"Leaving FL" Call

[Wizofoz]

There is one controller in Melbourne (132.2 last night) who has a thing about aircraft reporting, while identified, that they are leaving their cruising flight level.

His favourite trick is to not give a progressive descent clearance- to wait till you are approaching you assigned level and ask for further clearance before saying "OH! Missed your leaving call!" and giving you further descent.

I actually fronted him last night (frequency was quiet and I didn't prolong it" and transmitted "That's nit required". He replied with "It's in the AIP".

I've searched and while a "leaving" call is party of standard phraseology, I didn't interpret it as being a requirement in a RADAR environment, and no other center in the country seems bothered.

I think at best he's being bloody minded, but is he even technically correct?

[Ixixly]

It might not be required in the AIP but if he has given you a clearance then asked you to report leaving a level for further clearance there could be a particular reason or it could just be his process to allow him to do his job better, he could be slightly overloaded with the areas he's been given and is doing that to make sure he doesn't miss something. Not going to defend it necessarily but whilst he might be being a bit bloody minded it seems you might also being the same in the whole "It's not in the AIP as far as I'm aware so I'm going to call you out on it".

[ad-astra]

JEPS ATC AU-806 3.5.1.6

[Centaurus]

The former "Left F/L 310" is far better English than "Leaving F/L 310" and means what is says- which is you have departed F/L ??. "Leaving" is a nebulous term loved by ICAO and can be taken to mean "I haven't actually vacated F/L310 yet but hang in there old chap I will be leaving F/L 310 asap.

I haven't a clue of the rationale for changing what was a perfectly understandable Australian ATC phraseology all those years ago. Rather than bend to a nebulous ICAO RT recommendation, it is time to stand up for commonsense English grammar and if necessary file a Difference to an ICAO Recommendation.

[Capt Fathom]

I recall the requirement to report vacating your level in a radar environment went away years ago.

The only reference in the AIP I can find is to report cleared level and passing level when changing frequency.

[Cloud Cutter]

I haven't a clue of the rationale for changing what was a perfectly understandable Australian ATC phraseology all those years ago.

With all due respect, how about so when those of use from the 'rest of the ICAO world' are visiting your fine country, we don't have to try to decipher/remember yet another Australianism?

The difference between left and leaving is academic anyway, and has nothing to do with the original question which is one I also struggle with. Wizofoz, you could try my favourite passive-aggressive retort - "My apologies, I thought we were identified (followed by full procedural airspace altitude and position reporting)".

[Bula]

Left is a direction, hence the change.

no requirement unless asked to report by ATC.

[Q-Ball]

JEP AU-806

3.5 CHANGE OF LEVELS
3.5.1.6 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft, receiving an instruction from ATC to change level, must report:

a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of climb, cruise or descent; and

b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.

JEP AU-902

1.2 SUMMARY OF REPORT AND BROADCAST REQUIREMENTS
1.2.1.4 After any ATS directed frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level; e.g. “MELBOURNE CENTER (CALL SIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO”.

NOTE: The “last vacated level” may be omitted by identified aircraft squawking pressure altitude derived level information.
​​​​​​​

[lucille]

There is one controller in Melbourne (132.2 last night) who has a thing about aircraft reporting, while identified, that they are leaving their cruising flight level.

His favourite trick is to not give a progressive descent clearance- to wait till you are approaching you assigned level and ask for further clearance before saying "OH! Missed your leaving call!" and giving you further descent.

I actually fronted him last night (frequency was quiet and I didn't prolong it" and transmitted "That's nit required". He replied with "It's in the AIP".

I've searched and while a "leaving" call is party of standard phraseology, I didn't interpret it as being a requirement in a RADAR environment, and no other center in the country seems bothered.

I think at best he's being bloody minded, but is he even technically correct?

Indeed, welcome to Australian ATC. The most pedantic in the world. Lucky for them its a huge area with very little traffic.

The odd thing is that Aussie controllers who leave and become expats in the Middle East and Asia are quite the opposite, they're all first class and a joy to work with. This points to either the system or senior managers with "issues".

[KRviator]

He replied with "It's in the AIP".He is right. AIP ENR-1.7 4.1.6 Nothing in there I can see about it not being required if you're already identified, so my reading is the overly-officious ATCO is correct, but that's not to say the requirement to not do so isn't buried elsewhere, like so many of our other fine regulations, exemptions and fluff...


