View Full Version : New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09

11th Jan 2009, 09:20

Don't know how long this will stay in "News" but a heads up for all who fly in UK airspace. New RT procedures coming soon - with a potential for "problems" if people don't know the new procedures.......

FODCOM can be found here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200901.pdf

The important bit......

3 New UK Procedures and Phraseology

3.1 SIDs

3.1.1 Under the new procedures, when a departing aircraft is cleared to climb above the initially cleared level or the levels specified in a SID, the aircraft shall still follow the published vertical profile of the SID unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled by ATC.

3.1.2 Consequently, when the aircraft is required to follow the published vertical profile of the SID the new UK phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will follow the published vertical profile of the SID and, only after passing the end of the SID, commence a climb to FL100.

3.1.3 However, when the aircraft is required to climb immediately to a level above the final level on the SID, or above the initially cleared level if this is below the SID upper level, the phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX, SID level restrictions cancelled”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100, SID level restrictions cancelled”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will climb directly to FL100 without reference to any part of the published vertical profile of the SID including any minimum height requirements.

Fly safe and Happy New Year,


11th Jan 2009, 09:39
This new procedure needs to proof first that it will work as engineered.
On first glance it is the perfect scenario to create dangerous situations as accidentally busting the SID restrictions will be a more than a daily occurrence.

The FMC should have the altitude restrictions programmed, this, however, will work only if operating in VNAV mode.....

Do not repair something if it ain't broken comes to mind....

11th Jan 2009, 09:53
I agree Nightrider - potential disaster written all over it.

How's this for a similar scenario/problem? You're flying a SID with a stop altitude of 5000'. You're in CLB (Managed on Airbus, VNAV on Boeing I think) and ATC clear you to FL80. You preselect 8000' and if there is a constraint at 5000' you end up with 5000 MAGENTA and 8000 on the FCU (MCP). The aircraft will obey the constraints in "managed".

Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.

This is one problem with P-RNAV departures and preselecting final platforms - if ATC don't give you a recleared level if they put you on a heading........

Let's hope that all Airline Ops departments are very proactive in promulgating this one.

MODS can you leave this as a "sticky" at the top of rumours to give maximum awareness?

11th Jan 2009, 10:00
Let's hope that all Airline Ops departments are very proactive in promulgating this one

Let's hope the airline safety management departments hire more people to handle the increase in ASRs.

Just as well that our last sim checks included lots of TCAS alerts...


11th Jan 2009, 10:05
Some more comments on ATC Forum:-

SID RT Phraseology (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/357227-sid-climbs.html)

Black Knat
11th Jan 2009, 10:26
So an ATC cleared level may not be the level you are intitially cleared to....at least not until you reach a point on the SID.
This will cause mayhem with certain (non-'native english' speaking) operators. Why change what already works? Why jam up the (already overloaded) frequencies with ATC having to issue longer clearances when wanting you to ignore SID restrictions? How much time/distraction will ATC have to give when someone mis-understands their clearance and climbs into the stack?!!?

11th Jan 2009, 10:36
Level Bust City, here we come!!

:confused: + :sad: = :ugh:

11th Jan 2009, 10:42
So, with out "Vnav" in our vintage A300's, what are we supposed to do.

Do we go back to the old days of writing down the cleared level and then remember to dial this up at the end of the SID, or dial it up straight away and remember to hit ALT when at the SID limit level?

Also, I fly with a lot of people whose first language is not English and have difficulty getting the first call right after take off. (ie. SID designator, Passing level and Cleared level).

I don't think they will get this right all of the time either! More ATC congestion!

Fly safe.

11th Jan 2009, 10:59
So it would appear with this change that for practical purposes ATC begins where the SID ends. If you have FMS then program the stop heights in the FMS and don't delete them, if you don't have FMS um.... good luck :uhoh:

Max Angle
11th Jan 2009, 11:23
Quite agree that this is an accident (or a very near miss) waiting to happen. It's not a UK thing, it's come from ICAO and they need to re-think this and change it. The only way it will work is for new levels never to issued until the aircraft is past the restriction point or for the SID restriction to be cancelled every time when issuing the level.

In the same way as the phrase "take-off" is never used by aircraft or ATC except to actually issue the take-off clearance the same should apply to "climb" or "descend". The phrase should never be used except when it is safe for the aircraft to follow the clearance. Another piece of madness dreamt up in an ivory tower by people who have probably never been near an ATC radar unit or an aircraft.

It's basically a conditional clearance and I thought that was something ICAO where trying to get away from, very strange.

11th Jan 2009, 11:24
What's the point? Why? If there's a good reason (and Europe is NOT a good reason - that's what the 'exceptions' bit at the back of CAP 413 is for) then fair enough but this just looks like lots of unnecessary R/T for nothing, and definitely ambiguous. 'Climb FLXXX' means just that in other circumstances, why different on a SID? Toooooooo dodgy.

Black Knat
11th Jan 2009, 12:29
Shame no one making these new procedures didn't think to run it past aircrew/ATC to get their thoughts before implimenting this.

11th Jan 2009, 12:29
Does anyone from ATC have any idea what the logic is behind the changes? Will it help with flow management? Will it reduce frequency congestion? I doubt it will help to achieve the latter for the reasons already mentioned.

This is one problem with P-RNAV departures and preselecting final platforms

Totally agree A4

I'm yet to fly a P-RNAV departure and be left alone by atc to follow the SID without being given a more direct routing/ heading. Level bust city.

11th Jan 2009, 12:37
The other potential gotcha is that you may be given the higher level quite early on in the SID. In the meantime the controller may have to deal with non-expected conflicting traffic (say someone on a requested heading to avoid w/x for instance) and the only thing that saves a woopsy is him remembering that he gave you a higher level some time ago.
This strikes me as very very dodgy with no obvious potential gain. Far too much projecting ahead required on the part of the controller, who cannot just clear & forget for the reason I envisaged above and no doubt many others.
Truly, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

11th Jan 2009, 12:38
Plus one for the unhappy club. As a postholder I am not looking forward to being responsible for implementing something that I know to contain a substantial source of confusion/error and that I consider to be an accident waiting to happen. How the hell can I justify that within a meaningful safety management system? :{

Slow clap for whoever came up with the safety case for it. In fact, I'd like to *see* the safety case...

11th Jan 2009, 12:46
Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.

