SID Climb Restrictions - New UK RT Phraseology

[Cough]

Someone posted this on our company forum.

What do you guys make of this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200901.pdf) from the CAA.

Looks like frequency congestion is going up....

Cough

[Scuzi]

It's the last thing we need on already congested TMA frequencies. Whatever the hell was wrong with "Climb now"?

The amount of scenarios where climb is required immediately on instruction far outnumbers the amount of times where the SID profile needs to be followed. In fact, I cannot think of one occasion where an aircraft following the vertical profile of the SID on climb above the SID level would have been of any benefit at all. There is no guaranteed separation above SID levels.

If this instruction is to be followed on a London TMA departures sector at peak traffic, almost every aircraft is going to have to be given this instruction. Even now in our supposed quiet period I sometimes find it difficult to get in on the RT. What's it going to be like with summer traffic levels?

I'll not be using this new phraseology any time soon unless it causes confusion. A simple "Climb now" (with emphasis on the "now") will suffice. It's much safer and a lot more efficient.

[bookworm]

It mirrors this (http://www.eurocontrol.int/airspace/gallery/content/public/documents/PANS-ATM_amend5%20(low%20res).pdf) from Eurocontrol, detailing the amendments (No. 5) to PANS-ATM that were applicable in November 2007.

[fireflybob]

I'll not be using this new phraseology any time soon unless it causes confusion. A simple "Climb now" (with emphasis on the "now") will suffice. It's much safer and a lot more efficient.

As a pilot I could not agree more! Who dreams up this stuff? If it ain't broke then don't fix it!

[PeltonLevel]

I'll not be using this new phraseology any time soonIf you're with NATS, it might not be a good idea to say this too loud, with an ICAO audit in the offing (and the 'suggestion' appears to have originated from them).

[ZOOKER]

Another 'idea in action' from some office-dwelling f*ckwit who obviously doesn't wear a headset.
I always thought that NATS/CAA standards were higher than those of ICAO?

[Scuzi]

If you're with NATS, it might not be a good idea to say this too loud, with an ICAO audit in the offing (and the 'suggestion' appears to have originated from them).
There are already a lot of people speaking out against this new phraseology. If the CAA listens, we'll be back to normal fairly soon. If controllers are forced to use the new phraseology, I can see it being pulled within a matter of days as it will cause airmisses if used in anger.

Who's going to be the first to instruct a Turkmenistan or a China Eastern to climb with a stack full of inbound traffic on top of them in the hope they'll wait until the end of the SID before they pull the nose up? Who knows, some people may do it to prove a point.:suspect:

[Spitoon]

Another 'idea in action' from some office-dwelling f*ckwit who obviously doesn't wear a headset.
I always thought that NATS/CAA standards were higher than those of ICAO? In my experience many of the people at working level in the CAA are very good and sensible.

Unfortunately many of the problems we now face are a result of people signing up to rules which mean that the UK has to adhere to international and European rules and standards - in principle a good idea. But only if those rules themselves are good and not, as is often the case, the lowest common denominator that every State will accept.

[Not Long Now]

So apparently the new clearance (climb) does not cancel the previous clearance (follow SID profile) unless you explicitly say so when departing, but when arriving, we don't say "Descend FL100, FL150 TIGER restriction cancelled" because the new clearance DOES cancel the old clearance.
That's good then, nice consistency.

[Not Long Now]

Oops, forgot...
Let's count the number of times you give a climb clearance but DO want the plane to stop off at all the appropriate SID restrictions first. OK, never ever heard it or given it in 17 years, anyone else...

[anotherthing]

This is complete bollocks and it continues the trend that has been emerging over the past couple of years of dumbing down aviation to the lowest common denominator.

A new clearance cancels the previous clearance. End of story.

As pointed out on this thread, it is inconsistent if it is not used for inbound restrictions as well. I am sure I speak for everyone in the LTMA when I say that when I instruct someone to climb above the SID level, that means climb now.

As Not Long Now points out, how manytimes have we seen pilots follow the SID restrictions once a further climb has been issued?? Personally, never.

Why not educate the few pilots who do not understand the idea of new clerances cancelling old?

Before this phraseology came in, during the course of a working day in the LTMA, a handful of pilots might ask 'is that climb unrestricted', when given climb above the SID level, to which a simple reply of 'affirm' sufficed. That's a handful out of the hundreds of departures.

If we have to dumb down our profession could we at least do it with some thought? What would be wrong with the simple phrase of 'climb unrestricted FLxxx'?

