You know what really grinds my gears?

[David Walsh 811659]

The usage of the following two horrific pieces of phraseology;

 

1) Continue as filed

2) Descend at pilots discretion, cross at and maintain

 

Unfortunately I have seen this throughout many ARTCC's across the country and I am a little disappointed.

 

I thought VATUSA had moved on from using "Continue as filed" a long time ago. Apparently I am mistaken. As I understand, 1) is not in the .65, thus it shouldn't be used at all - period. Its a waste of time to say over the radio and it does not provide any additional useful information. When you give an IFR clearance you say something that looks like the following...

 

"...cleared to the via departure, transition, and THEN AS FILED...".

 

This means that once the departure controller clears the pilot direct a fix which starts a transition, or vectors the pilot to the first fix on your flightplan (if its a vector departure), or if the pilot is on an RNAV departure and they reach the cleared transition, they get to fly their flightplan as it was filed. At no other stage does a Center controller need to tell a pilot "continue as filed". They already are. Even if you take them of their [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned routing, either for traffic, sequence, or a shortcut, you STILL don't use "continue as filed"....you say "RESUME OWN NAVIGATION". And then the pilot goes back to his cleared routing.

 

Whats worse, is that today I heard a student controller use this phraseology. I asked the Instructor if he was going to stomp out "continue as filed" and he told me that "continue as filed" worked for him. So its any wonder we have controllers using it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't use "continue as filed". All you need to do as a Centre controller is say "roger" or "good morning/afternoon/evening etc" to acknowledge the you heard the pilot check in. THATS ALL.

 

As for 2). This is a probably caused by an incorrect understand of what you are saying. In my example 2), the latter implies the former. Simply put, if I tell you (as a pilot) to cross a point at an altitude, its up to you to ensure you do it. It doesn't matter when you start to descend, all that matters if you cross the point I told you, at the altitude I told you. "Cross at and maintain ". That is all you need to say because the pilot will descend at his discretion anyway to meet the restriction.

 

I don't expect a huge amount from CTR controllers. The two major things you do is acknowledge check-ins, and give descent instructions. Its not hard to get this simple stuff correct but I see so many examples of it being done wrong.

 

Lets try to make sure we nail the basics.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

As for Number 1-

 

The term "Proceed/Continue as filed" is proper phraseology, and is generally used on handoffs to remove confusion. You don't know how many times pilots ask me if they can proceed via their routing after a handoff if I don't tell him to.

 

Number 2 -

 

That phraseology is exactly correct, and further, that is NOT what was given to you this evening. You were instructed to descend via an arrival, to cross a fix at an altitude. That is also correct.

[Shawn Goldsworthy 925085]

Not to start an argument here but neither the phrases continue as filed or proceed as filed are nowhere to be found in the 7110.65R, therefore should not be used.

 

Alex for number 2 are you saying that "2) Descend at pilots discretion, cross at and maintain " is correct phraseology?

 

If that's what you are saying, take a peek at 7110.65 4-5-7

 

PHRASEOLOGY−

CROSS (fix) AT AND MAINTAIN (altitude)

CROSS (fix, waypoint) AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude).

Edited November 18, 2007 at 04:39 AM by Guest

[Alex Bailey 969331]

No, "At pilots discretion" was never used. He was instructed to descend via an arrival. As David said, the crossing restriction implies the pilot's discretion, but that is not what was issued tonight.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

CROSS (fix, waypoint) AT (altitude).

CROSS (fix, waypoint) AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude).

 

d. A specified altitude over a specified fix for that portion of a descent clearance where descent at pilot's discretion is permissible. At any other time it is practicable, authorize climb/descent at pilot's discretion.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

CLIMB/DESCEND AT PILOT'S DISCRETION.

 

EXAMPLE-

"United Four Seventeen, descend and maintain six thousand."

 

NOTE-

The pilot is expected to commence descent upon receipt of the clearance and to descend at the suggested rates specified in the AIM, para 4-4-9, Adherence to Clearance, until reaching the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude of 6,000 feet.