Does that mean as soon as you are given a radar heading, you climb straight away? As you won't be following the SID anymore

From the FODCOM:
3.1.4 If instructions are issued that change an aircraft’s SID route (e.g. placing the aircraft on a heading), the SID’s vertical constraints are automatically cancelled. Therefore the controller will state the vertical profile to be followed

11th Jan 2009, 12:47
Well, we've had this confusion for years and innumerable posts on PPrune about 'what am I supposed to do':ugh:

I can see major problems, but maybe if we adopt the same mindset as we do on 'cleared for the procedural approach' where we do not set the final platform altitude UNTIL it becomes appropriate, we might learn to adapt.

BIG question, however, is how is this going to fit with furrin visitors - do all ICAO procedures operate this way (in theory, anyway) or will this be a huge 'gotcha' for 'mr overseas'?

11th Jan 2009, 12:49
Thanks for all the replies - glad I'm not the only one who's concerned.

Interestingly at the end of the FODCOM it states they are not YET going to implement changes for STARS - a deviation from ICAO. They will wait until further implementation of P-RNAV has taken place.......... so why not deviate from ICAO with SID's? The vast majority of views expressed on here from drivers is that it is a retrograde and dangerous step.

Why do the CAA think this is a good idea? :confused:

A4 :ugh:

The big concern is foreign crews who may be completely unaware of this - or their respective Authorities have decided to not implement it. Recent case in point is TCAS phraseology. We now say "TCAS RA" instead of "TCAS CLIMB/DESCENT"..... but in Spain I believe they have retained CLIMB / DESCENT in the call. Why can we not standardise?


11th Jan 2009, 14:15
Hmmm... standard ways of doing things, so everyone knows what each other is going to do. You know, it's crazy but it might just work - quick, someone think up an acronym!

It would be nice if the UK powers-that-be would tell us - rather than all having to go and find out, individually - if any other regulator going to implement this, ICAO standard though it might be. I would be very interested to hear from our colleagues elsewhere.

11th Jan 2009, 15:57
This strikes me as a classic example of being instructed by ATC to do something that you are not necessarily yet cleared to do, and I am sure that at best it will cause a significant increase in level busts, and at worst a catastrophe,

It goes completely against the grain, and appears to be contrary to the wisdom of previous initiatives designed to avoid confusion, for example the "behind the landing XYZ, line up behind." In this example the aditional use of "behind" was added (I presume) to ensure clarity and reduce the chance of any missunderstanding.

Here we have a procedure that may be necessary for ATC operation reasons, and it is clear that all posters agree it is going to lead to confusion. It seems appropriate to me that there would be little difficulty in introduing this initiative if a qualifier is added to the instruction - for example "AFTER ABC, climb FL100.

tubby linton
11th Jan 2009, 16:34
I fly an old airbus that will quite happily ignore any climb constraints in the fms;that has an extremely noisy flightdeck and has poor anr headsets.Many atc calls to us get missed because we are frequently adjusting the volume as airborne transmissions always are much louder than atc transmissions,add in these conditional climb clearances and I will be spending most of my time fixated on the tcas display on our 6cm VSI.

11th Jan 2009, 16:41
The other gotcha with this is altimeter setting errors. Don't most people set standard when cleared to a flight level? Of course those of us in newer equipment will highlight this, but for those in older equipment?

And yes, we know we should set std passing transition but setting std when cleared to a flight level was introduced as a good idea because it is!

This is an incident/accident waiting to happen.

11th Jan 2009, 17:02
Like dixi188 already said. What about us who fly the vintage stuff? No VNAV etc. Better run of to the copier to get some more spare ASR's.

Why can't we just stay with the basics. ATC tells you to climb to xxx and you just do us your told. A bit like being at home for us lads... :=

11th Jan 2009, 20:38
How's this for a similar scenario/problem? You're flying a SID with a stop altitude of 5000'. You're in CLB (Managed on Airbus, VNAV on Boeing I think) and ATC clear you to FL80. You preselect 8000' and if there is a constraint at 5000' you end up with 5000 MAGENTA and 8000 on the FCU (MCP). The aircraft will obey the constraints in "managed".

Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.

I'm not sure I understand this. Why would the aircraft revert to LVL CHG just because you pressed HDG SEL? One is a lateral mode and the other vertical.

If you select HDG in an airbus, does it revert to OP CLB even if you haven't pulled the ALT KNOB?

11th Jan 2009, 21:17
Hello TB,

If you are in "managed" in the modern Airbus (A318-321, 330-380) and you select HDG during the climb it will indeed revert to OP CLB - the theory being you cannot be on a "managed path" (LAT+VERT) if you're in HDG (same for descent - I think). If you're in ALT* it will revert to V/S -even more problematical! If in ALT* - DON'T TOUCH the FCU if you want to stay level!


11th Jan 2009, 21:43
This is not a recent change but it changed already in nov2007 (that's when it was implemented by ICAO) (over 1 year ago) they are just very late in implementing it.

Paradise Lost
11th Jan 2009, 21:47
Fortunately despite loading the FMS with countless Sids (and Stars), it is an extremely rare day when I actually fly to further than the first waypoint before ATC take over the nav. Therefore once on a heading, this new demented edict from ICAO will cease to be in force.

My point being that since it is very rare to fly the full SID, on the odd occasion that it is required, one has to now remember that the ATC level clearance written down should NOT be followed.

This should be Chirped and represented as a DANGEROUS procedure through FSOs and FOIs at the earliest opportunity.

11th Jan 2009, 22:30
This should be fun in our steam gauge, Litton 92 equipped, DC10's:eek:

11th Jan 2009, 22:31
for example the "behind the landing XYZ, line up behind." In this example the aditional use of "behind" was added (I presume) to ensure clarity
fullyspooled, funny you should mention that, as in the UK they don't use this standard phraseology...:ugh:

as for this new procedure... :eek: what ARE they thinking?

Sky Wave
11th Jan 2009, 22:37
If you are given a heading to steer then surely that cancels the SID, therefore OP CLIMB is ok as the restrictions only apply if you are following the SID?

11th Jan 2009, 22:42

While I don't fly either Airbus or Boeing, I'm sure the logic is similar to my type, in that VNav will only engage if LNav is engaged. Also if LNav is then deselected, VNav will be replaced by another vertical mode.

11th Jan 2009, 22:46
Similar crossing altitude gotchas have been in place in China and some other countries for a while now. A couple of my colleagues have learned the hard way about some fine print in the J-Aid. I always try to get clarification whether a climb or descent is unrestricted.

Another inconsistency is the old U.S. policy of implied clearance to cross other runways when given a taxi clearance. Often if you ask to make sure, the controller would act annoyed, particularly at some haughty place like JFK. Those guys are good, some of them just aren't very polite, and yes, I understand that it's cultural up there. I am told that U.S. taxi clearances will soon require explicit crossing instructions after the FAA has got hot on runway incursions lately.

