New Canadiian ATC procedures

[Air Profit]

Be advised of this impending change to Canadian ATC procedures:

On February 9th, 2012, NAV CANADA, will implement a major change in Canadian ATC procedures that will require aircraft to comply with published SID/STAR altitude restrictions unless they are explicitly cancelled by ATC. Canada is making this change in an effort to implement procedures that conform to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. While about 70% of ICAO member states utilize the standard procedures, certain countries, such as the United States do not.
In Canada, an aircraft that is assigned a SID/STAR, and then assigned a higher/lower altitude is still expected to comply with any published altitude restrictions on that SID/STAR while climbing/descending to the new assigned altitude unless ATC specifically states “ALL STAR ALTITUDE RESTRICTIONS CANCELLED.”
This change differs from U.S. ATC procedures contained in AIM section 4-4-10g (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0404.html), which state that any new altitude clearance cancels any previous altitude clearance and any published altitude restrictions on a SID/STAR unless the restrictions are restated by the controller. Aircrew should add this as a special briefing item prior to traveling to any airport in Canada with published conventional or RNAV STARs/SIDs.

[blindflying]

I would see it differently.

From one of the departure charts, for example, http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-97J.pdf, 5000 ft or below is not a level restriction for PORPA/ROVER or TD, even the CAD published database coding has it.

I supposed it is just there for the awareness of the 5000ft initial restriction.

[Oval3Holer]

All pilots who know how to fly in the US know how the US system works, which is always exactly per the AIM and order JO 7110.65T.

I commend the Canadians for making their policies clear.

HKG ATC (and, as a result, CX), as Unionist2010 states, can't get their heads on straight. That's why all CX pilots always question everything, all the time.

HK ATC doesn't even say, "Line up and wait," but rather, "Line up." Go figure.

I think the SAFEST, based on the near collisions in HK a few months ago, course of action when cleared to an altitude not complying with a SID/STAR restriction is to question it. Who knows if another airplane might be at your level because of the ambiguous statements in the AIC cited by Unionist2010?

[main_dog]

The AIC goes to great length to explain that HK ATC is ICAO compliant and that all restrictions published in SIDS & STARS always apply unless specifically cancelled by ATC. Simple hey!

And then in the last paragraph the author c*cks it up completely by losing all confidence and states ATC shall, " ensure that, in all cases, level restrictions issued explicitly by ATC in airground communications shall be repeated in conjunction with subsequent level clearances in order for such level restrictions to remain in effect."

Actually, this wording is in line with my understanding of the new ICAO standard: if it's a published restriction (printed on the chart), it must still be respected even if cleared above/below it unless ATC specifically cancels the restriction. In the case of level restrictions issued explicitly by ATC in airground communications (in other words restrictions not published on the chart but only requested verbally by ATC), subsequent clearances must re-state the requirement in order for it to remain valid.

The main problem with this goat-fest is that, like you say, some countries apply it, some don't, and in some areas you're not even sure if the controller him/herself knows what rule applies. Instead in the UK I believe they've filed a "variation" from the above which states that if the controller uses the phraseology "climb/descend now", it implies that any published restrictions are cancelled.

So for the poor pilot operating in and out of all these countries, the only safe thing is to query it whenever in doubt, or face a possible TCAS RA followed by "tea, no biscuits". The lack of uniformity on this issue is an incident/accident just waiting to happen, IMHO.

MD

[main_dog]

Unionist, perhaps I'm missing something, but if the third paragraph does indeed say in all cases, level restrictions issued explicitly by ATC in airground communications shall be repeated in conjunction with subsequent level clearances in order for such level restrictions to remain in effect(my bold), it would appear to be referring not to published SID/STAR restrictions but to "restrictions issued explicitly by ATC in airground communications" (ie. unpublished, verbally-issued instructions), and thus in line with my (and your) understanding of ICAO standard? :confused:

Regardless, the fact that we are even discussing it underscores how confusing the issue has become, and confusion in altitude selection is a recipe for big problem-la. :ouch:

[SMOC]

And why does it take 8-9 months to change the signage for taxiways in HK:confused:

Don't you just late one night shift them all along one taxiway to the west and add the new one (J11) they're not even required to paint anything it's simply moving the signage.

