Expedite Climb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expedite Climb
Scenario: You are level at FL120 and receive a clearance to "climb to FL280; expedite through FL240". Is the correct technique to climb at maximum rate from the word go until you are through say FL245 and then revert to a normal climb, or, should you climb at a normal rate initially but increase the rate to maximum only whilst between FLs 230 and 250?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, agree with mike. won't get any arguement on this one (even on here !). The whole idea is to get you through FL240 as quickly as possible....pedal to the metal............thanks
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to get into the arguement either.
So far as the question is concerned it's a hypothetical scenario, not an invitation for another controller slagging match.
Expedite is a 'tool' and it's also a word in MATS 1. Let's leave it at that please.
Expedite through would mean climb with an expedited rate until passing the mentioned level.
Chill people!
So far as the question is concerned it's a hypothetical scenario, not an invitation for another controller slagging match.
Expedite is a 'tool' and it's also a word in MATS 1. Let's leave it at that please.
Expedite through would mean climb with an expedited rate until passing the mentioned level.
Chill people!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Willy Cum Valley
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Expedite" is not defined. "Maximum rate" is not defined either since its different from each type of aircraft.
You should probably ask what the maximum rate is and decide if that's good enough for your separation, otherwise you would radar vector the guy, right!?!
I use "expedite" to make it happen sooner rather than later (still some time to vector if it didn't), and "maximum rate" to make it happen now and ask the pilot what rate he/she will climb/descend with to make sure it will happen early rather than too late.
Control the situation is better than assuming
You should probably ask what the maximum rate is and decide if that's good enough for your separation, otherwise you would radar vector the guy, right!?!
I use "expedite" to make it happen sooner rather than later (still some time to vector if it didn't), and "maximum rate" to make it happen now and ask the pilot what rate he/she will climb/descend with to make sure it will happen early rather than too late.
Control the situation is better than assuming
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for those comments. My argument as a pilot is that am I being asked to expedite through a level where ATC are perhaps trying to maintain horizontal seperation? i.e. there is traffic level at FL240 which may be a `factor` during your climb from FL120 to FL280 and ATC want you to mimimise your time between FLs 230 and 250 by `expediting through FL240`?
If you still maintain that the `expedite` instruction applies to the entire climb from FL120 until passing say FL245 then I will act as you suggest the next time I receive such an instruction.
If you still maintain that the `expedite` instruction applies to the entire climb from FL120 until passing say FL245 then I will act as you suggest the next time I receive such an instruction.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stanley,
If you're really bored, you can have a read through a couple of threads here and here regarding the use of "expidite" by ATC. There has been much debate regarding how to apply it as a controlling technique.
The thread from 2000 makes interesting reading as there seems to be an underlying attitude of expidite equals "oh crap.....move it to save my ass".
If you're really bored, you can have a read through a couple of threads here and here regarding the use of "expidite" by ATC. There has been much debate regarding how to apply it as a controlling technique.
The thread from 2000 makes interesting reading as there seems to be an underlying attitude of expidite equals "oh crap.....move it to save my ass".
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to use expedite to indicate to a pilot that I want him to move his ass and no levelling to gain speed etc. In Canoehead land they've encouraged us to use 'No delay through........' instead and only use expedite for the 'oh ****' moments.
IMHO if I'm in an 'oh ****' moment I'll be using alot more than just expedite and if I'd screwed up I'd ask for max rate.
FT
IMHO if I'm in an 'oh ****' moment I'll be using alot more than just expedite and if I'd screwed up I'd ask for max rate.
FT
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Willy Cum Valley
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAP 493 E(Attach) Page4 Phraseology
ICAO must still be the overall guidance for definitions etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been sitting here for the last few minutes trying to think of an answer to this question. But I'm not sure that I can.
I mean no disrespect to Stanley - and the question has been asked by other before - but the question appears to show a lack of understanding of the way in which a controller thinks. There is quite simply no reason that I can think of why a controller would want a controller to climb or descend at a 'normal' rate for a while, speed up the rate through a particular level and then slow back down.
Whatever the reason the controller might have for asking the pilot to expedite through a specific level, it's because that will assist to manage the traffic situation NOW. If a pilot doesn't expedite the early part of the climb or descent, the traffic situation is likely to have changed and a different solution may be required.
On the subject of definitions, I tend to agree with the good Dr. E, the ultimate reference should be ICAO if possible. In this case ICAO is little more helpful than the CAP 493 extract (a UK document).
For those who are as sad as me and can immediately refer to ICAO Doc 9713 International Civil Aviation Vocabulary, will sadly find that expedite is not defined. However, ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony offers the following
I mean no disrespect to Stanley - and the question has been asked by other before - but the question appears to show a lack of understanding of the way in which a controller thinks. There is quite simply no reason that I can think of why a controller would want a controller to climb or descend at a 'normal' rate for a while, speed up the rate through a particular level and then slow back down.
