What exactly is an altitude restriction (Jepp)?

[CW247]

Approach plates for LEMI (RMU, Murcia, Spain).

Was cleared direct to DIXIR descending to FL110 from a WPT 40-50nm North (prior to STAR). 10nm prior to DIXIR controller (no radar) instructed to "descend according to procedure" and cleared us for ILSRWY 23. PF dialled in 4100 and we crossed DIXIR at about 6000ft. The "Non-Radar" controller than asked us to confirm our altitude and advised "there was a published restriction at DIXIR".

I could be having a brain fart but according to what logic is FL75 an altitude restriction at DIXIR? On Jepp, an altitude restriction is in BOLD and bounded by an Above or Below line. FL75 to me is the minimum altitude between XOLSI and DIXIR. Not a restriction. And we were cleared direct to DIXIR from 50nm out. Stupidly, even the ILS approach plate does not have a minimum altitude for DIXIR.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1153x1952/rmualtet1t_4b42c468b08247f579b7a1c5afd3a78b7c7d0fa8.png


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1148x1952/rmuils23_76413f0a2715717da7b9f31cdab1630e10e4678d.png

[FlightDetent]

So far I had a rule to have a vaild reason before descending below a minimum charted altitude - FL75 in this case. When the controller informs 'non-radar' that goes with triple checking.

Not sure what your PF's logic is and looking for reasons to support it reads awkard. Dare to post the AIP?

[fpuentegomez]

Could be a restriction from a NOTAM, hence you don't have it in your charts.

[Telekon]

From the AIP:


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/841x1239/star_f97ba26af7cc070777b3a5ef2753f88fcdf0e652.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/873x1359/app_85db5c090cf983f60f3e83963b6b4669425209f5.png
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1189x719/key_99b482157b32888406be48d3fd2738f9b773dc5e.png

[FlightDetent]

Appreciated, thank you. FL75+ charted before DIXIR, right?

Southern side has exactly at FL90 until R-051, which is not relevant but the awareness should raise questions about airspace rules and complexity.

[Telekon]

Appreciated, thank you. FL75+ charted before DIXIR, right?

Yes, although it appears to me at least to be associated with the procedural segment and not DIXIR itself, which is the point of contention I suppose. Here is a Spanish AIP example where the restriction is clearly applicable at a fix:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/207x274/point_9c6d483c6aa9fd41e189dce0349f84985dc0954e.png

100% agree on the principle of erring on the side of caution and querying with ATC in such cases though.

[FlightDetent]

Telkon, you are abosolutely right. As you suspect, the procedural segment restriction in front of a waypoint is good enough instruction in case of a DCT to that waypoint,
- in the absence of any other grounds for a lower descent
- when told to follow the procedural alts

But that is just a personal technique (?).

Easy for a desk&chair debate, real life airborne it is harder to keep thigs simple at all times.

[golfbananajam]

Please don't shoot me down, not a commercial pilot just a lapsed PPL with IMC but I still find it interesting reading these plates and trying to understand what they're saying, sad I know, but that's the way I am.

Could the confusion come from the top most AIP plate which shows an approach to DIXIR from the NE, from XOLSI, which has a lower limit of FL75?

[vilas]

DIXIR has a crossing ht of FL75 which will remain. Direct to clearance is for lateral path. Lower descent can only be at DIXIR or earlier if cleared by ATC. Even with cleared for ILS and on GS terrain clearance is not ensured below the step down fixes. Refer to FAA InFO 11009.

[KingAir1978]

CW247 You mentioned being cleared for an ILS Z runway 23. The plate shown is ILS runway 23. Is there another approach plate for this runway?

[Check Airman]

In the absence of a NOTAM, this is a bit of a gotcha. Normally, a crossing restriction would be formatted as you describe. In this case, 7500 is the MEA for the segment between XOLSI and DIXIR, so you would be expected to respect it.

https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Introduction-to-Jeppesen-Navigation-Charts.pdf

Page SID/STAR-4

[172_driver]

I don't see FL75 as an altitude restriction being cleared direct to. FL75 is a minimum for a procedural transition. If non-radar I would expect off route descent clearances based on distance from the fix/beacon. Even the Italians used to ask for distance before issuing descent clearances, felt reassuring.

[CW247]

Sorry, approach was ILS 23, not a Z one. There are several restricted areas around the airport which may be activated by NOTAM. We didn't pick up on anything that day. Grid MORA where DIXIR lies is 7100. We definitely could've erred on the side of caution but once again I find myself challenged by an aviation world where there lie nothing but traps. :ouch:

Edit to say that DIXIR is 23 miles from the threshold, to cross DIXIR at 7500 would be a little sporty and we had a tailwind that day.

[tolip1]

I agree with controller, a restriction between two points should be adhered to at the final point.

That's how airbus code it in FMS too.

[CW247]

I could be wrong but the FMS coded constraint (+FL75) is only there because it is inherited from the original route so I don't think Airbus explicitly coded it for a direct routing. As we were not flying from XOLSI to DIXIR and were on a direct routing. A better statement from the controller would've been "maintain FL75, after DIXIR cleared ILS 23". From a non radar controller, that would be the better thing to say. Instead they leave you in no mans land where you have to consider so many other aspects of your performance in order to make the glideslope.

[CW247]

DIXIR has a crossing ht of FL75 which will remain. Direct to clearance is for lateral path. Lower descent can only be at DIXIR or earlier if cleared by ATC. Even with cleared for ILS and on GS terrain clearance is not ensured below the step down fixes. Refer to FAA InFO 11009.