4. CHANGE OF LEVELS 4.1
ATC Approval Required
4.1.1 The pilot in command must commence a change of level as soon as possible, but not later than one (1) minute after receiving that instruction from ATC, unless that instruction specifies a later time or place.
4.1.2 ATC may require that an assigned level must be reached by a specific time, distance or place. If a pilot in command doubts that the restriction can be met, ATC must be advised immediately.
4.1.3 ATS advised expectation of a level restriction does not authorise a pilot to climb or descend to meet that restriction.
4.1.4 An expectation of a level restriction is not required to be read back.
4.1.5 A requirement to report at a time or place given in the same clearance as a descent/climb instruction does not require the new level to be reached by the specified time or place.
4.1.6 The pilot in command of an aircraft, receiving an instruction from ATC to change level, must report:
a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of climb, cruise or descent; and
b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.
4.1.7 ATC may provide vertical separation between two climbing aircraft, not otherwise separated, by means of a step-climb. Pilots in command, who are subjected to a step-climb, must adopt the following procedure: a. The pilot in command of the lower aircraft must report approaching each assigned level in the sequence. b. The pilot in command of the higher aircraft, on hearing the lower aircraft report approaching each assigned level, must report the last vacated level.
4.1.8 Step-descents reverse the above para 4.1.7 procedure.
4.1.9 ATC may specify a rate of climb or descent. Other considerations are as follows:
a. The phrase “STANDARD RATE”, when included in a clearance, specifies a rate of climb or descent of not less than 500FT per minute, except that the last 1,000FT to an assigned level must be made at 500FT per minute.
b. In the case of a step-climb or descent, the specified rate will be applicable to all level clearances issued in the course of the step climb or descent. If unable to comply with the prescribed rate, the pilot in command must advise ATC.
4.1.10 Cruise Climb is not used in Australian administered airspace. Where possible, block level clearances will be issued upon request.
4.2 ATC Approval Not Required
4.2.1 In airspace where ATC approval is not required to change level, the pilot of an IFR flight must report present position and intention to ATC approximately one (1) minute prior to making any change
​​​​​​​

[machtuk]

It's their cricket set, besides I just do what the SkyGods do/say, must be right right?:ok:

[Bula]

4.1.6 The pilot in command of an aircraft, receiving an instruction from ATC to change level, must report:
a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of climb, cruise or descent; and
b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.

there’s an AND... clear as mud

[4runner]

Indeed, welcome to Australian ATC. The most pedantic in the world. Lucky for them its a huge area with very little traffic.

The odd thing is that Aussie controllers who leave and become expats in the Middle East and Asia are quite the opposite, they're all first class and a joy to work with. This points to either the system or senior managers with "issues".

it’s the same with Saffers too. Left in their own world and country, they’re petty tyrants. Outside of SA or Oz and they’re a beacon of control and calm.

[Capt Fathom]

Further to my post above....

The only reference in the AIP I can find is to report cleared level and passing level when changing frequency.

Note: The “last vacated level” may be omitted by identified aircraft squawking pressure altitude derived level information.

So if I can omit it when transferring to another frequency, why include it on the current frequency?

[amberale]

Sounds like they need a break.
If I really needed to know it was easier to say “when ready descend to ... report leaving”.
Anything else is really just pissing on posts.

[Wizofoz]

It might not be required in the AIP but if he has given you a clearance then asked you to report leaving a level for further clearance there could be a particular reason or it could just be his process to allow him to do his job better, he could be slightly overloaded with the areas he's been given and is doing that to make sure he doesn't miss something. Not going to defend it necessarily but whilst he might be being a bit bloody minded it seems you might also being the same in the whole "It's not in the AIP as far as I'm aware so I'm going to call you out on it".

He DOESN'T ask for a leaving call- he gives "Descend when ready" then assumes you will give the leaving call.

[Wizofoz]

Thanks all- does raise the question- why does this seem to be the only ATCO in the country that gives a @@@@ about it.

[Lookleft]

An example of when you don't need to call leaving but is consistent with the AIP is the frequency change that coincides with your ToD. When you make the intial call to the new frequency you just have to notify the assigned level that you are descending to. Some where in the mists of time there was probably no requirement to report leaving but an aircraft inadvertently left their altitude and ATC didn't realise. The solution was to require pilots to report leaving.

[AerocatS2A]

Thanks all- does raise the question- why does this seem to be the only ATCO in the country that gives a @@@@ about it.
AIP seems clear to me (you must call leaving). Maybe other ATCOs can't be bothered picking you up on it, or just assume you've forgotten.

[Kennytheking]

Australians........perfecting aviation since 1905

[By George]

I'm with Wizofoz, I have just retired from Line-Flying but I distinctly remember this 'Melbourne thing'. Nobody else, anywhere in the Country seem to want it. Inbound to MEL from SYD it is common to get, "when ready descend to FL250". If you say " Leaving FL...…" old mate will instantly clear you to "continue descent to 9,000ft". If you don't say 'Leaving..blah blah" you will be ignored until on top of 9,000ft. In the end I just placed it into the 'Australian weirdo bin' and remembered to do it their way.
Then there was Darwin! I miss my flying but I don't miss flying in Australia.

[mates rates]

If English is not your 1st language then LEFT could be misunderstood as a direction of turn.Thus the word LEAVING.As to the requirement to report its part of the AIP.

[Pearly White]

He DOESN'T ask for a leaving call- he gives "Descend when ready" then assumes you will give the leaving call.
Why wouldn't the call be "(e.g.) Melbourne Centre, VH-XXX Descending now." then?

