"Descend FL130, level ......... "
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bosis
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Descend FL130, level ......... "
Apologies if this is a revisited topic....
"Flipflop 123, descend FL130 to be level GWC"
"Descend FL130 level GWC, Flipflop 123"
"Flipflop 123, contact London frequency 123.45"
"London 123.45, Flipflop 123"
"London, Flipflop 123 descending FL130 to GWC"
"Flipflop 123, descend FL120"
We are currently passing FL150 with high speed (about to reduce!) and the speedbrake out. Can we now reduce our rate of descent as I believe our restriction at GWC has been cancelled. However, the chaps next to me who have far more experience and responsibility say that we still have to make the 130 at GWC. I was under the impression that the rules changed in 1997. Often it's too busy to trouble the controller to ask, so we make the 130 anyway. Obviously such situations are repeated all over the UK and do result in extra periods of flying level (bad for noise, fuel consumption etc).
Finally my questions - who is right in the above scenario, and what is the reason that we have such restrictions in the first place when they often seem to be subsequently lifted?
Thankyou in advance for answering my little bugbear!
"Flipflop 123, descend FL130 to be level GWC"
"Descend FL130 level GWC, Flipflop 123"
"Flipflop 123, contact London frequency 123.45"
"London 123.45, Flipflop 123"
"London, Flipflop 123 descending FL130 to GWC"
"Flipflop 123, descend FL120"
We are currently passing FL150 with high speed (about to reduce!) and the speedbrake out. Can we now reduce our rate of descent as I believe our restriction at GWC has been cancelled. However, the chaps next to me who have far more experience and responsibility say that we still have to make the 130 at GWC. I was under the impression that the rules changed in 1997. Often it's too busy to trouble the controller to ask, so we make the 130 anyway. Obviously such situations are repeated all over the UK and do result in extra periods of flying level (bad for noise, fuel consumption etc).
Finally my questions - who is right in the above scenario, and what is the reason that we have such restrictions in the first place when they often seem to be subsequently lifted?
Thankyou in advance for answering my little bugbear!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott: Whilst you're correct in what you say, I believe that in that case we were talking about being told to be level by a certain point and then being cleared to one beyond. The consensus then was that the original level restriction was cancelled (not something with which I personally agree as sensible).
In the case here, I would argue that as you are still going to the same point, you should still comply with any restriction based upon that point unless specifically advised otherwise by the controller. In the case given here the clearance really is: "Descend FL120, cross GWC 130 or below".
I have long believed that this issue should be resolved by the insertion of something along the lines of the following in the AIP:
"A clearance to a new point along an aircraft's route does not remove any restrictions given with reference to intermediate point(s) unless specifically stated by ATC."
OR:
"A new clearance in a horizontal sense does not negate a clearance or restriction in a vertical sense unless specifically stated by ATC."
There is far too much doubt in some pilots' minds about this. Just remember, in the UK many of these restrictions are given to keep you separated from traffic on crossing routes or to keep you outside the airspace of someone who is not expecting you.
Like all of these things, however, if you are not sure at the time, don't ASSUME, ASK!!
In the case here, I would argue that as you are still going to the same point, you should still comply with any restriction based upon that point unless specifically advised otherwise by the controller. In the case given here the clearance really is: "Descend FL120, cross GWC 130 or below".
I have long believed that this issue should be resolved by the insertion of something along the lines of the following in the AIP:
"A clearance to a new point along an aircraft's route does not remove any restrictions given with reference to intermediate point(s) unless specifically stated by ATC."
OR:
"A new clearance in a horizontal sense does not negate a clearance or restriction in a vertical sense unless specifically stated by ATC."
There is far too much doubt in some pilots' minds about this. Just remember, in the UK many of these restrictions are given to keep you separated from traffic on crossing routes or to keep you outside the airspace of someone who is not expecting you.
Like all of these things, however, if you are not sure at the time, don't ASSUME, ASK!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has come up before.
The rules say that a new clearance cancels an old one.However ATCO's in the UK want all level by clearaces complied with unless they are cancelled.The reason for the difference is something to do with ICAO rules (I think?)