Why then VILAS do some charts bother to show a bounded constraint, and some don't. If it's that important? ....

[172_driver]

I agree with controller, a restriction between two points should be adhered to at the final point.

That's how airbus code it in FMS too.

Except he was not flying between them two points. Why should FL75 be adhered to and not FL90, as is published if you come via the arc on the ILS -plate?

Poor charts, poor ATC instructions. The MSA is a good safety net to fall back on. While not an operational altitude as such, it's often easier than trying to figure out what ATC wants in broken English.

[Black Pudding]

Except he was not flying between them two points. Why should FL75 be adhered to and not FL90, as is published if you come via the arc on the ILS -plate?

Good question ?

If you were cleared to FL090 on the arc and cleared for the approach, how would you know when to descend below FL090 ?

[FlightDetent]

Grid MORA where DIXIR lies is 7100. We definitely could've erred on the side of caution but once again I find myself challenged by an aviation world where there lie nothing but traps. :ouch: The side of caution would not be erring, but prudent safe choice.

Going below charted altitudes with a specific prior clearance to observe the procedural alt was the error. To be perfectly honest, I could clearly see a day where I might do that as well, unintetional as was your case. And kudos for discussing it.

The issue at hand is that your flight fell into a non-charted, off-procedure gap. Hence the differing opinions you read, describing what needs to be done on the different published segments and procedural tracks. But you'd never have had an issue if flying along one of those.

+ Under vectors, the ATC is responsible for minimum altitudes.
+ For a DIR TO after vectors, ATC is responsible for the last altitude to rejoin the procedure
- However in your case, you got an off-route short-cut without radar control. What then?

ell, the ATC is not responsible for your altitude and hence his hint to follow the procedure but at the same time you were not literally following any charted route. That combined with ommiting the info from the arrival chart and diving straight for the approach plate caused the mixup.

To me it seems we're looking here for a (chart-based) solution that does not exist. It's not about Jeppesen's presentation of altitudes, not about information provided in the AIP (yet again more rich than Jepp, not a real factor thouhg). What needs to be done in fact is to build a solution from the pieces that do not really apply exactly to your routing and clearance, becasue for those there is no specific information at all. Yes, that was a no-mans-land, but the difference between an aviator we all claim to be and an autopilot is to know which way is Mordor no matter the terrain and surroundings.

a) Routing to DIXIR - yes
b) Are there any tracks to DIXIR - yes
c) Do those tracks have a ALT limitation - yes
d) Are the charted tracks inbound DIXIR near (angular displacement) to the current routing - yes
= building a solution = decide to observe FL75+ before DIXIR published nearby (and possibly seek verbal clarification if lower is needed).

[FlightDetent]

If you were cleared to FL090 on the arc and cleared for the approach, how would you know when to descend below FL090 ?Not sure if this is educative-rethorical so leaving that unanswered not to spoil the magic?

[parishiltons]

Good question ?

If you were cleared to FL090 on the arc and cleared for the approach, how would you know when to descend below FL090 ?
Assuming you overflew DITRE at the start of the arc, then because that is the (an!) IAF and you have an approach clearance, you are cleared to continue descent via the procedure - not below 090 until crossing the MUR 051 bearing (open triangle on the Jepp), then not below 075 until crossing DIXIR. But in the initial question, they were cleared DCT DIXIR, so there is no arc involved.

[Capn Bloggs]

I could be having a brain fart but according to what logic is FL75 an altitude restriction at DIXIR?
There is no logic. You're not on the STAR and there is no altitude restriction at DIXIR on the ILS, either Jepp or AIP.

then not below 075 until crossing DIXIR
Where are you getting that from?

[Black Pudding]

then not below 075 until crossing DIXIR

Ignoring the STAR plate 30-2, If coming from a different direction direct to DITRE then the arc, where are you getting this 075 figure from ? Where on the 31-1 ILS Rwy 23 plate does it mention 075 ? How do you know after radial 051 what you can do. Where is any of this written on plate 31-1

[FullWings]

Ignoring the STAR plate 30-2, If coming from a different direction direct to DITRE then the arc, where are you getting this 075 figure from ? Where on the 31-1 ILS Rwy 23 plate does it mention 075 ? How do you know after radial 051 what you can do. Where is any of this written on plate 31-1
On the LIDO chart for ILS 23 it shows 4,100’ as a minimum altitude after R051 MUR, which is also the procedural glide slope intercept. Therefore 4,100’ is OK at DIXIR as that is later on. The info is also on the Spanish AIP chart but apparently not on the Jeppesen version quoted here.

What you descend to prior to DIXIR on a direct routing from a random position is another thing entirely. As the Transition Level is very close to or below the MSA in places, Flight Levels are not a good thing to base terrain clearance on, so I presume at least some of the restrictions are due to the proximity of Alicante’s approach and departure lanes, and that was the concern of the controller, not an imminent CFIT?

[Capn Bloggs]

so I presume at least some of the restrictions are due to the proximity of Alicante’s approach and departure lanes, and that was the concern of the controller, not an imminent CFIT?
Any altitude assignment by ATC must be cognisant of/take into account the terrain. Clearly, judging by the reaction of the ATC in this instance, they thought the crew did the wrong thing crossing DIXIR at "only" 6000ft. Why did they think that? ATC obviously has a view that 6000ft at DIXIR is too low (even though it is pretty close to a standard profile at that distance). Perhaps they were, incorrectly, assuming that 7500ft, which only applies to the STAR. was the general limit. There is nothing on the AIP charts that places any restriction at DIXIR.