"Leaving" is just as ambiguous as "Left". You could be "Leaving" to climb.

[Dont Hang Up]

ATC is, put simply, a control loop involving Radar Screen->ATCO->Pilot->Aircraft.

Control loops can operate in two different ways: The controlling agent can explicitly command and require immediate (allowing for known system latencies) response. Alternatively, the controlling agent can give autonomy to its control objects, in which case it requires to be informed of all relevant changes by those objects through what are normally called "interrupts".

Putting that back into human terms. If the ATCo offers a "descend when ready", with the operational advantages that entails, then the courtesy of the "leaving FL for FL" interrupt seems like not too much to ask in return.

[kingRB]

Putting that back into human terms. If the ATCo offers a "descend when ready", with the operational advantages that entails, then the courtesy of the "leaving FL for FL" interrupt seems like not too much to ask in return.

let's be realistic here, they can't properly manage crossing times or speeds on STAR's as soon as more than 2 aircraft are arriving somewhere. Leaving the descent profile under the control of those flying the planes is probably going to offer a better outcome for everybody.

[ConfigFull]

If you're wondering why QF do it, it's in our FAM. You should hear it when we give it to LAX or DFW and you hear the pause and ".........ah ok thanks...". Not another soul out there doing it. Depends who you're flying with of course...

The good news: it's getting removed next edition (apparently).

[WhatShortage]

4.1.6 The pilot in command of an aircraft, receiving an instruction from ATC to change level, must report:
a. when the aircraft has left a level at which level flight has been conducted in the course of climb, cruise or descent; and
b. when the aircraft leaves a level for which ATC has requested a report.

there’s an AND... clear as mud
Keep reporting leaving flight levels in Europe in which some airspaces you just need to say you call sign ( Shannon as example) and you'll be laughed at or someone will tell you there's no need for that.

[stiffwing]

[QUOTE].If you're wondering why QF do it, it's in our FAM. You should hear it when we give it to LAX or DFW and you hear the pause and ".........ah ok thanks...". Not another soul out there doing it. Depends who you're flying with of course...

The good news: it's getting removed next edition (apparently). /QUOTE]


Really?
FSO OPS 135/19, dated 14/11/19.

[ScepticalOptomist]

If you're wondering why QF do it, it's in our FAM. You should hear it when we give it to LAX or DFW and you hear the pause and ".........ah ok thanks...". Not another soul out there doing it. Depends who you're flying with of course...

The good news: it's getting removed next edition (apparently).

FSO fixes that.

Plenty of US carriers also report leaving - hear it all day long between LAX and JFK...

[oicur12.again]

According to AIM 5-3-3 pilots “should” followed by “at all times” para a “when vacating any previously assigned altitude “.

I make the leaving call everytime here in the US however most pilots dont and most controllers appear surpised by the call.

[MarkerInbound]

As oicur says it’s in the FAA AIM -5–3–3 Additional Reportsa. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:

1. At all times.

(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level.

(b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance specifying VFR-on-top.

(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of a least 500 feet per minute.

(d) When approach has been missed. (Request clearance for specific action; i.e., to alternative airport, another approach, etc.)

(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.

(f) The time and altitude or flight level upon reaching a holding fix or point to which cleared.

(g) When leaving any assigned holding fix or point.

[Alpine Flyer]

Keep reporting leaving flight levels in Europe in which some airspaces you just need to say you call sign ( Shannon as example) and you'll be laughed at or someone will tell you there's no need for that.
If cleared to "descend FL xxx when ready" I consider it good practice to report actually leaving the current level, even more so if a frequency change is in between. This might be less of an issue in these days of ADS-B when the controller sees your selected FL anyway, but it still can't hurt to close the loop and let him know that the descent he cleared is actually starting. If it's busy then any on-the-air discussion of what is superfluous and what not is not going to ease frequency congestion...I can't remember hearing anyone being told off on the air for superfluous radio transmissions in over 30 years of flying, but then I haven't been to Shannon.

[aerobatic_dude]

Think old ATC Mate needs to get real and spend a few weeks in LGW or LHR :D

[Lapon]

So is there actually any reason for having to call leaving other than ' because that is what the book has always said'? :ugh:

[anson harris]

Ridiculous and a waste of airtime unless given a "descend when ready". Under radar control, if I've acknowledged a clearance, then I'll say if I'm NOT doing it.
Is it really necessary to make aviation so flipping complicated? The important stuff is hard enough.

[Ollie Onion]

I have flown with many FO's over the past 18 months who have told me the 'leaving' call is no longer required. I was visiting the ATC center in Melbourne recently and asked the Supervisor there and he said 'the old system would not notify us of an aircraft commencing descent which is why we required a 'leaving' call as per the AIP, the new system does notify us so we don't require a 'leaving' call as we will be notified electronically'. He then said that 'technically it is still in the AIP as there is a huge process to get it removed (underway) so it still should be reported but that most controllers don't care'. So the mentioned controller is technically right but to be honest is being a bit of a prick the way he is going about making his point.