 

EXAMPLE-

"United Four Seventeen, descend at pilot's discretion, maintain six thousand."

 

NOTE-

[Shawn Goldsworthy 925085]

Exactly, that makes perfect sense.

 

"Descend at pilots discretion, maintain 12000" is proper phraseology.

 

"Descend at pilots discretion, cross SYMON at and maintain 12000" is not

 

"Cross SYMON at and maintain 12000" is.

 

Sorry Alex this isn't related to the particular situation you are talking about. This is just thrown out there in general so we are all on the same page.

[Nate Johns]

As for Number 1-

 

The term "Proceed/Continue as filed" is proper phraseology, and is generally used on handoffs to remove confusion. You don't know how many times pilots ask me if they can proceed via their routing after a handoff if I don't tell him to.

 

Number 2 -

 

That phraseology is exactly correct, and further, that is NOT what was given to you this evening. You were instructed to descend via an arrival, to cross a fix at an altitude. That is also correct.

 

Alex,

 

Show me where the phrase "Proceed as filed" or "Continue as filed" appears in the 7110.65. If I were to say that on the radio here at ZAB (the real ZAB that is), my instructor would look at me funny and ask why I said that. It is pointless and non-published phraseology. The next time a VATSIM pilot asks if he can continue his filed route, it would be better to ask "say intentions" or "what in tarnation were you planning to do?" If you want to give him a hint or something, say maybe "cleared direct XYZ." You don't even need to say "rest of route unchanged" anymore as long as that fix is already on their route of flight.

 

As for #2... no, that phraseology is not "exactly correct." A crossing restriction implies a pilot's discresion descent. In the AIM, section 4-4-10. Adherence to Clearance states:

 

e. If the altitude information of an ATC DESCENT clearance includes a provision to "CROSS (fix) AT" or "AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude)," the manner in which the descent is executed to comply with the crossing altitude is at the pilot's discretion. This authorization to descend at pilot's discretion is only applicable to that portion of the flight to which the crossing altitude restriction applies, and the pilot is expected to comply with the crossing altitude as a provision of the clearance. Any other clearance in which pilot execution is optional will so state "AT PILOT'S DISCRETION."

 

The "descend via" situation not withstanding, ATC is either going to specify a pilot's discretion descent, or give a crossing restriction, not both at once.

 

~Nate

Edited November 18, 2007 at 05:15 AM by Guest

[David Walsh 811659]

Alex,

 

Neither was directed specifically at you. I have those dodgy descent clearances being given to me all over the USA.

 

I am aware the 'pilot discretion' was not used to day. However I don't think it is good practice to tell pilots to descend via a non profile arrival either. For those having a read, I am referring to the ANNEY1 arrival into MIA. (see here). The chart clearly specifies EXPECT TO CROSS AT FL240 for PHORD and EXPECT TO CROSS AT 13000 / EXPECT TO CROSS AT 11,000 at ANNEY (landing East and West respectively). Because of the words EXPECT TO, this arrival is not a profile descent and hence you cannot issue "Descend via the ANNEY1 arrival". An example of a profile arrival is the GRNPA1 into LAS (see here). As you can see there are no "Expect to cross" but "cross at 12000" for LUXOR and "cross at 8000 and 210kts" for FRAWG. In this case you can use "descend via the GRNPA1 arrival".

 

Just so that we are clear, both you and SX posted the quote from the 7110.65R which clearly shows you can use EITHER "descend at pilots discretion" or "cross at " but not both in the same clearance.

[Aaron Barclay 878822]

thanks for bringing this stuff to my attention. I was unaware it is NOT allowed to use "pilot's discretion" and "cross XXXX fix at" in the same sentence. I issued the following clnc the other day:

 

"Descend at pilot's discretion, maintain 4000." This should be correct as per the 7110.65

 

I tried explaining this to my roommate and he can't comprehend the pilots discretion without a fix to cross.

