STAR altitudes

[brownstar]

a question for ATC
Question 1
You are cleared by controller a to descend to FLxxx to be level at point a on a STAR or you are on a heading and told to descend FLxxx leve abeam point a. you are then handed over to controller b and give descent to a lower altitude than previous and told route to point B on the STAR and descend FLzzz, or on the pervious heading given descent FLzzz level abeam point b.

Do you still have to acheive the FLxxx at point a even if it doesn't suit your aircrafts computer profile - please explain your answer

[coracle]

In a word "NO"

You only have to meet the restriction at point A if it is given in the second clearance.

i.e. " VIRGIN 250 route direct Lambourne, descend FL120, be FL150 or below abeam SABER"

[250 kts]

Oh no, not this one again.:{ :{ :{

[brownstar]

Coracle

thank you!

[gliding777]

Coracle,

I assume you are an ATCO, please could you provide a reference for your answer as I believe it to be correct.

I'm thinking in the context of FL200 10 before MONTY, or FL200 25 before TNT, issued as a clearance by London. Invariably Manchester put you on a heading and/or descent further, can you confirm that the original restriction does NOT apply unless re-stated?

Many thanks.

[Orp Tolip]

We were sent a copy of this recently which may shed some light for you
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/50/srgfodsafety-leaflet-rtf.pdf

[spekesoftly]

Also see CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1) Section 1, Chapter 4, Page 4, Para 6.1

[Carbide Finger]

Can someone sticky the above reference? Might help in future. Perhaps even a FAQ with the Radio stuff up top?

[gliding777]

Thanks O.T., that was just what I was looking for.

[055166k]

gliding777
An innocent question.....no offence or anything:-
Are you aware of any pilot buddies who are trying to catch us out by an absolutely strict book interpretation of the "clearance" rules?
There may be the odd occassion when massive R/T loading and complex traffic may result in an unintentional failure to repeat a previous restriction as part of a new clearance. The answer you have been given is book perfect and you would be completely correct in your understanding of the new clearance.
In the real world I am happy to monitor compliance with a given instruction such as FL200 10 before MONTY [rate of descent/ prediction vector line on my display etc.] I will transfer you to Manchester early enough for them to give continuous descent and give any speed/tactical vector/sequence etc.
....it would take less than 24 hours for the grapevine to spread the word that a particular pilot/operator was taking a "by-the-book" interpretation.....and another 24 hours for a "by-the-book" ATC service to be provided to your operator.
Such a service would in no way detract from the standard of excellence that you currently receive......but other ATC-friendly operators who display a deeper appreciation of the need to reduce R/T may receive a smoother profile.
By the way...there are good reasons for all those level-by restrictions....and that is why they can be found on the STAR chart under "level planning".

[GBALU53]

A star or sid is the responsibilty of the pilot if the aircraft is taken off the sid or star then it is up to ATC:ok:

[Scott Voigt]

166K

Interesting that you would think that flying by other than the book is ok. Flying or controlling by rolling your own and making things up is NOT a good thing. The excuse that I don't have time to do it right doesn't fly either. If you are that busy, then start instituting your own flow until your supervisor can get one going for you. It's when we don't do things by the book that we get caught up in errors. It confuses pilots and controllers alike if they can't determine just what you are doing...

regards

Scott

[055166k]

Hi there most respected of the respected [SV]
On the descent target question I'll give a simple scenario:-
I clear a 'plane to FL140 level by "fix".........beyond the "fix" is traffic at FL150 which is working a different sector.........my traffic is descending and will make the FL140 [I can use my profile predict vector line/rate of descent readout/or whatever].
Do I transfer the traffic descending out of [say] FL190, do I wait until it is out of FL150, or wait until it has levelled at FL140?
If the next controller re-clears the traffic to [say] FL100 then the pilot would be perfectly entitled to ignore the FL140 restriction and reduce his/her rate of descent..UNLESS the crossing restriction was repeated as part of the re-clearance. Where do I fit in?....well I'm completely clean....but I don't want to do anything that is going to stitch up a brother/sister controller.
Do you chaps always repeat crossing restrictions?
Do you ever have the need to keep messages short due maxed-out R/T?.. this is a big problem on some London sectors and is often commented on by pilots.

