standard RT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
standard RT
Hello All. I have flown around the world without paying much attention on standard RT. However , I noticed that there are quite a few incidents related to miscommunication between ATC and pilots.
Appreciate if someone could clarify a few things.
Q1. Are we suppose to call maintaining altitude when we are radar vectored on descent in a radar environment. How about when reaching cruising altitude?
Q2. If for instance there is an altitude restriction in an SID , are we expected to adhere to the altitude restriction if we are given a higher altitude once airborne. From what I understand ,we must adhere to SID alt restriction unless specifically cancelled.
Q3. Is it mandatory to state airline callsign to precede your flight number?
Appreciate if someone could clarify a few things.
Q1. Are we suppose to call maintaining altitude when we are radar vectored on descent in a radar environment. How about when reaching cruising altitude?
Q2. If for instance there is an altitude restriction in an SID , are we expected to adhere to the altitude restriction if we are given a higher altitude once airborne. From what I understand ,we must adhere to SID alt restriction unless specifically cancelled.
Q3. Is it mandatory to state airline callsign to precede your flight number?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can answer number 2 for the UK. Any new clearance cancels the old clearance. Therefore if on departure you are instructed to climb to a level which is above an altitude restriction on a SID, then that restriction is cancelled.
Unfortunately the CAA in their wisdom invented some new procedures wrt to climbs above SID levels etc, a totally guff piece of work that only caused confusion. Worse still they published the new procedures so and it took about a month before they saw common sense and withdrew them. However the damasge has been done because more and more crews are questioning climb instructions - thus increasing pilots and ATCOs already busy workload
.
Unfortunately this practice of producing and publishing new procedures without proper consultation or though seems to be happening more and more, only for them to be amended/withdrawn when someone with a bit of common sense points out the flaws.
Not only does this waste time when self briefing, but it also reduces respect/confidence in the people we rely on to publish new instructions etc...
Unfortunately the CAA in their wisdom invented some new procedures wrt to climbs above SID levels etc, a totally guff piece of work that only caused confusion. Worse still they published the new procedures so and it took about a month before they saw common sense and withdrew them. However the damasge has been done because more and more crews are questioning climb instructions - thus increasing pilots and ATCOs already busy workload
.Unfortunately this practice of producing and publishing new procedures without proper consultation or though seems to be happening more and more, only for them to be amended/withdrawn when someone with a bit of common sense points out the flaws.
Not only does this waste time when self briefing, but it also reduces respect/confidence in the people we rely on to publish new instructions etc...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q1. You don't need to report reaching an altitude unless asked to do so. There are regional differences but they can be found from the appropriate AIP.
Q2. According to ICAO, you have to comply with SID and STAR level restrictions unless they are explicitly cancelled. UK doesn't comply with this.
Q3. as posted by Gingerbread Man, can't be abbreviated.
Q2. According to ICAO, you have to comply with SID and STAR level restrictions unless they are explicitly cancelled. UK doesn't comply with this.
Q3. as posted by Gingerbread Man, can't be abbreviated.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sussex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing:
The procedures that the CAA proposed were the adoption of those already promulgated by ICAO in PANS-ATM, albeit with simplified RT! I know that this step was not taken lightly as the ICAO change was contested at every opportunity. NATS were closely involved all along the way. Due to significant UK pilot kickback against the changes, they were withdrawn prior to implementation to allow more meetings. I understand that the UK airlines subsequently requested that CAA become ICAO compliant in the interests of standardisation. This has not happened yet as ICAO are again currently reviewing this subject - in the meantime all UK ATCOs are supposed to use 'climb now' when providing a climb clearance where the levels in the SID do not apply. The sooner this is resolved the better.
The procedures that the CAA proposed were the adoption of those already promulgated by ICAO in PANS-ATM, albeit with simplified RT! I know that this step was not taken lightly as the ICAO change was contested at every opportunity. NATS were closely involved all along the way. Due to significant UK pilot kickback against the changes, they were withdrawn prior to implementation to allow more meetings. I understand that the UK airlines subsequently requested that CAA become ICAO compliant in the interests of standardisation. This has not happened yet as ICAO are again currently reviewing this subject - in the meantime all UK ATCOs are supposed to use 'climb now' when providing a climb clearance where the levels in the SID do not apply. The sooner this is resolved the better.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: taking up the hold
Age: 53
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think that "climb now" is as clear as it can be.
Non UK states may expect you to adhere to SID/STAR altitude restrictions even when cleared to a subsequent level. If in doubt check!
Non UK states may expect you to adhere to SID/STAR altitude restrictions even when cleared to a subsequent level. If in doubt check!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sussexman
Any consultation with NATS was done at high level - none of the ATCOs in TC knew about this proposed change until it was published... I'm sure that was reflected company wide.
And then it kicked off.
I mean, the phraseology they wanted us to use was ridiculous.
Standard R/T and liason phraseology is there to be brief, concise, unambiguous and to the point. If it needs to be changed, either 'Climb now FLxxx' or even 'Climb unrestricted FLxxx' is more than sufficient. Instead we were presented with a ridiculous, long phrase to use (and it would get used a lot), on frequencies that already receive complaints from pilots because of the inability to get in!
Any consultation with NATS was done at high level - none of the ATCOs in TC knew about this proposed change until it was published... I'm sure that was reflected company wide.
And then it kicked off.
I mean, the phraseology they wanted us to use was ridiculous.
Standard R/T and liason phraseology is there to be brief, concise, unambiguous and to the point. If it needs to be changed, either 'Climb now FLxxx' or even 'Climb unrestricted FLxxx' is more than sufficient. Instead we were presented with a ridiculous, long phrase to use (and it would get used a lot), on frequencies that already receive complaints from pilots because of the inability to get in!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your input so far.
