Vacating altitudes

[asolo]

Alright, did a search and came up with only one thread that answered only one of my questions a few pilots and I are arguing. According to AIM 5-3-3 you are supposed to "At all times report vacating a previously assigned altitude for a newly assigned altitude." By the thread I just read (by using the "search"), It sounds like everyone aggrees that you should report leaving your altitude when given a PD..right? How about a crossing restriction (i.e.-35 mi out at 10K)? Are you going to report that too? Logic would tell me yes, but I never have. I've always considered it courtious to the controller if I do though. What do you guys/gals think?

 

[avbug]

You're not required to report vacating the altitude on a PD, or when the clearance involves a crossing restriction. I generally do as it's a profesional courtesy, provided the frequency isn't too congested.

 

[dpilot83]

You're not required to report vacating the altitude on a PD, or when the clearance involves a crossing restriction. I generally do as it's a profesional courtesy, provided the frequency isn't too congested.

Reference?

 

[avbug]

The reference is that there is no reference. When you are not required to do something, you won't find a reference saying it's not required. The absence of any reference requiring you to do it is your reference.

There are, of course exceptions. On the initial call (such as changing control sectors or frequencies, you should include your actions such as descending, and the altitude you're vacating. A proper courtesy would be XXX Center, XXXY Five thousand, climbing one zero thousand. This includes all the relevant information.

The AIM provides guidance as to what you should do, vs. what you are required to do. It is not regulatory, but represents a collation of regulatory items and material from advisory circulars and and other official publications.

AIM5-3-1
2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:
(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

Skipping ahead, we visit AIM 5-3-3, which provides additional reports in addition to the initial call up specified above, and position reporting in a non-radar environment. Again, frequency congestion determines w(h)eather these calls should be made. Tying up an already busy frequency with a courtesy call that you're vacating an assigned altitude when you're in radar contact and the controller can see you vacating the altitude is wasteful, discourteous, and a safety hazard.

AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
(b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance specifying VFR-on-top.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of a least 500 feet per minute.
(d) When approach has been missed. (Request clearance for specific action; i.e., to alternative airport, another approach, etc.)
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.
(f) The time and altitude or flight level upon reaching a holding fix or point to which cleared.
(g) When leaving any assigned holding fix or point.

This same laundry list will be found in Chapter 10 of the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15).

ATC may predicate altitude assignments under some circumstances upon reports of vacating an altitude. In such cases, timely and accurate reporting is important.

 

[dpilot83]

a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level.

That reference to me says that you should always report leaving your altitude with either PD or a crossing restriction, a habit I follow almost without exception. Examples of exceptions are like you say, when I hear the controller talking all the time and don't hear anyone that he's talking to, meaning he's probably working several sectors and the other ones are busy and I don't want to risk stepping on someone on another frequency.

However, if I can hear everyone that he's talking to I'll assume that he's only doing my sector and I'll use good judgment based on my awareness of what other guys are doing and when I think I can step in and say something without interfering even if it is busy. Sometimes though, it's just not practical period.

 

[nosehair]

Mee too. I have always understood that AIM reference to mean reporting leaving an altitude. Period. I don't see any conditions tacked on there, just a period. So, the comprehension of that statement is: at all times. There are no exceptions.

Now, since radar has taken the urgency out of these reports, ATC does not reprimand you for not doing it, and maybe they don't want you to bother them with this "unneeded" report, but, as I see it, it is still required.

And...since I know we all (me, and the controllers) make an occasional mistake, I consider it a safe practice to report when I vacate, especially on a PD.

 

[A Squared]

Now, since radar has taken the urgency out of these reports, ATC does not reprimand you for not doing it, and maybe they don't want you to bother them with this "unneeded" report, but, as I see it, it is still required.

Nope, this is a fallacy, radar has *not* taken the urgency out of it, and they do *not* view it as unneeded. Read Don Brown's columns on Avweb for a very good explanation of why it makes thier job harder if you skip it. these things are not always obvious from the pilot side of things, and assuming that it's not neede because they have us on radar is incorrect.

