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, 02:23   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 323
New SID & STAR Procedures

Anyone else seen the latest changes to the SID & STAR procedures? Apparently it's ICAO driving the change, but this is just shite! Talk about adding more confusion and clogging up the radio with superfluous chat. In a time where radio congestion is at its maximum worldwide, this is a huge backward step. I'd be surprised if this lasts because I have trouble getting a word in already. 47 page booklet to explain it

Last edited by angryrat; 12th Sep 2017 at 02:42.
angryrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 02:50   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,064
Well regulators would be unemployed if they didn't unnecessarily reinvent the wheel every 5 years. So it's just the ICAO and CASA types keeping themselves relevant.

Unfortunately it makes the whole point of SOP's irrelevant if they just keep changes all the time. That in itself is a safety issue.
neville_nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 03:16   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 6,815
World's best practice - must be good for us eh Leddie - toughen up, Princesses!
Capn Bloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 05:41   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Guys an incredible amount of work went into this over a number of years at ICAO with input from pilots, ATC and procedures designers: it's not something dreamed up overnight or by people without real world experience.

The procedures are being progressively adopted arund the world and it's our pathway to a future of strategic rather than tactical separation in the terminal area i.e ATC won't be bothering you with 1000' increments of climb and descent.

I urge you to read up on the new procedures, adopt them, challenge pilots/controllers who don't adopt them and provide feedback through your professional representatives so they can provide that feedback through to ICAO.

Posting 'it's shite' on PPRuNe doesn't help anybody and it discourages others from adopting the procedures in the first place.
FL400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 06:30   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 293
Haven't seen any changes yet here in the sand pit. What's the gist of em?

Or is it Aus coming into line with the rest of the world. e.g., when cleared to another point on direct on the star not having to make the now abeam waypoints crossing altitude.
Capn Rex Havoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 06:42   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 6,815
Quote:
when cleared to another point on direct on the star not having to make the now abeam waypoints crossing altitude.
Never had to, Rex.

New stuff: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/a17-h21.pdf
Capn Bloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 07:55   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 994
This is standard in the US, and similar versions of it exist elsewhere. Not to sure how it increases radio chatter angryrat, if anything it reduces it by being able to clear a crew all the way down once and having them simply comply with the height and speed restrictions on the way down. It is never going to remove all the chatter a ATC needs to finesse the the flow onto the runway, but it does make things easier when used correctly.
rmcdonal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:00   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 574
My Fav part
It cancels the 250kt restriction below 10000 in class C....and then just a few paragraphs later puts in all the exceptions that make that statement meaningless.
ozbiggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:05   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 6,815
Hang on, NOTHING has changed here. ATC do not clear us "if anything it reduces it by being able to clear a crew all the way down once and having them simply comply with the height and speed restrictions on the way down.". That is exactly what happens now.

It seems to me the only difference is the extra words "CLIMB VIA SID" TO (level) and "DESCEND VIA STAR" TO (level). Pretty obvious, I would have thought, and exactly what we have been doing for yonks. Obviously there are pilots around who don't understand SIDSTAR limitations and have to be told explicitly to comply with them.

Stop beating up on us Ozzies, you lot.
Capn Bloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:15   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,169
"BEHIND the XXX line up BEHIND" Really?

"Line up and wait" Was there any other choice?

All this is brought about by miscommunication. So the desk dwellers add more words.

If you are CLEARED via a SID then of course the climb is via the SID. More words...

As usual I will simply comply but I don't have to agree with it.
Icarus2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:18   #11 (permalink)
ASD
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Still confused... ICAO send out this new RT procedure and we have to implement it even though no one seems too impressed with the change.

However ICAO also recommends that we should pronounce the numbers in callsigns separately (QFA 221 - QANTAS TWO TWO ONE) however its put into AIP that callsigns must be used in group form in Australian airspace (QANTAS TWO TWENTY ONE).