It's what I used to use for Delta pilots etc and it is what I will continue to use.

It is one extra word, it is a short, concise and unambiguous instruction... which is the whole idea behind standard phraseology FFS :ugh:

I will also be sending an email to the CAA with my thoughts on the whole thing, with the backing of my colleagues on my watch at TC.

[ZOOKER]

I always thought that SID minimum levels were for noise abatement, terrain clearance and to keep the aircraft's initial climb profile with CAS, as the base steps up away from the CTR. Not forgetting the SIDS which cross tracks in complex TMAs.
It does seem long-winded phraseology for a time of relatively high cockpit workload.
I too have never heard ATC tell anyone to follow the SID level restrictions, although I have heard A/C stopped off below the SID final level to help ADC out with departure spacing, (slightly different I know). Always at MSA or above.
Also, if an aircraft now climbs above minimum SID levels before calling departure control, is that a 'level-bust'?

[Medway Control]

The CAA are sometimes prone to coming up with good idea... Admittedly I cant think of one now, but they sometimes do astound... Howver

This is a pile of Horlicks... No way will this work in the London TMA. Whatever happened to the instruction climb. What exactly does this mean?? It means climb! Pure and simple. Just because a few germans (air berlin, germanwings) tend to ask is it unrestricted! Well if they wanna ask, a simple affirm often fixes it. And to be honest, if i'm too busy to respond, I sort out all my other problems then go back to the unrestricted question! The german guys will soon climb when the wander over CLN at 4000ft, instead of FL110...

What will they come up with next? Cup of starbucks for the funniest answer...:ugh:

Oh and ps... why do lufthansa pilots not do it?? Most other german companies do...

[CAP493]

Whatever the hell was wrong with "Climb now"?
Absolutely nothing - and it's still in CAP 413 and so available for use as UK R/T phraseology, if required.... :ok: :8

[AntiDistinctlyMinty]

In the Scottish TMA, aircraft off Edinburgh on a Deancross and Turnberry jet SID climb to 6A on the SID but must then be climbed by Scottish to make FL100 or above in about 20 track miles, this is so they can climb over all the Glasgow inbounds routeing through Lanak. If an aircraft is observed by Glasgow to be slow climbing off Edinburgh their normal reaction would be to descend the inbound to say 6A to try and dive below the outbound which they assume must be climbing.
Ever body see the flaw - the inbound at 6A versus the outbound, say confused by the phraseology of the controller, unsure of the new procedures so playing "safe" and staying at the SID altitude of 6A.

I give it a week before there is some kind of event.

[timelapse]

I have a feeling this will last approximately as long as "Squawk Seven Zero Zero Zero"

Or the "Taxi to Holding Position" trial. One day was it?

[Gingerbread Man]

Why is the QNH still 'Wun Zero Zero Zero' then?

[FoxUniform]

May I put forward a new holding phraseology, while we're on the subject, as the current phraseology works a little too well for my liking - eg. "...TURN RIGHT/LEFT* IMMEDIATELY TREE TOUSAND DEGREES - REPORT PASSING TOO TOUSAND FIFE HUNDRED DEGREES...". *(atcos are advised they shall not use both directions simultaneously)

[tubby linton]

perhaps there should be a new phrase-"Unable VNAV climb".

[Max Angle]

Thread also running over on Rumours and News about this, much the same sentiments as here. Not a good idea, my feeling is that in the same way that "take-off" is only ever said when issuing the take-off clearance to use "climb" when the aircraft is not actually cleared to do so is bound to cause trouble, it is a conditional climb clearance and not a good idea.

How many TCAS RA's and heart attacks all round will it need to get it withdrawn I wonder. This has come down from ICAO rather than originating at the CAA, wonder what the feeling is elsewhere in the world.

[Lear Jockey]

Agree with all of you guys.

This new CAA procedure is really an offence to air safety. When someone instructs you to do something, you do it, correct?! Now we shall climb, but beware...before you do so, look it up on your jepp chart, small caracters somewhere..ha yes, here it is, stop you climb before to a lower level than the one cleared...then, after the constraint, climb again to...which level did he say?!

NO WAY:ugh::ugh::ugh::eek::=

I'm really afraid to fly to London TMA at this stage...