 

Thanks for the information Shawn and everyone!

[Alex Bailey 969331]

As for Number 1-

 

The term "Proceed/Continue as filed" is proper phraseology, and is generally used on handoffs to remove confusion. You don't know how many times pilots ask me if they can proceed via their routing after a handoff if I don't tell him to.

 

Number 2 -

 

That phraseology is exactly correct, and further, that is NOT what was given to you this evening. You were instructed to descend via an arrival, to cross a fix at an altitude. That is also correct.

 

Alex,

 

Show me where the phrase "Proceed as filed" or "Continue as filed" appears in the 7110.65. If I were to say that on the radio here at ZAB (the real ZAB that is), my instructor would look at me funny and ask why I said that. It is pointless and non-published phraseology. The next time a VATSIM pilot asks if he can continue his filed route, it would be better to ask "say intentions" or "what in tarnation were you planning to do?" If you want to give him a hint or something, say maybe "cleared direct XYZ." You don't even need to say "rest of route unchanged" anymore as long as that fix is already on their route of flight.

 

As for #2... no, that phraseology is not "exactly correct." A crossing restriction implies a pilot's discresion descent. In the AIM, section 4-4-10. Adherence to Clearance states:

 

e. If the altitude information of an ATC DESCENT clearance includes a provision to "CROSS (fix) AT" or "AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude)," the manner in which the descent is executed to comply with the crossing altitude is at the pilot's discretion. This authorization to descend at pilot's discretion is only applicable to that portion of the flight to which the crossing altitude restriction applies, and the pilot is expected to comply with the crossing altitude as a provision of the clearance. Any other clearance in which pilot execution is optional will so state "AT PILOT'S DISCRETION."

 

The "descend via" situation not withstanding, ATC is either going to specify a pilot's discretion descent, or give a crossing restriction, not both at once.

 

~Nate

 

I didn't mean to say it was correct, I meant to say that what my student said this evening was correct. He did not issue #2, instead he issued clearance for the STAR. "Proceed as filed" is not in the 10.65, however it is used all the time, even in the real world. (Proceed as filed, proceed as requested, etc...). Now you may say it isn't because you are a controller, but, I have criss-crossed all over tarnation and received that multiple times.

[Jason Baker 1028693]

Pilots discretion - descent whenever it suits you, at whatever rate you see fit, but be where you are supposed to be at the speed you are supposed to fly at that point.

Used in real world if distance from desired fix is likely beyond TOD [and the controller realizes that] and if CTR has lower airspace free of possible conflicts all the time - absolute common practice.

 

Descend and maintain, climb and maintain, turn, slow, or accelerate at pilots discretion would in a perfect world still be monitored by the CTR, if the CTR would suspect the aircraft to be below or above a cleared or charted altitude he would most likely intervene. Early turnouts for following traffic would most likely be given either in discretionary or "when able" form.

 

The phrase "Proceed as filed" may not to be found in the phraseology book but is, in any case common practice, as it closes any *mental* communication string that was opened when radar contact and positive identification was established. All it does is hand the navigation back to the pilot. Being in radar contact but under own navigation kicks the responsibility other than for sequencing and traffic avoidance (if in IMC and no visual contact has been acknowledged) back to the pilot. "I'm done with you" to use other words...

 

Arrival Charts use regular descent profiles, making sure aircrafts cleared for them are capable of complying.

It is likely that controllers will use a discretionary descent even in that case, as it simply kicks all responsibility back to the pilot plus it keeps them happy for shallower descents when the screams from out back just get too annoying, as late descents demand high sink rates.

 

Way worse if find pilots requesting "Blabla Delivery, Blabla requesting IFR Clearance to BlaBla, as Filed"

[Shawn Goldsworthy 925085]

Ok can someone please give me an example of when you would use "continue as filed" as opposed to the proper "resume own navigation"?

