change (while not on an approach). I don't personally do it because it seems to me that if you accept the clearance the logical conclusion is that you are vacating your previous altitude, but I have heard plenty of pilots make the report.


Back to "Pilot's Discretion" for a moment. Reporting leaving your first altitude is required. Also, should you level off at some altitude in between, reporting leaving that altitude is required as well. It is in the AIM, it is required and it can be a violation (though probably won't be unless you cause a serious problem and the FAA has nothing else on you).

Where in the AIM does it say that you should report leaving every altitude you level off at?? You just made that up!

 

[SSDD]

Acknowledging a PD clearance is not the same as vacating the altitude. This comes up every once in a while, and the pilot community is split on either side of the issued. The thread will go 5 or 6 pages and neither group will convince the other.

BTW, I think it is a required call, but that's just me.

 

[Booker]

This comes up every once in a while, and the pilot community is split on either side of the issued. The thread will go 5 or 6 pages and neither group will convince the other.

Agreed. Luckily for me, it's in my ops manual, nice and neat, that I have to report vacating. Problem solved.

 

[SDCFI]

Think about it from an operational perspective. You're level at FL350 with discretion to FL230. ATC cannot assign another aircraft FL350 or below that would cause a loss of separation with your aircraft. You begin your descent and notify ATC. They now know FL350 is available for other aircraft in the vicinity, and it's for this reason you cannot return to FL350 whether you reported leaving it or not. By making it a pilot initiated call ATC does not have to constantly monitor an aircraft with a discretionary climb/descent to figure out when they have started it, thus relieving their workload. At least that's what I believe the intention is, whether or not it works that way in the real world I have no idea.

As far as it being regulatory I would argue no, in that if there was a fed on the jumpseat and you failed to report leaving an altitude would you expect a violation? I wouldn't. OTOH though, if you didn't and a loss of separation resulted that would have been noticed had you made the report I would expect an investigation even if the error was made by ATC.

 

[BoilerUP]

Short of getting a Chief Counsel interpretation letter with a definitive answer, the OP and his colleague could always just buy each other a beer...

 

[Fly91]

Not required. By getting PD the airspace is totally clear from your current altitude down to where they cleared you to go in the PD clearance. Like getting a block altitude to cruise in. If you wait too long to descend and traffic is getting closer ATC will call you and tell you to start down or cancel your PD clearance.

But you know how the FAA is......if a problem ever occurs in your PD descent and there's a traffic issue and you didn't call "leaving XXX altitude" they will use that to burn your azz. So just do it everytime.

 

[SSDD]

People who say the AIM is not regulatory, are like the people who say they don't have to pay income taxes because its not in the constitution. They get away with it for a while, but sooner or later they get busted.