Fortunately, conditional landing clearances are not allowed in the U.S. I've never cared for them and have seen them issued with a plane making the turnoff and another on short final. If you decide that the plane turning off is the landing traffic it could ruin your whole day.

12th Jan 2009, 06:44
Boeing will happily fly VNAV without LNAV engaged.

12th Jan 2009, 08:35
Sorry RadAlt - just goes to show I'm not not up to speed on all of the various differences used by all of the countries Worldwide, and come to that, the many RT differences within JAA land.

Perhaps there is a definitive source reference document - or I guess, a rather thick manual somewhere?

in my last airline
12th Jan 2009, 10:40
Agree with BOAC on this. We mustn't be scared of change, we should ask ourselves, 'how can we do this safely?' Robust SOPs and good preemptive training are essential. It is obvious that the current system is also far from perfect and level bust statistics support this. Also current procedures are not optimal or efficient we are wasting thousands of tons of fuel per day! We need to move towards a better system and as far as I am concerned this is just the beginning of a move towards 4D nav based on RNP and Time. Hopefully mode S et al will start to show significant safety benefits.

The concerns are, multi mode mixing of traffic, ie A300's and GA into the new system. Lack of time available for Operators to Inc this into their training systems and, most daft of all, introducing such a fundamental change just as the summer busy period is about to kick off!

How can we do this safely?

12th Jan 2009, 10:51
To be fair, with the changes to ATSOCAS due on the same day it won't be the only problem for many operators, but I still can't see how it will improve things.

in my last airline
12th Jan 2009, 11:01
I think it's the first step in many changes to come. The advantage is predicability of flight path which will ultimately lead to the Time element of 4D nav to take shape.

12th Jan 2009, 11:24
Agree with BOAC on this. We mustn't be scared of change, we should ask ourselves, 'how can we do this safely?

Point taken but I don't know about you but I am faced with some sort of change nearly every few days or so!

But why aren't those who are working on the "shop floor" asked what they think of a change before it's implemented? Tom Peters, an experienced management guru, says that managers in industry need to get a "daily dose of reality". By this he means they need to go down on the shopfloor and even actually do the job themselves for a while. This means they mix with the "worker drones in the collective" and maybe learn something new.

It still sounds to me as though this change has not been thought through. Yes if we have to work it we will all do our best but that doesn't mean it's the best way! If it ain't broken then don't fix it!

12th Jan 2009, 12:51
Two Points,
1 Its not new. At most icao airports you ask for a flight level on start up.
Your clearance will include a sid and the flight level after that. The sid controls the altitude until cancelled or finished
2 Someone mentioned altimeters. Only the UK switches when cleared to a FL or alt either up or down. Its a difference to ICAO. ICAO is to keep qnh until TA and allows for switching to qnh on the way down when cleared below the TL and for approach.

Therefore the only people with a problem will be UK carriers as most ICAO carriers stay on QNH until TA .
Same in reverse in countries like Turkey where the TA can be high. Everyone below it is on qnh except Brits cleaered to a FL who have switched as per the UK difference.
Now whether the country or operator rules are paramount is another arguement.
I know a certain large middleeastern carrier for one who when climbing stays on qnh until TA and when descending stays on Standard until approaching TL and cleared for the approach in the UK.

12th Jan 2009, 13:01
This instruction will only cause more confusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with th phraseology as is.

If you are instructed to climb by ATC, that means now, without stopping off at any levels on the way, unl;ess this has been reiterated n the climb clearance. The instruction cancels the previous clearance, be that a previous climb instruction or a SID.

I find it incredible that some posters on here can correctly grasp the idea that if you are given radar vectors whilst performing a SID, these vectors mean that you have been taken off the SID i.e. you can disregard the SID level restrictinos, yet do not understand that if you are given a climb above the SID level, this does the same.

SIDS are designed for many reasons, deconfliction from other routes is a major reason when you have SIDS with altitude restrictions. Taking someone off the SID route means these altitude restrictions are no longer effective...

Similarly when told to climb, you climb now! ATC should not give a conditional climb clearance as this is dangerous.. therefore a climb instruction without any level restrictions added to it means climb continuously to the given level.

If in doubt - ask, however this new procedure and phraseology will only cause more confusion. The system worked previously, so why fix it... it certainly isn't an improvement.

12th Jan 2009, 14:25
If you are in "managed" in the modern Airbus (A318-321, 330-380) and you select HDG during the climb it will indeed revert to OP CLB - the theory being you cannot be on a "managed path" (LAT+VERT) if you're in HDG (same for descent - I think). If you're in ALT* it will revert to V/S -even more problematical! If in ALT* - DON'T TOUCH the FCU if you want to stay level!

Thanks for the info, that explains it. In a boeing, you can fly HDG SEL and still remain in VNAV. I think it calculates the altitude restrictions based on an abeam point. Maybe someone can clarify?

Surely this change is also going to complicate things for ATC? They're now going to have to differentiate between a cleared level and a constraint on the SID. Isn't it better that the controller knows what level the A/C is climbing to, rather than having to second guess a possible level off half-way!

I can see the phrase "Climb FLXXX, SID level restrictions cancelled" being used as standard.

12th Jan 2009, 14:58
Agree with BOAC on this. We mustn't be scared of change, we should ask ourselves, 'how can we do this safely?'

Why should we accept this change though? It is of no benefit to anyone but the pen pushers behind the scenes. If this phraseology is implemented it will increase controller workload significantly, it will increase cockpit workload and it will introduce a distinct lack of clarity. As someone said previously, who in their right mind fabricated a convincing safety case for this? I'd love to see it.

We cannot do this safely. It is inherently dangerous.

12th Jan 2009, 15:17
Totally agree with all the previous postings, the person who came up with this obviously doesn't fly/control....

I wonder if any controller will be brave enough to use this RT!

12th Jan 2009, 16:24
I wonder if any controller will be brave enough to use this RT!I certainly won't be using it and I'm quite sure that my LCE (Local Competency Examiner) will support me. I doubt the CAA would be standing behind me in court blaming their flawed procedures should the worst happen.

mr. small fry
12th Jan 2009, 16:48
First time poster, so hello to all.

Would there have been a consultation process? If so, when did it take place, and whom I wonder was invited to participate to air the view of those representing the folks from ATC, and us drivers who will soon almost certainly be faced with more RA's than one can shake a stick at?

