Clearance Clarification Clarence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearance Clarification Clarence
Hi All,
I had this one today for the first time and was wondering if one of you ATCO's could clarify it for me?
The clearance was "Descend FL150, when level speed 220kts"
As we passed through FL160 we were further cleared down to 80.
Are we expected in this case to slow to 220 as we pass through FL150 or to maintain speed and slow when level at 80?
We were on one of the London frequencies at the time and as I'm sure you know we couldn't get a word in to clarify so we dropped to 220kts at FL150 and nothing was said.
Was that what was expected or does the "when level" bit then apply to the new level?
Thanks in advance.
I had this one today for the first time and was wondering if one of you ATCO's could clarify it for me?
The clearance was "Descend FL150, when level speed 220kts"
As we passed through FL160 we were further cleared down to 80.
Are we expected in this case to slow to 220 as we pass through FL150 or to maintain speed and slow when level at 80?
We were on one of the London frequencies at the time and as I'm sure you know we couldn't get a word in to clarify so we dropped to 220kts at FL150 and nothing was said.
Was that what was expected or does the "when level" bit then apply to the new level?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ATC clearance cancels the previous clearance.
Unless the controller stated otherwise, I believe the speed restriction no longer applied.
If you couldn't get a word in, possibly, the sector/frequency needed 'splitting'.
Unless the controller stated otherwise, I believe the speed restriction no longer applied.
If you couldn't get a word in, possibly, the sector/frequency needed 'splitting'.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: On the move
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe what you did is correct , speed applied to FL150 and you did pass through and Im sure there was a reason for the speed . The new instruction applied to flight level
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ATC clearance cancels the previous clearance.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an old git with 25 years experience as a LTMA controller,I drum this point into every trainee, that they should restate the speed restriction required if further descent is given before the previous level is reached.On a busy frequency,the last thing required is ambiguous phraseology leading to more transmissions to clarify exactly what the controller expects thecrew to do.Time to retire methinks!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tczulu
Thats why I just don't get this interpretation.
What if the restriction was assigned by a previous controller, then handed off, legitimately without any coordination, why should you reiterate it? You may have no knowledge of it.
Surely it would have been better to assume that all restrictions previously given are in force unless specifically cancelled?
E.g. Our TMC controllers give descent clearance with a requirement to reach F130 by the APP hand-off gate. That is to ensure that departures with a requirement to be above F140 by a point will not be in conflict as soon as they call APP. Normal hand-off approaching the gate, the APP controllers says "descent to 8000 ft". The F130 requirement should still be in force. Surely we don't want the APP controller to have to reiterate the F130 requirement every time to separate with DEP traffic he/she knows nothing about.
I reckon its a crock.
Not aimed at you but I also reckon there's a certain group out there in ATC who search for and can find ambiguity in almost everything that is said. The job has become a ridiculous game of semantics because of "bush lawyers" within the system.
What if the restriction was assigned by a previous controller, then handed off, legitimately without any coordination, why should you reiterate it? You may have no knowledge of it.
Surely it would have been better to assume that all restrictions previously given are in force unless specifically cancelled?
E.g. Our TMC controllers give descent clearance with a requirement to reach F130 by the APP hand-off gate. That is to ensure that departures with a requirement to be above F140 by a point will not be in conflict as soon as they call APP. Normal hand-off approaching the gate, the APP controllers says "descent to 8000 ft". The F130 requirement should still be in force. Surely we don't want the APP controller to have to reiterate the F130 requirement every time to separate with DEP traffic he/she knows nothing about.
I reckon its a crock.
the last thing required is ambiguous phraseology leading to more transmissions
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my neck of the woods a subsequent restriction cancels previous restrictions unless restated. The idea that a speed instruction is cancelled by a level or altitude assignment seems foreign to me... 
(pun intended).
(pun intended).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar confusing clearance
Descending into EGLL first controller "Descend to FL150 to be at FL150 by Baker"......
After changeover to the next controller and still above F150
"Descend FL80 turn right head ___
Is there a requirement to be at FL150 abeam baker?
We clarified the issue by asking but what do you think?
What do the controllers think?
After changeover to the next controller and still above F150
"Descend FL80 turn right head ___
Is there a requirement to be at FL150 abeam baker?
We clarified the issue by asking but what do you think?
What do the controllers think?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other point pilots would do well to be aware of is that in busy environments as a controller it is important for us to have the aircraft vacate the levels to make room for other aircraft coming in behind. Hence the instruction which permits the aircraft to stay at speed til it reaches FL150.
I always remember the phrase, "you can't expect the aircraft to slow down and go down."
I always remember the phrase, "you can't expect the aircraft to slow down and go down."
Last edited by jackieofalltrades; 1st Jun 2010 at 09:12.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
autopilot_off: was it the same controller that cleared you below FL150 that had given the original instruction? If so then they should have reiterated the speed clearance (or just said "fly speed 220kts" as they gave you the descent through FL150 if you were nearly there).
However, if there was a frequency change then what did you report on first contact exactly? I had a situation once where this exact instruction was issued but then on contact with the new frequency it was reported as "descending FL150 by TIGER, 220kts". They were given FL80 before leveling and they didn't come back to 220kts and lost separation with the jet in front. The pilot was blamed for not passing on the EXACT clearance to the next controller and for making a false statement when they said they were doing 220kts to the next controller.
BGQ - all UK controllers know that a new clearance cancels the previous so if they still required the level restriction, they should have reiterated it. We don't like it but its a very black and white ruling.