 

Sure "continue as filed" may be used in the real world and on the network all the time, but to me that phrase is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. The only thing it does is waste ratio time. Why wouldn't you use "resume own navigation"..................on in most cases, say nothing.

 

 

"American 732 turn left heading 070, direct SLI when able, resume own navigation".

 

That makes perfect sense for a vectored departure, and uses proper phraseology and implies the "continue as filed" in there since they got the "then as filed" in there clearance.

 

"American 732 climb and maintain FL330, continue as filed".............WHY?

[Joe Caban 844086]

Descend via the Anney One would be a no no if it was in fact said that way.

 

Continue as filed is legal but not really preferred, unless it's said to a VFR, in which case that's a no no even if they have a flight plan filed.

 

I vote for "Resume own Nav..."

 

 

Descend via pilots discretion should only be said when you have no point where you want the pilot to reach the new altitude.

 

Descending to cross a fix is not Pilot's discretion...he doesn't have a choice. He must cross XXX at 10,000 so that's all that should be said.

 

The clearance really means: "Cross XXX at 10,000, descent rate is at your discretion."

 

using the word discretion adds ambiguity. It can be interpreted as "if I feel in my judgement I should not descend, I don't have to."

 

Descend at pilot's disretion maintain 10,000 is only used when the controller knows that if the pilot is still at cruise altitude 10 NM from the airport he won't have any deals, airspace deviations, or op errors. In the case of a crossing restriction, he may possibly have all of the above, so we don't want the pilot to have a choice.

Edited November 18, 2007 at 06:26 AM by Guest

[Brad Littlejohn]

Descend via the Anney One would be a no no if it was in fact said that way.

 

Depends. If the Anney One arrival is a profiled descent with hard crossing restrictions (cross ABCDE at , it would be correct. If it were not a profiled descent (expect to cross ABCDE at ), it would be wrong.

 

BL.

[Joe Caban 844086]

Brad, I understand what you mean... but the anney one is not a profile descent so it doesn't depend. You might confuse the conversation for others by making such a loose reply.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

American 732 turn left heading 070...

 

Muahahaha, saw my favorite callsign in use so I had to jump in.

 

The ANNEY ONE is not a profile descent. No descend via...

 

Also, the reason you don't use "descend pilot's discretion, cross XXX at..." is because a descent instruction to cross a fix IS already a pilot's discretion descent. It's redundant, it's not needed, and it's not proper phraseology (as Shawn already pointed out).

[Nate Johns]

"Proceed as requested" is only official phraseology for certain helicopter operations and ground vehicle/personnel operations.

 

Beyond this...

 

The term "proceed as filed" is not valid ATC phraseology, period. It is meaningless save for a plain english context after using proper book phraseology. It does not "hand navigation back to the pilot" either. It certainly doesn't say "I'm done with you." There area a great many controllers out there that use poor phraseology, and if an incident were to occur, their butt would be in a sling.

 

"Continue as filed" is not found in the 7110.65 either and not "legal," let alone preferred. Same idea... it's meaningless. Think of it this way: what if the pilot filed something totally different originally, but controllers had subsequently changed that flight plan? There is no such thing as "as filed" any more for that route.

 

"Resume own navigation" is, as described by the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

 

RESUME OWN NAVIGATION−

Used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while the aircraft is being radar vectored.

 

Shawn, in your example, "resume own navigation" may well be redundant if the pilot already had SLI in his flight plan. If you end a vector with "direct XYZ when able," then you are essentially giving the pilot "resume own navigation" anyway. Resume own nav is more reserved when the situation is less certain, and in ATC, keeping pilots pinned down is a continual and essential task.

 

The phraseology for a pilot's discretion descent is, as stated before "Descend at pilot's discretion, maintain (altitude)."

 

A crossing restriction IS a pilot's discretion descent, with the ONLY stipulation being the pilot must meet the stated restriction. The pilot is still in control of the descent rate, the beginning of the descent, how and when they level, etc.

