... and maintain
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.............Which is why we use the word Altitude.
If you say Descend to Altitude four thousand (or whatever alt you might be using) then the 'to' is separated from the numbers by the word Altitude and should not therefore be confused. With fight levels I definitely don't say it. ( the word 'to')
I'm just going to check, but I'm pretty certain that was standard R/T.
Then again, I might go for a beer instead!
Cheers,
N
P.S. In terms of the topic, I do say "and maintain" if there is going to be crossing traffic. Maybe it is belt and braces, maybe it's over the top, but I follow it with traffic information (the only reason I say it) as I think it gives the pilot information to plan his ROC/ROD accordingly for his passenger comfort as well as the TCAS thing.
"Keep smiling, it make people wonder what you're up to."
If you say Descend to Altitude four thousand (or whatever alt you might be using) then the 'to' is separated from the numbers by the word Altitude and should not therefore be confused. With fight levels I definitely don't say it. ( the word 'to')
I'm just going to check, but I'm pretty certain that was standard R/T.
Then again, I might go for a beer instead!
Cheers,
N
P.S. In terms of the topic, I do say "and maintain" if there is going to be crossing traffic. Maybe it is belt and braces, maybe it's over the top, but I follow it with traffic information (the only reason I say it) as I think it gives the pilot information to plan his ROC/ROD accordingly for his passenger comfort as well as the TCAS thing.
"Keep smiling, it make people wonder what you're up to."
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OVC002,
Thanks for the reference, that was the incident I was referring to. That incident changed our phraseology in Oz. We use the phraseology I have been referring to in previous posts and since the change there have been no similar incidents in Oz attributed to this type of misunderstanding.
Now as for "and maintain". I still maintain they are superfluous words in a transmission. If you don't need to say it, then don't say it.
Thanks for the reference, that was the incident I was referring to. That incident changed our phraseology in Oz. We use the phraseology I have been referring to in previous posts and since the change there have been no similar incidents in Oz attributed to this type of misunderstanding.
Now as for "and maintain". I still maintain they are superfluous words in a transmission. If you don't need to say it, then don't say it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use "maintain" here in Canada, although I was surprised when I came over here from the UK that the Canadians do not instruct a pilot to "climb/descend". When instructed to "maintain" an altitude/FL, a lot of American carriers readback "descend/climb and maintain...". Surely, "climb/descend" should be standard control instructions wherever you are?
So what about the "climb/descend and maintain" dilemma. As DirtyPierre maintains, yes it is obvious that the ac will maintain a level on reaching and therefore "maintain" would appear to be superfluous!!! Surely, the same argument applies when using "descend to altitude 2000"? As you haven't used the words "Flight Level", isn't it clear that you are referring to an altitude?
"Climb/descend AND MAINTAIN" does have one major advantage. It is unambiguous, and that is a bloody good thing if you deal with so many foreign carriers whose command of English is not that great.
The point here is NOT to say that Oz and Canada have got it wrong, because they haven't. Both have their own RT procedures that work FOR THEM. That is the point! Surely, we should ALL be using one international basic standard?
So what about the "climb/descend and maintain" dilemma. As DirtyPierre maintains, yes it is obvious that the ac will maintain a level on reaching and therefore "maintain" would appear to be superfluous!!! Surely, the same argument applies when using "descend to altitude 2000"? As you haven't used the words "Flight Level", isn't it clear that you are referring to an altitude?
"Climb/descend AND MAINTAIN" does have one major advantage. It is unambiguous, and that is a bloody good thing if you deal with so many foreign carriers whose command of English is not that great.
The point here is NOT to say that Oz and Canada have got it wrong, because they haven't. Both have their own RT procedures that work FOR THEM. That is the point! Surely, we should ALL be using one international basic standard?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, the same argument applies when using "descend to altitude 2000"? As you haven't used the words "Flight Level", isn't it clear that you are referring to an altitude?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karup, Denmark
Age: 70
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, the same argument applies when using "descend to altitude 2000"? As you haven't used the words "Flight Level", isn't it clear that you are referring to an altitude?
"descend to altitude 2000 feet, QNH 1015"
I know, it works for me.
(And I get two seconds more of "planning time")
(Yes, I was a non-standard "Bxxxxxx" in my younger years - just so many "say agains", will finally get to you
)
It could be a height, favoured by UK military airfields.
We've got QFE on our METAR, mostly for the Nord 262 ILS flight checker, which is now a Swedish B200 anyway and done on GPS.
QFE could be useful for f.ex. display work (see another thread hereabouts
) (And a certain T-bird F-16 incident 
)
Surely, we should ALL be using one international basic standard?
Best Regards
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada, "maintain" isn't the superfluous word. "Climb/descend" or "cleared to" are the superfluous words. According to our Manops, all altitude changes are to be issued as: "maintain (altitude)" not climb/descend or cleared.
Proper phraseology eg:
ATC: "ACA123 maintain flight level three three zero."