[BlackPanther]

let's be realistic here, they can't properly manage crossing times or speeds on STAR's as soon as more than 2 aircraft are arriving somewhere. Leaving the descent profile under the control of those flying the planes is probably going to offer a better outcome for everybody.

And herein lies the arrogance of this entire thread. The ATC was being arrogant in the OPs example if he does this all the time, however it could be a genuine statement, he may have just missed it.
​​​​​​
The OP was being arrogant by arguing. He is wrong. It is in AIP. Unfortunately whilst many many things in AIP are ignored, you have to be willing to fall on the sword when caught out.

KingRB has made an arrogant statement about sequencing when it's clear that he obviously hasn't spent any actual time trying to learn how sequencing in Australia works. Don't forget the system is from pre2000 - the ATCs work with what they have got. Not to mention a set of priorities and procedures which affect sequencing can make it too dynamic in Australia.

The point of my post is that this is meant to be a team effort. Without pilots there's no ATC, and without ATC your flight won't be safe. Can everyone just work together and not argue over these ridiculous minutae?

[ramble on]

The Australian AIP is SO poorly constructed and written.

References such as this are hard to find in the jumble and it is written in convoluted legalese with so much excessive and confusing verbage.

It needs to be ripped up and rewritten in practical, commonsense operator oriented language.

[exfocx]

The Australian AIP is SO poorly constructed and written.

References such as this are hard to find in the jumble and it is written in convoluted legalese with so much excessive and confusing verbage.

It needs to be ripped up and rewritten in practical, commonsense operator oriented language.

That's about it, poorly written with contradictory statements in different sections.

[thorn bird]

Quote: "It needs to be ripped up and rewritten in practical, commonsense operator oriented language."

Ramble, the whole Australian regulatory suite needs to be ripped up and rewritten, no chance of that because then they would have to admit they pissed away half a billion+ $ of taxpayer money. They are getting round the comprehension side of the reg's by writing another manual that explains the reg's in plain english, god knows what that will cost but begs the question, why didn't they write them in plain english in the first place?

Is it such a big deal? hard to get out of the habits of OZ, I still call leaving overseas, never been chipped once for doing so, can't imagine an ATCO chipping anyone for not doing it here, he see's you leaving on his scope. Maybe the ATCO that had a winge missed out the night before and was a tad frustrated.

[Hoosten]

Without pilots there's no ATC

I would agree.

and without ATC your flight won't be safe.

I would disagree. That's an extremely broad statement. Perhaps in the 'olden days' ATC had more input. These days, modern aircraft have the equipment to provide the required safety without any ATC input, even GA aircraft are getting this equipment at a good price. This is certainly the case in an en-route phase. Your argument is more valid, perhaps, in the terminal area.

Flow control will never be perfect. In these times, there is so much more information available to make flow better. In Australia it's getting worse,

Why?

In my experience, the

ridiculous minutae?

is perpetuated by Australian branded ATC. Whinging about not getting a 'left or leaving' call. Why? It's alarmed.

I'd suggest getting in touch with this person's manager. This particular frequency has far greater priorities than this tripe.

[BlackPanther]

Now that's a point I can get behind. There is literally no worse book I can think off than AIP in terms of construction.

Not to mention that the index was removed 3 years ago due to the apparent difficulty of upkeep? Are you ####### kiddin' me?! Suspiciously the same time Airservices ran its famed 'Accelerate' program.

[324906]

Isn’t/wasn’t there a requirement to, when not having left a level but having been assigned another level, when ready, if a frequency changed to advise maintaining flxxx, assigned xxx. The previous Jepp references seem to make it clear that a report leaving, having left or vacating or vacated or however you wish to express it, is required

[Super Cecil]

And herein lies the arrogance of this entire thread. The ATC was being arrogant in the OPs example if he does this all the time, however it could be a genuine statement, he may have just missed it.
​​​​​​
The OP was being arrogant by arguing. He is wrong. It is in AIP. Unfortunately whilst many many things in AIP are ignored, you have to be willing to fall on the sword when caught out.

KingRB has made an arrogant statement about sequencing when it's clear that he obviously hasn't spent any actual time trying to learn how sequencing in Australia works. Don't forget the system is from pre2000 - the ATCs work with what they have got. Not to mention a set of priorities and procedures which affect sequencing can make it too dynamic in Australia.

The point of my post is that this is meant to be a team effort. Without pilots there's no ATC, and without ATC your flight won't be safe. Can everyone just work together and not argue over these ridiculous minutae?
That's a pretty arrogant post Panther :hmm:

[BlackPanther]

Well, I just believe people (on both sides) should have more humility about the things they don't understand. I apologise if I sounded arrogant or I offended someone.

I am not taking a side on either position of this debate. The ATC was correct but unprofessional. The pilot was wrong but probably makes a fair point. I see both perspectives. Of course, the whole point of this forum is that we can all discuss openly and honestly.