 

The word "discretion" does not add ambiguity, in fact, it is quite specific for the controller to state. "Sir, you may do what you want, when you want." In fact, Joe, your description is apt. If a pilot doesn't want to start down, they dont have to. Heck, they can stay at their filed altitude doing S-turns over their destination if they so choose. A controller must understand what their clearance actually means, and plan and separate for all possibilities. Also, a discretionary descent is given when the airspace is clear for the action. Plans change... everything is based on observed or known traffic.

 

~Nate

[Brian Nuss 887798]

Ok can someone please give me an example of when you would use "continue as filed" as opposed to the proper "resume own navigation"?

 

Okay, I'll wade into this fray.

 

The other day, flying out of Oakland, I was waiting for a turn southward from our filed clearance as is usual for our route (this is RW). When it appeared our turn was not soon to be forthcoming, I queried the controller: "NORCAL, Amflight 270 requesting direct Panoche".

 

They replied (in a rather annoyed tone of voice): "Amflight 270, continue as filed".

 

Alas, I was not going to get my southbound turn, at least, not for a while.

 

So what's the difference? 'Continue as filed', means you are required to fly as per your orginal clearance (no deviations will be granted). 'Resume own navigation' means something else entirely. In the usual context, it means 'return to your orginal flightplan' but specifically, the navigation will be performed by the pilot, rather than provided for him via vectors, headings, etc.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Brad, I understand what you mean... but the anney one is not a profile descent so it doesn't depend. You might confuse the conversation for others by making such a loose reply.

 

Ohh... I thought you were meaning 'anney one' as a generic example. I didn't know it was actually a STAR! If it is, and it isn't a profiled descent, then 'descend via' is incorrect. ATC should be giving the crossing restriction.

 

BL.

[David Walsh 811659]

Ok can someone please give me an example of when you would use "continue as filed" as opposed to the proper "resume own navigation"?

 

Okay, I'll wade into this fray.

 

The other day, flying out of Oakland, I was waiting for a turn southward from our filed clearance as is usual for our route (this is RW). When it appeared our turn was not soon to be forthcoming, I queried the controller: "NORCAL, Amflight 270 requesting direct Panoche".

 

They replied (in a rather annoyed tone of voice): "Amflight 270, continue as filed".

 

Alas, I was not going to get my southbound turn, at least, not for a while.

 

So what's the difference? 'Continue as filed', means you are required to fly as per your orginal clearance (no deviations will be granted). 'Resume own navigation' means something else entirely. In the usual context, it means 'return to your orginal flightplan' but specifically, the navigation will be performed by the pilot, rather than provided for him via vectors, headings, etc.

 

Hi Brian,

 

I think that was particularly poor phraseology on the part of the controller. I don't know the situation you were in but I'm going to guess you were on a vector? Maybe you were on a DP and you would usually be given direct PXN? In either case the controller could have used correct phraseology and it would have made it a lot more clear. If you were on a vector, continue as filed wouldn't make any sense anyway. If you were on a DP, I can understand why he/she might use "continue as filed" since you have filed a DP but its still not correct phraseology.

 

I'm sure each time you get transferred from Center controller to Center controller you don't get 'continue as filed'?

[Alan Hensley 950569]