Utter madness! :ugh:

CarltonBrowne the FO
12th Jan 2009, 17:03
The way I understand it from our ATC Liason... ATC are having this change pushed onto them to comply with ICAO standard. In theory, they will have to use this standard phraseology if they want you to climb above the SID restriction, while still following the SID laterally.
In practice, I am told that any instruction to climb above the SID limit will be accompanied by a heading instruction- the fact that the headings may coincide with the lateral route of the SID is irrelevant.

in my last airline
12th Jan 2009, 18:15
Folk look to the future, RNP RNAV. To get there we have to make many huge changes to the current system. I can't agree with those who think the system is good enough as is! Jumbos and Dumbos (380) levelling at 6000ft is not clever and is far from perfect. Now the new system in reality is introducing the first phase of a more automatic system. More automation should mean more capacity in the long run. Let's face it, VHF comms in the London TMA sucks when it's busy. So the system is broken, and whilst I know the contillers are amongst the best in the world, we have a long way to go and not very long to get there. In 10 years from now twice as many people will be flying in Europe (all things being equal).

I'm looking forward to change it should mean less work/stress for a start and hopefully the safety case will improve. Some airlines never got the hang of the current system, passing, climbing SID, so they will continue to screw up and the likes of UK carriers will carry on without a hiccough.

Conan The Barber
12th Jan 2009, 18:33
in my last airline,

There is nothing in this change that will not cause Jumbo & Dumbo to level off at 6000', quite the opposite in fact. Unless Jumbo & Dumbo are told to abandon the SID at the same time. How is that for making things easy and reducing RT.

To use PRNAV rules for non-PRNAV departures and equipped aircraft is just asking for trouble.

in my last airline
12th Jan 2009, 19:38
No nothing to stop that in this first round of changes but next the PRNAV SIDs will probably be re-drawn and slowly slowly efficiencies will come. You are also right when you say non FMS planes are gonna struggle, they are and the NAAs are aware of it. I guess they may have to gently persuade them to fly to non PRNAV fields.

mr. small fry
12th Jan 2009, 21:06
Dear "In my last airline," I don't think it is of much consequence that non FMS aircraft are going to struggle, surely the problem here is that many (overseas in particular) operators are going to assume, quite naturally, that the instruction from ATC "climb FL100" really means "don't do it now, but when you pass CLN, climb FL100."

I can't speak for other posters, but I'm sure that this is what most of us find very alarming.

13th Jan 2009, 10:41
in my last airline

get a map of south east england and highlight the airfields.

Now look more closely and have a think about why prnav will likely never work in the LTMA - unless of course we want things to be less efficient than they are today.

Yes, I agree that it is a bit messy in the LTMA, but unless you want big restrictions, that's the way it will always be, due to the interaction of all the SIDS and STARS.

There is always room for improvement, but PRNAV is tens of years off... it may be intoduced on one or two routes, but having it over the whole of the LTMA is a pipe dream at this point in time!

What is wrong with the current phraseology which states that a new clearance cancels the old one?

If we do manage to change procedures to PRNAV, then we can change the phraseology at the same time. Changing phraseology to fit procedures that are years away at the least, is ridiculous.

You have said yourself ...VHF comms in the London TMA sucks when it's busy...so explain just exactly how adding confusing and lengthier phraseology will help that out?

All this will do is make controllers have to repeat themselves or have pilots ask for clarification.

Putting an aircraft on a heading will not get round the problem, because people will still ask if the climb is unrestricted... Some pilots can't get a grasp of the idea that an instruction to climb whilst on a SID is an instruction that cancels the SID, so why should they understand that a heading does the same thing?

13th Jan 2009, 11:29
Maybe I'm just not grasping the theory - but WHY the change?

The effect will be, on paper at least, to keep (jet) aircraft at a lower level, by default, than that to which they would be capable of climbing by the end of the SID.

Lower levels means (slightly) more noise and greater fuel consumption.

All this should please the environmentalists who at this point in time are latching on to any conceivable means to criticise aviation!

Other than improved ATC procedures (?), where's the benefit?


FOK :)

13th Jan 2009, 14:00
If ATC tells me to climb, I WILL climb to that assigned level asap. if no other restrictions were given during the same clearance.
Any new heading, altitude, speed clearance cancels the previous clearance.

13th Jan 2009, 15:11
As I understand it, (ATCO's correct me if I am wrong) london area controllers can now see the alt/level selected on the MCP on their radar screens via the aircraft's mode s transponder.
This is in my view a bloody good idea with the potential to catch a level bust before it even becomes one, however if we are all settting the new cleared level post SID in the MCP and using the FMS VNAV constraints to level off during the SID assuming you programmed the correct ones, then this information is not being sent by the transponder and now the controllers screen is full of aircraft showing one level selected but doing something else.

13th Jan 2009, 16:14
fly dj -

you are 100% correct in your assumption about what we see on radar (though only LTMA controllers, not en-route controllers)

Mode S has prevented countless level busts on the SID, as you say, once this new procedure comes in, if I was now to instruct you to climb to FL100 without cancelling the SID, you would dial that into the MCP and I would see FL100.

I wouldnow not have any reassurance that you are not going to bust the SID restrictions. To reassure myself, I would reiterate that you were to follow the SID levels!!

That is why this procedure is completely flawed!!

Not only does it not make any sense, it reduces the safety benefit of MODE S.

HOWEVER - on the plus side - working in the LTMA, you will never be given what amounts to a conditional climb clearance (which is what this new procedure efectively is). We do not teach conditional climb clearances and we do not condone them - they are unsafe.

If you are told to climb, then that means climb now!

13th Jan 2009, 16:19
fly-dj, only London TMA controllers have access to Mode S downlinked parameters (or whatever they're called!) such as selected flight level. You are quite right that if the new procedure is introduced, the information on the radar display won't necessarily correspond to what each respective aircraft is doing. More confusion, more workload and more danger.

It appears to me the only reason for introducing this is to fall in line with ICAO. It offers no benefits at all and in my opinion, goes as far as turning a perfectly safe procedure into an accident waiting to happen. One has to ask why this was introduced? The danger is blatently obvious. Any controller or pilot worth their salt will have realised this straight away. Am I wrong to assume that the CAA has controllers and pilots look over such procedures before implementing them?

Hotel Mode
13th Jan 2009, 16:58
BA senior training and safety management are not amused (first they heard of it was the FODCOM) and are making the appropriate noises to CAA/NATS. Hopefully if others do the same...