[PPRuNe Radar]

The receiving controller will be the one who takes the blame if they don't ensure separation is provided.

Maxed out RT, ATCOs not understanding that restrictions need to be repeated with any new clearance, the pilot slowing up the descent rate, etc. All contributors to the incident maybe, but the buck stops with the controller who has to provide a clearance which will provide separation. There is no place for short cuts or expecting pilots or other ATCOs to step outside the standards required (i.e. by the book ;) ).

As Scott says, if the workload or traffic levels are too high to carry out the full responsibilities required to do a safe job, then it's incumbent on the ATCOs to do something about it. If it's in the name of safety then any Watch Manager or Traffic Manager would be hard pressed to come up with an excuse to do nothing about it if the sector controllers bring it to their attention.

[Scott Voigt]

Hi 166K;

Over here, if we give a restriction and then ship the aircraft to another sector, it is required that the controller who gave the restriction for traffic to pass on that restriction to the next controller so that they wouldn't change it. That said, if the traffic was in the other sector, you would HOPE that the other controller would have seen it too. But if the other controller gave another clearance that would get two aircraft together in his/her sector, they would buy the deal as it were and not the previous sector controller who gave the restriction in the first place, even though they "might" be given a contributing factor for not passing on the restriction to the other controller, but that to me would be rather chicken $#**...

As to what I would do in that senario, I am one of those take care of stuff in my space and ensure separation before I ship them people. (Yup I am kind of anal that way <G>..) I would ensure compliance from the pilot and separation before I let go of them... But then again, I am one of those old farts <G>...

regards

Scott

[055166k]

Welcome input chaps....many thanks.
I'd like to see a change to the regs so that a previously issued restriction remains in force.....even on transfer....unless it is specifically de-restricted by the next controller. This is completely counter to the present situation as has been correctly described by many posters.
This is not as ridiculous as you might think because precedent already exists; some inter-sector standing agreements restrict heading changes prior to sector boundary [this is an ATC internal procedure].

It can sometimes be a little awkward to complain about traffic levels when the supervisor is the one who signs off your annual competency check.

I've PM'd gliding777, and at the scenario time I would have had seven sectors joined together.......similarly the next ATC unit would have had all sectors joined. This allows more flexibility to the descent profile following the necessary inter-unit co-ordinations.

If an aircraft following a SID is given climb clearance......would that automatically lift the 250knot speed restriction?

If an aircraft following a STAR is given radar vectors, would adherence to the speed limit be cancelled?

[gliding777]

Thanks for all the input here guys!

I have had a private chat with 055166k, and it's been interesting to see that this subject is more complicated than I imagined. (S)he has given me a useful view from the 'other side' of the fence with regard to these descent restrictions.

As a pilot, some of these restrictions force the aircraft low on its ideal profile and hence less efficient for fuel burn. So if the restriction is removed then we usually attempt to reduce ROD to regain the optimum profile. However, in the light of what I have found out here, I might think twice about doing this in future. As 166k points out, doing so might cause an potential infringement on the next sector (in the MONTY example you're talking about the London guy on 133.6 potentially causing an upset for Manchester's 118.77 controller. Except when 128.05 and 118.77 are bandboxed:O ).

Seems to me that 'best practice' would mean pilots adhering to the restriction to ease the workload for the controller, and as has been pointed out a strict 'by the book' interpretation may not be the best for airmanship. I can, therefore, see a good case for investigating whether the regulations could be amended in any way, maybe for example a "no restriction at XXXXX" from the second controller?

[Scott Voigt]

166K;

Being old I don't much care what the sup thinks if I need something. Of course I was a pain in the butt when I was young too <G>. I just fight for what is right and don't worry about what the suits think...

regards

Scott