Where are the threads on "vacating" - mandatory or not?

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,264
Location
west Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Taylor
I know it has been tortured to death online but a search for 'vacating' in the thread box reveals nothing useful.
Not being one interested in lawyer-wannabeeing, I'm sure I skipped the content at the time it was discussed.

However. I have somehow been recently unable to resist the draw into the usual tortured conversation about "is it mandatory or not?", "is the term should or must/shall being used?", "do we use the AIM or FARs as a reference on this one". (Ahhgg shoot me.)

Anyway. If one poster with The Correct and Complete Response were to descend here, to the sound of monastery hymn music, and succinctly state if it is required or merely a strong recommendation or whatever, perhaps with a reference, I would be ever so grateful.

Just for the record, I always do it on a PD descent as a matter of practicality.
 
Thanks. It says, "should".
So, atc has no legal right to expect it.
Does that mean there would never be a successful violation decided if you did not,
or am I about to be referred to another lengthy thread on whether or not the AIM has a regulatory basis?
 
"Pilatus 345 vacating FL250"

"Thanks" or "Roger"

That's what occurs when reporting leaving my previously assigned altitude on a PD descent. I've always done it. I've never heard any phone numbers given or nasty calls because someone neglected to do it.
 
If the controller is slammed, I won't say it. Otherwise I do, just to keep me in the habit on the off chance some check airman or fed on my jumpseat has a bug up his ass about such things.

Every controller I've talked to says they don't care in the least, but maybe one here can shed a little more light on it.
 
If I had you on radar I can observe you beginning your descent, so who WGAF. You should however report leaving IF I requested that of you. But if you don't shouldn't be a biggie anyway. I'd forgive ya, unless you ****ed me off, then see that big dark mean looking cloud up ahead, fly heading.... :ihih:
 
Last edited:
Final corollatorive question on this topic:

So, we know of no one who has been violated for failing to perform a 'should do' item in the AIM?
(a finding of such a violation would instantly turn the entire AIM into a regulatory document, vs an advisory one, no?)
 
I usually say something like, "beginning VFR descent" or "(destination) in sight." ATC usually responds with "roger."

Not a big deal. If I'm dodging something and not landing, then it's usually "XXX, 6500 for 4500" or whatever, but not if I'm ducking under the ATL Bravo shelf as that's expected and self-explanatory.
 
Final corollatorive question on this topic:

So, we know of no one who has been violated for failing to perform a 'should do' item in the AIM?
(a finding of such a violation would instantly turn the entire AIM into a regulatory document, vs an advisory one, no?)
On the AOPA Forum, I asked, "Has there ever been an enforcement action upheld by the NTSB in which the AIM was the sole basis for the charges, with no regulation cited as having been violated?"

Midlifeflyer replied as follows:

Well, one can't "violate" the AIM. There has to be some law or regulation violated. That's the way it works.

I don't have one offhand but if one looks hard, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a case in which the only violation charged was 91.13(a) , careless and reckless, with the sole evidence of careless and reckless being what the pilot did in comparison with the best practices in the AIM.

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1890911&postcount=60
 
(a quote) I don't have one offhand but if one looks hard, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a case in which the only violation charged was 91.13(a) , careless and reckless, with the sole evidence of careless and reckless being what the pilot did in comparison with the best practices in the AIM.

So in other words, no. There have been no such violations, even a 91.13 type. Thanks
 
He said "he would not be surprised to see", but in actuality no one can come up with a single instance, so far. I hear plenty of conjecture in many areas of life and while opinions are interesting and often helpful, I am usually looking for indisputable facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
He said "he would not be surprised to see", but in actuality no one can come up with a single instance, so far. I hear plenty of conjecture in many areas of life and while opinions are interesting and often helpful, I am usually looking for indisputable facts.
OK, but absence of evidence is not evidence that the converse is true. Unless someone does a thorough search, we just don't know.
 
I've noticed when I'm Pilot Flying about 1 in 10 captains will make the vacating call on a PD. When I'm pilot monitoring I MAY make the call if it's been awhile since we received the PD but we've delayed our descent AND the frequency isn't very congested. If it's busy I figure he will see our descent on his scope.

Now, if I had a Fed in the jumpseat I may be more attentive to that report.
 
So in other words, no. There have been no such violations, even a 91.13 type. Thanks

Seems to me I recall a story about a pilot who was boring holes in clouds in Class G airspace. No law against that. He got violated. I think 91.13 got mentioned.
 
In the past, I would make the call, until too many controllers started sounding annoyed that I had made it. So now I don't, although I try to remember in Canada where I think it's a requirement.
 
Seems to me I recall a story about a pilot who was boring holes in clouds in Class G airspace. No law against that. He got violated. I think 91.13 got mentioned.
Is this the one you're thinking of?

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3935.pdf

That one involved taking off from an airport in class G, with the overlying floor of controlled airspace being 700 AGL. They found the pilot in violation of 91.13(a), but there is no reference to the AIM that I can see.
 
