PPRuNe Forums


Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th Sep 2017, 14:22   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 227
Para 2.2:'Over time, these benefits have been eroded through the development of non- harmonised practices and different meanings being attached to certain elements of SID/STAR phraseology. Consequently, there may be a mismatch between ATC and pilot expectations when SID/STAR phraseology is used, and what certain terms may mean. This presents a safety risk that requires a renewed effort to adopt harmonised SID/STAR phraseology.'

Really? Is anyone aware of any mismatch between pilot and ATC expectations as regards the way SIDs and STARs are currently flown here? It's always seemed pretty straightforward to me. Does the supposed safety risk outweigh the safety risk of changing a bunch of stuff that everyone seems to have comprehended perfectly well for quite some time now?

Instead of just 'cancel speed restrictions', now we've got different phraseology to go with different sorts of speed restrictions. For God's sake, if we want to make things safer, how about we start by making them simpler instead of more complicated?
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 19:41   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
We aren't in the US Underfire, we routinely get high speed (i.e., >250 knots) below 10,000'. And what is this "Eff Em Ess" you speak of?
Should you decide to read the post in context with the previous, several posters had mentioned that this was not new, it has been in the US for several years. It also shows an example of when speed greater than 250 below 10,000 is allowed.

I suppose you also realize that on both the Boeing and Airbus aircraft, there is a speed restriction, by default, in the box for below 10,000. (The box is the FMS or Flight Management System! Is FMC better, Flight Management computer?)
underfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 23:06   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
Should you decide to read the post in context with the previous, several posters had mentioned that this was not new, it has been in the US for several years. It also shows an example of when speed greater than 250 below 10,000 is allowed.
Ok. Do we need examples of that? We already know when speeds above 250 are allowed.
Quote:
I suppose you also realize that on both the Boeing and Airbus aircraft, there is a speed restriction, by default, in the box for below 10,000. (The box is the FMS or Flight Management System! Is FMC better, Flight Management computer?)
Yes but I don't understand the relevance. This thread is about phraseologies, not what speeds happen to be coded in the various boxes.

Calling the box installed in my old jalopy an FMS or FMC would be being very kind.
AerocatS2A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 23:48   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 43
Its the controllers that have to add two words to most of their transmissions... hundreds of times a day... chasing readbacks constantly as everyone gets used to it. Thousands of extra words, both ways, over busy frequencies... to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

What a waste of time and detriment to safety.
mikethepomme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 23:54   #25 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikethepomme View Post
Its the controllers that have to add two words to most of their transmissions... hundreds of times a day... chasing readbacks constantly as everyone gets used to it. Thousands of extra words, both ways, over busy frequencies... to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

What a waste of time and detriment to safety.
Exactly. What a waste of everyone's time with no benefit.
angryrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 23:55   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Where is the confusion?
Well according to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations back in 2012:

In November 2007, ICAO issued an amendment to PANS-ATM Document 4444 that included new procedures and phraseologies
for SID/STAR. The amendment called for Level restrictions issued by ATC in air-ground communications to be repeated in con-
junction with subsequent level clearances in order to remain in effect (Para 11.4.2.6.2.5). However, when aircraft are operating on
a published SID or STAR procedure and are cleared to a higher/lower level, the aircraft shall follow the published vertical profile
of the procedure unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled by ATC (Para 6.3.2.4 (SID); 6.5.2.4 (STAR)).
It became apparent that the implementation and application of this amendment was at best inconsistent. Some States completely
adopted it, some partially adopted it, and others did not adopt it at all.

The inconsistency of implementation and application of the amendment led to interpretations of the phraseology, which in turn led
to assumptions being made by the pilot and/or air traffic controller
e.g. “Climb to level 160” could mean do not comply with the level restrictions in one geographic area or comply with level re-
strictions if in another.
This would mean the potential for air traffic controllers to face a loss of separation or for a pilot to face a level bust or worse - this
is clearly unacceptable.


That 'clearly unacceptable' situation has now been resolved at the global level with the ICAO changes that were effective November 2016, which were driven by active pilots and controllers (not everybody's favourite bogeyman, the desk jockey).

I'm sorry that some people find the changes disappointing but given that this issue has been on the table for ~10 years and the solution has been known for ~2 years, I can't help but feel that everybody had a chance to affect the outcome or at least read up on the issue so that it wasn't a surprise when it made it into the Australian AIP.
FL400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 01:32   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 6,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underfire
I suppose you also realize that on both the Boeing and Airbus aircraft, there is a speed restriction, by default, in the box for below 10,000.
You're at it again. That is merely an administrative preset because the Americans aren't allowed to speed below 10k. Our box even has 245 below 10k just to make sure!

Thankfully, Australian ATC have much more leeway with speed and regularly use faster than 250, or give us no speed restrictions, to keep the show rolling.

So even if 250/10k has been stored in the box, it means diddly-squat.