Whatever the reason the controller might have for asking the pilot to expedite through a specific level, it's because that will assist to manage the traffic situation NOW. If a pilot doesn't expedite the early part of the climb or descent, the traffic situation is likely to have changed and a different solution may be required.
On the subject of definitions, I tend to agree with the good Dr. E, the ultimate reference should be ICAO if possible. In this case ICAO is little more helpful than the CAP 493 extract (a UK document).
For those who are as sad as me and can immediately refer to ICAO Doc 9713 International Civil Aviation Vocabulary, will sadly find that expedite is not defined. However, ICAO Doc 9432 Manual of Radiotelephony offers the following
3.2.2.3 Occasionally, for traffic reasons, a higher than normal rate of climb or descent may be required.
[ATC]FASTAIR 345 EXPEDITE DESCENT TO FL 80
[Aircraft]EXPEDITING DESCENT TO FL 80 FASTAIR 345
or
[ATC]FASTAIR 345 CLIMB TO FL 240 EXPEDITE UNTIL PASSING FL 180
[Aircraft]FASTAIR 345 CLIMBING TO FL 240, EXPEDITING UNTIL PASSING FL 180
or
[Aircraft]FASTAIR 345 UNABLE TO COMPLY
[ATC]FASTAIR 345 EXPEDITE DESCENT TO FL 80
[Aircraft]EXPEDITING DESCENT TO FL 80 FASTAIR 345
or
[ATC]FASTAIR 345 CLIMB TO FL 240 EXPEDITE UNTIL PASSING FL 180
[Aircraft]FASTAIR 345 CLIMBING TO FL 240, EXPEDITING UNTIL PASSING FL 180
or
[Aircraft]FASTAIR 345 UNABLE TO COMPLY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I `m not a controller, and no - I don`t claim to know how a controller`s mind works!! (Although sometimes I do wonder! [joke!])
I thought I was asking a reasonably sensible question based on an actual instruction I was given by London on 134.75 a few weeks ago on the way to Cyprus. "expedite through FL..."
Going back to my initial question at the very top of the thread, if say the other traffic is level at FL240, then all things being equal is it not unreasonable to assume that ATC might want the highest rate of climb possible during the finite period where he might be a confliction (as you pass between FL230 and 250).
I want to get it right, hence my asking you guys for advice.
I thought I was asking a reasonably sensible question based on an actual instruction I was given by London on 134.75 a few weeks ago on the way to Cyprus. "expedite through FL..."
Going back to my initial question at the very top of the thread, if say the other traffic is level at FL240, then all things being equal is it not unreasonable to assume that ATC might want the highest rate of climb possible during the finite period where he might be a confliction (as you pass between FL230 and 250).
I want to get it right, hence my asking you guys for advice.
I'm a mere approach controller, but for an acft at FL120 being told to expedite through FL240, I'd just save myself the worry and clear you to FL230 and reassess as you approach that level. Unless of course there are potential conflictions at all levels!!
Apologies if I have missed your point.
Apologies if I have missed your point.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stanley, I genuinely wasn't trying to have a go at you (or pilots generally). My point is that although controllers and pilots do different jobs, we are working in the same environment and need to have at least a basic understanding of each other's jobs. As an example, I know that there's little point in asking a pilot to go down and slow down at the same time - that's something that only the pilot has control of but I appreciate that such a request is not easy to comply with. I feel that the reasons that a controller may ask for an expedited climb is a similar type of understanding of the controller's job.
In the UK we (controllers) have a recurrency training scheme called TRUCE. Some ATC units put together exercises where controllers and pilots can meet and discuss each other's needs - I've always found it very helpful to meet face to face and I've learned a lot about how aircraft are operated, which, in turn, helps me when I'm controlling. Heck, it's gone further thn that, I even go drinking with pilots now!
And I think RAC/OPS has explained, in very succinct terms, what was going through my mind in trying to answer your question.
In the UK we (controllers) have a recurrency training scheme called TRUCE. Some ATC units put together exercises where controllers and pilots can meet and discuss each other's needs - I've always found it very helpful to meet face to face and I've learned a lot about how aircraft are operated, which, in turn, helps me when I'm controlling. Heck, it's gone further thn that, I even go drinking with pilots now!
And I think RAC/OPS has explained, in very succinct terms, what was going through my mind in trying to answer your question.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think alot of these problems would be resolved if Controllers had to have a couple of flights per year on the flight deck and Pilots had to come and see us.
If things stay as they are, our working knowledge of each others job will be reduced and the level of service we give to each other will reduce.
If things stay as they are, our working knowledge of each others job will be reduced and the level of service we give to each other will reduce.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general reason I use the phrase "good rate" through xxx is because when you get through it, you will be "clean" of the traffic and can turn right another 140 degrees direct to destination.
Another phrase I have heard is "on reaching xxxx route direct blah"
Amazing how quick the rate goes up................!
Another phrase I have heard is "on reaching xxxx route direct blah"
Amazing how quick the rate goes up................!