complying with altitude restrictions on a STAR

[baobab72]

Dear all
last night we were flying into Nice, at one point we were cleared for the kerit arrival, we were at 25000ft and the first waypoint, kerit, had an altitude restriction of at or below 17000. Am i expected to comply with the restriction if no other mention is made such as "descend according to the procedure"? also take into consideration that at one point i asked for lower and i was given FL150, although in order to comply with the altitude restriction we would have to descend at 4000fmp?
or when the atc does nt mention to cross a waypoint at a given altitude such as omako in paris for instance, the altitude restrictions can be neglected? or was it a mistake of the controller?
tks
baobab

[5milesbaby]

In the UK, the altitude restrictions are there as a guidance and you are only expected to comply "when instructed by ATC" as stated on the STAR charts. If you have any doubt if a restriction is needed and you are nearing top of descent to make that restriction, just tell ATC "if you need FL*** by <point> then we need descent in *nm's".

It is a shame the coalface workers don't get involved too much in producing these charts as there are some restrictions added that just aren't needed and others omitted that are regular occurrences! Getting them changed after publication seems near impossible :ugh:

[zkjaws]

The short answer is YES - you are required to comply with the altitude restriction.

STARS are just like SIDS and Approach Procedures - they may contain tracking, speed and level restrictions that all need to be complied with. Some of these restrictions may be cancelled by ATC, but if this hasn't happened then you have to fly the procedure as published.

I see on another thread that it is common practice to clear someone for an ILS and to add "descend on the glide path" (or some other similar phrase). This query indicates to me that this practice is creating confusion amongst pilots, you are now expecting such verbal diahorea to be added to every clearance for a procedure.

In summary - Unless told otherwise, fly the procedure as it is published for fear of connecting with some granite or another large piece of aluminium

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Typical STAR chart for Heathrow has in BOLD:

DESCENT PLANNING
Pilots should plan for possible descent
clearance as detailed in the table below.
ACTUAL DESCENT CLEARANCE WILL
BE AS DIRECTED BY ATC

I think that is all one needs to know.

[Bus Driver Man]

zkjaws,

Indeed, you have to comply with published altitude restrictions, unless ATC tells you to disregard them.

BUT, you don't descend if ATC doesn't give you a descend clearance! Unless you are instructed to descent according the procedure. (Talking about a STAR, not an approach procedure)

Regarding the "cleared for an ILS and descend on the glide path", in my opinion it means that you keep your last assigned altitude and descent with the glide once established instead of descending to the published interception altitude, which you are allowed to once you are cleared for approach.

In case of doubt, ask ATC.

[Blockla]

Well obviously there is yet another 'disconnect' in procedures...

Restrictions on arrivals and departure tracks/procedures (SIDS and STARS) should always be met; unless specifically cancelled; but you can't just bust your assigned level...

Controllers should be aware of the height restrictions etc and give pilots appropriate time to get them flown; in the event that a controller won't be able to get them down due traffic etc they should be telling the PIC to cancel the arrival, or at least the appropriate height restriction; not just leave the likes of baobab72 hanging wondering what he should do.

I think the above circumstances is typical and poor technique applied by the ATC and is generally brought about by the lack of understanding of the other persons role.

Boabab72 given those circumstances I would have stated unable to meet the FL170 requirement when given the descent to FL150 in an attempt to clarify if it was needed or could be cancelled. If it was needed much better to unfortunately increase to 4000fm than dealing with a possible RA and paperwork generated a short-time later. Many SIDS and STARS are integrated such that one height restriction is directly related to the others (unders and overs) and are normally only a few miles from the actual crossing point so failure to meet theses potentially safety critical restrictions can mean bad news all around.

[zkjaws]

Bus Driver Man

I don't disagree with you.
When I wrote my reply I was under the impression descent had been given before the STAR. Maybe it was the other way around with just the STAR issued first and descent clearance later. baobab72 can you clarify?

Regarding the approach clearance, if I didn't want the aircraft to descend until passed a particular point for separation etc, I was taught to use "Cleared ILS approach, Maintain (separation level) until (an appropriate fix)" or "Intercept the Localizer and Maintain (separation level)" and when clear of the traffic "Cleared ILS approach" (not forgetting the descent profile).

[Bus Driver Man]

Bus Driver Man

I don't disagree with you.
When I wrote my reply I was under the impression descent had been given before the STAR. Maybe it was the other way around with just the STAR issued first and descent clearance later. baobab72 can you clarify?
Just a misinterpretation on my side :)

[baobab72]

dear all
thanks for your replies.
to clarify the situation, we had been cleared for the arrival but not for a lower altitude, at one point a few miles from the first waypoint i asked for lower cos we were getting closer to the airport and i did nt want to end up high on the profile, only then the controller gave us lower but at that point in order to meet the altitude requirement we would have to descend at 4000fpm, so i was wondering if it is a normal procedure for the controller to expect us to do not comply with the restriction cos of course he has a different picture in front of him, or maybe because is planning on putting another traffic on a heading, whatever,or if the atc had just forgotten about us.
thanks

[BrATCO]

Baobab, you said this was during a night leg.

So I guess that, as the traffic permitted it, the controller's idea was to keep you higher than the STAR profile in order to provide you a "continuous" descent and leave the rate of descent to your choice to meet the IF at 3000' AMSL. KERIT is 80(ish) miles before IF on the STAR for rwy 04, doesn't seem silly to clear you from FL250 for lower then.

The problem, in your very case, is that he didn't mention " at your discretion"... and that you didn't ask.
IMHO : no more, no less than a Pilot-Controller communication issue.

[kontrolor]

every clearance has its limit. so if ATCO tells you to follow XXX STAR and to descent to YY level, you your clearance limit is YY, but you have to respect the STAR limitations as well.

it is wrong though, to assume that the vertical limits in the STAR are to be followed per se, they are just that, vertical limits to prevent somebody to hit the ground. It is also wrong to bust YY if you have been cleared for XXX STAR with the level.

[max1]

kontrolor

" it is wrong though, to assume that the vertical limits in the STAR are to be followed per se, they are just that, vertical limits to prevent somebody to hit the ground. It is also wrong to bust YY if you have been cleared for XXX STAR with the level. "

I beg to differ. Sometimes the vertical limits are their for sep assurance. The inbounds have the vertical requirement to make sure they get under the outbounds, and the outbounds have a level requirement to be above the inbounds.

What this comes down to is this, if the PIC has concerns that the intermediate level assigned will make it difficult to meet the impending STAR requirement then speak up. Do not assume that the controller has a cunning plan up their sleeve to cancel the STAR or level requirement. They may have some seperation issue or they just may have been distracted?
When I have an aircraft that has been given unrestricted descent on a STAR and they look well high and may not meet their level requirements I don't assume that they will pull off some amazing and never seen before descent profile, I ask them to confirm that they will meet the requirement. Then I implement Plan B or C.