Pilots, many of our separations rely on you making levels within the LTMA. E.G. KK ins FL150 level 40 DME MID keeps you clear of SS Deps on CPT which have been climbed to FL 160. This happens throught the LTMA.
The rules say that a new clearance cancels an old one.However ATCO's in the UK want all level by clearaces complied with unless they are cancelled.The reason for the difference is something to do with ICAO rules (I think?)
Pilots, many of our separations rely on you making levels within the LTMA. E.G. KK ins FL150 level 40 DME MID keeps you clear of SS Deps on CPT which have been climbed to FL 160. This happens throught the LTMA.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been a while since I was in active control, but surely if the first requirement still stands, then it should be re-iterated in the further clearance.
Controllers expecting the previous requirement should be met just because they didn't cancel it sounds rather dangerous to me.
Controllers expecting the previous requirement should be met just because they didn't cancel it sounds rather dangerous to me.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controllers may want you to do it <G>, however the reality is that if they do not restate it and they needed it for separation, then they buy the deal and not the pilot... If you issue another clearance and don't restate the old restriction, that restriction no longer applies.
regards
regards
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LATCC - TC
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-itterating what over+out said, The TMA would not function properly without standing agreements with level restrictions.
Even since Sept 11th the TMA is still very busy and us controllers do not have time to use long extended RT to clarify whether the previous level restriction is still valid.
Anyone who disagrees obviously is not a VALID TMA controller.
I realise that technically a new clearance replaces an old one, but common sense tends to support the fact that the previous level restriction is still valid.
In my experience the level is far more important than the speed limit point.
Please continue to adhere to the level restriction as it makes everyone's lives easier.
Even since Sept 11th the TMA is still very busy and us controllers do not have time to use long extended RT to clarify whether the previous level restriction is still valid.
Anyone who disagrees obviously is not a VALID TMA controller.
I realise that technically a new clearance replaces an old one, but common sense tends to support the fact that the previous level restriction is still valid.
In my experience the level is far more important than the speed limit point.
Please continue to adhere to the level restriction as it makes everyone's lives easier.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Esential Traffic I think you are setting yourself up for a fall. Most of what you say is true about it being busy and levels more important than speed. However if you are relying on a cancelled level by restriction to provide your separartion I think you will be looking at a red square before too long.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Scott on this one. ET, if you work on that basis then at some stage you WILL have an incident. I regularly see traffic cleared to a FL by Maastricht, and then when we give a reclearance the rate of descent changes and they fail to make the original level restriction.
If you want the rules changed then you'd better get on to TC ops to get on to it. I was asked this question on a visit by flight crew and although the correct answer is rather unpallatable to ATCO's , that's the way it is.
If you want the rules changed then you'd better get on to TC ops to get on to it. I was asked this question on a visit by flight crew and although the correct answer is rather unpallatable to ATCO's , that's the way it is.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would certainly have thought that a clearance such as "descend FL120" without any stated restriction would over-ride any previous clearance to FL130.
Why not make the clearance (in the specific instance quoted), "afer passing GWC descend FL120"? This would clearly show that the "new" clearance was specific to a point beyond the present clearance and that the present clearance (130 at GWC) still applies. It would also get around the "new" replaces the "old" argument, wouldn't it?
Why not make the clearance (in the specific instance quoted), "afer passing GWC descend FL120"? This would clearly show that the "new" clearance was specific to a point beyond the present clearance and that the present clearance (130 at GWC) still applies. It would also get around the "new" replaces the "old" argument, wouldn't it?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A purely personal pilots point of view......
If cotroller'A'clears me to descend to a FL by a specific point,and then hands me over to cotroller'B'who then gives further descent,I will continue to descend at the original rate to make the first restriction.I know that technically its not a requirement to do so,but it just makes a lot of sense to me.Neither controller'B'or myself are aware of why controller'A'set that restriction,so I for one am still going to respect it !
If cotroller'A'clears me to descend to a FL by a specific point,and then hands me over to cotroller'B'who then gives further descent,I will continue to descend at the original rate to make the first restriction.I know that technically its not a requirement to do so,but it just makes a lot of sense to me.Neither controller'B'or myself are aware of why controller'A'set that restriction,so I for one am still going to respect it !
