View Full Version : Tango route clearance question
Hello,
I have a question which hopefully can be answered here.
Flying south on T16 (training flight for MNPS approval) and requested FL 370.
370 Wasn't available so we had a reclearance for FL360. Shanwick prefixed the actual clearance with a phrase (which I can't remember precisely) but the thrust of it was to alert us that the clearance we were about to recieve was different to the the one we requested. This heightened our awarness and helped prevent the possibility of us writing down the clearance we expected to hear.
Return leg from TFS and Santa Maria gave us a clearance with a level change but no heads up the "what you are about to recieve" is not what you asked for.
Is there a standard procedure for this or was the Shanwick controller just being cautious.
Thanks
OK Hempy... know what you are saying...but it was much more deliberate than that.
Not it was not exactly :-
" OK you guys wake up I'm going to give you a clearance which has around eight items in it....all of which will be identical to what you expect....but one will be slightly different. If you just hear what you thought you were going to here you will have a Gross Nav error and rather like the Cathy skipper will be fired"
Reason I ask is that on the return leg we had a change to alt....but no heads up that the clearance was going to be changed.
I assumed there would be an SOP phrase for this to prefix an ammeded clearance?
dwshimoda
3rd Feb 2013, 12:17
Normally it is something like: "ABC123 ready to copy clearance with an amendment?"
So you get your heads up ahead of agreeing to copy the clearance. It's a bit hit and miss with Santa Maria, sometimes they give you a heads up, sometimes they don't. Presumably both of you are listening to the clearance anyway, so you should catch it if one of you makes an error.
Thanks... yes we are both listening. Unfortunataly I have had a few bad experiences with Southern European ATC so In the absence of any change notification I asked her to confirm the cleared level again. Just in case she had a problem with 2's and 4's. It happens on VHF:rolleyes:
Is there a CAP 413? equivalent for HF where this is quoted by any chance. Thanks again.
EGGX clearances delivered via VHF, HF or ORCA/ACARS will stress any change from the profile specified in the FPL/request as a standard procedure.
The clearance issued in the T16 example would have been:
"Shanwick clears Bigjet123 to Tenerife South with a level change/change of flight level via Omoko, Gonan, 40 North 16 West, Navix. From overhead Omoko maintain flight level 360, mach decimal ??"
It may have also been...
"Bigjet123, Shanwick"
"Bigjet123, go ahead"
"Unable your requested level, Shanwick clears Bigjet123 to Tenerife South via..."
(I'd have to look it up in the EGGX MATS Part 2 for the exact wording)
Can't speak for others (LPPO in this case) but it's how EGGX does it. Sounds as though it does as intended in giving you a heads-up :ok:
If you feel strongly enough, get your head of safety to write to LPPO and suggest that they consider adopting a similar procedure.
PS - If the clearance comes to you via HF, you're talking to a Shannon Aeradio ("Shanwick Radio") Radio Officer at Ballygirreen, (Co. Clare), who acts as the (HF) voice of Shanwick ATC. If the clearance comes to you via VHF, you're talking to an Air Traffic Services Assistant, acting as a Clearance Delivery Officer, who is the (VHF) voice of the Shanwick Controllers (Planners); these being located at the Prestwick Centre, (Ayrshire). If your clearance arrives via ORCA/ACARS, then it has been sent directly from the Planning Controller's work station. You'll never 'speak' to a Shanwick Controller. (Probably a good thing :E )
Thanks for the replies so far. I am going to write to LPPO as to me not giving the caution ahead of the clearance is a link in an accident/incident chain.
Would be really greatful if someone would consider looking it up in EGGX MATS Part 2 to give the case some credibility.
Thanks:ok:
Nothing in the book as such I'm afraid, (besides which, the contents of said book are subject to 'Copyright'), but the process is as follows...
The Planning Controller formulates a clearance using the flight data processing system and forwards it electronically to the (VHF) Clearance Delivery Officer, or (HF) Radio Officer, in order that they (the CDO/RO) can dictate the clearance to the Crew and obtain a readback. (Alternatively, the Planner may send it directly to the Crew via ORCA/ACARS if the A/C is so equipped).
If the clearance includes any changes to the route/oceanic entry point/speed/level as specified in the FPL/Request, such changes are highlighted by the Planner in a 'Remarks' section of the clearance, which is the equivalent if you will to the 'Field 18' in a FPL.
Those versions of the clearance for delivery by VHF/HF voice are automatically converted from an abbreviated format, used by the Planners, into a plain language format to be dictated by the CDO/RO, with any 'Remarks' highlighting a change to the FPL/Request also appearing in plain language as part of the clearance.
For a change to the level from that requested, as in your case, the Planner would include "LCHG" in the clearance Remarks field. This then appears as part of the clearance, in plain language, at the CDO/RO's work station as follows...
"(Callsign) CLEARANCE WITH A LEVEL CHANGE. SHANWICK CLEARS (Callsign) TO (Dest) VIA...."
Therefore there is no RTF phraseology as such, given that the system simply converts the clearance, including any change highlighted by the Planner in the 'Remarks' field, into a plain language message, which is then dictated by the CDO/RO.
In the case of Santa Maria, I can only assume that the flight data processing system they use does not have a similar degree of functionality, but there is certainly no harm in drawing their attention to the benefits of having such.
Excellent..thanks for that.
PIGDOG
8th Mar 2013, 21:55
Rab-k is spot on.
But for those who might be interested, Shanwick Radio also uses two VHF frequencies, normally used to assign aircraft an appropriate HF. So it is entirely possible to be passed your clearance on one of these. Just because it's VHF doesn't mean it's not Ballygirreen.
fisbangwollop
9th Mar 2013, 21:13
Having spent 16 years as a Shanwick Clearance Delivery Officer CDO prior to my present job we would always advise on passing the clearance of any change...i.e.
Bigjet123 be advised your requested flight level is not available, Shanwick clears Bigjet 123 to destination KJFK via track Alpha maintain FL360 Mach .080 from 57N 10W FL370 is not available........its 17 years since I did that job but thats how we did it then at a time that the Clearance Delivery frequency was one of the busiest frequencys in Europe :cool:
Shanwick prefixed the actual clearance with a phrase (which I can't remember precisely) but the thrust of it was to alert us that the clearance we were about to recieve was different to the the one we requested.Was it perhaps 'OCEANIC CLEARANCE WITH A LEVEL CHANGE'? According to Attachment 7 of NAT Doc 007, that would have been the standard phrase. Giving pilots a heads up that their clearance differs from the requested clearance is suggested in 5.1.8 of NAT Doc 007: 'If any of the route, flight level or Mach Number in the clearance differs from that flight planned, requested or previously cleared, attention may be drawn to such changes when the clearance is delivered (whether by voice or by data link).'