Way back when I first joined VATSIM, I controlled here just like I did those many years in the "show". I wanted to make it just like then. One thing I quickly learned is I had to improvise. I had to learn that while there was NO way I would have ever approved closed traffic in Bravo airspace, I must on VATSIM. I learned that sometimes saying "descend at pilot's descretion, cross XXX at and maintain one two thousand hopefully would give a BIG hint that he does NOT have to start that decent now. I learned that when I got a call saying: "Memphis Clearance Delivery, , IFR to DFW, like to pick up my clearance, AS FILED, that it made no sense for me to cringe and tell the pilot: "Sir, it is not realistic to ask for your clearance all the time with the words "AS FILED" added", I will give it that way if I can. I learned that the pilot that calls in with "Memphis Center with you at FLIGHT LEVEL THREE THREE ZERO", had better be told: "Memphis Center Roger" BUT I BETTER ADD: "Maintain FLIGHT LEVEL THREE THREE ZERO", because if I don't, he is gonna follow that STAR literally and be at 15,000 110 miles from (fix) because it "says" so, p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing within a couple hundred feet of that opposite direction traffic. Not knowing that that altitude is the Minimum Enroute Altitude. And he is to maintain the last [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude until advised. I also learned that asking a neighboring controller why he just handed me off an aircraft at a FLIGHT LEVEL XXX with NO flight plan, being busy at the time and not checking before I took it, (he would have probably dropped track anyway if I had refused the handoff), and getting the response: I am not a Professional like you". It is better to just correct the problem, teach my students the correct way and move on. I learned I could post training suggestions for both controller and pilot alike until I was blue in the face and most of the ones who really needed the instructions don't even look at these forums. I could go on but no need.

 

My point is, these things are not going to change until those training change them. Telling pilots to "squawk mode charlie", the things mentioned here, and much more, need to be solved during training. So, get involved in your home facilities' training program and change them. Remembering that improvison is the mother of necessity in this simulated world. We all make mistakes. I hear the 7110.65 get mutilated every day on VATSIM. Training my students will go along way to solve this and it would do the same elsewhere. Forum post's lead to flaming by some who have no clue but sure as hell think they do. Besides another few posts, this subject will change to something else anyway, always happens. I am not making a six figure income any longer controlling. But that doesn't mean I can not get satisfaction teaching those who want to learn and experience something they more than likely will never get to do for real. The real world of ATC gave me the ulcer I have, I don't need another one. Perhaps that is the most important thing of all I learned here.

 

Alan Hensley

 

edited for spelling errors

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Maybe there could be a code or something to put in flight plans for pilots who want "as real as it gets" ATC, with no mercy. If the code were not there, they'd get the extra breaks that you mention. Then you'd have the best of both worlds, provided that it's not too difficult to track who wants "strict" ATC and who doesn't (but I suspect the number of pilots asking for strict ATC would be quite small).

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

My 2 cents- each expression appears multiple times in the current version of the FAA order, examples follow:

1. The phraseology

CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT AS FILED

may be used with abbreviated departure clearance

procedures.

REFERENCE−

FAAO 7110.65, Abbreviated Departure Clearance, Para 4−3−3

 

From it I gather it is kosher.

 

2. PHRASEOLOGY−

CLIMB/DESCEND AT PILOT’S DISCRETION.

EXAMPLE−

“United Four Seventeen, descend at pilot’s discretion,

maintain six thousand.â€

[Jason Baker 1028693]

Common practice in real world is by far not always in accordance with 7110.65 but what both parties deem reasonable to bring the message across. It is up to CTR and Pilot what they make of it.

 

Good Morning, Good Afternoon, Thanks for flying today, Thanks for the great service, are nowhere to be found in this bible, yet one can hear it all the time. Proper phraseology can only be applied if every party understands it appropriately. After all real world comes with lawyers that sort stuff like this out, after phone calls, letters and explanations have failed to produce clarity. Other than that I am fine to discuss northern lights, the wind, a car accident, the source of smoke or what a beautiful day/night for flying it is with real world controllers, who have stripped themselves from robot behavior.

While I highly doubt that any real world pilot would grill a CTR on not using proper phrases, I also doubt that CTR's do that with pilots, as it would clog our justice system to a complete stop and many people would no longer fly/control.