Guest
Posts: n/a
GroundBound,
IMVHO you are spot on! Following initial contact report by Flipflop 123 (great callsign! cheers Kwimper) correct R/T by the second ATC (that presumably still works with the level by restriction) in my mind should be "after GWC descend FL120".
Same with a lateral clearance?
“Flipflop 123, cleared dir ABC”
“Direct ABC, thanks, Flipflop 123”
“Flipflop 123, contact SomebodyElse on 123.45”
“123.45, seeya, Fliflop 123”
While on the way to ABC:
“SomebodyElse, Fliflop 123 hdg dir ABC”
“Flipflop 123 cleared dir DEF”
Now that clearly replaces the previous hdg clearance. If that was not the intention then the new instruction should be: “Fliflop 123 roger, after ABC fly dir DEF”
“…and that’s what I think about that.”
IMVHO you are spot on! Following initial contact report by Flipflop 123 (great callsign! cheers Kwimper) correct R/T by the second ATC (that presumably still works with the level by restriction) in my mind should be "after GWC descend FL120".
Same with a lateral clearance?
“Flipflop 123, cleared dir ABC”
“Direct ABC, thanks, Flipflop 123”
“Flipflop 123, contact SomebodyElse on 123.45”
“123.45, seeya, Fliflop 123”
While on the way to ABC:
“SomebodyElse, Fliflop 123 hdg dir ABC”
“Flipflop 123 cleared dir DEF”
Now that clearly replaces the previous hdg clearance. If that was not the intention then the new instruction should be: “Fliflop 123 roger, after ABC fly dir DEF”
“…and that’s what I think about that.”
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'After GWC descend FL120' wouldn't work because then you might level off at FL130 if that comes up before GWC, and then you'd be moaning for further descent.
All I have to add is to say that while technically a clearance to a lower level than the one originally mentioned in the restriction cancels the restriction, you would be have to be pretty low down in the common sense queue to assume you can blindly ignore a restriction. IF IN DOUBT - ASK.
It is apparent that most UK ATCOs who contribute here seem to agree that they want to reduce not increase RT loading by assuming that you will comply with previous restrictions unless they cancel them. For example, an initial clearance through COA might be 'Descend when ready FL 300, expect FL 250 by or abeam LOGAN'. The onward clearance to FL250 might come in several stages, and I would argue that you have been given the restriction in the 'Expect' and unless that is cancelled you should comply with it. To restate it every time would massively increase an already busy R/T.
Might it not be a good idea when flying in UK airspace, therefore, to keep this in mind??
All I have to add is to say that while technically a clearance to a lower level than the one originally mentioned in the restriction cancels the restriction, you would be have to be pretty low down in the common sense queue to assume you can blindly ignore a restriction. IF IN DOUBT - ASK.
It is apparent that most UK ATCOs who contribute here seem to agree that they want to reduce not increase RT loading by assuming that you will comply with previous restrictions unless they cancel them. For example, an initial clearance through COA might be 'Descend when ready FL 300, expect FL 250 by or abeam LOGAN'. The onward clearance to FL250 might come in several stages, and I would argue that you have been given the restriction in the 'Expect' and unless that is cancelled you should comply with it. To restate it every time would massively increase an already busy R/T.
Might it not be a good idea when flying in UK airspace, therefore, to keep this in mind??
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eye-I-T-Sky......
I agree 100%,and I hope my fellow pilots would agree (although I know they dont!)
But how do we get it made a legal requirement,tell me who to write to,I'll do it now.
I agree 100%,and I hope my fellow pilots would agree (although I know they dont!)
But how do we get it made a legal requirement,tell me who to write to,I'll do it now.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LATCC - TC
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Windsock
Thankyou for your concern but don't worry I certainly do not rely on level restrictions to provide separation, they purely assist in setting up separation. So hopefully I'll be Red Square free for a while longer.
Think Rate
As for your analogy of flight levels and direct routings, it is different.