Personally , I feel 'Climb Unrestricted to FL XXX' is clearer than 'Climb Now' but now at least I know what it means . On the other hand 'Descend Now' does not mean I'm cleared to descend unrestricted .
Q5 . Same situation on descend , what would be the proper transmission to indicate we are cleared unrestricted on a certain STAR.
Q6. If we are cleared on a STAR , does that mean we are cleared below the last cleared altitude and to follow as per STAR step. On some charts a specific term is used to indicate this but what about charts that doesn't have any explanation.
Q7. If we are cleared for Approach from an altitude above our initial approach altitude (while still in the STAR ) ,can we assume we are cleared to descend to our initial approach alt and cleared for the ILS approach.
I have encountered some ATC who will clear us for APPROACH without specifically stating which app we are cleared to.
Normally I would reconfirm clearences when I get into this situation and sometimes I do not get a reply.
Personally , I feel 'Climb Unrestricted to FL XXX' is clearer than 'Climb Now' but now at least I know what it means . On the other hand 'Descend Now' does not mean I'm cleared to descend unrestricted .
Q5 . Same situation on descend , what would be the proper transmission to indicate we are cleared unrestricted on a certain STAR.
Q6. If we are cleared on a STAR , does that mean we are cleared below the last cleared altitude and to follow as per STAR step. On some charts a specific term is used to indicate this but what about charts that doesn't have any explanation.
Q7. If we are cleared for Approach from an altitude above our initial approach altitude (while still in the STAR ) ,can we assume we are cleared to descend to our initial approach alt and cleared for the ILS approach.
I have encountered some ATC who will clear us for APPROACH without specifically stating which app we are cleared to.
Normally I would reconfirm clearences when I get into this situation and sometimes I do not get a reply.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q6. Being cleared for the star means "thats the route and height restrictions you should expect aswell as your clearance limit (usually a hold of some sort)"
"Descend now" is not standard RT but it is used alot because lots of pilots when told to descend ask "does that mean now or when we want?" (if i want you to descend when you want i will use "when ready descend ...").
"Descend now" is not standard RT but it is used alot because lots of pilots when told to descend ask "does that mean now or when we want?" (if i want you to descend when you want i will use "when ready descend ...").
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: suffolk
Age: 55
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insofar as "report leaving" or "report reaching" requests...we would normally only need that info if we were operating procedurally (non-radar), or primary-only radar.
If we don't ask for it, you can assume its not required.
Simples!
Hope that helps Q4?
If we don't ask for it, you can assume its not required.
Simples!
Hope that helps Q4?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q4. Not necessary to report leaving a level or reaching. There is a Eurocontrol & IATA recommendation that leaving should be reported as to prevent level busts but it's not required.
Q5. Doc 4444: DESCEND TO (level) [LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) CANCELLED (or) LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) AT (point) CANCELLED].
Q6. You need to get separate level altitude clearances. The levels published on a STAR are only restrictions not clearances.
Q7. You are cleared to descend to the initial approach altitude although I think it is better practice to give the altitude clearance just to avoid confusion "...descend to xxxx ft, cleared xxx approach...". Because you are proceeding a STAR you are responsible for obstacle clearance. Especially during vectoring (because controller is responsible for obstacle clearance) I think it is better practice to give the altitude clearance to the initial approach altitude and then give the approach clearance.
Q5. Doc 4444: DESCEND TO (level) [LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) CANCELLED (or) LEVEL RESTRICTION(S) (STAR designator) AT (point) CANCELLED].
Q6. You need to get separate level altitude clearances. The levels published on a STAR are only restrictions not clearances.
Q7. You are cleared to descend to the initial approach altitude although I think it is better practice to give the altitude clearance just to avoid confusion "...descend to xxxx ft, cleared xxx approach...". Because you are proceeding a STAR you are responsible for obstacle clearance. Especially during vectoring (because controller is responsible for obstacle clearance) I think it is better practice to give the altitude clearance to the initial approach altitude and then give the approach clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropping the airline callsign and only using the flight number is an extremely annoying habit I have only noticed in Asia (Malaysia/Indonesia to be precise) and it drives me up the wall. I very much doubt it's 'legal', I just think it's ATCOS and pilots being lazy.
While we're in Asia if ATC wants us to climb straight to a level disregarding published restrictions "Climb FL### unrestricted" seems most common - have heard it in Singapore, Hong-Kong, Bangkok... I guess it could work in the UK although some people may think it cancels speed restrictions as well.
S.
While we're in Asia if ATC wants us to climb straight to a level disregarding published restrictions "Climb FL### unrestricted" seems most common - have heard it in Singapore, Hong-Kong, Bangkok... I guess it could work in the UK although some people may think it cancels speed restrictions as well.
S.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Internationally, (the UK is a special case), if you are on a SID or a STAR you comply with those restrictions/requirements unless the SID or STAR is specifically cancelled (unless the RT is specific... ie cancel SID altitude/speed restrictions).
Any other instruction is to be complied with in accordance with the SID/STAR.
Any other instruction is to be complied with in accordance with the SID/STAR.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly of topic because i don't want to start a new topic:
Recently i was in africa and atc asked for POB.
The pilot answered "5 minus 4".
"Minus 4" does it refer to the number of crew or pax???
Who knows?
tx
Recently i was in africa and atc asked for POB.
The pilot answered "5 minus 4".
"Minus 4" does it refer to the number of crew or pax???
Who knows?
tx
