Level Abeam

[172_driver]

The Fat Controller is making many good points. When put on a heading off an arrival route I can't predict the controller's next move. By giving the important level restriction(s) together with the heading I can make it happen for you. If only given a heading the arrival is void (incl. level restrictions) as far as I am concerned. I find it easiest to take instructions at face value.

The greyer hairs in my head have seen all too often what happens when you give vectors after a level by restriction, my experience always works with that in mind and isn't surprised to see you sail by the point 500' high. If it is crucial, I would have already done something else to make sure we are all safe.

I like the last sentence. I fly to all corners of Europe, Russia to Greece to UK. Every place has its peculiarities. Don't expect perfection every time.

[InSoMnIaC]

So by flying a longer route, it becomes impossible to make a level restriction?

I'm getting very scared by some of the responses here.

I wasn't talking about distance vs height.

If the clearance was fly to XYZ, descend to FL210 by XYZ" and subsequently you get vectored away from XYZ (even if it is 10 degrees), then you are no longer going to XYZ and as a result are technically unable to make the vertical part of the clearance because you will be ABEAM XYZ not OVER it. Ie the clearance to be FL 210 by XYZ is only possible if you actually go to XYZ. so the clearance needs to be reissued eg "desc to fl210. be lvl abm XYZ"

[RMC]

Incident

I only ever had a major incident meeting once....my Ground Power Unit caught fire, it spread to the aircraft and was very close to igniting the fuel tank.Evacuation takes place ...no brainier. Then I get to my meeting with the authority ....no small talk...just "so Captain Scarlet tell us on what basis you decided to evacuate your aircraft on 24th July this year" Every written procedure was analysed to death and you just knew had anything been done incorrectly you would have been slaughtered. So as 30 W says if it is not written down that the clearance has to be repeated when given a heading ( and it is written down that it doesn't ) I guarantee that there will be many pilots who will stick to what is written. The trouble with common sense is that it is not very common. From that point of view I don't think reducing the size of a manual to the extent that it makes altitude busts a potential common sense judgement call is the best of moves.

[sambatc]

Originally Posted by RMC

if it is not written down that the clearance has to be repeated when given a heading ( and it is written down that it doesn't )

Where does it say that headings don't count?


7.1 When an amendment is made to a clearance the new clearance shall be read in full to the pilot and shall automatically cancel any previous clearance. Controllers must be aware, therefore, that if the original clearance included a restriction, e.g. “cross ABC FL150 or below” then the issue of a revised clearance automatically cancels the earlier restriction, unless it is reiterated with the revised clearance.

[RMC]

Apologies - I was attempting to refer to the 30W post which said...

"Chapter 4
7. Amendments to Clearances

7.1 When an amendment is made to a clearance the new clearance shall be read in full to the pilot and shall automatically cancel any previous clearance. Controllers must be aware, therefore, that if the original clearance included a restriction, e.g. “cross ABC FL150 or below” then the issue of a revised clearance automatically cancels the earlier restriction, unless it is reiterated with the revised clearance.

7.2 Similar care must be exercised when a controller issues a clearance, which amends the vertical profile of an aircraft on an SID. For example, “climb FL120” automatically cancels the vertical profile of the SID. If the profile contains a restriction that provides vertical separation from conflicting traffic on another SID, the restriction must be reiterated, e.g. “climb FL120 cross XYZ 5000 feet or above”, unless separation is ensured by other means.

7.3 Similarly, when controllers issue instructions which amend the SID route, they are to confirm the level profile to be followed, e.g. “fly heading 095, climb FL80” or “route direct EFG, stop climb at altitude 5000 feet”.

Regards
30W"

Which appears to confirm that if you are taken off the lateral element of a published STAR by an ATC heading instruction then the original STAR altitude is not valid unless it has been reiterated?

[sambatc]

I'm a little confused. In your post I quoted originally you say it is written that the clearance doesn't have to be repeated when given a heading.

Then in your last post you say if you are given a heading then the original altitude restriction is not valid unless it has been reiterated.


For what it's worth I am of the opinion that if you are given a heading it voids the level by unless reiterated

[zonoma]

I'm going to take one last stab at this and then consider hanging my hat up for good.....!

If you are sent direct to GIBSO for the WILLO 2D and given:
1) a conditional clearance to descend FL300, expect FL270 level GIBSO
2) descend FL290
3) a heading
4) another heading
5) clearance to descend FL270 level abeam GIBSO
6) own navigation GIBSO
7) "route direct KUMIL" before reaching GIBSO
8) descend FL180 level KUMIL
9) a heading
10) own navigation KUMIL
11) descend FL130 level GWC, cross KUMIL FL180 or below
12) descend FL110 before reaching GWC.