Hoosten, you are correct what you said about the technologies available. However, they don't exist in the Australian context (either from a technical, or regulatory perspective). Consider the investment that is being put into OneSky, I wouldn't expect things to change anytime soon either.

I am not sure what you mean by "it's alarmed" but the notion in this thread that ATC's get a notification from their scope when an aircraft leaves a level is is not true in Australia (unless of course the aircraft does it in contravention of their clearance, in which case your transponder will dob you in). They have to actively scan your track to see it. And if they are working intensely on another task this can be missed quite candidly.

Once again - this is not a defense of anyone. This is me putting out some facts.

[finestkind]

Ramble on.

It has been. Many years ago when I did my ATPL the chap that was running the course had a student who day job was a Barrister. Having too many stray neurons (as occurs with these chaps) did not like the way all the guff was written in legalise. So rewrote it in normal talk, submitted, told will review and rewrite and I think the main change was an added an or, or.

[airwolf117]

it’s the same with Saffers too. Left in their own world and country, they’re petty tyrants. Outside of SA or Oz and they’re a beacon of control and calm.

As a South African this amused me greatly and will be repeated many times in the coming years :D

[cx8za]

Whinging about not getting a 'left or leaving' call. Why? It's alarmed..

No, it isn't. If you've been given a 'when ready' descent, there will not be any active alert when you leave your level. All that will happen is a '>' symbol will become a '˅' symbol and three digits on your track label will begin decreasing. There is no beep, alarm, notification or any active system means of alert.

the new system does notify us so we don't require a 'leaving' call as we will be notified electronically'

Partially true, or at least partially understood and slightly out of context. If an aircraft is within surveillance coverage and somewhere between its current level and its cleared level (and traveling the right direction) there will be no alarm. If an aircraft steps outside of these bounds it will generate a CLAM alert (Cleared Level Adherence Monitor). A track has a 200ft tolerance applied from the cleared level and the CLAM alert will only be generated outside of this tolerance. F350 can wander between FL348 and 352 without alert. An aircraft in a block FL350B370 can wander between FL348 and 372 without alert. An aircraft at FL350, assigned FL250 'when ready' will not generate an alert until it hits FL247 descending. We don't need alarms to tell us an aircraft is complying with its clearance, it's not particularly good HMI to have 'Everything's OK Alarms'.

There is also the Predicted Flight Level (PFL) alert for aircraft equipped with Mode S transponders. This will compare the Cleared Flight Level for an aircraft track to its down-linked selected flight level and generate and alert if a discrepancy exists. This is when you'll hear "Confirm assigned level" from ATC, there is no display presented to ATC of what level is selected, only that there is a difference.

Moving on...

ATC will have several aircraft under their jurisdiction at any point in time, in moderately busy times, I typically had 25-30 aircraft on my combined frequencies, at busy times 35+ (more than I had time to count). The most I had one night with everyone on the rails was 75 aircraft in my airspace. This doesn't include aircraft approaching my volume of airspace, those of which are getting the lions share of my attention because if the flight wasn't been planned through my airspace before it reached me, I was already five steps behind. Add to this the 'behind the radio' work of coordinating with other sectors, FIRs, managers etc.

If you were given 'when ready' descent by me then and didn't advise leaving, there's a pretty high chance that it would go unnoticed in the short term. I would not be instructing aircraft to 'report leaving' the cruise level because it's expected that you do it and a waste of radio time on my behalf if I did.
There are reasons why full descent may not be issued with 'when ready' from the cruise level, generally they include conflicting traffic, airspace or procedures. The controller my not be responsible for the underlying airspace at the time that descent was issued and can't clear you through another controllers airspace. It can also be for task trigger actions such as a frequency transfer gets issued at top of descent when the aircraft reports leaving.

That said, if the first that I knew that an aircraft was descending on their clearance was the pilot piping up saying they were approaching their cleared level I'd just give more descent and move on, I don't see the point of point of being bitchy of frequency, there's more important things to do. Some ATCs, just like some pilots, have their grumpy days, their pet hates, their long tiring shifts, and days when they got out of the wrong side of bed.

For the original post, maybe the controller was approaching the end of a long shift, genuinely didn't notice you leaving, believed he had missed your call and got a smart-arse (and incorrect) response in return for the explanation offered. Maybe he's just a tool. Most likely, as with all things, it's somewhere in between.


I appreciate pilots asking these questions, we can't learn from each other if we don't ask. I encourage my colleagues and trainees to do jump seat flights when ever they get a chance, it's a great way of seeing your world for a few hours.I also encourage all the pilots I meet while doing so to visits towers and centres to get that same experience.

If anyone one has spare time in Melbourne or Brisbane or at any tower location, give us a call, come visit and have a chat. I believe the more that we all know about each others jobs, the better it gets for everyone. The rising tide and all that...


Ask more questions.
What have you got next?