San Expiry
13th Jan 2009, 17:39
But presumably some anonymous beaurocrat buried in the depths of 'ICAO', thinks it is 'a good idea'. I thought it was possible for national AAs to file 'differences' from ICAO Procedures; if so, has nobody down in Sussex raised any concerns or are we just being good, international buddies about this and don't want to upset anyone? Has the rest of the ICAO world given it the thumbs-up or is it just we Brits (no offence meant) who see the inherent failings. Any international (Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis et al) ATCOs care to comment?

13th Jan 2009, 18:39
Yes but the current system is not being used correctlt either!!

If you say that a new climb instruction cancells the previous clearance then you must remember that all mandatory restrictions have to be included in the "new clearance".

eg aircraft departs EGKK on the DVR 2P / 2W SID

on first contact with London Control, the controller wants to clear the aircraft to FL170.

To be 100% correct, the controller should say;

"ABC123 climb flight level 170 cross TUNBY altitude 5000 or above and thirty three miles before dover altitude 6000 or above"

Otherwise, the aircraft may reduce the rate of climb and not make the required profile.

OK, not staying in controlled airspace is not such a big thing........but elsewhere in the world those minimum levels can be for terrain avoidance.

Therefore, the has to be the arguments that;

a) the current system is far from perfect and

b) If aircraft are constantly being given higher levels on the SIDS, the SID design needs to be looked at again.



A Very Civil Pilot
13th Jan 2009, 18:39
If I have to follow the SID with a 6000' stop height, but have been cleared to FL100, what will I put on the MCP?

6000'; as that is my cleared level until passing XYZ?
FL100; as procedures are to put the cleared level on the MCP?
What will the LTMA controller expect to see on mode S?

SOP is to delete FMC hard heights, will this now change? Will we end up doing a load of FMC number punching in the climb in a busy TMA?

13th Jan 2009, 20:16
In the LTMA the requirements to cross points "at" or "Above" on the SIDS is for traffic and route deconfliction when the aircraft are not being provided with radar separation. They are not for terrain clearance unlike some SIDS in parts of Europe. When a controller is providing Radar Control Service, the controller is responsible for ensuring terrain separation. Therefore when a controller clears you to a level off a SID, the controller accepts responsibility for ensuring that the aircraft a) remains clear of traffic conflictions, b) remains clear of terrain conflictions.

If an aircraft reduced its climb rate such that either condition may become possible, the controller is duty bound to take action to resolve the problem:)

13th Jan 2009, 21:55

The Controller is only responsible for terrain clearance when the aircraft is being vectored.

This ties in perfectly with the new procedure. If you want to vector the flight then you will assume responsibility for the vertical profile flight - both minimum and maximum levels.

If however you leave it on the SID and clear it to a higher level then even in the current system you are required to re-specify all level restrictions including the minimum ones in order to ensure safety.

Saying - if it looks like it won't work I will do something to sort it out does not work in the ensuring safety requirement and that is why the minimum levels are specified in the first place.


My company's SOPs are to set the Alt select to the first level off in the SID i.e. the first "at" or "at or below". As a back-p to our own actions to follow the SID vertical profile, the ever helpful FMS prompts us to reset the Alt select when it is time to climb to the next level and we would then set the next constraint or if no other SID restrictions the level provided by ATC.

Thus this procedure will not have much of an effect for us or our friends in TC who will see the first level off restriction on our mode S.



14th Jan 2009, 00:02
Clear the aircraft to high levels in the airways clearance and let the SID do it's job.

If unrestricted climb is available - 'cancel altitude restrictions'.

If you need to take them off the SID then all bets are off. Stop climb if required for separation.

NB: The UK doesn't do it this way currently so the 'new' RT will cause confusion unless the procedures are changed. I wouldn't be changing one without the other.

Good luck guys.

14th Jan 2009, 08:51
For anotherthing and ATC'ers:

Somewhere in a previous incarnation, I remember the MAP (Manual of Air Traffic Procedures) and AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) stating that a clearance to climb/descend must be initiated within one minute, unless the word "NOW" was also given, which meant (and still means) "NOW".

If ATC wants me to climb/descend, or turn/track direct to... "NOW", then they need to say "NOW" as part of the clearance.

Or is the UK ATC system have a peculiar idea of "NOW"?

14th Jan 2009, 09:52

When you are given an instruction to climb or turn, that means do it now.

Unfortunately, people try to use the English language to complicate natters (as per your question).

It is the 'do it now' that some people fail to understand.

What I and every every other controller means when we say that a climb instruction means 'do it now' is that the pilot should carry out the instruction in a timely manner i.e. as soon as they and the aircraft are ready.

'Do it now' means do not stop off at SID restriction levels etc if they have not been reiterated.

The one minute you allude to is a notional time published so that if pilots have something going on in the cockpit that we controllers are not privy to, which means it will take more than one minute to initiate the response to our instruction, you must inform us.

The 'one minute' rule is a case of having something in black and white because unfortunately some people cannot think for themselves. As ATCOs we should know that it takes a finite amount of time for pilots to initiate an action... as pilots you should know that if you cannot initiate an action within a reasonable amount of time, you should tell us.

Having said that, in a radar environment, we will soon get onto you if you have not started after a minute!

If I want you to drop everything else you are doing and make my instruction a priority, then I would use the word 'immediately'. I would only use this if there were safety implications. To tell the truth, if that were the case, then chances are in that scenario, I should be using the prefix 'avoiding action'.

The word now is a pointless word to use IMHO and only covers up a lack of understanding of the requirements of ATC. Having said that, because of this stupid new phraseology, I will be using the word 'now' to indicate to pilots that I mean cancel the previous SID restrictions and climb to the level I have just given you.

It is concise, clear and a lot better than what the CAA (because of ICAO), has suggested.


If we instruct you to climb above SID levels, we are taking you off the SID - that means you can reduce your rate of climb to below that required to meet the previous 'cross tunby at 5000A' etc.


There is a minimum climb performance requirement for all aircraft INCAS - if you can't meet it, you should tell ATC.

If you look at the SID levels in the LTMA, you will find the the cross instructions are mainly to do with track seperation.
In fact, if an aircraft does meet the minimum climb performance criteria, then it will stay INCAS - that's one of the many factors that are taken into consideration when designing airspace, hence the reason why the LTMA and other pieces of airspace step up the further from the airfields you get.

In fact, the Designated base at TUNBY is 2500 to the west and 3500 to the east (the dividing line goes through TUNBY) - cross TUNBY at 4000' would be the instruction required to remain INCAS.

14th Jan 2009, 10:26
We need to ask: Why are these changes being made? Does anyone know yet? The FODCOM forgot to mention this. It's useful to know why you need to do something before doing it. And for the record I agree with what people are saying: This is going to cause ATC busts left right and centre. I propose we don't implement this change.