[parishiltons]

Ignoring the STAR plate 30-2, If coming from a different direction direct to DITRE then the arc, where are you getting this 075 figure from ? Where on the 31-1 ILS Rwy 23 plate does it mention 075 ? How do you know after radial 051 what you can do. Where is any of this written on plate 31-1
Fair point. Consider: given you are off route in the DCT DIXIR clearance and assuming no ATC surveillance, then the general grid MSA (interestingly 7100 on the Jepp and 6300 on the AIP) would apply until established inside the 25NM MUR VOR area (4700) and once subsequently established on the procedure crossing DIXIR further descent according to the procedure. Of course all this takes no account of airspace classification and other traffic.

[Capn Bloggs]

assuming no ATC surveillance
"Surveillance" or lack-thereof, doesn't have anything to do with it, IMO. ATC cannot clear you to an altitude that does not provide the legal terrain clearance unless their clearance is qualified in some way. It doesn't matter if ATC can "see you" or not. They are still obligated to provide you with terrain clearance.

[Check Airman]

I don't see FL75 as an altitude restriction being cleared direct to. FL75 is a minimum for a procedural transition. If non-radar I would expect off route descent clearances based on distance from the fix/beacon. Even the Italians used to ask for distance before issuing descent clearances, felt reassuring.

You're absolutely right. I missed the part where the OP said he was cleared direct. The controller was at fault in this case. He should've been told to cross the fix at 7,500ft.

[vilas]

The chart shows safety altitude north of DIXIR as 7100. The clearance given descent according to procedure. No matter from where you come to DIXIR procedure doesn't permit descent below 7500 before DIXIR. The ATC waived of lateral procedure asked to maintain the vertical. I don't see any problem. If in doubt ATC should have been asked about descent below 75 before DIXIR.​​​​​
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/info11009.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjEjvzS1-H6AhUTcGwGHZqGByQQFnoECAgQBg&usg=AOvVaw3lpdcMaVdnWxTl57JT2idb

[Capn Bloggs]

Vilas, that FAA doc is irrelevant. It's about missing stepdown fixes on the ILS when it's hot. Nothing to do with dodgy "do this but comply with that" type-instructions these guys got. What does "comply with the procedure" mean? The ILS, The STAR? The controller shouldn't have used those terms, the ILS AIP chart should have 7500 at DIXIR and Jeppesen, well, they can try to keep up please.

[parishiltons]

"Surveillance" or lack-thereof, doesn't have anything to do with it, IMO. ATC cannot clear you to an altitude that does not provide the legal terrain clearance unless their clearance is qualified in some way. It doesn't matter if ATC can "see you" or not. They are still obligated to provide you with terrain clearance.
These are two different things. The charted MSAs relate to a non surveillance environment. If ATC can 'see' you then different MSAs obviously apply - have you ever heard ATC say something like 'descend to radar lowest safe nnn' presumably to alert that this is below the charted MSA?

[Capn Bloggs]

These are two different things.
No they're not. How ATC work out what altitude to descend you to is not relevant. The fact is they can't descend you to an altitude that would take you below safe terrain clearance in any scenario. Yes, I have heard them say "descend to 7100ft radar terrain" but that doesn't mean that if they say "descend to 7100ft" when not identified you have to organise your own terrain clearance. Now, they might stuff up and say "descend to 7100ft" when the MSA is 7500ft; that is an error on their part and why it is wise to keep a track of where you are, terrain-wise, but identified or not, they shouldn't descend you below the appropriate MSA: the surveillance MSA or the sector MSA, if not identified.

[172_driver]

The chart shows safety altitude north of DIXIR as 7100. The clearance given descent according to procedure. No matter from where you come to DIXIR procedure doesn't permit descent below 7500 before DIXIR

First off, it's FL75 and not 7500 ft that's the level restriction. Second, why does FL75 apply at DIXIR and not FL90, that's the charted level if you come via the DME-arc?
Having FL restrictions rather than altitudes implies, at least to me, that this got to do with airspace and not terrain, even though terrain is quite high to the north. I am sure even southern Spain experiences significact low pressure areas over the course of a year.

There is no way the given charts and ATC clearance (as given) can be used to obtain a universal understanding among pilots. Crap charts and crap ATC instruction.

[FullWings]

The chart shows safety altitude north of DIXIR as 7100. The clearance given descent according to procedure. No matter from where you come to DIXIR procedure doesn't permit descent below 7500 before DIXIR.​​​
Looking at the AIP ILS 23 plate, if you came along the DME arc from DITRE, the procedural descent starts at the MUR 051 radial and the next charted platform altitude is 4,100’ at 13DME MUR. Terrain clearance is not the issue at DIXIR as that whole segment is 4,100’ minimum - if you were using non-CDFA techniques you would be perfectly safe going to the 4,100' IAA from FL90, there is no FL75 restriction.

What would I do if I was placed in the same position as the OPs PF, 10nm north of DIXIR, flying direct and cleared for the ILS but for the purposes of the discussion still in IMC? OK, we’re outside the 4,700' 25nm MSA so can’t use that. What’s the MGA between our position and DIXIR? 5,000’ on my chart. Is there a restriction at DIXIR? Yes, 4,100’ on the approach plate (we are not flying a STAR). Right: set 5,000’ initially, then 4,100’ crossing DIXIR. Capture the LOC then the GS, carry on as normal. Depending on whether I was in the mood for a CDFA or not and our energy state, we would cross DIXIR somewhere between 5,000’ and 8,000’.