 

[ReverseSensing]

The AIM provides guidance as to what you should do, vs. what you are required to do. It is not regulatory, but represents a collation of regulatory items and material from advisory circulars and and other official publications.

I understand the distinction you're making, but I would like to know, in practice, if this argument has been persuasive to FSDO ops inspectors, administrative law judges, etc. I don't know.

I suspect, however, that practically speaking, if a failure to comply with the AIM "shoulds" resulted in an incident or accident, the evidence of your failure to comply with AIM guidance would bolster the "careless and reckless" case against you.

I just think too often we like to beat our chests about how the AIM isn't regulatory, which is true, but we are foolish to think we can't be violated for failure to comply with its guidance.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Is there a requirement or reference to advise controllers the aircrafts altitude when switching from one sector to another within the same facility.

For example, when Indy Center hands you off to another Indy center controller is a pilot required to state the aircrafts altitude?

Also, is there a difference between Center facilities and terminal facilities. IOW, is there a reference or a different one for terminal facilities.

 

[avbug]

Is there a requirement or reference to advise controllers the aircrafts altitude when switching from one sector to another within the same facility.

Handoffs should be reported, and when checking in, altitude should be part of that check-in. If switching controllers, the flight ID and altitude should always be stated. "Indy Center, BeeBop123 Flight Level Three Five Zero," or "Indy Center, BeeBop123 Flight Level Three Five Zero descending One Eight Zero."

AIM5-3-1
2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:
(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.

AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level.
(b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance specifying VFR-on-top.

I just think too often we like to beat our chests about how the AIM isn't regulatory, which is true, but we are foolish to think we can't be violated for failure to comply with its guidance.

I'm not beating my chest about anything. In a congested radio environment, particularly in a radar environment, announcing vacating an altitude only contributes to the congestion. If there's space between transmissions available to make the report, do it. If it's going to present a problem, don't. Simple.

 

[A Squared]

Is there a requirement or reference to advise controllers the aircrafts altitude when switching from one sector to another within the same facility.

For example, when Indy Center hands you off to another Indy center controller is a pilot required to state the aircrafts altitude?

Also, is there a difference between Center facilities and terminal facilities. IOW, is there a reference or a different one for terminal facilities.

I don't think so, but it's a little gray. As I understand it, you state your *exact" altitude on initial callup to each facility so the controller can compare your mode C readout to your stated altitude. Theoretically, subsequent sectors in the same facitility will be using the same radar equipment, which has already been cross checked with your stated altitude and readout. In reality, the Radar at any facility, especially a large ARTCC is a composite of input from a number of different antennae. I usually state my altitude any time I'm switched to a different controller.

 

[ReverseSensing]

I'm not beating my chest about anything.

I swear I don't know why I bother trying to play nice with you. It's utterly pointless.

 

[avbug]

Apparently because you're unable to stay on topic, and instead. Don't bother playing nice on my part. I have no idea what you're talking about...or how it applies to regulation...but whatever. Take your medication and have a nice day.

 

[ReverseSensing]

Apparently because you're unable to stay on topic, and instead.

You're the one who wandered off on the "AIM isn't regulatory" tangent, not me, jackass. I was just seeking clarification of your assumptions and claims.

Don't bother playing nice on my part.

Forgive me for trying to engage you on an important subject you raised. My mistake.

I have no idea what you're talking about...or how it applies to regulation...but whatever.

Oh, I'm quite sure you understand exactly what I'm talking about. You're an abrasive prick, but you're not stupid.

Take your medication and have a nice day.

This is exactly the point I was making by asking, rhetorically, why I bother. If you don't like me, fine. If you don't want to address my point, fine. But as a professional aviator, insinuating a fellow pilot is medicated because you disagree is tacky, immature and uncalled for. Right up your alley.

 

[avbug]

...not me, jackass. You're an abrasive prick,...

Eeegads, we have a professional in the house. Have you anything to say about the thread topic at hand, or has lack of intelligent rational thought swayed you toward your only remaining foothold in the conversation, namely, throwing insults?

 

[ackattacker]

Back on topic....