ATC: "CFABC maintain one zero thousand."
Proper phraseology eg:
ATC: "ACA123 maintain flight level three three zero."
ATC: "CFABC maintain one zero thousand."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I (as a pilot) hear from ATC:
"ABC123 maintain flight level three three zero"
(instead of "ABC123 climb [and maintain] FL330")
... I would wonder if the ATCO actually knows that I'm just flying at FL290 ... is he expecting me already at FL330 (which I should "maintain" for a while) ... ???
That's how it could get to european ears ...
regards,
Redfox
"ABC123 maintain flight level three three zero"
(instead of "ABC123 climb [and maintain] FL330")
... I would wonder if the ATCO actually knows that I'm just flying at FL290 ... is he expecting me already at FL330 (which I should "maintain" for a while) ... ???
That's how it could get to european ears ...
regards,
Redfox
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Canada, "maintain" isn't the superfluous word. "Climb/descend" or "cleared to" are the superfluous words. According to our Manops, all altitude changes are to be issued as: "maintain (altitude)" not climb/descend or cleared.
Proper phraseology...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zzjayca - not arguing that point, but it is ONLY the Canadian standard. As Redfox states, it does has leave some room for interpretation, and surely we must have one common, unambiguous way of getting the instruction across. "Climb" and "descend" should be the key words here beacause that is exactly what you are telling the pilot to do.
Sorry to the Brits (especially the RAF contingent) out there. I didn't want to go in to the old QNH vs QFE thing.
In Canada, "maintain" isn't the superfluous word. "Climb/descend" or "cleared to" are the superfluous words. According to our Manops, all altitude changes are to be issued as: "maintain (altitude)" not climb/descend or cleared.
Proper phraseology...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zzjayca - not arguing that point, but it is ONLY the Canadian standard. As Redfox states, it does has leave some room for interpretation, and surely we must have one common, unambiguous way of getting the instruction across. "Climb" and "descend" should be the key words here beacause that is exactly what you are telling the pilot to do.
Sorry to the Brits (especially the RAF contingent) out there. I didn't want to go in to the old QNH vs QFE thing.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of the maintain thing (climb and descend are both recognised as standard phraseology in the Manual of Operations, but rarely used), however we did have a RAF Tornado come in a couple of months ago. On initial contact he was instructed to "Maintain 7000, altimeter 29.92". The pilot didn't descend. 1 minute later he was instructed to "maintain 7000". He read back he was maintaining FL 220. It was only when I suggested the controller talking to him instruct him to "descend to altitude" that he started down. The maintain was the confusion point.
Do I hold my breath till we get an international, standardised phraseology book that is to be used and enforced? I don't think I will.
Do I hold my breath till we get an international, standardised phraseology book that is to be used and enforced? I don't think I will.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lots of Sand
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents worth, having used and taught standard ICAO RTF for the last 16 years:
The Climb, Descend and Maintain are 3 different things when refering to altitudes/levels.
You are either instructed to go up, go down or stay where you are.
Pilot: "BAW234 FL330"
Controller: "BAW330 maintain FL330"
If an A/c checked in and said "FL290" and was instructed to "maintain FL270" he would assume that the controller mis-heard his original call and say "we are maintaining FL290"
The use of "to" was brought about "down under" after several incidents where the instruction was vague and the pilots mis-understood the instruction.
"QFA45 descend 4000 feet" Does the A/c descend to 4000 feet or descend by 4000 feet??
The phrase Flight Level should be used for levels, and depending on the country, either Altitude 4000, or 4000 feet but there is no need for both Altitude and Feet, the instruction is clear enough.
The "climb to maintain FL330" is unnecessary, but if traffic is a factor then "climb to FL330, traffic is...." would give the crew a heads up on traffic affecting their climb, and would hopefully correlate with traffic on their TCAS. They can then adjust their rate of climb / descent accordingly.
While NavCan seems to want to be different, in a world where you are dealing with multi-national pilots in an ICAO based profession (ICAO are based in Montreal after-all!) all RTF should be ICAO standard.
In fact, it must be hard for NavCan management to justify any deviation from the standards and recommended practices of ICAO, at the end of the day standardisation (or lack of) plays a major part in safety related incidents.
The Climb, Descend and Maintain are 3 different things when refering to altitudes/levels.
You are either instructed to go up, go down or stay where you are.
Pilot: "BAW234 FL330"
Controller: "BAW330 maintain FL330"
If an A/c checked in and said "FL290" and was instructed to "maintain FL270" he would assume that the controller mis-heard his original call and say "we are maintaining FL290"
The use of "to" was brought about "down under" after several incidents where the instruction was vague and the pilots mis-understood the instruction.
"QFA45 descend 4000 feet" Does the A/c descend to 4000 feet or descend by 4000 feet??
The phrase Flight Level should be used for levels, and depending on the country, either Altitude 4000, or 4000 feet but there is no need for both Altitude and Feet, the instruction is clear enough.