If ATC wanted us to stop descent at some level/altitude they would have instructed us to do so. As they haven’t, it's up to us to remain safe w.r.t. terrain, which the above plan does. We have been cleared for the ILS, so we can take it all the way down to DH and further if we have the required references and landing clearance.

[FlightDetent]

The OP has been served a leaky ATC clearance. Yet that is exactly when a competent aviator earns his bread.

FullWings The carefulness of the analysis is nice. But moreover, unlike other naratives above, the whole philosophy of your post is (as expected) aboslutely right by looking for a valid descent limit to use and no-one should accept any different. Slightly more up, debate got a bit derailed towards 'prove me I cannot descent this low'. which was most concerning.

Having said that to ensure you we are both squarely on a same team, my result is still different. Took a liberty to visualize the layout you talked about:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/888x722/dixir_fl75_33206ca7bde995c12e46cecfc0310415ed80e6f9.png

My choice is FL75 and seek clarification. If on the flight-deck in any role I would had to insist to the whole breadth of modern CRM.

To avoid any doubts, even it MORA was 4500 my strong and accordingly worded preference would be FL75 or explicit clearance for any lower.

[FullWings]

Thanks FD.

It just goes to show that the nav data provider makes quite a difference when you have to practically apply stuff. What is 7100 on your chart is 5000 on mine as the Minimum Grid Altitudes appear to cover smaller sections in this example. Both are safe and in this particular case stopping at 7100 (6500 AAL) until 23+ miles out shouldn’t cause any great problems.

If unsure, ask, as you say, but sometimes clarification will not be available and you need a plan that doesn’t rely on an external agency.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1341x1353/murcia_d1d57199be6d1f87e6f3cf8dec56b721e354ad92.jpg

[fitliker]

Why the rush to get low ?
What is your normal profile at 24 miles ?

[CW247]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/20221015_185946_4ad5b71c8da65e7c5764777b89978f23e5074fe2.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/20221015_190027_0dbf35469f9955770cb7f1233e2e1af1500dfb30.jpg

I checked today. No constraints are coded in the box for DIXIR???

[CW247]

Why the rush to get low ?
What is your normal profile at 24 miles ?

3 x 24 = 7200, plus you need to slow down to configure, so that adds more, and add a bit for a tailwind. It's certainly not 7500! Most pilots would be somewhere between 5 and 6.

[common toad]

As others has said, why the rush to descend? It showed poor energy management by the crew.

IAW the chart you show, an aircraft flying the 25d arc (which you were not) would maintain FL 090 until established LLZ. Still plenty of distance to descend to the 12.3d/4100’ platform. So no harm at all in sticking to the procedural route level of FL 075 that you had expected? Use the old x3 distance/height checks they aid energy management; it’s a useful tool and costs nothing.

What was the pre-briefed and re-briefed ‘plan’? Following the new clearance you must have had an exchange with your PF as to his plan? All clear was it?

If in doubt, ASK ATC to clarify their instruction. Just because you are not receiving a ‘radar’ service does not mean they are not watching you on radar, nor does it absolve you of responsibility- if anything, you should be even more careful. Apply AIRMANSHIP, or is that a dirty word these days?

And why these restrictions of FL 090 and FL 075? No idea, but perhaps outbound aircraft could be routing below those levels?

It just shows how the modern era of button pressing and the norm of a controlled radar environment fails to equip the inexperienced operator when the non-normal occurs.

[common toad]

3 x 24 = 7200, plus you need to slow down to configure, so that adds more, and add a bit for a tailwind. It's certainly not 7500! Most pilots would be somewhere between 5 and 6.

Incorrect. Do you normally descent at 3* prior to the ILS g/s? No, of course not.

[vilas]

Vilas, that FAA doc is irrelevant. It's about missing stepdown fixes on the ILS when it's hot. Nothing to do with dodgy "do this but comply with that" type-instructions these guys got. What does "comply with the procedure" mean? The ILS, The STAR? The controller shouldn't have used those terms, the ILS AIP chart should have 7500 at DIXIR and Jeppesen, well, they can try to keep up please.
I quoted the InFO to point out that even if you were cleared to intercept ILS and we're on the GS you still follow recommended vertical profile. If you were cleared via DIXIR you got to follow vertical profile. The restriction may be for whatever reason. If not sure check with ATC.

[FullWings]

I think there are two separate issues here:

First, the direct clearance to the IAF and then for the ILS. If you are cleared for a “procedure”, ILS in this case, then respect published altitude and speed restrictions. Which is what they did. They were not cleared on any of the STARs, so restrictions on those do not apply - you have gone straight from en-route navigation to the approach phase under instruction from ATC. Given a clearance of this type, would you immediately think to question it, and if so, why, as it’s a pretty common thing to be instructed to do? In most countries, if there were intermediate ATC-desired restrictions, you would be asked to comply, such as “Cleared ILS 16C, maintain 4,000 or above until [waypoint]”. In any case, 6,000’ at DIXIR is hardly in the weeds, and taking speed reduction into account looks not far off (as shown on the FMC snapshots above).

Second, and this is much more generic, it’s important to set effective bottom lines before events take over. If you are clear beforehand as a crew what you can and can’t accept in terms of safety/SOPs, then it saves having to puzzle it out on the fly in a high-workload scenario. Also, just because you’ve worked out the limit of what you can do doesn’t make it a target, just a backstop. You can set an MCP altitude constraint but stay way above it during a normal approach - it’s only there to protect you from descending below what Maverick would call your hard deck...

