A few observations with "descend via"
 

I am not on here to vent, just forwarding some information. I've been noticing a lot of crews are either for a lack of better words, being lazy/unprofessional/or just not informed. We have recently implemented descend via clearances with 3 arrivals and many times controllers are having to pry information out of pilots causing unnecessary transmissions. What we as controllers are required to hear with these clearances is the words "descending via". Often crews are saying they are with you out of 16,000 for 10,000 which is the next altitude or the lowest altitude published. As a controller this may be taken as you were assigned 10,000 which is not the case. By doing this, you are essentially making the controller ask you questions all while giving you a runway assignment, altimeter and asking for an altitude/atis verification if you did not check in with that.
Here are just a few informational things to pass along.

1. When changing frequencies from one facility to another, the new facility is required to verify your mode c read out. We do this by you stating the altitude you are presently at or vacating.
2. The new facility is also required to verify your assigned altitude, which could be a crossing restriction or if on a descend via clearance.
Ex: ...13,000 to cross XXX at 10,000 or 13,000 descending via the XXX arrival.

Thanks for passing along the information rmratc. It is nice to get input from the other end of the mike.

Also use your call sign with read back or acknowledgement please.

Let me preface this by saying that I respect ATC and appreciate all the hard work they do. You are absolutely correct, pilots should check in with "descending via" as a part of their transmission to remove any doubt.

That being said, take a look at things from our perspective. "Descend via" clearances exist for ATC's convenience; not for that of pilots. In fact, they greatly increase pilot workload for those of us flying jets without autothrottles and no VNAV option for the AP. The next time someone checks in and neglects to use proper phraseology, just consider that they could be preoccupied with monitoring speed, altitude, and energy - manually (i.e. ensuring the thrust levers and vertical speed are physically adjusted to ensure compliance with the clearance) - all while making an ATC call and getting ready to brief/load an approach, run checklists, make the descent PA, possibly request deviations for weather, etc. I've flown plenty of "descend via's" and they can be as busy as an instrument approach to minimums. The human brain is like an electrical system - when it gets overloaded, it load sheds the less important stuff. Proper phraseology takes a back seat to making sure we comply with altitude and speed restrictions - would you rather have it the other way? Give us a break man, nobody is perfect - ATC included!

Always like hearing inside info from ATC. On the ATIS, I'd guess 50% of the time when checking in with ATIS the controller asks me to verify having the ATIS again later and sometimes twice. Is someone all over you guys about the ATIS? Thx.

Technique for consideration.....

In addition.... when changing within a facility, altitude/mode C verification is not needed. While pilots have to say something when checking in... and call sign and altitude works... altitude is not needed...


Especially in the terminal area.. when switching from the initial to final controller, altitude, heading and speed are redundant and create freq congestion. One could even monitor the freq, when very busy... the controller will call you....

In addition... during busy times, Wilco, is an excellent response... it cuts down on freq congestion.... for example on while on GND, runway hold short clearances are required readback, but if you understand the taxi route, call sign and wilco will suffice. If you need to say it, to understand it, go for it....



Finally... pilots... get rid of the FM DJ voice on the radio.......

This is nothing more than a standard response to an ATC directive like any other transmission. In fact, a proper response will ease workload in this instance because it eliminates an entire series of altitude level off and/or speed instruction transmissions from ATC. And proper phraseology eliminates the need for clarification just like reading back a hold short instruction while taxiing.

If it is the crew's inability to navigate a "descend via" instruction that is the problem and pilots require progressive instructions on a star, then you need to clarify that with ATC.

Workload management? YES. Absolutely it is: Aviate, then Navigate, then Communicate. But a response to a "descend via" instruction is no more of a burden than any other routine ATC exchange.

And yes, ATC is not infallible. None of us are. So clearly that necessitates option of a double check. How many times have we pilots asked for a confirmation of an ATC clearance or informational message? It's mandatory to rather ask twice rather than assume anything.

8

There is always some issue or another they get all over us about. The ATIS is one that crops up from time to time. I know of at least one case where a pilot made many serious errors unrelated to the ATIS totaled a Bonanza and the FAA paid for it because it was not confirmed that he had received the ATIS. We are 't even suppose to accept "I'll get it". I'm suppose to hear ".....insert call sign here....has ATIS ... Insert code here"

Like you said before we're all human and make mistakes. Part of proper phraseology and read backs is to help us catch each others errors.

That may be your personal perspective, but I don't think it qualifies as "our" perspective. How could a "descend via" possibly increase your workload? It sounds like you'd prefer to have someone make multiple radio calls which you must acknowledge to assign multiple altitudes, speeds, and headings. Maybe you prefer to have ATC do that "pilot stuff" for you, but I prefer the method which gives me all the parameters up front and allows me to operate my machine in the most efficient way to meet those parameters.

"Boxcar Five Zero, One Seven thousand, descending One Four Thousand"

"Boxcar Five Zero, One Seven thousand, descending via WHUPI arrival."

Is the latter really that much harder than the former?

:confused:

If it was just one radio call, it would be no harder. If you consider that it can replace a dozen or more radio calls and acknowledgements, there's no comparison. The "descend via" REDUCES workload ... perhaps by orders of magnitude.


By the way, get your approach building and briefing done before you start the descent.


"... ensuring the thrust levers and vertical speed are physically adjusted to ensure compliance ..."

Oh, the humanity. :eek:






.

I prefer "Descend Via" to getting an ATC call for every altitude change. Multiple ATC calls are unpredictable and totally disruptive as you setup for the approach. At least with descend via you know in advance when you're going to make each altitude change.