PPRuNe Radar
14th Jan 2009, 11:16
We need to ask: Why are these changes being made? Does anyone know yet? The FODCOM forgot to mention this.

The UK change is solely to ensure we come in line with ICAO, as mentioned iin the FODCOM below.

FODCOM 01/09

1 Introduction
1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) introduced new procedures and phraseology associated with climb and descent instructions issued to aircraft following a SID or a STAR.

1.2 The purpose of this FODCOM is to inform operators how the CAA intends to implement these new ICAO procedures.

As to why ICAO brought about the change ... your guess is as good as mine.

A little bit of the ATC chronology to add further confusion to the issue perhaps ;)

10th December 2008 -

ATSIN 119 Climb Above Notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes was issued which provided details of the Eurocontrol Safety Warning Message mandating Authorities in Europe to make the relevant changes. At this point the UK CAA did not introduce the change since they had not fully assessed it for safety impacts. In other words, no adoption of the ICAO revised procedure at that time.

ATSIN 119 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20071210ATSIN119.pdf)

17th December 2008 -

CAP493 SI 2008/04 Procedures and Phraseology Concerning Level Restrictions associated with Standard Instrument Departures was issued with immediate effect, requiring UK ATC to adopt the new ICAO procedure, on 12th March 2009.

The rationale for this change was as follows:

The CAA has completed a lengthy safety analysis, which included assessment of the advantages, disadvantages and impact of various options. As a result, it was established that the pre ATSIN 119 UK procedure would generate a significant risk of confusion and potential for level busts by UK pilots operating overseas, and by overseas pilots operating in the UK, due to its contrary intent to the revised ICAO provisions. There was evidence that the interim ATSIN 119 procedure did not adequately mitigate these risks, and that in recent months foreign pilots operating in the UK were increasingly requesting clarification from ATC on when to initiate the new climb instruction. Therefore, the CAA has concluded that the ICAO procedure should be adopted, albeit with amended RTF and expanded controller guidance, as this will reduce the risk of level busts, mitigate the negative effects of verbose phraseology and the impact of the new procedure on UK SIDs.

CAP493 SI 2008/04 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3361)

14th January 2009 -

Today !! Another CAP 493 SI has been issued with immediate effect, withdrawing SI 2008/04. Until further notice, the UK shall continue to use the ATSIN 119 procedures found above. A small victory for common sense and hopefully the comments provided here, and in other channels of communication, have made the CAA see sense.

1. Introduction

1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) had the effect of introducing new procedures and phraseology associated with climb instructions issued to aircraft following a SID. Following consultation with industry and a safety assessment of the changes to ICAO procedures and phraseology, SRG issued CAP 493 MATS Part 1 SI 2008/04 (Procedures and Phraseology concerning Level Restrictions associated with Standard Instrument Departures (SID)). This SI provided details of revised UK procedures for aircraft on SIDs.

1.2 Since the publication of the SI and the associated FODCOM to aircraft operators, SRG has received a number of comments from both aircraft operators and air traffic service providers.

2. Withdrawal of SI 2008/04 and Reversion to Interim Procedures and Phraseology

2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.

2.2 Consequently, and until further notice, controllers are to continue to apply the interim procedures and phraseology detailed in ATSIN 119 entitled ‘Climb above notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes’.

CAP 493 SI 2009/01 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493SupplementaryInstruction200901.pdf)

Perhaps the further consultation can provide an opportunity for the idea to be kicked in to touch .. permanently !! :cool:

14th Jan 2009, 11:27
As far as I can tell FODCOM 01/09 was derived from this document from paragraph 1.3 of this document from Eurocontrol:


Which it claims reflects ICAO Doc 4444 which is available here:


The problem is that the information given in paragraph 3.1.2 of the FODCOM does not accurately reflect the Eurocontrol document paragraph 1.3, which in turn does not accurately reflect ICAO Doc 4444 Paragraph

Or more simply FODCOM 01/09 is entirely incorrect in stating that this is an ICAO requirement - it isn't - it has been entirely made up to the detriment of safety in the UK.

Appears to me like this is Chinese Whispers, with some very serious safety implications - even if UK pilots understand and do this, how are non UK pilots conforming to ICAO standards going to react to the instruction "Climb FL XXX" on a SID?

14th Jan 2009, 15:12
pilot mike

I was talking about what happens today, not what was scheduled to happen in March (but it won't be coming in now subject to further (proper?) consultation).

I was replying to an earlier post by weapons_hot - hence the reason his name was at the top of my post - which specifically talked about the word 'now' and the application of the 'one minute' rule, and how the interpretation of the poster who mentioned those things was at odds with what an ATCO expects.

I further amplified this by stating in my post tha I thought under preset conditions, the use of the word 'now' is actually a little pointless, and is just an ass covering method for the continual year on year 'dumbing down' of the aviation industry.

Therefore, no contradiction on my part, I fully understand the implications of the new procedures and am totally against them. Savvy?!

I stand by my assertion that a conditional climb is dangerous - possibly one of the many reasons why this flawed phraseology is being reconsidered?

14th Jan 2009, 15:51
Time perhaps for handbags back in the cupboards and a drink to celebrate the victory of commonsense over 'International Issues'?

14th Jan 2009, 17:11
No Handbags from either me nor Pilot Mike, BOAC - just keen to get the correct message across.

Having read my posts on this subject (to make sure I was not giving bad info), I stand by them. I clearly state when I am talking about procedures as they are today, and I clearly state that I think the new procedures are flawed.

Furthermore, I clearly state that I believe conditional climbs are dangerous,which is why none of my colleagues that I have spoken to, would use this new procedure - whicj amounts to basically hoping that the pilot understood I meant climb after the SID ends.

I cannot see any benefit for a climb instruction in the LTMA that takes effect after the SID restrictions. In the LTMA (like most other places I would hazard a guess), climb means do it now, without the restrictions (unless they have been re-iterated).

However, as BOAC has stated, common sense has prevailed, lets just hope it stays that way!

14th Jan 2009, 17:21
all i know is i;ll be levelling at 6000 ft on cpt depts ex LHR and before I clb irrespective of a FL100 clearance, I'll be reconfirming that I am cleared to climb after the 6000' restriction.. Covering my ass as every other skipper will do and doubling the r/t calls will just block the frequencies and wreck the controllers heads. This is a fuk up and a major incident on the mat. Can some one with common sense just stand up and say "stop, nice in theory but totally unworkable, bin it." Lets not reinvent the wheel.

