Help for a lowly pilot

[Sparkey]

Dear all as a FO with a major British carrier I find myself embarrased to have to ask for help, but I have recently had my understanding of ATC clearances questioned.
When on a STAR into a UK or any other airfield and I'm given a clearance "descend FL150 to be level by XXX"; does this mean at or above, at or below,or indeed at? Furthermore if having started my descent I am then given a clearance "descend FL 90", does the restriction of 150 still apply at XXX? Likewise if I'm taken off the STAR onto a heading do the published restrictions apply.
I hope I am the only one who is uncertain about this but alas I fear not. Thanks for any help with this. :eek:

[spekesoftly]

"Descend FL150 to be level by XXX", means you should arrange your descent to be level at FL150 at, or before, position XXX. Any subsequent descent clearance replaces the previous instruction. If ATC still want the previous condition to apply, then IMHO, it should be clarified in the new instruction:- "Descend FL90, cross XXX at FL150 or below".

If you are put on radar headings, then I don't see how you can comply with the STAR.

That's how I see it, others may disagree. Hope this helps.

[sector8dear]

Sparkey - IMHO spekesoftly is basically right - however ATC clearances given when you are on a radar heading should indicate 'abeam' the reporting point/fix.

(Published levels on STARS are only an indication of what to expect - the ATC clearance given at the time is what you are required to do)

[Asda]

Dear Sparkey, don't be embarrased to ask, it's a very sensible question.
All the above is true - be level at or before xxx if on own nav, be level abeam if on radar heading - you should hear the magic word 'abeam' in the clearance. One important point, if you can't achieve the specified level by that point, tell us asap. Any restriction to be level xxx by xxx has a reason behind it. It may be so that you can achieve another level further down the line, such as min stack and so might be a bit flexible. On the other hand it could be to ensure separation against other a/c and is definitely not flexible. We need to know.

[Bewli-Begto]

SPARKEY - Respect!!! I wish a few more Pilots would ask questions especially in this forum (R/T frequencies tend to be a bit busy nowadays to chat). If more Crews understood what we on the ground are trying to achieve and how we do it, it would make all our lives a bit smoother. Never, EVER be embarrassed to ask a question, there are lots of friendly ATCOs here who are only to eager to help you out with your understanding and, of course, we will ask questions in return to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Please make this known as much as possible among your colleagues and TELL THEM ALL ABOUT PPRUNE - this is just the sort of thing that it is designed for. Once again, THANK YOU for your interest! :)

[160to4DME]

And of course, there's no better opportunity to discuss such questions than on a fam flight or liaison visit.

Ooops, I forgot, NATS management regard those as unecessary perks, so they've been stopped.

Ah, progress....a two edged sword :(

[Sparkey]

Thanks for your help guys it's much appreciated and very welcome. I totally agree that exchange visits are of great value to everyone. In a previous company I made a few trips to the tower in LHR, I believe my present outfit have a visit programme to LATCC so I hope to take up on that too. Regards to all. :cool:

[fernando]

Sparkey,

Thanks for asking, I also work up there and many times the guy on the left does not know my stupid Q. I found this a good place to ask. Even though I have been many times tempted to ask on the frequency. :D

[terrain safe]

just a quick point about being on a radar heading then do the restrictions in the STAR still apply. I think they do in the event of a radio failure as this is part of the reason that you a given a STAR as soon as you enter UK airspace. But then I may be completely wrong as usual, but thank you for asking the question.

[5milesbaby]

Terrain Safe - you never had me in the first place ;) ;) ;)

To being on a radar heading, if the descent restriction was given whilst still on your own nav, then the heading at a later stage, I would expect you to still keep to the restriction, transposing it to 'level abeam' yourself. However I understand the problems lately with this and if time permits, I re-issue the restriction to be abeam so no confusion exists, or maybe just, 'the level restriction still applies'.

RT Failure is STILL such an unknown force within UK airspace, I dread to think what would happen in the event. STAR's are routes, and although associated levels are published, they aren't to be adheard to in the event of RTF. If an a/c went RT Failure whilst on a heading after receiving a STAR, I would expect the a/c to continue to the last acknowledged assigned level, resume own navigation to the NEXT point on the flight plan/STAR, continue to the hold maintaining the level and then blah, blah, blah..... In reality, I would like the a/c to follow the STAR including the associated levels as descending in a London TMA holding fix from FL390 is bloody ludicrus (sp?!). Its been said many times (on here alone), and still it goes on.

