Descend via STAR/climb via SID

[561]

Ref: http://www.icao.int/airnavigation/sidstar/Documents/New%20SID%20n%20STAR%20Phraseologies%20Communication%20Leafl et.pdf'


Norway has implemented this, but we find it to be somewhat confusing. How is this handled in other countries and are pilots familiar with it? We still get questions by pilots and some seem to never have heard of it.

[eagleflyer]

and everyone I talked to found that new regulation to be bs. I don´t think the new phraseology will be implemented without problems, I guess most people will ignore it. Since we´d have to tell every departure to follow the SID there´s rather going to be an amendment to the SID stating to follow all restrictions until explicitly told to disregard them. :ugh:
Who the hell comes up with these regulations?

[galaxy flyer]

FAA is using it and very corrective to pilots reading back, "climb 4,000'" rather than "climb via the SID" where the SID says 4,000

GF

[Bright-Ling]

How is this handled in other countries and are pilots familiar with it?

Haven't the UK and Australia (maybe others) deferred implementation of this crap?

[Bright-Ling]

The UK response;

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-C17D1F6FAB512A7794522E1E11AA70DB/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/Y/083-2016/EG_Circ_2016_Y_083_en_2016-12-15.pdf

Which links to this UK CAA Guidance

http://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Airspace/Communication-navigation-and-surveillance/SID-and-STAR-phraseology/

[ZOOKER]

"When you wish upon a star"........
eagleflyer, you can bet your bottom $ that whoever thinks this up, doesn't wear a headset........Either on the ground or in the air.

[Bright-Ling]

Something to get your head around.....

http://www.icao.int/airnavigation/sidstar/Scenarios/New%20SID%20and%20STAR%20Phraseologies%20Scenarios%20v2.pdf

[LapSap]

What could possibly go wrong.......?:rolleyes:

[Ivasrus]

Australia isn't ready yet. Recently notified an aspirational intention to implement 9 Nov 17.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a17-h04.pdf

[eagleflyer]

I was told somebody took "climb via SID" literally the other day and did just that! :rolleyes: Does anybody have a clue of the whereabouts of SID?

[Simonblaine]

NavCanada has an implementation date of Feb 27, 2017. I wouldn't be surprised if it is pushed back though.

[Simonblaine]

Make that April 27, 2017 implementation for NavCanada

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

I was told somebody took "climb via SID" literally the other day and did just that! :rolleyes: Does anybody have a clue of the whereabouts of SID?

Yup, I flew there recently Amílcar Cabral International Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral_International_Airport)

[Married a Canadian]

New phraseology implemented last week for NAV Canada (Apr 27th)

It would be an understatement to say that (in YYZ at least) it has caused nothing but confusion and annoyance, and to most controllers and pilots, is completely redundant.
According to the AIC that came out before implementation...the way we were doing it before was "dangerous".

Not sure what else to say!! Not a good idea or implementation....so far!!

[jackieofalltrades]

eagleflyer, you can bet your bottom $ that whoever thinks this up, doesn't wear a headset........Either on the ground or in the air.

Absolutely. This new phraseology is so convoluted, and open to more misinterpretation than ever before. I particularly dislike the "fly direct XXXXX, expect YYYYY in 4 miles." I read that the reason for this is because some pilots were deleting the SID/STAR from the FMS and then having issues re-entering the points when recleared direct to one.

I'm not a pilot, so don't know fully how the FMS programming works, but surely it's not too difficult to make it SOP for a SID/STAR to be left in until the aircraft has passed the final point published?

[LFVA]

It just deletes or skips the points between your current position and the direct point. The points of the procedure that follow the direct point will be untouched. So I'm not sure what the problem is. Seems like needless effort to remove all those remaining SID/STAR points, and, frankly, a stupid one, since you can't anticipate if you'll stay on the procedure after reaching the direct, or not. Poor practice.

Also, you can't keep the points you've already passed within the active route, as they're automatically deleted, too (except the most recent one or two). So, e.g., if you fly A->B->C, once you're at C, you can't input a direct to A or B any more. Where I'm from, ATC shouldn't give directs to past points, as it'd be a bit of a hassle to input them manually into the active route again.

[Cough]

This gets really complicated depending on age of FMS, manufacturer of FMS and aircraft. Bore... When sent direct to a waypoint on a star, other points along with their constraints are lost. Some FMS have 'abeam points' function available with a direct - Selecting then allows the crew to re enter the constraint, but sometimes not enter a double constraint (ie. at waypoint X, be below FL200, above 15,000ft). Other aircraft do not have this function, so you have to build it from basics!