14th Jan 2009, 17:27
Shame no one making these new procedures didn't think to run it past aircrew/ATC to get their thoughts before implimenting this.

Hit the nail on the head!

San Expiry
14th Jan 2009, 17:55
I love 2.1 ............

2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.

I spy some rapid back-peddling by the CAA.

14th Jan 2009, 20:21
Though this is applicable today, from 12th March this will be dangerously WRONG according to the wording of the new procedures:

unfortunately, irrespective of what the UK CAA does, DOC 4444's amendment of 2007 affects operations any time you travel outside your UK FIR.

Some countries such as Japan, have had this position in respect to clearances on SIDs/STARs for a decade or more, predating DOC 4444's recent amendment. China has expected operators to comply with STAR restrictions even when not cleared by such, and to some extent so does Korea. Korea implemented this amendment in 2008.

The result appears to be that every time you get a clearance, it is not unreasonable to clarify the intent of the controller. Even in the states, you will either get a 14 CFR part 91.13(a) Careless or reckless operation or a 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions. violation if you proceed on an assumption of the clearance. If you refer to Jeppesen ATC or State differences from ICAO, it does not clarify the situation.

It would be far more boring but safer if the DOC 4444 "standard" was rational from a safety point of view, and was "standard"ised. Change itself does not have to be a negative, but not providing adequate change management and education prior to implementing change may result in adverse reaction and outcomes.

15th Jan 2009, 11:24
Maybe it is significant that the implementation date for this crazy change is the 12th March and the next day is Friday the 13th.

Artificial Horizon
15th Jan 2009, 14:47
I have it on good authority that this 'silly' scheme will be withdrawn by the CAA this afternoon or first thing in the morning. The concern is that other states have already implemented this change so 'be careful out there'.

15th Jan 2009, 15:11
As the thread starter I am delighted that it has stimulated such a rapid and in depth debate. I'm also pleased that it has perhaps played a very small part in the CAA taking a second look and actually realising that the people who this is going to directly affect are not happy.

I do still have one major concern. Which countries have ALREADY introduced this new system? I sure as hell don't know which countries have - do you? This is a major flight safety issue for all of us. So let's use the collective brains here on PPRune to try and educate each other as to where we are supposed to implement this.


16th Jan 2009, 08:42
I do still have one major concern. Which countries have ALREADY introduced this new system? I sure as hell don't know which countries have - do you? This is a major flight safety issue for all of us. So let's use the collective brains here on PPRuNe to try and educate each other as to where we are supposed to implement this.

I know Spain do this, or at least the Canaries.

19th Jan 2009, 15:03
In principle the Canaries do, however in practice (for departures), they pretty much always clear 'unrestricted climb' to a flight level.

20th Jan 2009, 08:23
So what if you take off on a QNH of 990 with a SID stop altitude of 5000' but are then cleared to FL080? Not only do you have to remember to respect the SID stop altitude but also remember to change to 1013 at the SID's end and re-set FL080........ When I did my TRE course for the CAA I recall that the UK Air Pilot states that when first cleared to a flight level all subsequent level instructions/limitations will be referenced to 1013. Are these new rules now saying thats now not the case and we'll now be having to respect 2 different level restrictions on 2 different altimeter settings all at the same time? I know its not a big deal but if you're distracted etc. then these errors are very easy to make.
The sky has just become a less safe place...........:eek:

20th Jan 2009, 08:31
Stress....... they've withdrawn it. It's not going to happen.....yet.

Good point you raise though.


20th Jan 2009, 08:41
FODCOM 1/2009 withdrawn!


20th Jan 2009, 11:01
At last, an out break of common sense!


20th Jan 2009, 11:11
A4 - in full flow in India (BOM) clearance to FL 140 "with SID restrictions" - look at the SID's and you have stop heights of 1000', 2600' and FL70 depending on which one you are cleared for. Whole thing's a mess and it's plain from the RT that confusion is rife.

Don't go there!!!:ugh:

20th Jan 2009, 11:28
Having stop altitudes on SIDs is as stupid as having a different transition altitude for each airport, IMHO. Leave the altitudes off the SIDs (as in Australia, and most of Spain), and simply issue the altitude with the clearance. No mess, no fuss, no misreading of charts, and everyone knows what is expected.

20th Jan 2009, 13:59
Having stop altitudes on SIDs is as stupid as having a different transition altitude for each airport....

Seems to me that height restrictions on many SIDS have been there for a very long time, and now all of a sudden, many pilots, with all the new automation on brand new airplanes....are unable to cope?

Me thinks it's time for these same pilots to actually pay attention to reading the SID chart...and flying the airplane.

Or... SIDS could be done away with altogether.:rolleyes: IF you think the the RT is busy now...it would be far more restrictive and congested without published standard departure procedures.

...in full flow in India (BOM) clearance to FL 140 "with SID restrictions" - look at the SID's and you have stop heights of 1000', 2600' and FL70

This has been standard practise at some locations for many years.
So...now all of a sudden it's not appropriate...or doable?

I think what we have here (demonstrated by the complaint about BOM, above) is the dumbing down of new(er) pilots who, in spite of the fact that nice new automation is installed on the flight deck, are unable (or unwilling) to do the job for which they were hired in the first place.

20th Jan 2009, 14:24
Nice one 411, as ever you have attempted to turn a reasonable discussion into a "look at me..I'm better than the rest of you" type thread.
Nobody cares what you say or think anymore, other than those of us who get a chuckle out of your alternative reality......
Personally I can't understand why you weren't part of the the Mercury seven, its obvious you could have taught those simple fellas a thing or two..........:rolleyes:

Here here for common sense, this is a poorly thought through proposal :ok:

20th Jan 2009, 14:27
Oh God, is 411 still around? Can't be long now...........:}

20th Jan 2009, 14:30
Erm...not wanting to get stuck in like the above posts, but 411A have you read the rest of the thread? The main objection to this proposed change was that the R/T phrase "climb FL 130" would NOT mean 'climb to FL130' but 'after you have finished flying the SID climb to FL 130', and "climb FL130, SID restrictions cancelled" would mean 'climb FL130. Patently bollocks -the fact that the FODCOM has been withdrawn speaks for itself.

20th Jan 2009, 14:36
I gather from your comments, haughtney1, that you are unable to actually read a SID chart and apply height restrictions, as appropriate.

One then wonders...how ever have you been able to cope for all these years? Height restrictions on many SID charts have been there seemingly forever.

The original proposal appears to have been poorly thought out and written, however...to suggest that height restrictions be removed from all SIDS (as checkboard mentions) would only add to RT use...and additional confusion.

