ARTCC controller re-issued descent altitude restriction after an light transport air carrier aircraft had not descended quickly enough to comply with original altitude restriction.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	237382
Time
Date	199303
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : cvg
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 27000 msl bound upper : 37000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zid
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	237382
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

During initial descent from altitude (FL370) controller stated 'expedite to FL270.' a short time later he questioned our rate of descent (2000 FPM). He then leveled us at FL310 and scolded us for insufficient rate of descent. Although our rate probably could have been greater, it is not easy to quickly get a large rate of descent when the aircraft is near vmo at altitude, without a large change in power and engine temperatures. I feel the main problem is the term expedite. It is a vague term open to interpretation. A better method of control would be to cross a fix at a certain altitude or to be at an altitude within a certain time limit. I think 'expedite' should not be used since the only way a pilot can be assured he is complying with the controller's intent is to descend at an excessive rate.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ARTCC CTLR RE-ISSUED DSCNT ALT RESTRICTION AFTER AN LTT ACR ACFT HAD NOT DSNDED QUICKLY ENOUGH TO COMPLY WITH ORIGINAL ALT RESTRICTION.

Narrative: DURING INITIAL DSCNT FROM ALT (FL370) CTLR STATED 'EXPEDITE TO FL270.' A SHORT TIME LATER HE QUESTIONED OUR RATE OF DSCNT (2000 FPM). HE THEN LEVELED US AT FL310 AND SCOLDED US FOR INSUFFICIENT RATE OF DSCNT. ALTHOUGH OUR RATE PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN GREATER, IT IS NOT EASY TO QUICKLY GET A LARGE RATE OF DSCNT WHEN THE ACFT IS NEAR VMO AT ALT, WITHOUT A LARGE CHANGE IN PWR AND ENG TEMPS. I FEEL THE MAIN PROB IS THE TERM EXPEDITE. IT IS A VAGUE TERM OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. A BETTER METHOD OF CTL WOULD BE TO CROSS A FIX AT A CERTAIN ALT OR TO BE AT AN ALT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME LIMIT. I THINK 'EXPEDITE' SHOULD NOT BE USED SINCE THE ONLY WAY A PLT CAN BE ASSURED HE IS COMPLYING WITH THE CTLR'S INTENT IS TO DSND AT AN EXCESSIVE RATE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.