[Hoosten]

Hoosten

The promised efficiencies were never delivered by TAAATS, I'm sceptical that any operational efficiencies will be delivered by 'onesky.' Perhaps the only thing delivered will be management bonuses and Line Controller overtime.

I am not sure what you mean by "it's alarmed" but the notion in this thread that ATC's get a notification from their scope when an aircraft leaves a level is is not true in Australia (unless of course the aircraft does it in contravention of their clearance, in which case your transponder will dob you in). They have to actively scan your track to see it. And if they are working intensely on another task this can be missed quite candidly.

The bolded part, is this not part of your job description? I doubt you would ever rate on a position if something as simple as this is not demonstrated?

Quite frankly Australian ATC needs to go back to the drawing board. You are in service delivery. The treatment of some of your customers is appalling. The dismissive attitude of 'without me your operation would cease' is not good enough.

[mmm345]

Further on from leaving an assigned level when given a pilots discretion descent, would you intercept the regulations to require a response such as “ climb/descend x , leaving y” when given a climb or descent instruction without a “when ready” included?

[BlackPanther]

The bolded part, is this not part of your job description? I doubt you would ever rate on a position if something as simple as this is not demonstrated?
Of course it is. But sometimes human factors gets in the way and when there are 20 outstanding tasks to complete, scanning an aircraft that is 'on the rails' is not something you prioritise as number 1. You might prioritise the emergency aircraft inbound from the next sector, or a pending conflict that requires a level change from another aircraft, or you might be looking ahead at the sequence to start to form a plan.

Naturally, an ATC scan will return to ALL aircraft in good time. But mental prioritisation is important and checking if an aircraft has left a level after you have already assessed descent and issued a clearance is not that high up the list.

Quite frankly Australian ATC needs to go back to the drawing board. You are in service delivery. The treatment of some of your customers is appalling. The dismissive attitude of 'without me your operation would cease' is not good enough.
Yes, the system needs to go back to the drawing board in regards to the framework in which Australian ATC is done. TAAATS is poor and the regulations are less about efficiency and more about decreasing risk for Airservices. However I think that the kind of behaviour you describe is only evident in a small number of ATC's here.

[Wizofoz]

Well, I just believe people (on both sides) should have more humility about the things they don't understand. I apologise if I sounded arrogant or I offended someone.

I am not taking a side on either position of this debate. The ATC was correct but unprofessional. The pilot was wrong but probably makes a fair point. I see both perspectives. Of course, the whole point of this forum is that we can all discuss openly and honestly.

Hoosten, you are correct what you said about the technologies available. However, they don't exist in the Australian context (either from a technical, or regulatory perspective). Consider the investment that is being put into OneSky, I wouldn't expect things to change anytime soon either.

I am not sure what you mean by "it's alarmed" but the notion in this thread that ATC's get a notification from their scope when an aircraft leaves a level is is not true in Australia (unless of course the aircraft does it in contravention of their clearance, in which case your transponder will dob you in). They have to actively scan your track to see it. And if they are working intensely on another task this can be missed quite candidly.

Once again - this is not a defense of anyone. This is me putting out some facts.

Point taken BP- but I WOULD point out this particular sector has a reputation for exactly this, so, no, it wasn't a one-off.

[Kelly Slater]

This question should have been answered in one sentence as there is only one right answer. Unfortunately, I have been out of the air for a while so I can't help. Try posting in "Australia NZ and the Pacific" as the majority of pilots responding should be current airline pilots regularly leaving flight levels in controlled airspace.

[Hoosten]

I think that the kind of behaviour you describe is only evident in a small number of ATC's here.

Yes, I would agree with that, but any sort of this behaviour should be rubbed out. More press in the SMH about the cultural problems inside ASA. It would be hard to modify behaviours when your management is so poor.

[Occy]

Ask more questions.
What have you got next?

Great info, thanks for your post.

i have one question. Probably more for approach controllers, but when we have an “at or below” altitude is it annoying if we level off when we are cleared lower? Example, cleared to 6000’ (or whatever) the at or below 9000’ often has us low on profile, so the aircrafts solution is to make the 9000’ “at or below” then level off. Most people will override this and continue a gentle descent until re-intercepting desired profile, but if you don’t and let the aircraft level off at 9000’, is it annoying for ATC?
thanks

[HPSOV L]

My airline, which is “non-English as a first language” mandates a leaving call. The reason was different ATC phraseology and procedures around the world had occasionally led to misinterpretation of descent clearances. The “leaving” call, while cumbersome and not mandatory in most areas, does provide a final confirmation of the clearance and has saved face a few times.