I just ran this question by one of my current instrument students who is also a TRACON controller at MSP. He said:

"When giving a PD in a radar environment I can see when you vacate. I don't expect a call. If it was something I needed or wanted I'd tell you with an 'Advise when vacating.' I don't like any extra information when in a radar environment. I see it as a waste of my time."

Hence, Mari's experience of annoyed controllers.

Now non-radar, then you obviously make the call. But then in that situation my student would probably tell you to advise when vacating.
 
Honestly, seems like a silly report.
"PD to 210" sure sounds like 'go when you want, I am good with it'.
I guess at some time in the past atc forgot, so that is why we have Vacating.
 
The vacating report is really for non radar or for non mode C aircraft. In those cases, ATC will tell you to report leaving / level anyway.

Under radar (mode C) the report isn't important. PD has nothing to do with it it either.
 
Last edited:
Here's the thing, mandatory or not, is eliminating the 2.4 second radio call really worth the risk of the controller getting pis*ed and reporting you and having to explain yourself to an FAA ASI?
 
Here's the thing, mandatory or not, is eliminating the 2.4 second radio call really worth the risk of the controller getting pis*ed and reporting you and having to explain yourself to an FAA ASI?
The question in my mind would be "Which course of action will result in the fewest instances of controllers getting pis*ed at me?"
 
I just ran this question by one of my current instrument students who is also a TRACON controller at MSP. He said:

"When giving a PD in a radar environment I can see when you vacate. I don't expect a call. If it was something I needed or wanted I'd tell you with an 'Advise when vacating.' I don't like any extra information when in a radar environment. I see it as a waste of my time."

Hence, Mari's experience of annoyed controllers.

Now non-radar, then you obviously make the call. But then in that situation my student would probably tell you to advise when vacating.
I wonder if the same answer would apply to VFR traffic on flight following.
 
The question in my mind would be "Which course of action will result in the fewest instances of controllers getting pis*ed at me?"
Right. And it is not clear which route pzzes them more; the call or failing to call.
 
Here's the thing, mandatory or not, is eliminating the 2.4 second radio call really worth the risk of the controller getting pis*ed and reporting you and having to explain yourself to an FAA ASI?

Sometimes it's tough to get a word in edgewise. Add 2.4 sec. times tens of thousands of flights per day and that's a lot of additional unnecessary calls.
 
Right. And it is not clear which route pzzes them more; the call or failing to call.

Ain't no answer to that. "Them" is the wrong word. Him or Her would be, that controller. Controllers spouting off their interpretations, techniques and preferences as if they are the rules is nothing new.
 
Here's the thing, mandatory or not, is eliminating the 2.4 second radio call really worth the risk of the controller getting pis*ed and reporting you and having to explain yourself to an FAA ASI?
Answering for myself, yes. It's one of those cases where the suggestions in the AIM have not kept up with technology. As Jonesy's student said, they can see you start to descend now, and reporting could be a distraction to the controller. When I did it previously, I was often asked to say again.
 
If we recive a PD and 5-10 or 15 minutes go by, as a courtesy to the controller I will call with N89xx leaving FL410. Just to make sure we are all on the same page. If the PD was close to when we wanted to start down anyway we don't. When we do, I'm really just looking out for the controller not worrying about busting a Reg
 
If it's PD I'll usually call it out of courtesy if they're not too busy, but "vacating" I find silly. "Bugsmasher 123 one-zero thousand descending eight-thousand" is as quick and gives them a better picture of where I'm going to be. Usual response is "Roger" but once in a while you'll get a special request for something else.

Might as well communicate the plan if it doesn't take any significant amount of time.

And now I need to go look this one up, but if it's the rare but sometimes seen "Cruise" clearance (most controllers on the coasts wouldn't issue nor probably remember those, but out here in fly-over States, they can be pretty common with an old-salt controller working Center at night)... I'm pretty sure that's a required call.
 
...And now I need to go look this one up, but if it's the rare but sometimes seen "Cruise" clearance (most controllers on the coasts wouldn't issue nor probably remember those, but out here in fly-over States, they can be pretty common with an old-salt controller working Center at night)... I'm pretty sure that's a required call.
All the cruise clearance paragraph says about that is that you can't return to an altitude after you have reported leaving it.

AIM 4-4-3d3:

The term “cruise” may be used instead of
“MAINTAIN” to assign a block of airspace to a pilot
from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including
the altitude specified in the cruise clearance. The pilot
may level off at any intermediate altitude within this
block of airspace. Climb/descent within the block is
to be made at the discretion of the pilot. However,
once the pilot starts descent and verbally reports
leaving an altitude in the block, the pilot may not
return to that altitude without additional ATC
clearance.

REFERENCE−
Pilot/Controller Glossary Term− Cruise.
 
Ah yup that's what I was remembering. If you report leaving, you can't go back up.
 
Back
Top