Change that, you're the ONLY place in the World to do that, keep in mind CAA, many foreign operators actually fly in your airspace:E

Good luck, beware of crossing intersections, might not want to build your house below them!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Change that, you're the ONLY place in the World to do that, keep in mind CAA, many foreign operators actually fly in your airspace

That's not really fair on the UK CAA. They are changing a perfectly good UK way of doing things (i.e. any new clearance cancels any previous restriction) to one which has been introduced by ICAO. So all the UK CAA are doing is falling in line with the flawed procedure, which should already be in place throughout the world in ICAO States.

On one hand, it would be nice to have global consistency, so that wherever pilots fly they do the same thing. On the other, countries should still retain the right to file differences to their procedures where their way is safer and more efficient than the global ICAO 'rules' which have to cater for the lowest standard every time.

Whoever designed this 'procedure' hasn't worked much in real life and if there is any criticism of the UK CAA, it should be the fact they didn't have the balls to stand up and point out the flaws, followed by telling ICAO we would be continuing with a tried and trusted safe procedure and would be filing a difference. Indeed, maybe they could have influenced ICAO to adopt the 'new clearance cancels restriction' philosophy worldwide. It works in the US (busy and complex airspace), it works in the UK (plagiarised from the US .. thanks guys :ok: ). Why wouldn't it work worldwide ?

[fireflybob]

Perhaps the wider issue is that we need a (peaceful) revolution. It's those of us who are working in the "coalface" (pilots, air traffic controllers) who are voicing dissent on this change. When I worked in the Railway Industry for a few years many were members of the RMT. If the "authorities" had attempted to implement a change such as this without consultation they would all have downed tools, the network would have ground to a halt and then things would change!

Here's the link to the thread on Rumour and News:-

New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/357593-new-sid-rt-procedures-12-march-09-a.html)

In my opinion there are too many changes being invoked because UK PLC seems to be just going along with edicts from the EU/ICAO etc.

[the hunted one]

What's next?

"Cancel restriction to hold at Alpha. Line up and wait."

Or maybe after landing we should say "Landing clearance is now cancelled. Vacate left and taxi to stand 4."

Or after a Line up and wait instruction, "Requirement to wait is now cancelled. Runway 23, cleared take off."

Radar heading anyone? "Requirement to fly heading 360 degrees is now cancelled. Turn right heading 030 degrees."

:}

[Love_joy]

To me this seems like utter madness - although, I do sympathise with the CAA when they have to implement awkward ICAO/EASA ammendments to our working practices.

Its a real kick in the teeth though, here we are day and day out working our butts off to appease the greenies (and of course the bean counters) with our CDA's, noise abatement, idle thrust descents and managed climbs. And what do they do know - introduce a confusing system of altitude management and control for departures and arrivals. I can just see it now, stuck at 3000' on departure from SOU, or FL060 from BHX because you cant get your word in, or you out climbed the SID profile and you have sit in lower level purgatory until the next step.

Madness... Although I dont have the 'bigger picture' and maybe the new RNAV SID's and STAR's for the UK will make this all fit together better. Who knows...

Happy Level Busting,

LJ

[PPRuNe Radar]

ATSIN 119 remains valid TFN and is not cancelled.

MATS Part 1 SI 2008/04 is now cancelled and replaced by SI 2009/01.

Links are on the R&N thread.

[airac]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20071210ATSIN119.pdf

Maybe it’s me being pedantic
But in the safety warning Message
Shouldn't the words Altitude or Height be added in the first example
And in the second, again Altitude and QNH be added
Or is that just a UK thing?:8

[Pontius's Copilot]

and the official notice (for the drivers, airframe) ...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200902.pdf

Perhaps there's been a outbreak of common sense.

[Spitoon]

Perhaps there's been a outbreak of common sense.Just a shame it didn't break out before creating confusion in the real world.

[anotherthing]

complete bo:mad::mad:ocks

Now some pilots are asking for confirmation when given a climb, all because the publication of this stupid idea without proper though has caused some confusion and uncertainty.

Nice work CAA, thanks for increasing RT loading :ugh:

[Dizzee Rascal]

I see that as from today, the CAA have changed their tune and have cancelled this. The FODCOM and MATS pt1 SI have both been withdrawn.

[Pontius's Copilot]

In terms of PRNAV in Europe (ie, JAR TGL-10) etc there is no such thing as a VNAV procedure; use of VNAV is not mandated now, or expected to be implimented any time soon (ECAC can't see beyond 2020 currently). Therefore, as I understand it, use of VNAV to fly any vertical profile is down to company procedures - if your system can't/won't do it, then revert to the way the profile was designed (ie, non-VNAV).