Looks like I've started something here hehe.I said I'd increase the speed in order to increase the rate of descent as per the ATC request. I have a feeling it may be that the term 'good rate' actually means 'maximum rate' to which there can be no confusion... full speedbrake! I think I have misunderstood the term 'good rate', do ATC in the USA actually use this? it sounds like bad terminology to me.

"good rate" is a very common phrase (in this part of the globe) for "high rate of descent". As you say Pete, this is a valid tool used by ATC for setting correct and safe traffic flow. It is just like requesting to increase speed - since an airplane is moving through 3-axes v/s is just the same as airspeed - only vertical :-)If you find it impossible to do, you have the magic phrase: "unable to comply". no need to wait for the 2nd request, this is actually pretty bad idea.Oh and expect a little hostility from ATC hearing the hated "unable to comply" stuff ;-)

HPSOV,You certainly have started soemthing, mate - well done, anything's better than PIC v PMDG! :)"I think I have misunderstood the term 'good rate', do ATC in the USA actually use this? it sounds like bad terminology to me."That's not really surprising since, as far as I know, it's not defined anywhere. Don't know about the USA but here in the UK, although you will occasionally hear it used by both controllers and pilots, it is indeed considered to be bad (or, at least, non-standard) phraseology and its use is discouraged. Interestingly, as it's Ilan that brought it up, many Israeli controllers are trained in England at the the UK's College of ATC at Hurn and I'd be willing to bet your salary :D:D that they're not allowed to use phrases such as "good rate" on the course.Pete

Hi Ilan,"...a good rate must be a good rate (most people would give double v/s, that's a good rate from ATC POV).I'm intrigued by your use of "good rate". Is this phrase defined in any ATC or RT manual (ICAO, FAA etc.) that I can look at? I'm particularly interested in the "double v/s" aspect of it - again, is this part of its definition or is this just what you'd expect from 'custom and practice'?Pete

bumpy bump

I'm sure you heard of this one before...ATC : XXX123 Descend and maintain FL150, to be level by ABC.XXX123 : Negative control, unable to comply, we are just 20nm from ABC and still at FL280.ATC : XXX123 don't you have speedbrakes?XXX123 : Yes sir we do, but those are for our mistakes, not yours!:-)George DorkofikisAthens, Greece

>Excellent guys, excellent :-)>>>3. good answers here - you are actually cleared to 3000' ->>thence go ILS. Lenny described it all right.>Maybe, maybe not, unless I missed it in your original post. If you're not established on a published route segment, you must maintain 5000 until you become so established. In situtations where ATC is vectoring an aircraft to the localizer, they may issue the approach clearance before the aircraft joins the published procedure.:-)cz

bump