Selection of Levels in Controlled Airspace

[QSK?]

Has anyone noticed the subtle change recently introduced into the AIP re selection of levels in controlled airspace (ref AIP ENR 1.7-6 para 3.1.2.1)?

Under para 3.1.2, it is clear that pilots can request a level not conforming to the Table of Cruising Levels and ATC are authorised to assign non-standard levels.

Previously para 3.1.2.1 stated:Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is an operational requirement. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.

However, in a recent amendment to the AIP, this paragraph has now been amended to:Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.

To my mind this recent amendment to para 3.1.2.1 would appear to prevent a pilot, who wishes to simply achieve a more efficient fuel burn, from requesting a non-standard level unless the standard level is so fuel inefficient that the pilot runs a real risk of running out of fuel. Does this recent amendment really prevent the PIC of, say, a B747 flying from SYD to BKK from requesting a non-standard level simply to achieve improved fuel economy? Is my interpretation correct?

I would be interested in other pilot or ATC viewpoints on this issue.

[Jabawocky]

I request them and get them offered to avoid weather quite a bit, and ATC are very willing to agree.

As for Jets in busier airways, maybe this has been getting too messy and to likely to have a conflict like the one in the report recently over Victoria (even if that was not the cause in that incident).

J:ok:

[VH-XXX]

It's pretty specific:

determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of flight and its occupants.

"Reducing fuel burn" is not essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants and you can't say you're going to run out if you don't get it, so that doesn't qualify.

[Capn Bloggs]

After the Brazil midair, I surmise that the people in charge had a rethink about the appropriateness of routinely cruising at non-standard levels.

The previous AIP amendment was an attempt to get the message across. One that was pretty obvious, I thought, but which was being routinely flouted in the name of saving a few kilos of gas. But no, those lacking in commonsense ie the enviro-nazis needed more a pointed message, so this amendment is the result.

Safety=1, Environment=2 :=

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I fly non-standard levels quite regularly - for a variety of reasons (weather, comms, winds, too lazy to change - especially for just a short dogleg in my track). I request them, ATC either approve the request or they don't. If being non-standard brings me into potential conflict with someone flying the standard, I am happy to return to a standard level even if it means a rough ride.

Never had a hint from ATC that it was a problem. Hard to see an issue - especially if you are on radar and (or) in two-way comms.

Forkair SOPs say "Fly as high as practical at all times"! I guess belting in an out of the tops of Cu, or staying out of cloud (when above the freezing level) could be construed as a safety issue. :bored:

Dr :8

[Pera]

Hard to see an issue - especially if you are on radar and (or) in two-way comms.

Really! You can't see any issues.

I guess belting in an out of the tops of Cu, or staying out of cloud (when above the freezing level) could be construed as a safety issue.

Agree.

[Jack Ranga]

Standard levels will ALWAYS be a defence for pilot and controller. Having said that there are some pretty nasty traps for the inexperienced or un-alert when both aircraft in a possible confliction are at standard levels.

For pilot and controller it is wise to be extra vigilant when you are at a non-standard or assign a non standard level.

In the end a non-standard level request could always be justified as an operational requirement couldn't it?......................

[Capn Bloggs]

In the end a non-standard level request could always be justified as an operational requirement couldn't it?......................

Not any more! :ok:

[rotorblades]

I can understand standard levels in procedural/non-radar airspace, but radar airspace, c'mon!!!! If you cant see a confliction coming then you need a bit of remedial training in planning, me thinks.
Thats what radar is for and tieing everyones hands behind there back is defeating the object, just trying to make radar airspace as bad as non-radar .
Its a pants rule, and even standard levels arent a cure for all the ills. My airspace has several crossing tracks where the crossing levels are either both even or both odd. And one northbound (SY-RJAA) changes direction about 4 times, supposed to change level 4 times, I dont think so.

On the other hand, If its busy or a lot weather avoidance going on dont bother asking for non-standard levels unless absolutely essential. Because I aint gonna scan the next airspace along for conflictions at the non-standard level when Im working my ass off!