 

If 7110.65 was to be read/ understood by pilots in it's entirety and subsequent knowledge about controlling procedures was required, such book would be included into the curriculum of pilot certification training and testing. To some extend it is, with many things it is not. There are books available on interpretation of rules and regulations. As long as we are looking into two different ways when it comes to realism (or desired lack thereof which is fine too imho) some discussions bring nothing but additional confusion. I don't know one single controller that claims to be perfect - nor have I ever met a pilot that was free of fault. The real world seems to accept this.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

While you are right, I also think that, should an incident occur, the transcripts would be examined, and for the most part the ATC are probably using proper phrases in the mix of other banter. They know the consequences of not using the proper phrases, so I think they do it right and also throw in some 'regular' English to keep things friendly. It may sound fast and loose to a pilot (me), but if examined closely I can almost always find where they said it right.

[Nate Johns]

Common practice in real world is by far not always in accordance with 7110.65 but what both parties deem reasonable to bring the message across. It is up to CTR and Pilot what they make of it.

 

Good Morning, Good Afternoon, Thanks for flying today, Thanks for the great service, are nowhere to be found in this bible, yet one can hear it all the time. Proper phraseology can only be applied if every party understands it appropriately. After all real world comes with lawyers that sort stuff like this out, after phone calls, letters and explanations have failed to produce clarity. Other than that I am fine to discuss northern lights, the wind, a car accident, the source of smoke or what a beautiful day/night for flying it is with real world controllers, who have stripped themselves from robot behavior.

While I highly doubt that any real world pilot would grill a CTR on not using proper phrases, I also doubt that CTR's do that with pilots, as it would clog our justice system to a complete stop and many people would no longer fly/control.

 

If 7110.65 was to be read/ understood by pilots in it's entirety and subsequent knowledge about controlling procedures was required, such book would be included into the curriculum of pilot certification training and testing. To some extend it is, with many things it is not. There are books available on interpretation of rules and regulations. As long as we are looking into two different ways when it comes to realism (or desired lack thereof which is fine too imho) some discussions bring nothing but additional confusion. I don't know one single controller that claims to be perfect - nor have I ever met a pilot that was free of fault. The real world seems to accept this.

 

Jason, I'm afraid you may be missing a key step in how ATC phraseology works. The legally defined phraseology in the 7110.65 is REQUIRED to be spoken before plain english explanations or other unofficial phraseology. There is a very specific reason that phraseology is defined in the .65, and controllers are not allowed to make up substitute phraseology for regular use.

 

Now, before I go on... please realize, I am fully aware that we are speaking of situations that come up in the VATSIM environment, which is inherently more lax than the real world. For educational purposes, however, I am speaking from the standpoint of being a real-world developmental controller at a United States ARTCC.

 

Pilot are not and have never been required to use exacting phraseology. They need to read things back, sure, but they dont have a 2 inch thick book full of specified phraseology. Pilots are sheep, ATC tells them what to do, and they do it, or they die. It's not a slight on the intelligence of any one pilot, or their professionalism... but ATC has a job to do, and pilots across the US expect to hear their clearances in a certain way.

 

Air traffic controllers put their ratings in jeopardy by not originally using book defined phraseology. Don't get me wrong, absolutely there are numerous instances of poor phraseology in use every day. The problem is, if something were to happen in the wake of poor phraseology usage, the controller's butt is in the sling. Polite phrases at the end of proper transmissions are common courtesy, but still technically illegal. The FAA oft lets it go, but, in the case of on ZLC controller, the FAA wrote him up for being so polite. I digress however...

 

Proper phraseology is not "robot behavior." It is a legal requirement. When it's slow, absolutely radio use is more lax, but from a technical standpoint, the same procedures and phraseology are to be use whether there's one plane in the sky or one hundred.

 

Now, to steer this back toward the original discussion points that have all but been beaten to death at this point:

 

1.) "Continue as filed" is minimally useful and improper phraseology. To state it to a pilot on check in doesn't help anything, and if a pilot decides to turn 45 degrees right rather than continue tracking their flight plan route, well... that's a pilot deviation, and not the controller's issue.

 

2.) Stating "Descend at pilot's discretion" and "cross XYZ at" is redundant. It's either one or the other.

 

Ok... I'm stepping off the soap box. I think the core of the thread has been addressed.

 

~Nate