 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Captain of a CL65 descended too slowly when cleared for descent. This caused the ARTCC controller to be aggravated that the descent to the new altitude was not more timely.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 491366 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200011 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : tys.airport |
| State Reference | TN |
| Altitude | msl single value : 25000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : ztl.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Regional Jet CL65, Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument |
| ASRS Report | 491366 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | altitude deviation : overshoot non adherence : clearance |
| Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : radar other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued alert other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
We were told to descend and maintain a new altitude. As we were still a large distance from our destination, we decided to perform a relatively slow descent. The controller questioned our descent rate and made some very unclr remark about our descent rate which offended the captain. The two began discussing the finer points of descent rates versus traffic separation in a not-too-friendly manner. I thought this was an unfortunate and avoidable situation. It would have been much simpler to give a restr or a minimum descent rate in the initial clearance. This would have headed off any confusion. I personally think many people have confusion between 'pilot's discretion' dscnts and normal dscnts. It would be a good practice to include a requested descent rate in any clearance in which a certain rate is needed for traffic separation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CAPT OF A CL65 DSNDED TOO SLOWLY WHEN CLRED FOR DSCNT. THIS CAUSED THE ARTCC CTLR TO BE AGGRAVATED THAT THE DSCNT TO THE NEW ALT WAS NOT MORE TIMELY.
Narrative: WE WERE TOLD TO DSND AND MAINTAIN A NEW ALT. AS WE WERE STILL A LARGE DISTANCE FROM OUR DEST, WE DECIDED TO PERFORM A RELATIVELY SLOW DSCNT. THE CTLR QUESTIONED OUR DSCNT RATE AND MADE SOME VERY UNCLR REMARK ABOUT OUR DSCNT RATE WHICH OFFENDED THE CAPT. THE TWO BEGAN DISCUSSING THE FINER POINTS OF DSCNT RATES VERSUS TFC SEPARATION IN A NOT-TOO-FRIENDLY MANNER. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN UNFORTUNATE AND AVOIDABLE SIT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH SIMPLER TO GIVE A RESTR OR A MINIMUM DSCNT RATE IN THE INITIAL CLRNC. THIS WOULD HAVE HEADED OFF ANY CONFUSION. I PERSONALLY THINK MANY PEOPLE HAVE CONFUSION BTWN 'PLT'S DISCRETION' DSCNTS AND NORMAL DSCNTS. IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE TO INCLUDE A REQUESTED DSCNT RATE IN ANY CLRNC IN WHICH A CERTAIN RATE IS NEEDED FOR TFC SEPARATION.
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.