I'm sure a million & one 'bookies' will shoot me down in flames but hey-ho, tell someone who cares:rolleyes:
I have radar let me use it to its potential....

I think it was brought in just because there wasnt enough R/T & co-ordination already and was felt a 10min conversation on the air about if its operationally required, why it is & when a standard level can be taken was just what the doctor ordered.

Rant over

[desmotronic]

I thought this was brought in after inception of class E 'controlled' airspace.

[Jack Ranga]

Rotor, agree, on the same page :ok:

I've never knocked back a non-standard request, (barring a confliction). An adjoining sector does regularly though.

Just saying though, if they are to be used, keep an ear out :ok:

[triadic]

There was in incident north of CNS a year or so back where ATC failed to give traffic to both aircraft at the same level nose to nose. If one controller involved had not realised it as a conflict close to the FIA boundary, and issued a last second traffic advisory, it is likely the pitot tubes would have met courtesy of GPS! One of the wash up items from this is that there was no specific phraseology to alert the controller that operations were to be conducted at a non-standard level! One of the fall back comments from ASA was that the controller was there to provide a service to high level traffic in Class C and only to IFR in Class G subject to workload! I wonder what the coroner would have said at the subsequent inquiry on that one? I think the system would have changed big time! This amendment will hopefully provide a mitigator against this sort of incident in the future. Standard levels are a safeguard and use of non-standard levels increases risk, no matter how good the radar coverage and the co-ord.

[willadvise]

The history of this pre-dates any of the incidents mentioned. The instruction has been in MATS (Manual of Air Traffic Services, the ATC bible) for a significant period of time prior to its inclusion in AIP. I understand the instruction originated from the ASA Board in response to an incident with an aircraft at a non-standard level. The original wording was poor and ill defined. It was promptly ignored by nearly all ATCs. A year or so ago it came to the attention of the powers that be that the instruction was ignored almost universally and they started to push onto the checkies that it had to be adhered to. The checkies pushed back that there was no equivalent instruction in AIP and it was unfair to expect pilots to comply with a rule that wasn't in AIP and we didn't wan't to have to "educate" everytime there was a request for a non-standard level, particularly with international crews who wouldn't have something so stupid in their own countries. The push from the checkies at the time was to include in AIP something like 'you should only request a non-standard level if you operationally require it" If you requested a NS-level this was implicit and hence it would have got rid of the stupid "confirm it is an operational requirement" BS we have today.
The irony of all this is that we are permitted to "assign NS-levels if traffic or other circumstances warrant it". So this means I can assign a NS-level if you are in conflict with another aircraft but I can't if you are not in conflict with another aircraft.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[max1]

Triadic,

Standard levels are a safeguard and use of non-standard levels increases risk, no matter how good the radar coverage and the co-ord.

What about those many occassions when routes conflict at the standard level? Have a look at the BN-ML-BN routes and the RI-NBR or MDG/WLG WLG/SCO routes.

ASA have had a 'fixation' on standardisation for quite a while now. The fact that in a dynamic environment there is no one size fits all

As long as a pilot appends 'Operational Requirement' I don't ask questions. However I am now required to ask when they will be able to resume a standard level.

And having just read willadvises' post, what he/she said.

[Capn Bloggs]

The history of this pre-dates any of the incidents mentioned.
Except Brazil.

I assume that this is all directed towards unsurveilled airspace and procedural control, of which we have a lot. Pretty hard to see a midair occurring when radar or ADSB-identified; if the transponder gets turned/bumped off, then I assume TARTS goes bananas if it previously had the aircraft IDed but then loses it?

[Jack Ranga]

No alarms, just a change in the way your symbol is displayed on the screen. You get to know where in your airspace you should have radar/ADSB coverage and will notice it (and it varies daily even though in theory it probably shouldn't).

[NZScion]

Still nothing stopping us requesting block levels?