If an a/c is told to route direct to abc by controller A then after frequency change is told to route dirct to DEF thus missing out ABC it is not the same as:
A\c descending FL130 level GWC from controller A then after frequency change told to descend FL120 by B, will still obviously pass through FL130 on the way to FL120, unlike the different routing instructions.
I totally agree with the previous pilot who said that when given subsequent descent clearance, the descent rate will remain the same therefore satisfying the previous level restriction
Thankyou for your concern but don't worry I certainly do not rely on level restrictions to provide separation, they purely assist in setting up separation. So hopefully I'll be Red Square free for a while longer.
Think Rate
As for your analogy of flight levels and direct routings, it is different.
If an a/c is told to route direct to abc by controller A then after frequency change is told to route dirct to DEF thus missing out ABC it is not the same as:
A\c descending FL130 level GWC from controller A then after frequency change told to descend FL120 by B, will still obviously pass through FL130 on the way to FL120, unlike the different routing instructions.
I totally agree with the previous pilot who said that when given subsequent descent clearance, the descent rate will remain the same therefore satisfying the previous level restriction
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmmm, if we don't have time to do it right the first time, when will we find the time to correct it when it isn't working due to an invalid assumption? <G>
I do know what the work rate at the TMA is. I've watched it, however, I hate to tell you, there are places just as busy and busier that do comply with the technical instructions. It can be done and a lot of folks who say that they don't have the time to do it by the book are just not wanting to comply with the book for whatever reason...
regards
I do know what the work rate at the TMA is. I've watched it, however, I hate to tell you, there are places just as busy and busier that do comply with the technical instructions. It can be done and a lot of folks who say that they don't have the time to do it by the book are just not wanting to comply with the book for whatever reason...
regards
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to agree with Scott 100%.
ICAO, and even the US
has a procedure which everyone wherever they fly in the world knows to be the same. The UK just finally caught up a couple of years ago.
It is crazy that with our level of international traffic in the UK we are talking about doing something 180 degrees out from everyone else.
Instead of changing the book, if we really can't cope with the traffic levels, then get those sector capacities changed downwards. Don't introduce a procedure which will serve to cause confusion and the possibility of pilots reverting to the different system used worldwide in error.
Passing the restriction with an amended clearance is fail safe. Assuming the pilot is still going to comply if it is not stated isn't.
ICAO, and even the US
has a procedure which everyone wherever they fly in the world knows to be the same. The UK just finally caught up a couple of years ago.It is crazy that with our level of international traffic in the UK we are talking about doing something 180 degrees out from everyone else.
Instead of changing the book, if we really can't cope with the traffic levels, then get those sector capacities changed downwards. Don't introduce a procedure which will serve to cause confusion and the possibility of pilots reverting to the different system used worldwide in error.
Passing the restriction with an amended clearance is fail safe. Assuming the pilot is still going to comply if it is not stated isn't.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somewhere on the warm side!
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that an SI was issued within TC not that long ago to stress the need to reiterate any previous restriction that the controller still wanted to apply when clearing an aircraft to a revised Flight Level or Altitude.
Despite being busy on frequency, if you want an aircraft to adhere to a previously issued restriction when you are clearing it to a new FL, you should reiterate the restriction. This ensures that you are in positive control of the aircraft and won't be caught out by crews interpreting instructions in differing ways.
Just a thought
Despite being busy on frequency, if you want an aircraft to adhere to a previously issued restriction when you are clearing it to a new FL, you should reiterate the restriction. This ensures that you are in positive control of the aircraft and won't be caught out by crews interpreting instructions in differing ways.
Just a thought
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase we would use is:
descend to FL130, requirement, reach F130 by .....
Longer, but little room for misunderstanding. A subsequent lower level assignment does not remove the requirement unless advised so with the lower level.
The only exception to this is when assigned a visual approach (not an intermediate visual level), any requirements have to be stated with the clearance for a visual approach.
descend to FL130, requirement, reach F130 by .....
Longer, but little room for misunderstanding. A subsequent lower level assignment does not remove the requirement unless advised so with the lower level.
The only exception to this is when assigned a visual approach (not an intermediate visual level), any requirements have to be stated with the clearance for a visual approach.