[Bosi72]

The ATC was referring to AIP (left) and you were flying Jepps (right).
I believe you are not the first nor the last, and suprised this hasn't been noticed by ATCs/Jepps since Jan 2019.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1600/20221017_093618_52bd178a013e6457314e901c97cef749869f437a.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1089/20221017_102657_ed747f6c7e0d4981e9a7033738502c79b485a592.jpg

[FullWings]

The ATC was referring to AIP (left) and you were flying Jepps (right).
I believe you are not the first nor the last, and suprised this hasn't been noticed by ATCs/Jepps since Jan 2019.
That’s interesting, and something they should fix, but it only applies if you were on a ALT1Q STAR. If you’d come in on a ALT1T, it’d be 4100 or above at DIXIT rather than FL75. On a direct routing to the IAF the constraints would be the ATC cleared level/altitude, restrictions on the ILS plate, what you thought was safe and sensible or a combination of these.

[common toad]

That’s interesting, and something they should fix, but it only applies if you were on a ALT1Q STAR. If you’d come in on a ALT1T, it’d be 4100 or above at DIXIT rather than FL75. On a direct routing to the IAF the constraints would be the ATC cleared level/altitude, restrictions on the ILS plate, what you thought was safe and sensible or a combination of these.

No. The clearance (given by the OP)…

Was cleared direct to DIXIR descending to FL110 from a WPT 40-50nm North (prior to STAR). 10nm prior to DIXIR controller (no radar) instructed to "descend according to procedure" and cleared us for ILSRWY 23.

The ILS procedure starts at DIXIR at FL 075.

[Capn Bloggs]

"descend according to procedure"
Surely you can see that is ambiguous? You yourself even say "The ILS procedure starts at DIXIR". What procedure is the ATC talking about? The ILS? The STAR (not relevant)? Does a crew, given such a clearance, have to scour through every STAR to see what might be applicable? There is NO 7500ft on the ILS procedure. The only mention of 7500ft is on the STAR. which they were not on.

The clearance was nonsensical, should have contained a limiting altitude, and the Jepp charts are inadequate/misleading. It's a worry that people can't see that. this is how accidents happen. Slack procedures and documentation that are tolerated until somebody gets caught out.

[CW247]

Thanks Capn Bloggs, nail on the head. Seems Common toad, and his type are not justifying their understanding of plates. This thread asked right at the beginning, "What exactly is an altitude/FL restriction?". Those claiming FL75 is the correct altitude at DIXIR have not answered that question. In the heat of the moment we didn't even notice the minimum flight level of FL75 between XOLSI and DIXIR probably due to our zoom settings and the fact we were on a direct. Full disclosure, I was commander of said flight. PF was was another Captain. We spoke about it afterwards but the honest truth is at that point neither of us even realised it until we were passing through 6000ft. So it wasn't a case of ignoring the so-called "restriction" or even that we had any doubt at that precise moment, it was more a case of confirmation bias given plate logic and what seemed sensible (no terrain and an ILS glidescope showing we needed to try a bit harder to get down). Southern Spain ATC are crap and need to adopt better clearances. Anyone flying to ALC or VLC lately might agree with me.

[FullWings]

The ILS procedure starts at DIXIR at FL 075.
Only if you are on the ALT1Q. Which was not the clearance.

Given they were never on a STAR at all, why would they need to make any reference to it, any more than they’d need to use the NDB minima when cleared for an ILS?

The more I look at this, it’s ATCs problem. The clearance was unremarkable: direct to the IAF, further on the ILS procedure. Must happen around the World thousands, or tens of thousands times a day. Why would you question something routine and expected? No intermediate levels/altitudes were given, so go off the plate: the AIP ILS23 shows 4100 as the platform altitude but no higher restriction at DIXIR. The pilots flew a safe approach, ATC did not give any further restrictions, then expressed surprised when the pilots did what they had been cleared to do by ATC.

[common toad]

Surely you can see that is ambiguous?

With respect, no I cannot.

Routing given is direct to DIXIR. The end of the STAR is FL 075, and though they have avoided the complete STAR, the level is relevant. Next instruction, “Cleared for the ILS, descend with the procedure”

Had the OP flown all of the STAR, and received the instruction, “Cleared for the ILS, descend with the procedure”, The next descent would start from DIXIR.

Had the OP had received “OXLSI dct DIXIR, cleared ILS, descend with the procedure” the descent from FL 075 would also have started from DIXIR.

Note that DIXIR is shown on the ILS chart - it’s part of the procedure. Why have Jepp not included a line from DIXIR or depicted descent? Because, I suggest, the chart is valid for two procedures- that from DIXIR, and that from the arc. To include that information would be very confusing indeed.

To answer the query from another, when to descent from FL 090 off the arc. If cleared for the ILS it would be when LLZ established.

[CW247]

Respectfully, I disagree. Above someone posted a snippet of VIBIM (for LEBL) clearly showing that the Spanish know full well how to convey an altitude/FL restriction. The route between XOLSI to DIXIR implies do not descend below FL75 between A and B. It's tempting to assume so, but it's not quite the same thing as a restriction at DIXIR! And above I have shown photos that it wasn't even coded like this in the box.

If the "restriction" was that important, why is it not shown like it is for VIBIM? Why confuse and ommit what would otherwise be a totally unambigious method of conveying the requirement? The fact we are having this conversation with a near 50/50 split in views shows they need to try harder to avoid ambiguity. I am trying to look for the legend used by Spanish AIP. Cannot find one. Anyone?

[FullWings]

With respect, no I cannot.