Also,
ASA have had a 'fixation' on standardisation for quite a while now. The fact that in a dynamic environment there is no one size fits all
Let's just timetable it so no two aircraft are in one place at one time - should mean we can get rid of ATC all together - imagine the cost savings!!!!1!11!!one

[Hornet306]

Having spent a few years in ATC, to my knowledge most of the nearest things to MACs in procedural CTA have been due to pilots requesting and receiving non-standard levels. In the 70s, a non-standard level PD-DN DC9 nearly met a B747 WSSS - SY over the top of Derby, the controller concerned left the job and spent some time in the funny farm as a result. It's a particularly risky practice if it is combined with diverting off track due weather, so it is strongly recommended to get back to a standard level if you wish to go off track.

[Capn Bloggs]

Still nothing stopping us requesting block levels?

Err, no, provided you comply with the requirement shown in the first post.

Now, if 1nm right of track (SLOP) were to be built-in to the airways design standard, we'd be on to an environmental winner. Lower fuel burns and less chance of an aluminium shower.

[chimbu warrior]

Block levels are a pet hate of mine, when not operationally necessary. I am aware of one international carrier that requests them as a matter of course, and when they fly into an adjoining FIR ATC would rather deny everyone else their planned level than cancel the block clearance. Grrrrrr.

On the subject of SLOP's, the AIP already offers this as an option, provided it is 1 or 2 nm right of track. As I understand it some carriers (notably Cathay) apply a SLOP in all oceanic airspace.

As I read through the ATSB weekly summaries I am apalled at the number of people (it appears mainly Asian carriers) who appear on radar way off track. To deviate off route without a clearance (in other than an emergency) displays a complete lack of airmanship, and will eventually result in a major incident.

[rotorblades]

willadvise,
If my memory serves (and too tired to look it up) in the previous version of the MATS there was an exception in teh non-standard level assignment section that gave an exception for radar to radar sectors, or something along that line. That was taken out/deleted in the latest addition or so. which is why us radar to radar sectors in theory have to go through the same hoo-haa and time wasting as everyone else.

everyone,
And if everyone is flying at standard levels still doesnt stop the crossing tracks (at the same sequential level, i.e. either both odds or both evens) from having a MAC, be it radar or proc airspace. In radar airspace thats what actually looking at whats coming into the airspace in the not too distant future is all about.

Anyway, off to watch the cricket highlights....:p

[max1]

Block levels are a pet hate of mine, when not operationally necessary. I am aware of one international carrier that requests them as a matter of course, and when they fly into an adjoining FIR ATC would rather deny everyone else their planned level than cancel the block clearance. Grrrrrr.
I am surprised by this. If required, as an ATC you CANCEL the block clearance and assign a single FL. The pilot doesn't decide this.For info in Australia we are not allowed to give cruise/climb but are allowed to give block levels. Go figure????


Anyway, off to watch the cricket highlights....

I didn't think there were any?

[Roger Sir]

Let's just timetable it so no two aircraft are in one place at one time - should mean we can get rid of ATC all together - imagine the cost savings!!!!1!11!!one


Tongue in cheek i take it?

Seriously though, if you took a snapshot of some sectors around OZ, and observed the number of crossing tracks where, if all aircraft flew standard levels, the potential number of conflicts would be increased by applying the standard level requirement. The strict application of standard levels only works 95% of the time IMHO. The other 5% a level change or vector is required to avoid trouble. In en-route surveillance airspace 99% of the time i`ll change a level.

Some of the "armchair experts" from higher up need to take a look at the volume of traffic and the number of conflicts in most sectors. Maybe we could set up a project, call in the consultants and hold regular meetings to justify a large expense account associated with the project. I reckon we could stretch it our for a couple of years with no result at the end. Ooohh the "jollys". Overseas trips to Europe, the States etc. to coincide with a little sporting event or two on the side. Where do i sign up?:D

[Jabawocky]

Hey Roger,

Can you book this in for the next Ashes series in England, Rotorblades will be keen to go......
Anyway, off to watch the cricket highlights....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Not sure he will be getting any more first class treatment in the Retard Vehicle -10 :}

Cheeky Bugger! :ouch:

J:ok:

[max1]

Some of the "armchair experts" from higher up need to take a look at the volume of traffic and the number of conflicts in most sectors. Maybe we could set up a project, call in the consultants and hold regular meetings to justify a large expense account associated with the project. I reckon we could stretch it our for a couple of years with no result at the end. Ooohh the "jollys". Overseas trips to Europe, the States etc. to coincide with a little sporting event or two on the side. Where do i sign up?