How many of these examples do you think means you can now ignore the previous level by or expect level instruction? Are you really going to want every single example writing down saying that the heading does not cancel the level restriction be it issued or expected? If the level restrictions are required, I can see them being said SEVEN more times in my example above. Are you really expecting there to be the RTF availability (especially in the sectors concerned in this example) to say this? Not forgetting that will be SEVEN more times to multiples of aircraft, sometimes even more if it is required every time a new heading is given.

In my head, only points 7 & 12 need the level restriction repeating if they are still required.

Let's dissect Chapter 4:

7.1 When an amendment is made to a clearance the new clearance shall be read in full to the pilot and shall automatically cancel any previous clearance.

I still do not understand how a vector is an amendment to a clearance. A vector is a tool used by ATC to provide separation, where they issue headings ALONG THE AIRCRAFT ROUTE. You are still "on route" when in the confines of the airway or within 5nm of an upper air route centreline. Going down this road then when issuing a vector, ATC should be really also confirming the route or STAR still to be expected after vectoring as the new clearance shall be read in full.

RMC,

Which appears to confirm that if you are taken off the lateral element of a published STAR by an ATC heading instruction then the original STAR altitude is not valid unless it has been reiterated?

Points 7.2 and 7.3 are only for SIDs, so not part of this debate and bear no relevance. If it applied to STARs or even just overflying traffic following a route then it would be specified.

The discussion here centre's around the ATC publication, as I wrote in an earlier response, the UK AIP only says that issuing a level clearance cancels any previous level restrictions unless the previous restrictions are repeated, and nothing further.

[172_driver]

How many of these examples do you think means you can now ignore the previous level by or expect level instruction?

As before, when a heading is given the arrival is void. I go to London maybe once a month and rarely find it a problem with level adherence as you are coming in quite low with small step descents. There is always time to correct when a new level restriction is introduced at short notice. Also, in the hypothetical conversation you posted the sentiment in your controlling is in the back of your mind and regarded in your flight path management.

I still do not understand how a vector is an amendment to a clearance.

We have a fundamentally different view of headings in that case. To me a heading is definitely a new clearance as I am no longer tracking the magenta line on the navigation display and can no longer say "I am following the STAR". I don't buy the argument that being within the airway width means I am still following the STAR. I was just given a heading??

If given a heading 20 deg off my track I might want to shallow my rate of descent because to me it looks like I am going in the wrong direction. I don't know that you will give me a direct routing in the right direction within 30 seconds. In other places, the first heading means that was the last of procedural navigation. Rest of the flight until landing will be headings to final.

Lastly, documentation, whether ICAO docs or AIP, rarely keep up with reality. I understand your problem with busy frequencies. Often you just have to sit and wait for someone to call you. The ICAO lost communication is another one that worked in the 1930's with an airplane flying no higher than 5000 ft. But today??

Keep up the good work! I enjoy the night stops in London the most, if I can get down without being flamed at for a bust level restriction

[The Fat Controller]

7.1 Only gives the level restriction as an EXAMPLE !

How about this scenario?

"Climb FL150 speed no greater than 250 knots until level"

followed by

"Climb FL250"

BEFORE the aircraft has passed FL150

As I have today received my P45 and final salary advice from NATS should I retire from this thread too ?

Be nice !

[zonoma]

172 driver, thanks for that, I'm beginning to see that basically both sides see this rather differently. If given a vector and therefore no longer following the STAR, how do you manage speed control and be compliant with the speeds published on the STAR? They have to be complied with without ATC instruction. I am slightly confused though that you just relate this to being on a STAR, no documentation mentions any variances when on a STAR, only SIDs, what happens if you are given instructions before you get to a STAR? Is that different? Finally, you say if given a heading off track then you could shallow your rate as you are going in the wrong direction, does it work the other way where if you were put on a heading that was tracking you on a direct line toward GWC you would increase to meet the FL130 level GWC restriction?

TFC, in today's world that is treated in both ways, some will still keep 250kts, some will think they can now increase as you haven't reiterated the speed restriction. Even more annoying, on the new RNAV STARS there are speed restrictions that only apply for the first few points, however some fly the speed restriction to the end of the STAR, so they have been passing SAM off Gatwick as high as FL270, still doing 250kts

[172_driver]

172 driver, thanks for that, I'm beginning to see that basically both sides see this rather differently. If given a vector and therefore no longer following the STAR, how do you manage speed control and be compliant with the speeds published on the STAR? They have to be complied with without ATC instruction. I am slightly confused though that you just relate this to being on a STAR, no documentation mentions any variances when on a STAR, only SIDs, what happens if you are given instructions before you get to a STAR? Is that different? Finally, you say if given a heading off track then you could shallow your rate as you are going in the wrong direction, does it work the other way where if you were put on a heading that was tracking you on a direct line toward GWC you would increase to meet the FL130 level GWC restriction?