Routing given is direct to DIXIR. The end of the STAR is FL 075, and though they have avoided the complete STAR, the level is relevant. Next instruction, “Cleared for the ILS, descend with the procedure”
I think that is better worded as “they have avoided the STAR completely, so any lateral/vertical constraints associated with a STAR are irrelevant”? The FL75 is for the XOLSI-DIXIR segment of the ALT1Q - there are no published restrictions at DIXIR, except that obviously you wouldn’t want to go any lower than the platform altitude at the IF.

Had the OP flown all of the STAR, and received the instruction, “Cleared for the ILS, descend with the procedure”, The next descent would start from DIXIR.

Had the OP had received “OXLSI dct DIXIR, cleared ILS, descend with the procedure” the descent from FL 075 would also have started from DIXIR.
All very interesting but they didn’t actually receive any of those clearances?

Note that DIXIR is shown on the ILS chart - it’s part of the procedure. Why have Jepp not included a line from DIXIR or depicted descent? Because, I suggest, the chart is valid for two procedures- that from DIXIR, and that from the arc. To include that information would be very confusing indeed.
DIXIR is the IAF so both the DME arc and the ALT1Q end up there.

To answer the query from another, when to descent from FL 090 off the arc. If cleared for the ILS it would be when LLZ established.
Not according to the chart. You can start descent from FL90 to the 4100 platform altitude passing the R051 MUR. In some conditions (high QNH, high temperature, tailwinds, etc.) that might be necessary to avoid being well above the glideslope. FL90 23 miles out is going to require capturing from above most of the time anyway.

Edit: crossed with CW247. Essentially we are saying the same thing.

[common toad]

OP. Have you submitted a query to Jepp? As for your ‘box’ - what makes you think it’s correct?

You received a dct DIXIR clearance - that is lateral routing. It would not change the vertical restriction at that point. The clearance was to descent with the procedure, which for you was from DIXIR.

Have you looked at post #35 and #44?

Finally, ATC questioned what you actually did; is that not a clue that you are wrong?

[Capn Bloggs]

Why have Jepp not included a line from DIXIR or depicted descent? Because, I suggest, the chart is valid for two procedures- that from DIXIR, and that from the arc. To include that information would be very confusing indeed.
No it wouldn't be. You will note, I hope, that the arc is at 25DME whereas DIXIR is ta 24.1DME. You therefore fly through DIXIR after turning inbound. It would not be confusing at all to have a altitude restriction at DIXIR. It could be used from any approach angle to DIXIR. And as has been pointed out before, according to the AIP chart, immediately passing the 051 Radial, there are no further altitude restrictions until the IF at 4100ft.

You received a dct DIXIR clearance - that is lateral routing. It would not change the vertical restriction at that point. The clearance was to descent with the procedure, which for you was from DIXIR.
You've said it again! "The clearance was to descent with the procedure, which for you was from DIXIR". There was therefore no procedure before DIXIR, and therefore no altitude restriction.

Have you looked at post #35 and #44?
They don't show any altitude restriction when tracking direct to DIXIR.

Finally, ATC questioned what you actually did; is that not a clue that you are wrong?
Nope, it's a clue they don't know what they are doing. To make somebody comply with a STAR restriction by just using nebulous words when not on the STAR is illogical.

I'll say it again: the clearance was nonsensical, it should have contained a limiting altitude, and the Jepp charts are inadequate/misleading.

[CW247]

Clearly Common Toad, we did wrong in the eyes of ATC but the wrong action was taken because the AIP plate does not successfully communicate the requirement (and Jepp too as it is a copy and paste). Answer the below for me please

1) They could've written DIXIR △ FL75 but instead they chose to write: DIXIR △ ← △ XOLSI
............................................................ ............................................ FL75
2) They have communicated a restriction at VIBIM (LEBL) using the first format, again, why not do it for DIXIR? - What's the difference?

3) Airbus FMGS coding (Honeywell I think) doesn't consider the AIP "restriction" either. Not saying they're right but we have to ask why?

[common toad]

CW247: 1) The AIP shows FL 75 , so perhaps JEPP have made an error. Without the underline… have look at the Jepp definition.
2) See 1 above.
3) Read Honeywell’s views on the matter.

Bloggs: Be careful when quoting a dme distance… look again and see from which source the distance is depicted. So, while the drawing may depict the arc routing through DIXIR, in practice it will be abeam at best. Thus, it is unlikely that from the arc the aircraft will be passing DIXIR at exactly FL 075 - anyway, having started descent from FL 090 would you not already have set the QNH? It would very confusing on the side-view to show DIXIR (the IAF) as FL 075 since (for the arc) it is an irrelevance once passed the lead-radial and commenced the turn I/b since as there is no restriction on alt/distance other until 4100’ at 12.3d IRM

Restriction at DIXIR, remains in place unless cleared otherwise - DIXIR is the IAP The OP was flying procedurally. Direct DIXIR did not remove the required compliance- see 1) above and reference to AIP which was not available to the OP but good airmanship and experience should at least have raised a query with ATC.

Re post #35 and #44 - they do to me. The OP tells us that his PF ‘dialled in’ 4100’ … would the ‘71” not worry you?

“the clearance was nonsensical” - if so, why didn’t the OP question it? Would you?

[FlightDetent]

Just saying, the coding inside the FMS has nothing to do with Airbus. Even if 'delivered' by Honeywell on their proprietary disks, the coding provided by the NAV solution supplier (same as charts, Jeppesen, Lido, NavBlue etc...) - it's the airline's commercial choice.

There is a rule IIRC that the 'natural' minimum altitudes (i.e. terrain, MEA) are NOT part of the coding. Only those alt restrictions that are specific to the IFR procedure would be. This may be more significant than immediately apparent for the scope of this thread.