Now, back to normal programming please!
Capn Bloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 02:21   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,081
Is Australia going to remove the height restrictions from the charts? I thought I read that somewhere but it doesn't seem to be the case reading the SUP
neville_nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 04:00   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Is Australia going to remove the height restrictions from the charts? I thought I read that somewhere but it doesn't seem to be the case reading the SUP
Why would they? I thought the point of SIDs and STARs was to allow for strategic traffic management. Height restrictions gives strategic vertical separation between inbounds and outbounds.
AerocatS2A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 05:33   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 421
Oh fark, are we really going down the "climb via" "descend via" route?

This is a root of collosal proportions in the us and just loads the crew up and unloads the controllers.

The ryderr star into lax being a case in point.

Add to this the requirements to set intermediate steps to ensure compliance with height requirements because boeing writes it into their fctm's and it is just a pain in the ring

As for working on this for 10 years and been known about for 2 so we all should have had an opportnity to effect change, bullshit, if the knuckleheads in asa and oar knew about this then that would be about it.

Sure as shit the line pilots who have to put up with this crap every day didnt.
Snakecharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:28   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Snakecharma this isn't the work of the people who work in Airservices Australia or CASA (although your contempt for those people no doubt leads you to believe so)

Everything I said about the development of these ICAO procedures is true - this was driven by industry representatives, not knuckleheads. If you decide to not participate in change through your professional representatives, that's your choice but the changes are going to happen anyway so why not contribute rather than complain?

Last edited by FL400; 13th Sep 2017 at 06:46.
FL400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 07:03   #32 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 337
Not to get into the blame game, but I've heard nothing about this until a package arrived by the company email.

FL400, you mentioned that the current procedures haven't been adopted universally, what is to say these new procedures will be adopted worldwide?

If the regulators wanted to change something meaningful, maybe converting Chinese airspace from meters to feet and stopping local languages being used instead of English.
angryrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 07:20   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
this was driven by industry representatives, not knuckleheads.
Can you name three?
Icarus2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 07:49   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
As I said earlier, Icarus, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations - the voice of pilots at ICAO -
was one. They notified their intent in this matter back in 2012. The International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Associations was another. That's two and that's all I know but would one more completely change the argument?

Angryrat I'm just a pleb ATC but I don't rely on my company to keep me up to date on changes in the industry - they'll just tell me when they're about to adopt things that were determined by ICAO. I actively engage with my professional reps - IFATCA - and I read up on the activities of IFALPA and the ICAO panels. When I have an opinion, I contact my reps and let them know. That's how I knew these changes were coming for the last five years.

Why don't we focus on other things? I don't know but why don't you ask your professional reps?

Last edited by FL400; 13th Sep 2017 at 09:00.
FL400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 09:06   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
.

Take the RIVET STAR in to Sydney. There's a TAMMI restriction of at/below 9000' and a BOOGI restriction of at/above 6000'. At the moment APP clears you to 6000' and will not clear you below 6000 until past BOOGI thus requiring an additional radio call. In theory you could now be cleared to, say, 3000' via the STAR and the TAMMI and BOOGI requirements would be left up to the crew.

Whether or not that actually ends up happening, I don't know, but the idea is sound. Give us SIDs and STARs that provide lateral and vertical separation and just let us fly them as published.

That won't happen unless sydney airspace and procedures had a complete redesign.. from boogi you still have to overfly a chunk of of departures airspace (hence the 6000ft level off) before being handed to director who'll assign lower factoring in what's in front, what's going to be pointing at you from the adjacent RWYs circuit, terrain, and the holy gospel of noise abatement procedures.
WhisprSYD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 09:13   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhisprSYD View Post
That won't happen unless sydney airspace and procedures had a complete redesign.. from boogi you still have to overfly a chunk of of departures airspace (hence the 6000ft level off) before being handed to director who'll assign lower factoring in what's in front, what's going to be pointing at you from the adjacent RWYs circuit, terrain, and the holy gospel of noise abatement procedures.
Yeah I know, bad example.
AerocatS2A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 12:30   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12
With the Jepp SIDs I find it astonishing they have deleted the 25 MSA circle and
the ACD frequency.
Turnleft080 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 12:42   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 421
FL400 icao panels and IFALPA working groups are hardly representative of the rank and file pilot, certainly in this country.

As far as the "contempt" with which I supposedly hold airservices and OAR, i have no issue with the coal face controller, it is the executive management that I take issue with. Dont tell me that you, as a controller, are 100% behind and farting rainbows about accelerate and the changes being thrust upon the organisation?

I hate the "descend via" and am mildly ambivalent about the "climb via" procedures in the US.

The "descend via's", combined with their STAR design just loads us up and at the end of a long flight just introduces a level of complexity that is unnecessary.

Given Australia has a kazillion notified icao differences, I have no issue with notifying one more and not introducing these abominations.
Snakecharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 13:27   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 656
Hate 'via' clearances? Really? How/why? Too easy, check the star height windows, set alt and go. No descent interruptions.
maggot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 13:56   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Snakecharma I'm sorry you feel unrepresented by your representatives. Why don't you get involved if you think there should be more Australian pilot voices?
FL400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:57.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1