A question back Sparkey, if we give a conditional clearance to FLXXX, expecting FLZZZ by *****, you start descent, then we finally clear you to FLZZZ (no level offs) would you expect us to re-inforce the 'level by' again, or would you know as you were earlier told??

Always though, in doubt, ASK. Its better to be safe, and it makes our job much easier if we get it right. :)

[turnleftnow]

It may be different in other parts of the world but it was drummed into me that if I give an a/c a requirement to reach a level by a position/distance for some reason then give further descent later without any mention of the requirement it STILL remains. The requirement can only be cancelled by saying 'cancel requirement' or words to that effect.

[Scott Voigt]

In the US if you give a crossing restriction and then you take him off of the route so that he can't cross that fix, or if you give a different altitude or even the same altitude with NO crossing restriction, then the crossing restriction no longer applies.

regards

[PPRuNe Radar]

turnleftnow

The UK falls into line with the USA on this one. Any new clearance automatically cancels any restriction. If you want the restriction to apply then it must be restated.

[Zeitgebers]

So let me get this absolutely clear.
Example : WLO 3C into LGW for 26L.
I am on the star, cleared to FL 130 to be level GWC. Then given a radar heading of say 080 which takes me just south of GWC and cleared FL 110.
Can you confirm that there is no need to make 130 by ABEAM GWC.
I have always assumed that one still needed to be 130 passing GWC.
Another vagary of the english language - 'by'. Be level 'by'. There are 17 definitions in the Oxford dictionary.
Meaning 1 : Be level by the the time you get there.
Meaning 2 : Be level as you pass by.
Thanks guys, you never cease to amaze me. Best in the world.

[Right Way Up]

At an Airline-ATC meeting 2 years ago, I was told by a supervisor that once a crossing restriction had been superseded by a new lower altitude, that the level restriction became at or below. e.g initial restriction GWC at FL 130 superseded by descend FL 110, meant you still had to cross GWC at or below FL130.

[Zeitgebers]

Even though you are on a radar heading and effectively off the STAR?
I still make the STAR restriction of 130 by GWC just to be on the safe side. Do I need to ?

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Zeitgebers ]

[Goldfish Watcher]

As someone said already - if you are given a level restriction, it is for a reason.

FL130 by GWC is pretty cruicial since there are aircraft entering the TMA from other directions at F150 and FL140.

If you are set up on a rate of descent to make a level restriction, and then given further descent before reaching the restriction point, I think you'd be pretty goddam stupid to disregard the previous restriction!

Ok, the official line is that a new clearance cancels the previous, but come on - use some common sense. And remember, it's your own safety your playing with if you don't.

And as an aside - "level GWC" or "level abeam GWC" should be the clearance. Not "level BY GWC" so there should be no ambiguity. That is - at, or abeam GWC your altimeter should already be showing FL130. If you achieve the level 10 miles before or exactly as you reach GWC it doesn't matter. Just NOT 1 mile after...

Of course you can replace this restriction with any you like (FL250, 30 miles before MID for example!) But the idea is still the same.

And finally a question from me to any pilots reading this. What do you think about the condition "expedite throughFLxxx" ? Do you take the word expedite seriously? or would you rather you were asked to provide a specific ROC/ROD? I'm undecided on this and would like your opinion.

Thanks GW

[Zeitgebers]

I absolutely agree with you and common sense always wins. I have never once even contemplated NOT making 130 by GWC .
There seems to be ambiguity amongst some of the replies here regarding this extremely important subject.
ieSpekesoftly says 'if you are put on radar headings, then I don't see how you can comply with the STAR'.
and Sector 8 Dear agrees adding ' however ATC clearances given when you are on a radar heading should indicate 'abeam' the reporting point/fix.'

More often than not, no such instruction is given. ( perhaps due to workload ?) Hence my query as any drivers reading some of the above might get the wrong idea.
Many of the previous posts seem to say that a new level clearance replaces previous instructions, but it doesn't regardless of whether you are on the STAR or on a radar heading. I just find those statements a bit misleading.

Woolly rules and varying interpretations would seem to me to be the last thing we need.
I am not being picky or antagonistic, so please don't have a go, I'm just a dumb driver who found some of the posts on this rather contradictory. Cheers.

[Over+Out]

Atco's would like Pilots to comply with level restrictions at all times (unless they are cancelled). However the Air Pilot says a new clearance cancels an old one. Many of our separations rely on levels being made. When in doubt ask or make the level restriction. I have no idea why what we want is not reflected by the paperwork.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Is there an LCE in the house ?? ;)

We have people saying that restrictions still apply even if a new clearance is given....WRONG. In the UK if the restriction is still required it must be restated. This has been the case for a couple of years, maybe old habits die hard.