[amberale]

Great info, thanks for your post.

i have one question. Probably more for approach controllers, but when we have an “at or below” altitude is it annoying if we level off when we are cleared lower? Example, cleared to 6000’ (or whatever) the at or below 9000’ often has us low on profile, so the aircrafts solution is to make the 9000’ “at or below” then level off. Most people will override this and continue a gentle descent until re-intercepting desired profile, but if you don’t and let the aircraft level off at 9000’, is it annoying for ATC?
thanks

Hi Occy.
Biggest problem with that situation is if you let the aircraft do it all and the FMS reduces your speed as well.
You are probably in a stream of traffic and if old mate behind you is hand flying or overriding the FMS then we all have closing when the Star is meant to make it a sausage factory.
I tell you to speed up and the guys behind to slow down and everyone says FFS we met our FF time, second best in the world! :)

[AerocatS2A]

Why would the FMS slow down in that situation?

[travelator]

Why would the FMS slow down in that situation?

Because the descent path is very flat/shallow from the push down waypoint. If the cost index is low enough, the FMS will command a low speed (idle) for the shallow descent. The other option is to maintain a higher speed with thrust which does not comply with low cost bias.

[RENURPP]

Because the descent path is very flat/shallow from the push down waypoint. If the cost index is low enough, the FMS will command a low speed (idle) for the shallow descent. The other option is to maintain a higher speed with thrust which does not comply with low cost bias.
not on the FMS i use. Using the SMOKA star jnto BNE as an example, if the box is left unchanged it will pass over SMOKA at the maximum alt, (7000 I think) and then continue its descent at 750fpm to assigned level at 260 kts. It will reduce to 230 by GORRI, as required.
There are many ways to skin a cat. Mine is to insert an alt restriction at GORRI of 5000feet.
you end up with a continual 500fpm ~ descent after SMOKA to GORRI.

[swh]

Ask more questions.
What have you got next?

Why don’t datalink change of level clearances include a leaving report, only the maintaining new level report.

[Hoosten]

Why don’t datalink change of level clearances include a leaving report, only the maintaining new level report. Because the fellow on 135.7 wouldn't have a clue what CPDLC is let alone how to use it?

[amberale]

not on the FMS i use. Using the SMOKA star jnto BNE as an example, if the box is left unchanged it will pass over SMOKA at the maximum alt, (7000 I think) and then continue its descent at 750fpm to assigned level at 260 kts. It will reduce to 230 by GORRI, as required.
There are many ways to skin a cat. Mine is to insert an alt restriction at GORRI of 5000feet.
you end up with a continual 500fpm ~ descent after SMOKA to GORRI.

First up folks, I am not complaining but explaining.
In fact the only thing I now have to do with aviation is looking up to watch you guys go over my cows.

Renurpp your reply demonstrates why we don’t have a perfect system and never will.
Different crews on identical aircraft have different solutions to flying star profiles.
Add different aircraft and FMS to the mix and you get closing/opening situations.

You aint doin’ anything wrong nor is the crew ahead of you or behind you but ATC has to stick their nose in and adjust someone's speed, usually just when you have achieved the profile you want. :(

Sequences are flowed for maximum runway usage at the start of sequence even to the point of adding “pressure” to the mix where there there may be one too many aircraft in there to theoretically fit.
After a while(an hour) gaps start to be added into the mix to help the tower get departures away and will leav you scratching your head about why you were slowed down when there is no-one else around.

Hope this helps.

[AerocatS2A]

Because the descent path is very flat/shallow from the push down waypoint. If the cost index is low enough, the FMS will command a low speed (idle) for the shallow descent. The other option is to maintain a higher speed with thrust which does not comply with low cost bias.
Ok. My FMS doesn’t work that way (it also wouldn’t fly a level segment for an at or below restriction). If well below the path it will fly a shallow descent with thrust on to maintain the speed.

[cx8za]

I have one question. Probably more for approach controllers, Approach is not my domain so that's one I'll have to leave for others, any answer from me on that would only be speculation and not likely very accurate. There have been some answers since so hopefully that'll put some light on it.
Why don’t datalink change of level clearances include a leaving report, only the maintaining new level report I'll get to that, but first some background and tangential information...

Generally speaking, when you're operating via CPDLC you'll be out of surveillance and VHF coverage and track and level monitoring is achieved with ADS-C so this response is aimed at that. The Contract part of the ADS-C does several useful things for us. It will specify the reporting rate, with 12 minutes intervals default in OCA from 2014 after MAS370 (it still operates in the background while in surveillance coverage but the reporting rate drops to 40 minutes). It also incorporates 'Waypoint Change Events', Lateral Deviation Events' and 'Level Deviation Range Events'.