I hasten to add the FL75 on the Jepp chart posted on top looks like a traditional minimum ALT to me.

A bad habit carried over from the ENR charts it isn't. Please understand the underline / overline / inside-line are values prescribed by a specific procedure only. As such, those would be actually coded inside the FM NAV DB as per the requirement. I think they even need to follow the full EASA Form 1 process: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/faq/19466.

Whereas simple 'lowest useable boundary' limiting altitude is depicted on the arrival chart exactly as we see it FL75 and is not transcribed into the FMS. In other words, the minimum route-segment altitudes (coverage, terrain or others) are displayed plain. Lido would even type them in red italics if they were actually terrain-derived.

[hawker750]

Dialling in a height below MSA is a sackable offence. Doing it non Radar is IMO a criminal offence.

[172_driver]

Dialling in a height below MSA is a sackable offence. Doing it non Radar is IMO a criminal offence.

We're dialing in altitudes, not heights.

Have you landed yet? Or still circling somewhere above MSA?

Your comment makes little sense...

[hawker750]

OK altitude not height, I accept that. What you do not get 172 is that planning a decent below MSA when not positively identified by radar is not in any serious airline’s SOP’s. The original poster obviously was questioned, quite rightly, by ATC. If I had made such a basic error I do not thing I would advertise it here.
The rules of the game are that one stays at or above MSA until reaching a fix on either the approach or STAR. Wandering down from somewhere 40 or 50 miles North without regard to MSA is unbelievable.
I suppose people brought up with EGPWS ETC feel it is a substitute for airmanship.

[vilas]

OK altitude not height, I accept that. What you do not get 172 is that planning a decent below MSA when not positively identified by radar is not in any serious airline’s SOP’s. The original poster obviously was questioned, quite rightly, by ATC. If I had made such a basic error I do not thing I would advertise it here.
The rules of the game are that one stays at or above MSA until reaching a fix on either the approach or STAR. Wandering down from somewhere 40 or 50 miles North without regard to MSA is unbelievable.
I suppose people brought up with EGPWS ETC feel it is a substitute for airmanship.
A bit harsh but I would say it's true. I also expressed something similar.

[172_driver]

Hawker750,
I hear what you are saying and I knew what you meant, your answer was just way too generic to make any sense. The discussion has been about whether FL75 is an applicable level restriction for a direct clearance. I say not, it's a minimum along a STAR segment which the OP wasn't cleared for. Any "safety altitude" given as a Flight Level I cannot take seriously anyway. In the absence of ATC instructions that leaves you with the MSA, unless you are and stay VMC.

Given a direct clearance like that ATC has to help you out with altitudes until DIXIR. Without radar, min. altitudes can still be based on DME.

[FlightDetent]

Thus in the absence of waterproof clearance the mnm was 7100 ft given the charts legally required and available onboard.

Despite FL75 not being enforceable, which is 100% agreed, selecting anything below that while approaching DIXIR from the same quadrant as the published low limit shows lack of awareness on how minimum altitudes are eastablished and what purpose they serve. In a non-perfect world.

To me, that is aviatorship, alongside recognising the logical discontinuity soon enough to ask for clarification.

Where is the famed out of the box thinking now? Exactly this case is where it applies, as that toolbox is empty.

Just because 7100 (or 5xxx with Lido) is geometrically safe, and it really is - properly declared too, it does not make it the correct choice given the other data and context available to the crew involved at the time.

Opinions, I know.

[common toad]

FlightDetent. In post #35y you wrote My choice is FL75 and seek clarification. Now, Despite FL75 not being enforceable, which is 100% agreed,

Are you looking to change your career to that of MP?

Seriously, if FL 075 is valid on the track 225* into DIXIR, when will descent out of FL 75 be permitted? Why would it not be valid on the clearance received by the OP?

Let me tease with a question. Had the you or the OP received a clearance ALT - DIXIR, what then would be the required level and why.

[FlightDetent]

Not sure we understand each other. I opine the charted restriction before Dixir makes me observe it when routing direct from the north. Your example for an 'overlay direct' is completely bullseye.

​​​​​
Sorry for the perceived incoherence in the parts you quoted form me.

Trying again:

I recognize and agree to other people's claim that for DCT Dixir the STAR restriction of FL75(+) does not apply specifically. Yet still, it would be my choice to observe it regardless, for reasons I struggle to define by quoting the regulations, at least until a clarification from the ATC is obtained.

Are we not singing the same tune? I disagree (to the whole breadth of modern CRM) with anything lower than FL75 but acknowledge running out of legal ammo to prove the posters claiming otherwise to be wrong.

What I say is their explanation is valid but brings dysfunctional / undesirable result. Because in the given case there were blank spots in the clearance needing to be filled, and that is where I personally find anything other than FL75+ plain wrong.
​​​​​

[Capn Bloggs]

If I had made such a basic error I do not thing I would advertise it here.
That's the difference between today's world and yours. Had the OP not started this thread, the low quality of the Jepp charts, the inadequate AIP charting of any altitude restriction at the straight-in IAF for that ILS, and the ambiguous ATC instruction would never have come to light. The whole thing is a setup for an accident.

I suspect pilots have learned lessons from this thread, and hopefully a local will take action to tidy up the obvious inadequacies. All because someone raised an issue (good on them), which you would have buried.

As for your snide remark
I suppose people brought up with EGPWS ETC feel it is a substitute for airmanship.
EGPWS it has saved lives because your generation kept crashing into the ground.

[common toad]

But has the OP sent a query off to JEPP?