The "climb to maintain FL330" is unnecessary, but if traffic is a factor then "climb to FL330, traffic is...." would give the crew a heads up on traffic affecting their climb, and would hopefully correlate with traffic on their TCAS. They can then adjust their rate of climb / descent accordingly.
While NavCan seems to want to be different, in a world where you are dealing with multi-national pilots in an ICAO based profession (ICAO are based in Montreal after-all!) all RTF should be ICAO standard.
In fact, it must be hard for NavCan management to justify any deviation from the standards and recommended practices of ICAO, at the end of the day standardisation (or lack of) plays a major part in safety related incidents.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree that it should cause confusion. Maybe we Canadians think differently than "European ears". 
To me if the a/c is at FL290 and ATC gives an instruction to "maintain FL330" the only way I know of the a/c to get there is to climb. (could try descending, but it might get a little bumpy when you reach the earth's core). Conversely, if ATC gives an instruction to "maintain FL260" the a/c's only way of reaching the altitude is to descend from FL290.
Additionally, I don't see how you could interpret an instruction to "maintain FL330" as giving you permission to remain at FL330 for "a while" any more than if the instruction was phrased "climb FL330".
I realize that every/any phraseology if taken to the extreme may have an element of ambiguity to it, but in this case, if we are trying to eliminate words such as "to", maintain seems to be a reasonable choice. Using climb/descend or cleared, it becomes easy to slip a "to" in before the altitude.
So far, in the last ten years, I haven't had any European pilots misunderstand me when I use maintain.
To me if the a/c is at FL290 and ATC gives an instruction to "maintain FL330" the only way I know of the a/c to get there is to climb. (could try descending, but it might get a little bumpy when you reach the earth's core). Conversely, if ATC gives an instruction to "maintain FL260" the a/c's only way of reaching the altitude is to descend from FL290.
Additionally, I don't see how you could interpret an instruction to "maintain FL330" as giving you permission to remain at FL330 for "a while" any more than if the instruction was phrased "climb FL330".
I realize that every/any phraseology if taken to the extreme may have an element of ambiguity to it, but in this case, if we are trying to eliminate words such as "to", maintain seems to be a reasonable choice. Using climb/descend or cleared, it becomes easy to slip a "to" in before the altitude.
So far, in the last ten years, I haven't had any European pilots misunderstand me when I use maintain.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zzjayca
By that logic, why say "maintain"? If the instruction to "maintain" includes an inference that the a/c can climb, descend, or maintain a level, why say anything? Just say the level.
To me if the a/c is at FL290 and ATC gives an instruction to "maintain FL330" the only way I know of the a/c to get there is to climb
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In English the word 'maintain' refers to something staying in a steady state (i.e. not changing). For that reason alone ICAO should scrap using a word which doesn't mean what it actually means in reality
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but Westy you're above average in the intelligence stakes
The "maintain" issue seems to come into it in the UK where it has a totally different meaning. In Canada it is a command instruction, in the UK it is almost a "filling out" term. I know when I first came over here to Canada, it was a habit I had to get out of, simply because drivers on first contact would check in "descending to 7000" and I would reply "Roger maintain".......to be asked 30 seconds later what the cleared altitude was because the driver heard the word "maintain" and thought they missed the new altitude.
The "maintain" issue seems to come into it in the UK where it has a totally different meaning. In Canada it is a command instruction, in the UK it is almost a "filling out" term. I know when I first came over here to Canada, it was a habit I had to get out of, simply because drivers on first contact would check in "descending to 7000" and I would reply "Roger maintain".......to be asked 30 seconds later what the cleared altitude was because the driver heard the word "maintain" and thought they missed the new altitude.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karup, Denmark
Age: 70
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange but true:
This morning a colleague on "Approach" (same room) had a German Tornado at FL140 for a Hi Tacan approach (140,150,160 is "normal"). Several civilian airliners crossing and descending. He told the Tornado to "maintain 120 ", which got My Monday morning attention. (I was "Tower"). Sure enough - on the radar - they left 140 and asked: "Confirm descend to FL120?". "No! Maintain FL140!" (APP getting angry/confused: "Why the Hexx etc.". "Us" (the backing group (Tower and supervisor): "You said 120!". "Did I?"
I'm told that our new VCS system has an instant "replay" feature, i.e. you "spool" back and check "what did he say" f. ex.
This morning a colleague on "Approach" (same room) had a German Tornado at FL140 for a Hi Tacan approach (140,150,160 is "normal"). Several civilian airliners crossing and descending. He told the Tornado to "maintain 120 ", which got My Monday morning attention. (I was "Tower"). Sure enough - on the radar - they left 140 and asked: "Confirm descend to FL120?". "No! Maintain FL140!" (APP getting angry/confused: "Why the Hexx etc.". "Us" (the backing group (Tower and supervisor): "You said 120!".
"Did I?"I'm told that our new VCS system has an instant "replay" feature, i.e. you "spool" back and check "what did he say" f. ex.