We have some ambiguity on restriction phraseology. The UK standard phraseology is Climb/descend to (level) by (reporting point/time).

We also have some confusion as to when the pilot is on the published STAR and when he is not. I would argue that vectoring off the STAR means that pilot is no longer following it, until recleared to a waypoint further down the published route. In any case, the level restrictions on the STARs (in the UK) are NOT an ATC clearance and we cannot expect pilots to automatically comply with them unless we tell them to. They are merely there for the pilots to plan their flight profiles and their fuel. As the STAR charts in the AIP clearly state, the levels are for planning purposes and actual levels required will be stated by ATC. So if we want a level restriction, we have to tell you. If we don't, then there is no need to meet any published level.

Finally we have some stating that common sense should form part of the clearance. It cannot be thus, positive control must be applied and the pilot told exactly what is required at all times. Everyones interpretation of common sense is different, in ATC we need to have standards which everyone knows and can relate to.

[Check Wheels]

In Australia if an aircraft is taken off a STAR, we have to use the phraseology "cancel Star, turn right heading---". Is this not the case in Europe?

[Goldfish Watcher]

Look,

all I was saying was: if a pilot is descending (or climbing) to make a level restriction, then issued with a further descent/climb why would they deliberately not comply with the previous restriction?

ROGEROUT - please don't be sarcastic. My point wasn't as simple as "use common sense". It was part of my viewpoint.

You are right though, one clearance does cancel a previous. But I'll tell you this - I'd bet a fair amount of money that the majority of us don't always remember to restate clearances when we're working hammer and tongs.

GW

[Scott Voigt]

Goldfish Watcher;

The reason that a pilot wouldn't comply with the old restriction is because the restriction no longer applies. If you need them to be level at a certain place, then you MUST advise them via an updated clearance as to where you need them to be for separation purposes.

We expect pilots to tell us when they can't do something. We don't read their minds. The same goes for us. If we need something then we have to issue an appropriate clearance.

regards

[Goldfish Watcher]

YES I KNOW!. Either I'm not explaining myself clearly or you are completely missing my point.

I think I shall withdraw from this, to save us from going round in circles.

GW

[Scott Voigt]

Well my wife accuses me of missing the point quite often <BG>...

regards

[Goldfish Watcher]

:D

[Zeitgebers]

Who started this ? !
Interesting.
Many of the Alt restrictions on some STARS are well below the ideal profile. This costs fuel in thses belt tightening times. When cleared to a lower altitude ( below the restriction ) and put on a heading, I would say most Pilots would apply the 'common sense' mentioned earlier, I certainly do.
Food for thought though.

[Scott Voigt]

The altitudes on STARS and SIDS are for aircraft separation purposes. If there is no one in the way, then they are designed for the ease of the flight crew. When traffic is the main issue, then you do what you must to keep everyone moving and separated...

regards

[Grandad Flyer]

Had a good one the other day. We had been cleared to a level, to be level at a certain point. So we started our descent. Then we were told to change our cleared level to a higher one and bring our speed back. Then we waited a good few minutes until we were told once again to descend and make that FL by the same point. At the time we were probably about 5 miles from the point and, oh, about 8,000 feet higher than the level restriction. We suggested to ATC at the time that it was rather unlikely we were going to make it!!

Goldfish Watcher, I am more than happy for an "expedite through FL XX". Not a problem. In the machine I fly we can choose to increase the speed to increase the rate of descent or we can give you a fixed vertical speed (ie. rate of descent), XXXX feet per minute.
The only problem for this lies in the speed. If you tell us to expedite AND reduce speed or if we are limited to say 250 knots and we're still pretty high we can't increase the rate of descent much more. We try and descend with power right back, at idle, so the only way to increase the descent is to put the nose down, which means an increase in speed, if only temporarily.

Wow, does that make any sense at all?!!

[DouglasDigby]

Thank you, PPRuNe Radar (from a sometimes confused pilot) for the clarification. That said, there are still (IMHO) too many occasions that ambiguity allows scope for confusion, and more importantly, mistakes and loss of separation, especially if operating into an unusual airfield (or if English is not the prime language). At the risk of increasing the RTF workload, perhaps we need something to ensure that crews are advised of any significant revision to clearance - I like the post from Check Wheels "Cancel STAR...." Anything for an easy life for both ATC and us pilots!!