Narrative:

In the initial stages of the chins 5 arrival into sea, ZLC cleared our aircraft to descend pilot's discretion from FL350 to FL240. On checking in to ZSE the co-pilot reported level (still) at FL350 but neglected to mention the part of the clearance to descend pilot's discretion to FL240. At the top of descent point computed by our FMC to satisfy the crossing restrs specified on the chins, I began the descent and reported 'out of FL350 descending pilot's discretion to FL240.' the frequency wasn't congested but still I didn't consider it very unusual that the controller didn't acknowledge this call, since some seem to consider it superfluous in the first place. I expected and was waiting for a 'descend via' clearance. Several mins later still at FL240, we received a query from the controller as to whether we were going to comply with the restr (16000 ft) at raddy. We responded that our most recent clearance had us still at FL240. He then cleared us to descend via the chins 5 arrival, but soon thereafter we requested relief at raddy (due to the lateness of the descent out of FL240). This elicited a very testy and somewhat unprofessional response from the controller patronizing us about the basics of reading 'the chart in front of you.' I responded that 'just to clarify, we have never received a descend via clearance.' his response was along the lines of, 'you were given a descend via clearance upon checking in and I can send you the tape!' it's unusual to hear this degree of arrogance out of anybody other than an xyz local controller, and it is unprecedented in my experience from someone who shouldn't have been so sure of his lack of complicity in the confusion that caused the alleged failure to comply with a clearance. My phone call to the center supervisor a few hours later provided some insight into what had happened. Though we had not been given the descend via clearance upon check-in, he quoted for me the precise min and second that we had been given the clearance. My response was something along the lines of, 'oh really?' and at what min and second did we supposedly acknowledge this clearance?' he said that though there wasn't an acknowledgement per southeast, there was some radio static and we reported that we were descending to FL240. I told him that was me reporting out of FL350 pilot's discretion to FL240 and that the controller and I had obviously stepped on each other, but regardless, how does a clipped transmission from me concerning something about descending to FL240 substitute for a proper readback for something as critical as a descend via clearance? He admitted that it didn't. I also asked him for his opinion of the degree of professionalism showed by the controller when I tried to clarify that we had never received or acknowledged a descend via clearance, but he said that he hadn't listened that far. In summary, I believe now that we could and or should have been quicker about questioning what the plan was for further descent but that the essence of the mix-up was the controller's failure to ensure that the clearance was not only given but properly received and acknowledged. We never had an opportunity to hear the clearance because it came simultaneously with our required call leaving FL350.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF B738 ARE ACCUSED BY ZSE CTLR OF FAILING TO COMPLY WITH SID 'VIA' CLRNC THEY DID NOT RECEIVE. VERBAL ALTERCATION RESULTS.

Narrative: IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE CHINS 5 ARR INTO SEA, ZLC CLRED OUR ACFT TO DSND PLT'S DISCRETION FROM FL350 TO FL240. ON CHKING IN TO ZSE THE CO-PLT RPTED LEVEL (STILL) AT FL350 BUT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE PART OF THE CLRNC TO DSND PLT'S DISCRETION TO FL240. AT THE TOP OF DSCNT POINT COMPUTED BY OUR FMC TO SATISFY THE XING RESTRS SPECIFIED ON THE CHINS, I BEGAN THE DSCNT AND RPTED 'OUT OF FL350 DSNDING PLT'S DISCRETION TO FL240.' THE FREQ WASN'T CONGESTED BUT STILL I DIDN'T CONSIDER IT VERY UNUSUAL THAT THE CTLR DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THIS CALL, SINCE SOME SEEM TO CONSIDER IT SUPERFLUOUS IN THE FIRST PLACE. I EXPECTED AND WAS WAITING FOR A 'DSND VIA' CLRNC. SEVERAL MINS LATER STILL AT FL240, WE RECEIVED A QUERY FROM THE CTLR AS TO WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE RESTR (16000 FT) AT RADDY. WE RESPONDED THAT OUR MOST RECENT CLRNC HAD US STILL AT FL240. HE THEN CLRED US TO DSND VIA THE CHINS 5 ARR, BUT SOON THEREAFTER WE REQUESTED RELIEF AT RADDY (DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE DSCNT OUT OF FL240). THIS ELICITED A VERY TESTY AND SOMEWHAT UNPROFESSIONAL RESPONSE FROM THE CTLR PATRONIZING US ABOUT THE BASICS OF READING 'THE CHART IN FRONT OF YOU.' I RESPONDED THAT 'JUST TO CLARIFY, WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A DSND VIA CLRNC.' HIS RESPONSE WAS ALONG THE LINES OF, 'YOU WERE GIVEN A DSND VIA CLRNC UPON CHKING IN AND I CAN SEND YOU THE TAPE!' IT'S UNUSUAL TO HEAR THIS DEGREE OF ARROGANCE OUT OF ANYBODY OTHER THAN AN XYZ LCL CTLR, AND IT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN MY EXPERIENCE FROM SOMEONE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO SURE OF HIS LACK OF COMPLICITY IN THE CONFUSION THAT CAUSED THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CLRNC. MY PHONE CALL TO THE CTR SUPVR A FEW HRS LATER PROVIDED SOME INSIGHT INTO WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THOUGH WE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN THE DSND VIA CLRNC UPON CHK-IN, HE QUOTED FOR ME THE PRECISE MIN AND SECOND THAT WE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE CLRNC. MY RESPONSE WAS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, 'OH REALLY?' AND AT WHAT MIN AND SECOND DID WE SUPPOSEDLY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS CLRNC?' HE SAID THAT THOUGH THERE WASN'T AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PER SE, THERE WAS SOME RADIO STATIC AND WE RPTED THAT WE WERE DSNDING TO FL240. I TOLD HIM THAT WAS ME RPTING OUT OF FL350 PLT'S DISCRETION TO FL240 AND THAT THE CTLR AND I HAD OBVIOUSLY STEPPED ON EACH OTHER, BUT REGARDLESS, HOW DOES A CLIPPED XMISSION FROM ME CONCERNING SOMETHING ABOUT DSNDING TO FL240 SUBSTITUTE FOR A PROPER READBACK FOR SOMETHING AS CRITICAL AS A DSND VIA CLRNC? HE ADMITTED THAT IT DIDN'T. I ALSO ASKED HIM FOR HIS OPINION OF THE DEGREE OF PROFESSIONALISM SHOWED BY THE CTLR WHEN I TRIED TO CLARIFY THAT WE HAD NEVER RECEIVED OR ACKNOWLEDGED A DSND VIA CLRNC, BUT HE SAID THAT HE HADN'T LISTENED THAT FAR. IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE NOW THAT WE COULD AND OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUICKER ABOUT QUESTIONING WHAT THE PLAN WAS FOR FURTHER DSCNT BUT THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE MIX-UP WAS THE CTLR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE THAT THE CLRNC WAS NOT ONLY GIVEN BUT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED. WE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE CLRNC BECAUSE IT CAME SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OUR REQUIRED CALL LEAVING FL350.

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.