However, if there was a frequency change then what did you report on first contact exactly? I had a situation once where this exact instruction was issued but then on contact with the new frequency it was reported as "descending FL150 by TIGER, 220kts". They were given FL80 before leveling and they didn't come back to 220kts and lost separation with the jet in front. The pilot was blamed for not passing on the EXACT clearance to the next controller and for making a false statement when they said they were doing 220kts to the next controller.
BGQ - all UK controllers know that a new clearance cancels the previous so if they still required the level restriction, they should have reiterated it. We don't like it but its a very black and white ruling.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my neck of the woods (canada) I would read that as speed 220 kts@FL150. I would maintain 220 kts as I go to FL80. We're used to hearing "speed your discretion" or some such if the speed restriction gets cancelled. Other than that it's 220 kts till told otherwise. I agree it seems a bit ambiguous. We would, if passed on to another controller, be told "contact such and such with your speed". Not sure about EU airspace as I only fly in N.Am. right now, but here you would be expected to maintain your speed restriction regardless of FL clearance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, thanks a lot for the replies, very helpful.
It was indeed the same controller on the same frequency. I'll happily admit that I have very little idea of what goes on in the ATC side of things so I'm in no way having a go at the controller here.
What we took from his original clearance was that at FL150 he wanted us at 220kts so (possibly wrongly as it wasn't an actual clearance) we assumed the speed restriction applied to this flight level as opposed to the level flight aspect. In the past where this has happened there is normally a clearance of, "now cleared FL80, on passing FL150 speed 220kts" but on this occasion we didn't receive that. Again, busy airspace and the controller was having to work hard so it's understandable that a small omission like this may slip in.
5milesbaby: It's interesting the point you make about the pilot not passing you the exact clearance as I've flown with people who on initial contact will state "we've been given a speed of 220kts" whilst we're still at 280, and as someone said earlier, losing those 60kts can take time, especially if you've been distracted by the headlines and are coming in a bit hot! (That's a figure of speech by the way! There's no tray on my a/c and the control column gets in the way of reading the paper!) I'll make sure that we always make our speed and restrictions clearer in future.
It was indeed the same controller on the same frequency. I'll happily admit that I have very little idea of what goes on in the ATC side of things so I'm in no way having a go at the controller here.
What we took from his original clearance was that at FL150 he wanted us at 220kts so (possibly wrongly as it wasn't an actual clearance) we assumed the speed restriction applied to this flight level as opposed to the level flight aspect. In the past where this has happened there is normally a clearance of, "now cleared FL80, on passing FL150 speed 220kts" but on this occasion we didn't receive that. Again, busy airspace and the controller was having to work hard so it's understandable that a small omission like this may slip in.
5milesbaby: It's interesting the point you make about the pilot not passing you the exact clearance as I've flown with people who on initial contact will state "we've been given a speed of 220kts" whilst we're still at 280, and as someone said earlier, losing those 60kts can take time, especially if you've been distracted by the headlines and are coming in a bit hot! (That's a figure of speech by the way! There's no tray on my a/c and the control column gets in the way of reading the paper!) I'll make sure that we always make our speed and restrictions clearer in future.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Somewhere in Britain
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Autopilot Off.
A difficult one this not helped by a little ambiguity on the controllers side! I know one never should, but I assume (
) that you were comming into LAM or BNN judging by your clearences. But what I try to practice and indeed teach is to say something like "ABC123 descend FL80 upon passing (abeam) SABER/SOPIT speed 220kts".
A difficult one from your end but if it happens again, as soon as you can get a word in then don't be afraid to ask what the controller wants.
A difficult one this not helped by a little ambiguity on the controllers side! I know one never should, but I assume (
) that you were comming into LAM or BNN judging by your clearences. But what I try to practice and indeed teach is to say something like "ABC123 descend FL80 upon passing (abeam) SABER/SOPIT speed 220kts".A difficult one from your end but if it happens again, as soon as you can get a word in then don't be afraid to ask what the controller wants.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Downtown
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with those that reiterate the speed reduction.
If I give a 'level by' or 'speed at' then give another level change before
the initial level is reached, I add 'previous level/speed restriction still applies'.
Similarly if an a/c calls on a 'when ready' to be level by and I reclear it to another level before it's commenced descent I give 'previous level restriction still applies'.
Most if not all my colleagues use the same or words to that effect.
Cheers
If I give a 'level by' or 'speed at' then give another level change before
the initial level is reached, I add 'previous level/speed restriction still applies'.
Similarly if an a/c calls on a 'when ready' to be level by and I reclear it to another level before it's commenced descent I give 'previous level restriction still applies'.
Most if not all my colleagues use the same or words to that effect.
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
autopilot_off - the standing agreement you would have been on is FL130 level GWC unless the TMA is holding high and ask for you to come in at a slightly higher level to help out. Freq 127.825 would have given you the descent to FL130 and then transferred you to 133.175 as you approached GWC. The SLP is GWC where, unless otherwise instructed, you should be 250kts anyway. I'm glad you came back to 220kts however the controller should have reiterated the speed when they gave you the second instruction.
Are you based in the south UK? A trip to Swanwick can certainly be a benefit
Are you based in the south UK? A trip to Swanwick can certainly be a benefit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby
Interestingly the pilots in my company are being told by the training staff that they still have to comply with the original instruction. Can you give me a reference please.
In this case when asked the controller re-imposed the "descend by" restriction.
I don't like having to ask but I dislike the uncertainty more.
In this case when asked the controller re-imposed the "descend by" restriction.
I don't like having to ask but I dislike the uncertainty more.