For the benefit of the LATCC controllers, it may be worth noting that about a year ago BA 'reminded' its pilots of the rules, which agree with what Scott is saying. I.e unless given a 'new' restriction, another instruction cancels the previous restriction. So, with the original example, the crew COULD reduce their rate of descent and not bust a gut trying to make the 130 by GWC. I say this, not because I think BA are special, but because of the number of BA aircraft entering the London TMA.
On a personal note (and I'm sure most of my colleagues are the same) I go along with Moley. I will endeavour to comply with the original restriction and for various reasons: It complies with the vertical profile of the TMA 'wedding cake' and so makes life easier for the controllers. It's normally easier for me 'cos VNAV is using the restriction to provide guidance for me. It prevents 'problems' if the next controller forgets to tell me the restriction still exists and, judging by some of the confusion amongst some of the London controllers, it would seem sensible because I don't know which one of you is controlling and whether or not you are 'confused' by the ruling.
If nothing else I reckon this thread highlights a couple of points. One is that some controllers need to go and do a quick bit of revision. I know it sounds harsh, but if the majority are saying it is in the 'rule' book and a few are putting in their own interpretation, then someone is wrong. I don't particularly like the idea of being controlled by someone who doesn't know the rules or who is uncertain 'cos he hasn't read the books in a while. This is not a pilot dig. I genuinely respect the professionalism of the London controllers and know you guys know your stuff, but we all allow things to stray from our brains and a quick scan through the books can bring it all back. Secondly, if enough confusion exists then either the rules have to be changed or re-iterated. I would have to agree with a previous contributor and have the UK singing off the same sheet of music as the rest of ICAO. This means not changing the rules, but making sure everyone knows what they are....back to the revision.
A great, thought-provoking thread and one that, if nothing else, might have cleared up some 'confusion' with a few controllers out there, or got them to go and look it up and see whether they've been doing it right or not. I will remain pragmatic and continue to make the restrictions, but be VERY aware that many won't and they're in the right to do so (sensible or not!).
Have a great Xmas and I look forward to your continued excellent service in the New Year (good bit of leave you understand
).
And......
Recover