VATUSA
By Dace Nicmane 1313735
#512013 The way I understood the problem from the original post was that the ATC asked the pilot to descend to his/her original level because that's what he/she'd filed. For example, the pilot filed FL330, then climbed to FL350 in uncontrolled airspace or with another ATC, and then asked for FL370 from MSP_CTR, but was told to descend to FL330 because that's what the flightplan says. That, however, sounds extremely unlikely.

Stacy Krahn 907079 wrote:He didn't want me to make another scheduled step climb coming up because he wanted me back down to my original flight level.
By Robert Shearman Jr 1155655
#512018 One could only hope to be a fly on the wall the first time Stacy receives a shortcut on PilotEdge...
By Dace Nicmane 1313735
#512117 What I find most likely is that the pilot didn't request the climb and started to climb on his/her own. It's actually an easy mistake to make because it seems logical you have to fly what you filed, both the route and altitude. Just like with STARs where people think they're required to descend as the chart says and don't realize they need a separate clearance for that.
By Robert Shearman Jr 1155655
#512122
Dace Nicmane 1313735 wrote:most likely is that the pilot didn't request the climb and started to climb on his/her own.

That was my read on it as well. Is that different in ICAO versus FAA environments? The pilot says this took place within KZMP so a specific request for the new altitude would need to be verbalized, regardless of how it was filed. Is that also true outside the US?

As far as the shortcut, though, I'm still at a loss as to how a 6000+-hour pilot doesn't know that's common practice, both VATSIM and real...