As I don't go to London on a daily basis I am trying to backtrack in mind here what's the normal sequence of events. With regards to speed; We're often speed controlled early on so we just maintain assigned speed. It's always LAM3A (for LHR) for me and I don't think I've come anywhere near the published SLP (Speed Limit Point) without having been given a speed already.

If the heading gives me more track miles I like to shallow RoD unless I need to meet a level restriction. If the heading shortens track miles there are few scenarios: 1) If I am below the thrust idle profile (glide profile, our optimum descent profile) I keep a reduced RoD until meeting the idle profile. Needs some mental calculations based on expected track miles - you might have heard of 3 x altitude formula. 2) If the shortened track puts me high than I can increase speed which steepens the flight trajectory 3) If shortened track puts me high but we're speed controlled then I have no choice but using the vibrator - ( also known as speed brake lever ) But no, I wouldn't automatically try to meet FL130 by GWC unless that was specifically stated with the heading instruction (i.e. fly heading 090 expect FL130 by GWC). At the same time, and it probably varies on a day to day basis for me, there's a general notion to stay ahead and predict the next move. If I see it likely I could get a direct GWC to be level at 130 I continue with a higher RoD to plan for that.

SIDs and STARs works similar in my mind. When given a SID or STAR the lateral, vertical and speed profiles apply. A heading that takes me off the SID or STAR cancels the whole thing. I would never dream of climbing above something other than a verbally acknowledged altitude. I've never liked the term "climb now". Speed restrictions at different waypoints are also cancelled when taken of the SID, since those won't be overflown anymore.

[RMC]

So in summary almost all pilots see a heading that takes us off our FMC SID or STAR magenta line as a full change of clearance which cancels any published altitude or speed restriction.

Many controllers do not see this as a change of clearance and expect pilots to adhere to these restrictions.

There is no Documentation which totally clarifies this for the STAR case.

Maybe the only way to get a definitive answer on this is for a controller to file an alt bust against a pilot and publish the supreme judgement on here (not on the SFO - LGW 29th August)😏

[zonoma]

172 driver, you can use your vibrator in my airspace anytime, there are several of the local carriers that will do anything to avoid it, but that is another thread!

On your LAM3A STAR, there are two level restrictions written to be expected. I'm sure that at least 50% of the traffic on this STAR will be vectored at some point, normally before the first restriction. Would you expect to be given both expect levels as soon as the vector is issued? The second controller who's responsibility it is to achieve the 2nd restriction will have no idea what the first controller has said, other than clearing you to be level at the first standing agreement point. Should you have been vectored by the first controller and then put back onto the STAR routing, the second controller would also not know this, but they will be expecting you to achieve their standing agreement when they so clear you. Will they be right to be expecting this or not?

The book specifies the SID issues as points 7.2 and 7.3, if it applied to all other scenarios then why make an exception and just publish as they have?

[zonoma]

RMC, it isn't something that is filed upon, when being told that the level cannot be met then coordination will follow. When it is obvious that the level MUST be met, then either very harsh vectoring or even an orbit will be the only solution.

[InSoMnIaC]

similar scenario.

you are on a SID with a 5000 or below restriction at XYZ. your clearance is climb to 7000. your intention is to stop climb at 5000 until passing XYZ however before you get to XYZ you are given a hdg (which happens to be the hdg towards XYZ)

do you level off at 5000 until passing XYZ in this case?

I would climb straight to 7000 before XYZ as I am on a vector and no longer on the SID.

[172_driver]

zonoma, while being vectored I think it's sufficient if the first controller gives his/her restriction. The second restriction we can take with next controller. An example, you're coming from the North Sea and cleared direct LOGAN for the LAM3A arrival. Before LOGAN you're told to fly heading 265 I would expect the inclusion of 'level abeam LOGAN' if you want us there. If you're done vectoring and clear us, for example, direct SABER a join the arrival would tell me that STAR restrictions now apply again. But I rarely hear that term in the UK? If you just clear us direct SABER or keep us on a heading then the next controller will have to restate the next level restrictions. Overall London works very well but I do hold on to the principle that a heading instruction nullifies any previously given arrival. Now I also know after experience (and after this thread) that the level restrictions are important so I kind of plan for them even though the terminology hasn't made it clear.

MATS Pt1 is not a document familiar to most pilots I am afraid. Is it a case where they use an SID as an example, as someone suggested?

[RMC]

Originally Posted by zonoma

RMC, it isn't something that is filed upon, when being told that the level cannot be met then coordination will follow. When it is obvious that the level MUST be met, then either very harsh vectoring or even an orbit will be the only solution.

My filing solution was just an attempt at using humour to extract something definitive from someone. The problem is that on a heading most of the guys I fly with won't say the level can't be met as they don't consider it a restriction.

Like 172 I will just continue to make the level abeam anyway ( because as stated initially I always had assumed it was a requirement).