20th Jan 2009, 14:39
I gather from your comments, haughtney1, that you are unable to actually read a SID chart and apply height restrictions, as appropriate.

I cun bearly wrote unglush...lit aloone rode it

20th Jan 2009, 14:44
I cun bearly wrote unglush...lit aloone rode it

Demonstrates my point, exactly.
Why am I not surprised...:rolleyes:

Case closed.

20th Jan 2009, 16:46
So, assuming the ATC agencies of all ICAO states are expecting aircraft to be operating in accordance with DOC 4444 with respect to SID constraint compliance with the exception of the UK now as FODCOM 01/09 is cancelled, where I am going to find the equivalent small print to FODCOM 01/09 regarding worldwide states? Is the UK the only exception? Our company certainly doesn't issue this information and I haven't seen such info printed in our Jepp guides. Clearly, the only way around it has to be to check with ATC at the time if there is any doubt.

For what it's worth, was operating to a Spanish airport recently and flying a STAR cleared to a level lower than an 'at' altitude constraint. In accordance with DOC 4444 we crossed the constraint at the published level before descending further, but had previously made 3 attempts to ask if the descent was unrestricted and could not get ATC to understand our query. The issue clearly does not get brought up very often for this airport....

Stanley Eevil
20th Jan 2009, 20:05
May I just confirm my understanding of EXISTING procedures are correct? (Be gentle with me please!)
Example: SID out of LHR with final level of 6000ft but restricting `height gates` of say 4000ft and then 5000ft during the SID.
On handover to London Ctl: `..... climb to 6000ft (same as `final` SID level), no ATC speed restriction`
Are the height restrictions of 4000ft and 5000ft now cancelled, and an uninterrupted climb to 6000ft permitted? Thanks!

21st Jan 2009, 00:29
After reading all this, I'd reply with "unrestricted climb to 6000'", to give them a chance to intervene...

21st Jan 2009, 07:45
Stanley Eevil - totally correct, in the UK anyways :ok:

21st Jan 2009, 14:43
I think what we have here (demonstrated by the complaint about BOM, above) is the dumbing down of new(er) pilots who, in spite of the fact that nice new automation is installed on the flight deck, are unable (or unwilling) to do the job for which they were hired in the first place.
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4662150)

Thanks for this - I bow to your superior airmanship (can we still use this phrase?) - I was merely trying to offer some insight to the problems faced with this procedure which clearly gives problems. Maybe it's time I went after 40 years and left it to your so called "new(er) pilots.

25th Jan 2009, 09:46
Admiral 346,

Making a statement hoping that ATC will correct you if you are wrong is very unsafe. In a busy ATC environment or one where English is not the first language of one of the parties, it is more than possible that the "error" in your readback will be missed. The examples of this are numerous. In any situation if you are unsure of exactly what is required or what your clearance is then the only approved method of seeking clarification is to ask a direct question, as unambiguously as possible.


25th Jan 2009, 18:11
It is interesting to note (on another forum) that dear-old 411A has recently had to shut down one of his beloved RB211s on his immaculate L1011 and then subsequently had to make a 2-engine ferry back to salvation.

I wonder just how many of his critics had that much excitement last week?

10th Feb 2009, 08:00
Thank heavens the CAA have withdrawn this totally idiotic proposal. The only thing that that worries me is that the suspension appears to be temporary pending consultation, let's hope common sense really does prevail.

Any conditional clearance is open to ambiguous interpretation. It is up to us pilots to keep the pressure/protests up about this one,I am sure all pilots are 100% in agreement on this one and ATC must have sighed with relief too! No-one needs this increase in workload at a very busy phase of flight.

P.S. What ever happened to the proposal at LHR where once cleared for the approach you may descend with glide? Nothing ever seemed to have changed in practical terms with that one.

10th Feb 2009, 11:23
But you have to remember, 411a is the reason the ignore list was created, so we do have that to thank him for. I've been ignoring him since 2000, that's nearly 10 years. I find my life a lot better, and my blood pressure a lot lower!:ok:

16th Feb 2009, 05:45
Yes. There are other places where this procedure is in place e.g Kuala Lumpur. Also, once you are on heading, you are no more on a SID departure and hence height restrictions would not apply.

16th Feb 2009, 14:34
I've heard that after a heated meeting on Jan 30th........ this proposal IS going ahead very shortly with a new FODCOM to be issued by the end of the month.

SO looks like we are all going to have to be very careful out there.


16th Feb 2009, 14:56

I hope your source is wrong. If not, it just goes to prove we really are entering a dangerous time, with aviation being dumbed down for the cerebrally challenged, with potentially dangerous repercussions :ugh:

16th Feb 2009, 17:01
Yes I believe the new rules will have dire repercussions. Even now if you have been given a height restriction and then given a direct to bypassing the restriction point, in theory the restriction is cancelled unless re-stated.

Yesterday "descend Fl 250 be level 10 before Avant" then "cleared direct to MID" (So restriction cancelled ?) BUT "London confirm no restriction now abeam Avant" "XXX restriction still applies be FL250 abeam Avant"

So if we still can not get this right it does not bode well for the new SID restrictions:rolleyes:

16th Feb 2009, 20:38
Pax speaking so feel free to descend to the next message level.
Professionals will say my comment is irrelevant but I wish to show that EVERYONE is being treated with the same careless attitude.

In the UK, a particular line of socially important business was issued with a completely new set of official govt forms last October and told that the change over period would start 1st Jan and be for one month.

Two professional bodies protested that the new rules had flaws and that no serious consultation had taken place when it would affect the entire business, right across the country in some 275 major work places and thousands of small companies as well. They also pointed out that tons of preprinted forms would now be sent for pulping at a great cost to the UK citizen, due to lack of warning.

The Justice Department of the UK said, effectively: "Tough. Those are new rules, you WILL implement them or lay yourself open to prosecution."

So ... I know that the airline world gets a bum rap but, everybody is being treated with the same arrogance and disdain. NO ONE is listening to the people at the sharp end of a/c or ATC, nor any other business. This really is serious.

23rd Feb 2009, 09:34
Posts 82 and 83 raise a serious question about which Contracting States have implemented the rule at PANS-ATM The problem is not reduced by the fact that, by virtue of the status of PANS-ATM, there is no obligation for States to notify Differences.

Para. 5.3 of FODCOM 01/09 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200901.pdf): "Operators flying to destinations outside the UK should ensure that crews are aware of States whose SID/STAR ATC phraseology does not conform to ICAO Doc 4444."

Could someone perhaps post details of any research carried out by their operator to this effect?