Now you've gone and done it. Expensive fact finding mission to follow.

It always amuses me when governments and large corporations quote a large $ amount spent on addressing concerns. Your average punter equates money spent equals getting a result. What they don't realise is that someone, or a lot of people, on a large salary flew business class (many times), stayed in 5 star hotels with expense accounts and wrote a report with all the required 'bingo' words i.e. Worlds Best Practice, key stakeholders, positioning for the future, the word paradigm at least 3 times, cost/benefit analysis, etc. The upshot is usually a direction that has some semblance of common sense but proves unworkable in an operational sense 100% of the time.
Which segues nicely into why this thread was started.

The difference between a rort and a perk? A rort is something that you are not involved in. I'll get in the queue with Roger Sir if this one gets up.

[rotorblades]

Yo Jaba,
gotta gloat whist I can, its rare as rocking horse doo. Anyway the last 3 tests'll go to Australia. And ozzies didnt do tooo badly (in the last 2 english innings they only conceded about 1,130 runs for 6 wickets):E
no more first class treatment :{:(:eek:

Tis honestly a shame the aussie team cant put on a better show I was looking for a really close series, whichever way it went/goes.

Rb
(secretly supporting Australia but dont tell the rest of the expats)

[Jabawocky]

RB

I think over some fine Indian Curry we discussed the up coming Ashes.....looks like I will have to eat my words and take another dose of that chilli stuff :\

Being flogged at home is something we colonials are not good at taking :{

NOTAMS should read, on first contact with BNE CEN north of Sydney and detecting a pommy accent, request unworkable levels and tracks :}

J;)

[Nautilus Blue]

The thing the higher ups miss is that standard levels only work if the conflicting traffic are in different hemispheres. They hear 'opposite direction' and imagine same track and opposite direction.

Traffic crossing at MRW north of PH is a perfect example. Inbound to PH,a/c tracking just east of south at standard level. Outbound a/c tracking just east of north wants same standard level. (As an aside I gather NZ runs N/S standard levels rather than E/W because most of their traffic is N/S.)

Standard levels have a powerful attraction for managers and regulators though. Firstly, 'Standard' is currently a holy word. Secondly, non-standard levels have figured in more than a few incidents. There are no reports or studies that show the millions of conflicts solved by non standard levels, so that doesn't figure in the thought processes.

As per usual, the problem with armchair experts is not that they don't know and understand, it's that they don't know or understand that they don't know and understand.

PS. Is it cricket time again?

[Roger Sir]

There are no reports or studies that show the millions of conflicts solved by non standard levels, so that doesn't figure in the thought processes.




If i`ve told you once i`ve told you a million times, don`t exaggerate!

Good point Nautilus. The airspace i`m thinking of would have many, many conflictions per day with all aircraft operating at standard levels. From my memory there has been two instances over a lenghty period of time where two got too close whilst operating at a standard level. How many times has a non-standard level been used to keep `em apart? I`d hazard a guess and say 20 times per day but i could be wrong.

Only in Canberra does one size fit all!:ok:

RB, When is the next game old boy? Too soon methinks. Ooohhhh the pain..:{

[rotorblades]

Roger Sir,
I think it starts thursday-ish in Perth. And look on the bright side, things can only get better. Dont worry England are good at throwing things away so you'll win the series 3-1.

Jaba
You'll have to add onto that NOTAM : Expect Vectors for Controller Amusement:hmm:
And that chilli stuff was just outrageously hot, although the look on your face did make me want to get my camera:ok:

Cheers All
Rb