[geh065]

SMOC,

Apparently it is all to do with the ground radar, wiring for the lights etc... It isn't as simple as changing the yellow signs. When the tower can't see the taxiways etc and they need to light certain stop-bars for J5, J6, J10, J11 etc etc..., it needs to tie into their computer systems. So when one is renumbered, some wiring and computer stuff needs to be changed too. All too complicated for my simple mind to fully understand but there is method to the madness I am told.

That said, it does seem to be taking forever!

[LapSap]

You won't get much argument from me.
I understand the 5000' coding is being fixed.

As mentioned, the whole thing worldwide is now in a mess with some complying and some not and CAD sitting on the fence as usual.
It will probably end in tears somewhere before its fixed.

HK ATC doesn't even say, "Line up and wait," but rather, "Line up." Go figure.


Oval3Holer
If there is no expectation that you will have to stop but a take-off clearance is not immediately available, then "Line up" is all that is necessary to clear you to enter the runway.

[burgerbun]

"My personal favorite is the contradictory: ATC, "Are you ready for immediate take-off". Pilot, "Yes". ATC, "Line-up and wait." Pilot, "???".

An A/C on a 6 nm final with another one still on the runway could be the reason.

[SMOC]

geh065,

They must use the same IT dept as CX:}

[Oval3Holer]

"Takeoff" should never be used except when "cleared for takeoff," period!

Also, while on the subject, "cleared," in an airport environment, shall only be used when in conjunction with a clearance to takeoff or land, never for any other clearance (such as "cleared to taxi to runway 27.")

From JO 7110.65T CHG 2:
Do not use the word “cleared” in conjunction
with authorization for aircraft to taxi or equipment/
vehicle/personnel operations. Use the prefix “taxi,”
“proceed,” or “hold,” as appropriate, for aircraft
instructions and “proceed” or “hold” for equipment/
vehicles/personnel.

LINE UP AND WAIT (LUAW)− Used by ATC to
inform a pilot to taxi onto the departure runway to line
up and wait. It is not authorization for takeoff. It is
used when takeoff clearance cannot immediately be
issued because of traffic or other reasons.

To ask, "Are you ready for takeoff?" is improper ATC procedure.

This is a result of the disaster at Tenerife.

Everyone ought to follow these procedures:

www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf

I can find no ICAO reference which states that the phrase "Line up runway xx" is proper. Only, "Line up and wait."

[bekolblockage]

Ok, allow me.

ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444 Section 12.3 Para 12.3.4.10 PREPARATION FOR TAKE-OFF
".
.
.
f) LINE UP [AND WAIT];

g) LINE UP RUNWAY (number);
.
i) (condition) LINE UP (brief reiteration of the condition);"

and

12.2.9 ...Words in square parentheses indicate optional (my bolding)additional words or information that may be necessary in specific instances.


P.S. Everyone ought to follow these procedures:

www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf
I can find no ICAO reference which states that the phrase "Line up runway xx" is proper.

The document you quoted in fact indicates this exact phrase!??:cool:

RTF Take-off Clearance
Metro Tower, Big Jet 345, approaching holding point C1
Big Jet 345, Metro Tower, line up runway 27

[Oval3Holer]

bekolblockage, thanks for that! As I said in my post, "I can find no ICAO reference..." I do realize that the document I cited did use the terminology to which I referred. However, that document is not an official ICAO document.

I appreciate you finding the "real thing." I just couldn't find it online with my limited abilities.

So, it seems that, despite trying, the FAA is STILL not completely ICAO standard, as nowhere in the FAA documents (that I can find) is the phrase "Line up" mentioned without the word "wait" after it.

Once again, thanks for the clarification!

Oval :)