SID Altitude Restrictions VHHH

[thebaron007]

Can anyone post a copy of Amendment No. 5 to ICAO PANS-ATM 6.3.2.4 and 6.5.2.4, referenced in the link below?

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC18-07.pdf

Over the years, there have been many threads started on this issue, with diametrical positions. After spending hours reading these threads, it does seem that the general consensus is that in the U.K. and U.S., an amended altitude by ATC will cancel the subsequent altitude restrictions on a SID or STAR, unless they are restated. In Australia and New Zealand, they are only canceled if they say something to the effect, "cancel SID/STAR, track direct."

Based on the aforementioned link, it looks like Hong Kong follows the Australia/New Zealand position.

I am trying to compile information on other countries' positions, but I don't have access to each of the countries' AIP's (presuming they would even address or clarify the issue). For instance, how do they do it in South Korea, Japan, or the rest of Europe?

Of course, I realize that if there is some uncertainty it might be prudent to clarify with ATC that it is an unrestricted climb/descent, but that's a lot like asking the controller if you are cleared to cross all other enroute runways when he/she clears you to taxi to a runway in the U.S., without any qualifying hold short instructions--asking if you are cleared to cross the runways manifests an ignorance on the subject and would probably irritate a busy controller.

Any documents on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[ramzez]

Doc 4444, 15th edition, amendtment 5

6.3.2.4 CLIMB CLEARANCE ABOVE LEVELS SPECIFIED IN A SID
Note.— See also 11.4.2.6.2.5.
When a departing aircraft on a SID is cleared to climb to a level higher than the initially cleared level or the level(s)
specified in a SID, the aircraft shall follow the published vertical profile of a SID, unless such restrictions are explicitly
cancelled by ATC.

6.5.2.4 DESCENT BELOW LEVELS SPECIFIED IN A STAR
Note.— See also 11.4.2.6.2.5.
When an arriving aircraft on a STAR is cleared to descend to a level lower than the level or the level(s) specified in a
STAR, the aircraft shall follow the published vertical profile of a STAR, unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled
by ATC. Published minimum levels based on terrain clearance shall always be applied.

11.4.2.6.2.5 Level restrictions issued by ATC in air-ground communications shall be repeated in conjunction with
subsequent level clearances in order to remain in effect.

12.3.1.2 z)
… clearance to cancel level restriction(s) of the vertical profile of a SID during climb
z) CLIMB TO (level) [LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (SID designator) CANCELLED (or) LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (SID designator) AT (point) CANCELLED];

12.3.1.2 aa)
… clearance to cancel level restriction(s) of the vertical profile of a STAR during descent
aa) DESCEND TO (level) [LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) CANCELLED (or) LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) AT (point) CANCELLED].

UK doesn't comply with this:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...9_Y_048_en.pdf

[thebaron007]

Thanks for the reply and info. Who else besides the US and UK doesn't comply with it? Specifically, how about Japan, North Korea and the rest of Eurpope.

[ramzez]

At least the following countries comply with Doc 4444:

Sweden:
http://www.lfv.se/upload/ANS/AIP/AIC%20A/A06-08.pdf

Norway:
https://www.ippc.no/ippc/display_pdf...9_A_001_en.pdf

Finland:
Nothing mentioned in AIP (https://ais.fi/publications), but it is stated in the ATC handbook.

France:
https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv...2008_25_EN.pdf

-------

Other European AIP's:
EUROCONTROL - European AIS

[thebaron007]

Thanks.

In this memo, the UK admits that it is the only ICAO non-compliant European State on the SID/STAR flight level restriction. And apparently they still are--for the time being.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/43/2009042...93SI200906.pdf