ACR ON DESCENT TO LGA EXPERIENCED SOME CONFUSION REGARDING THE DESCENT VIA PHRASEOLOGY; SUGGESTING PHRASEOLOGY CHANGES.

Narrative

I WAS PNF ON KORRY 3 ARR INTO LGA. CAPT WAS PF AND IS A BRAND NEW B757 CAPT. WE HAD THE FMS PROPERLY SET UP FOR THE KORRY 3 FOLLOWED BY THE ILS 4 AND HAD BRIEFED IT ALL. ZDC TOLD US TO CROSS ENO AT FL240 AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER SWITCHED US TO ZNY. THE FMS WAS ACTUALLY SET UP AS STORED FOR THE KORRY 3: 'ENO - FL240A' SO IT WAS PLANNING ON XING ENO AT OR ABOVE FL240. NEITHER OF US CAUGHT THE CHANGE WHEN THE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN TO US. AS WE WERE DSNDING; WE WERE DISCUSSING THE DSCNT AND CAUGHT OUR OWN ERROR; REALIZING WE WERE HIGH. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED ZNY AND ASKED HIM IF HE NEEDED A RAPID DSCNT FOR ENO AND HE SAID NO; WE COULD STAY ON THE FMS PROGRAMMED VNAV DSCNT AS PUBLISHED FOR THE KORRY 3. WE CROSSED ENO A LITTLE ABOVE FL240. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS. THE CAPT AND I BOTH AGREED TO REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THE FMS AND CLRNC ALWAYS MATCH. SPEAKING OF ARR DSCNTS; I HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT I'D LIKE TO PASS ALONG FOR A CHANGE TO ATC TERMINOLOGY THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD REDUCING CONFUSION AND PREVENTING ERRORS. ON 'DSND VIA' ARRS LIKE THIS ONE; AND SOME OF THE OTHER MAJOR ARRS (CIVET IN LAX; TYSSN IN LAS; ETC); WE ALREADY HAVE THE FMS FULLY SET UP AND BRIEFED FOR BOTH THE ARR AND THE APCH WELL BEFORE THE DSCNT. ATC TYPICALLY SAYS SOMETHING LIKE 'EXPECT THE CIVET 5 ILS 25L TRANSITION.' LATER ON; WE ARE TOLD 'DSND VIA THE CIVET 5' AS THE ONLY INSTRUCTION. THAT LEAVES THE PLTS LEFT WITH THE TASK OF STUDYING AND COMPARING THE FMS; ARR; AND APCH PLATES AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE CORRECT 'BOTTOM OF DSCNT' ALT SELECTED FOR THE 'DSND VIA' PORTION OF THE ARR. I KNOW IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROB FOR PROFESSIONAL PLTS; BUT THERE STILL IS A CERTAIN POTENTIAL FOR AN ERROR TO BE MADE IN DETERMINING THE CLRED BOTTOM OF DSCNT ALT. THIS PROB COULD BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED IF THE ATC CTLRS WOULD REVISE THEIR STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY JUST SLIGHTLY FROM 'DSND VIA THE CIVET 5' TO 'DSND TO 7000 FT VIA THE CIVET 5.' ALL AMBIGUITY IS INSTANTLY REMOVED; AND A WHOLE LINK IN THE POTENTIAL CHAIN OF EVENTS IN AN ACCIDENT/INCIDENT INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETELY REMOVED. THIS PHRASEOLOGY ALSO ALLOWS A STREAMLINED; EASIER; CLEARER WAY FOR ATC CTLRS TO CHANGE THE DSCNT PROFILE FOR TFC. CURRENTLY; IN THE SAME SITUATION; IF THERE WAS A POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICT FOR THE DSNDING ACFT; THE ATC CTLR WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE FORM OF AN INITIAL 'DSND VIA' CLRNC FOLLOWED BY AN 'AMEND ALT FOR TFC CALL' FOLLOWED BY MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL DSCNT INSTRUCTIONS NOW THAT THE ACFT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ARR. IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER FOR BOTH THE CTLR AND THE PLTS IF THE CTLR COULD USE THE SAME PHRASEOLOGY MENTIONED ABOVE. IN THIS CASE; SAY THERE'S A POTENTIAL CONFLICT ACFT AT 9000 FT SO THE CTLR SIMPLY SAYS 'DSND TO 10000 FT VIA THE CIVET 5.' PLTS THEN INSTANTLY KNOW THE DESIRED BOTTOM OF DSCNT CLRNC LIMIT AND ALSO KNOW THAT THE CTLR STILL WANTS THEM TO MEET ALL HIGHER XING RESTRS ON THE ARR. LATER IN THE DSCNT; WHEN THE CTLR REALIZES THAT THE TFC AT 9000 FT IS NOT GOING TO BE A FACTOR; HE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER INSTRUCTION 'CONTINUE DSCNT TO 7000 FT VIA THE CIVET 5.' THE PLTS WILL ALREADY STILL BE ON THE FMS DSCNT PATH ANYWAY; SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO MEET THE DSCNT PROFILE AS PUBLISHED. EVERYONE'S HAPPY! IT'S CLEAN; TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS; AND DEFINITELY SAFER PHRASEOLOGY!