WCEs will alert on our screen with an alert called 'ADS Route Conformance Warning' (ARCW) which monitors and compares the FMS Next and Next+1 waypoints to the system flight plan and highlights if a discrepancy exists. This is a very useful alert as it is one of the few predictive alert alerts that we get, which is to say that we can know something is not right before the expected trajectory diverges. This allows time to determine what is wrong and rectify it before it becomes an actual issue (unfortunately these alerts are suppressed within surveillance coverage). We'll see these alerts during weather deviations, if the FMS route is offset by 20 miles, we'll see it (but not if the deviations are flown on headings). We'll also see it when dummy waypoints are added to the FMS (PNRs, full checks, count down to crew change over...). Other times it can pop up if there had been a route change that was filed after the original plan was submitted but the change didn't get incorporated into our system for what ever reason.
If you get a message that says "Confirm Assigned Route", this is probably why. From that point, if the discrepancy continues, we'll either re-clear you by the route that we have filed, or re-clear by your reported route. As long as what we are expecting to happen and what you are expecting to happen match up, everything is awesome. All we want is predictability, we're not focused on where you are now, we are looking at where you'll be in 5 to 300 minutes time (depending on the area of responsibility)...

Next, Lateral Deviation Events. If you go 4.5NM off track, your FMS will tell us and we'll get a warning message on screen. If you go 7nm off track, the system generates a RAM (Route Adherence Monitor) alert and highlights yellow and beeps and carries on. RAM alerts will generate with ADS-C reports or surveillance reports (ADS-B and Radar).

Finally, and getting to the point of the question, Level Deviation Range Events. These work similar to the CLAM alert discussed earlier, but are specified in the ADS Contract that if the aircraft leaves a level, the FMS tells us about it automatically. So why don't you get told to report leaving a level? The FMS does it for you. As for the 'Report Maintaining' report request, there are a few reasons in tandem for this. First is that unlike leaving a specified level range, the FMS will not by default tell us entering a specified range, so it can take until the next periodic contract report for our system to be updated (up to 12 mins, formerly 14/22/30 minutes depending on contract rate specified). Second, some message options in certain FMS units are context dependent and without an opening message (UM129 "report maintaining") the contextual response (DM37 "maintaining FL[level]") is not accessible. Third, some FMS units will automatically respond to the opening context message (report maintaining) with the context response message when the correct parameters are met (within 150ft and vertical rate less than 2ft per second).

For CPDLC aircraft within surveillance coverage we'll generally just use VHF comms because it's quicker, easier and some ATCs do not have very much exposure to CPDLC usage. Some exceptions to this are areas of poor VHF (affected by coverage, weather, transmitter faults etc), poor understanding (accents, English as second language, lack of required read-back) or in response to a CPDLC request (A CPDLC opening message should always have a CPDLC closure message to close the dialogue).

I think there's an answer in there somewhere...

[acpulse]

let's be realistic here, they can't properly manage crossing times or speeds on STAR's as soon as more than 2 aircraft are arriving somewhere. Leaving the descent profile under the control of those flying the planes is probably going to offer a better outcome for everybody.

Have fun running into the back of that A330 that's seemingly trying to land at the feeder fix. Set course out of the hold? Hope you're happy to start your PRM early. Are you going to aim 30 seconds ahead of your time again particular airline? It worked well yesterday but today, not so much. Do turboprops have clocks?
Oh, 20 mile deviation? Cool, glad you're at the front and no one else is moving. Oh, company policy? Oh speed limited? Glad I was told..
It must be nice living in that world where nothing in aviation changes from the time you start your descent.

Look honestly, we're really just trying to do the best with what we've got. As is everyone, and 99.9% of the time pilots are a pleasure to deal with, even when we stick them with some garbage sequencing. Appreciated.
To be fair to your point though, the system (whole) can be a tad frustrating. Do you think we enjoy asking for an IAS? It's a bit of a shame that our system doesn't give the person responsible for sequencing (literally watching speed and distance) an indicated airspeed.
Do I like having to check that an aircraft is doing 250kts out of the hold? No, I don't. Do I like changing the speed instructions I give every 6 months, not particularly. Do I like my manager changing every 6 months? (Well that one I'm not fussed about).

Anyway, fret not. Onesky will fix everything, haha. ;)

[exfocx]

Why did this thread change from a go at the system into ATC bashing?

For one I'm pretty happy with ATC, I doubt I have the overall view of what they're dealing with and yes, sometimes it's frustrating when you look around and wonder wtf was the cause for slow down / speed up when the airports looks empty. My usual thought is they normally know what they're doing, just like we normally know what we're doing. BUT, in general I think pilots usually think they can do everyones job, can't think of too many times I've seen that attitude from ATC.

[macbe327]

Current HK based but Ex Sydney approach controller and ex ex NZ based procedural approach.

In NZ it’s only a required call when not identified. As a procedural approach controller it’s useful.
In Aus from what I could tell it’s required by AIP at all times. Another stupid Aussie rule - used to bug the **** out of me working Sydney when busy and some Saab pipes up with “leaving fl150” . Of course the pilot is obviously just following the rules so not his/her fault but in a practical sense it’s totally unnecessary in a radar environment. Shame logic and the Aussie atc system don’t seem to get along.

[Hoosten]

Shame logic and the Aussie atc system don’t seem to get along.

World's second best ATC

[Capt Fathom]

World's second best ATC

Geez, we haven’t heard that one... for a least 10 minutes! :}

[Gazza mate]

Leaving call only in Aus and Singaz.