Anyhow, having been to Canada in the last few days, all I can see is the new phraseology has increased RT congestion!

Progress...

[sprite1]

1111111111

[sprite1]

This gets really complicated depending on age of FMS, manufacturer of FMS and aircraft. Bore... When sent direct to a waypoint on a star, other points along with their constraints are lost. Some FMS have 'abeam points' function available with a direct - Selecting then allows the crew to re enter the constraint, but sometimes not enter a double constraint (ie. at waypoint X, be below FL200, above 15,000ft). Other aircraft do not have this function, so you have to build it from basics!

Anyhow, having been to Canada in the last few days, all I can see is the new phraseology has increased RT congestion!

Progress...




^^^Just to confirm, when you're cleared direct to a waypoint down the SID/STAR, ATC are expecting you to disregard the restrictions at those points between your PPOS and direct to waypoint.
It's buried in the blurb of that NAV Canada document that was promulgated over the last few weeks.

It's a joke of an 'update' but probably just one of those things that'll bed in over the next few years as long as no incidents & accidents can be attributed to it!

[Married a Canadian]

SID/STAR phraseology cancelled today in YYZ...and in Canada from tomorrow onwards.

Too many variables and uncertainties to make it a success....in fact it was completely the opposite.
No gloating here.....just relieved to be using the "old" clearances again...that didn't cause even half the problems the new stuff did!!

[Short Approach?]

God I love radar vectors!

They can come up with a thousand excuses why I'm old and ignorant when vectoring aircraft everywhere but I don't really care much...

[clunckdriver]

It would be hard to find a more stupid/redundant load of pointless gab when our normal clearance contains the Star/Sid already in it, Nav Canada should have known better than go along with this nonsense!

[LFVA]

The use of this new phraseology has been suspended earlier this month. Surprise surprise.

[roulette]

following ...

[CzarneSlonca]

It was introduced in Poland in April. Well and "introduced" is all about it. Maybe some Atcos follow this "via SID/STAR" crap but I havent heard of any :-)

[Krzyku]

It was introduced in Poland in April. Well and "introduced" is all about it.
It was postponed I guess

[jj232]

This crap is about to be introduced in Australia, I have never seen so much confusion amongst my fellow colleagues before! Seriously I thought our job was to keep our intstructions as unambiguous as possible, this seem to fly in the face of that. Is there anyone out there that is now using this new format who thinks it's an improvement? I just think this will cause more problems then it may solve.

[West Coast]

The bulk of the SIDS/STARs I fly in the US are climb/descend via. There’s a learning curve to be sure, but I have no issue with them. You simply have to listen closely to the phraseology.

A lot of the noise is pilots b!tching about change which is never accepted without appropriate amounts of complaining first.

[le Pingouin]

The ridiculous thing is in Australia it's fixing a problem that just doesn't exist - we're being forced to adopt ridiculously verbose, redundant and repetitive phraseologies to fix someone else's problems when it could all be handled by a few words on SID and STAR plates, and something written in AIP.

What country/region has a problem with a pilots not being able to fly SIDs and STARs?

[sunnySA]

Pity the CBT training provided to the ATCs around the country hasn't been provided to the pilot fraternity.

Also, this change would have worked much better if there had been a EUROCAT changes to support Descend from TOD via STAR to 3000ft. Can't be done with current technologies, OneSky maybe but I doubt it.

[Pontius]

Many ambiguities exist because every country knows better than another and files 'differences'. These can easily become quite dangerous and the 'climb/descend via' can help to reduce these problems.

As an example: imagine in the UK there is an SID with a 3000B restriction on it. ATC clears you to climb to FL 90. You can now ignore the 3000' restriction unless ATC restate the requirement. Now we go to the USA where a similar SID exists and ATC tell you to climb to 9000'. This time you'd better not ignore the 3000B unless ATC tells you you're unrestricted.

I've obviously over-simplified things but it is easy to see where individual countries' differences can cause a problem; especially when you're on the back of the clock and can't remember if country A does it this way, while country B does it another.

Climb via the SID is easy to understand. 'Climb' is easy to understand. I don't see where the problems are.

[B737C525]

This would all be much easier to bear if aircraft were designed to have two different cleared levels, without relying absolutely on VNAV. They’re not. As such, the procedure makes no sense, no matter how convenient it may be for ATC. Relying on VNAV deprives the pilot of the ability to step down the automation hierarchy, which is at odds with conventional wisdom, that he should be ready to step down that hierarchy at any moment.

I’m genuinely astonished that this whole thing hasn’t been binned. That it hasn’t, gives me grave concern about the wisdom being exercised by those involved, and in particular, their awareness of how automatic flight systems work.