So why do we listen to only some things ICAO recommend? Very confused.
ASD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:20   #12 (permalink)
ASD
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozbiggles View Post
My Fav part
It cancels the 250kt restriction below 10000 in class C....and then just a few paragraphs later puts in all the exceptions that make that statement meaningless.
Thought the same thing when I read that
ASD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 10:07   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Stop beating up on us Ozzies, you lot.
Well stop doing it when Air Circus Oztralia can be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th century
Not a big change, at all to be fair..have seen it implemented elsewhere with the absolute minimum of fuss, that said, the Oztranoughts at my outfit will do their level best to ensure the emphasis will be on the minutiae rather than the practical
haughtney1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 10:45   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 391
Quote:
My Fav part
It cancels the 250kt restriction below 10000 in class C....and then just a few paragraphs later puts in all the exceptions that make that statement meaningless.
Exactly...
josephfeatherweight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 10:50   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozbiggles View Post
My Fav part
It cancels the 250kt restriction below 10000 in class C....and then just a few paragraphs later puts in all the exceptions that make that statement meaningless.
I thought the same, then realised what they've done is change the 250 knots from an airspace restriction to an ATC restriction. This becomes relevant further in when you read the bit about phraseologies for cancelling speed restrictions.

"No ATC speed restrictions" cancels the 250 knot restriction. If they'd left it as is, that phrase would not have cancelled 250 knots.

They could have made it a lot clearer by just saying this is what they'd done.

Quote:
Hang on, NOTHING has changed here. ATC do not clear us "if anything it reduces it by being able to clear a crew all the way down once and having them simply comply with the height and speed restrictions on the way down.". That is exactly what happens now.
Bloggs, I think the idea is that you can now be cleared all the way down.

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.
AerocatS2A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 10:59   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,435
Arent both Airbus and Boeing FMS speed restricted by default below 10,000 anyways?

On DEP, in the US, CFR 91.117 allows you to fly faster than 250 below 10K if your clean maneuvering speed is higher than 250.
underfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 11:11   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
Arent both Airbus and Boeing FMS speed restricted by default below 10,000 anyways?

On DEP, in the US, CFR 91.117 allows you to fly faster than 250 below 10K if your clean maneuvering speed is higher than 250.
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?
AerocatS2A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 12:19   #18 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL400 View Post
Guys an incredible amount of work went into this over a number of years at ICAO with input from pilots, ATC and procedures designers: it's not something dreamed up overnight or by people without real world experience.

The procedures are being progressively adopted arund the world and it's our pathway to a future of strategic rather than tactical separation in the terminal area i.e ATC won't be bothering you with 1000' increments of climb and descent.

I urge you to read up on the new procedures, adopt them, challenge pilots/controllers who don't adopt them and provide feedback through your professional representatives so they can provide that feedback through to ICAO.

Posting 'it's shite' on PPRuNe doesn't help anybody and it discourages others from adopting the procedures in the first place.
I can see an incredible amount of work went into it because it took 47 pages to explain the obvious of how to fly a STAR or SID. However, you only managed to confuse me when it comes to speed restrictions and will only result in radio chatter to confirm the clearance and what ATC want.

When it comes to superfluous radio chatter, I am now stating the obvious of that I'm descending via a STAR and climbing via a SID with every descent and climb. I also don't see how this reduces radio calls because ATC will separate us from non-controlled airspace and traffic as they currently do in Australia.

So readbacks of an ATC clearance of "When ready, descent via the star to FL250" increase by 140% from "FL250" to reading the whole clearance back. Similarly it's about a 10% increase on a route clearance and a 100% increase on a 'standard' climb or descent clearance.

For those cracking on about the Oztranauts, it's nothing to do with us... at least I hope it's not, about to be ICAO and introduced worldwide.

I know that the U.S. already makes you superfluously read back your STAR etc. I know I'm on that STAR, ATC know I'm on that STAR, so it's excess radio chatter.

Calling it shite is just my opinion of these new rules creating excess radio chatter. In no way do I insinuate that pilots not be professional and disregard the rules of the air.
angryrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 12:27   #19 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A View Post
I thought the same, then realised what they've done is change the 250 knots from an airspace restriction to an ATC restriction. This becomes relevant further in when you read the bit about phraseologies for cancelling speed restrictions.

"No ATC speed restrictions" cancels the 250 knot restriction. If they'd left it as is, that phrase would not have cancelled 250 knots.

They could have made it a lot clearer by just saying this is what they'd done.
Yes but that clearance can't be issued on a SID or STAR. Clear as mud?
angryrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 12:50   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by angryrat View Post
Yes but that clearance can't be issued on a SID or STAR. Clear as mud?
Seems clear enough to me.
AerocatS2A 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 18:09.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1