I have a small beef with some of the writers at BoldMethod and a few other places that write articles for pilots. When they complain about X, Y, and Z, they propose solutions that run contrary to the AIM. In some cases I really do wonder if the writers have ever cracked it open.
For example, they complain about "Leaving 2,000 for 4,000" in #3. The AIM phraseology is:
- "(Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level)."
While the complaint by the author is that "for" sounds like "four," the FAA recommended way is "to," which could be confused for "two." In essence they have proposed no solution other than to use phraseology that is not recommended by the AIM.
Here's another one: "Instead of explaining why you want to change altitude, just request the altitude change directly." Their basis for this statement is "We learned on a visit to the Memphis ARTCC that controllers really appreciate quick and concise messages." Ok, great -- that's true. But what if you're in icing conditions or turbulence? Do you just simply ignore that part and request your altitude change? No.
AIM 7-1-21 directs pilots to "Report icing to ATC, and if operating IFR, request new routing or altitude if icing will be a hazard." A turbulence report can improve the safety of flight for others behind or ahead of you and should also be reported. Therefore to maintain compliance with the AIM and to keep a message concise, this would work just fine: "AAL1234 has moderate rime icing at 8,000. Requesting 6,000." If you have no real reason to make an altitude change, you probably won't be making one.
I like the site, and they have a lot of great material, but when tips start coming out of nowhere, I get a little bit antsy. On the plus side, the material at Pilotedge is written very well with 14 CFR and AIM citations throughout, so what you see here is what is 100% usable in real life.