Flight magazine used to publish a yearly report of aviation accidents in the January of each year. It is possible to find scanned copies of editions online and the number and frequency of accidents may shock. CFIT was the major cause of accidents in aviation long before I (and I suspect Hawker 750) took our first flying lesson.

Last time I look at the stats the major cause of crashes (and incidents) was loss of control with CFIT a close second. Fast-finger-Freddy and the magenta line eh? Still, if the Ray-Bans fit..

[CW247]

Thank you Capn Bloggs. Words of wisdom. Happy to share my faults, take the blame and kick in the gonads to make aviation safer.

One thing I missed to say earlier was we were subsequently asked by the controller if we were in sight of the surface, and yes we were. The ground was more than 5000ft below us. Have a look, it's flat with no charted spot heights or obstacles. Granted there's a restricted zone there. I cannot find any info on it. But if it was not active at the time then safety, by luck or otherwise, was not compromised.

I will make it my mission to write to the Spanish to get confirmation of their expectation and what the correct phraseology from them should be when on a direct routing to somewhere (like DIXIR) that does not have an explicitly defined altitude/FL restriction like for example VIBIM does. Will report back, I suspect in 90 days :ugh:

[FlightDetent]

But has the OP sent a query off to JEPP?​​​​​It is a sobering thought there's nothing wrong with the Jeppessen presentation as displayed for this northern arrival segment. Exactly as advertised.

C. B.'s ​​​​​​ sin list implicitly omits pilots' knowledge and understanding. Simply due to lack of training.

​​​​

[common toad]

nothing wrong with the Jeppessen presentation as displayed for this northern arrival segment. Exactly as advertised.

The Spanish AIP is freely available online. It clearly shows FL 75 into DIXIR. I’m not the first to say this.

[poldek77]

It seems to be quite a trap, probably I would get caught as well. Good reason to write a safety report.
CW247 - m​​​​any thanks for sharing!

[FlightDetent]

The Spanish AIP is freely available online. It clearly shows FL 75 into DIXIR. I’m not the first to say this.
​​​​​​Does not conflict with a single word I said, all Ts crossed and Is dotted.

The gentleman who asked to discuss the AIP instead of Jepp already with post #2 of the whole thread had valid and honest reason. Let that sink for a while.

[common toad]

FD. You may like to reread your previous posts. You are keep contradicting yourself.

Reminds me of when we used to video sim sessions. A pilot or crew would often swear black was white and they ‘didn’t do that’ and continue to deny it, even when shown the tape replay. Oh happy days.

Anyway, you believe what you will; your obviously a Sky God. Bye.

[AerocatS2A]

I guess the question I'd ask the OP is, if FL75 isn't the minimum altitude at DIXIR (and I agree it is not unless on the STAR), then what IS the minimum altitude? What altitude would you be prepared to descend to prior to DIXIR and where are you finding that information?

To me, the Jepp provides a few numbers, FL75 on the XOLSI - DIXIR track, 7100 in the grid, and 4700 in the sector just as you get to DIXIR. None of these numbers are 4100. You don't get 4100 until past DIXIR. I think it's confusing and I'd be asking questions of ATC if it was me.

Questions for ATC, "Descend via what procedure?"
If the answer is "The ILS", then I'd be asking what altitude do you want before we get to the ILS.

[RocknRola87]

Canadians makes it simple i think , I quote from their instruments flight rules-arrival procedures-approach clearance : A clearance for an approach may not include any intermediate altitude restrictions. The pilot may receive this clearance while the aircraft is still a considerable distance from the airport, in either a radar or non-radar environment. In these cases, the pilot may descend, at his/her convenience, to whichever is the lowest of the following IFR altitudes applicable to the position of the aircraft:

a.Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA);

b.published transition or feeder route altitude:

C.Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) specified on the appropriate

instrument approach chart;
……
I agree that FL75 is a minimum published (MEA) between to fixes, but that one still apply at DIXIR. If in doubt in these situations I would seek ATC clarification or stating intention to which altitude we intend to descend initially,if ATC is not okay with that they let you know that way.

[CW247]

The response...

1.) Although the MEA for segment XOLSI-DIXIR is FL075, this implies it's also the restriction for DIXIR.
2.) When asked why the restriction is explicitly stated for other airport arrivals, they say it's because those are PBN procedures
3.) They acknowledge it can be a point of confusion and will include this altitude restriction in the ILS approach chart ASAP


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1400x914/__065b57f28e9726a72ade7afbf7333cfc7af44841.png

[Capn Bloggs]

CW247, well done! :ok:

[172_driver]

Nice one :ok:

ENAIRe themselves seem a little confused though, the difference between the FL75 and 7500. With a QNH of 980 that is about 1000 ft. Hope they pay better attention to the numbers when they publish charts than answering e-mails.

[PENKO]

As others have remarked before, the question is not so much wether the FL75 restriction applies at DIXIR, but on what basis the thread starter decided to descend to 4100 (below MSA), passing DIXIR at 6000. What procedure were they following?

The controller instructed them to descend ‘according to procedure’. So honest question to the thread starter: what procedure did you follow in response?

We have all been in this situation, but it’s not ‘crapy’ Spanish ATC, Jeppesen or Airbus that concern me in this topic, it’s the ‘blind’ decent to 4100.

[LOWI]

Flying from XOLSI to the next waypoint D015V to DIXIR, you would descend down to FL75.

Direct to DIXIR without flying the arrival, no restriction (One would advise not below 4700 due to MSA until reaching DIXIR).

Any doubts - ask ATC what they want you to do.