Tying up an already busy frequency with a courtesy call that you're vacating an assigned altitude when you're in radar contact and the controller can see you vacating the altitude is wasteful, discourteous, and a safety hazard.

Nope, this is a fallacy, radar has *not* taken the urgency out of it, and they do *not* view it as unneeded. Read Don Brown's columns on Avweb for a very good explanation of why it makes thier job harder if you skip it. these things are not always obvious from the pilot side of things, and assuming that it's not needed because they have us on radar is incorrect.

Who is correct? I don't know, but I think about it a lot. Nearly every flight in the region I fly in I get a PD descent. I've heard it both ways. Most people out here skip the descent call. The controllers *out here* say they don't care.

 

[avbug]

Ackattacker,

I don't believe the quotes you posted disagree, neither is incorrect. A Squared is correctly stating that no allevaition is provided in the requirement to report. I correctly stated that during frequency congestion, further tying up the frequency may not be conducive to safety. This doesn't change the requirement to report, at all times, vacating a previously assigned altitude.

Frequency congestion is not an emergency. I don't think anyone would argue that during an actual emergency, however, talking is the lesser of the priorities one may address. I've had an employer and an instructor once strongly advise me that during a depressurization, I cannot descend until I've discussed it with ATC. I knew a pilot who made an emergency descent two years ago, and did an admirable job of managing his cockpit and getting down. When the company learned of what occured, the Director of Operations of all people wrote him up for failure to notify ATC of his descent and obtain a clearance.

Technically, of course, an emergency alleviates one of the requirement to comply with the regulation (or in this case the proceedure) insofar as necessary to meet the demands of the situation. Practically speaking, getting on oxygen, retarding power, running checklists, establishing cockpit communication, and so forth, were a much higher priority than notifying ATC that the flight had just vacated the altitude. ATC was notified as soon as possible. In practice, in the real world, I let ATC know when I'm switching altitudes, but withhold this report in the presence of radio congestion, or delay the report until there's a break in transmissions.

I don't believe anything in the regulation or AIM should be construed in this case to infer that one should not descend/climb until the report has been made, or that the report must be made the split second the change in altitude is commenced.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

When a controller issues another altitude, either climbing or decending, you are expected to comply promtly with those instructions. IE - "Jambo18 Heavy, decend and maintain FL240" The response should be " FL240 Jambo18 heavy and begin decent immediately. Climbing is the same. If the controller gives a crossing restriction - "Jambo18 heavy, cross Lendy at and maintain FL190", the response should be "Cross Lendy at FL190, Jambo18 heavy". When a controller issues a Pilots Discretion decent, IE - Jambo18 heavy, decend at pilots discretion, maintain FL180", the response should be "FL180 at pilots discretion for Jambo18 heavy". The next transmission from him should be "XYZ center, Jambo18 heavy departing FL240 for FL180". Usually the response from the center is "Roger" or "Jambo18 heavy, roger" something along those lines. He might not depending on if he is on the landline doing coordination.

avbug and Asquared are also correct in stating altitude on initial contact with the controller, climbing, decending or level, it doesn't matter. When you are switched to a different controller, you are making INITIAL contact with that controller.

 

[ackattacker]

I still think there is a disagreement here.

You're not required to report vacating the altitude on a PD, or when the clearance involves a crossing restriction. I generally do as it's a profesional courtesy, provided the frequency isn't too congested.

The way I see it is more like nosehair does:

Now, since radar has taken the urgency out of these reports, ATC does not reprimand you for not doing it, and maybe they don't want you to bother them with this "unneeded" report, but, as I see it, it is still required.

Personally I fly in an extremely uncongested airspace. It is not uncommon for me to be the only aircraft under FL180 within a 100 mile radius. They usually give me a pilot's discretion descent as soon as I reach cruise altitude (if not sooner). I used to report leaving every time until I got the impression from the controllers that they thought I was being a smart-ass. So now I don't.

 

[minitour]

I follow the AIM and report leaving previously assigned altitudes. Even in congested airspace where I consider it to be a more important report. You never know when your info-block is going to be covered by another a/c that ATC wants to move but can't tell if you're out from under them.

JMHO

-mini