Descend via STAR/climb via SID
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be hard to find a more stupid/redundant load of pointless gab when our normal clearance contains the Star/Sid already in it, Nav Canada should have known better than go along with this nonsense!
Any positive feedback?
This crap is about to be introduced in Australia, I have never seen so much confusion amongst my fellow colleagues before! Seriously I thought our job was to keep our intstructions as unambiguous as possible, this seem to fly in the face of that. Is there anyone out there that is now using this new format who thinks it's an improvement? I just think this will cause more problems then it may solve.
The bulk of the SIDS/STARs I fly in the US are climb/descend via. There’s a learning curve to be sure, but I have no issue with them. You simply have to listen closely to the phraseology.
A lot of the noise is pilots b!tching about change which is never accepted without appropriate amounts of complaining first.
A lot of the noise is pilots b!tching about change which is never accepted without appropriate amounts of complaining first.
The ridiculous thing is in Australia it's fixing a problem that just doesn't exist - we're being forced to adopt ridiculously verbose, redundant and repetitive phraseologies to fix someone else's problems when it could all be handled by a few words on SID and STAR plates, and something written in AIP.
What country/region has a problem with a pilots not being able to fly SIDs and STARs?
What country/region has a problem with a pilots not being able to fly SIDs and STARs?
Pity the CBT training provided to the ATCs around the country hasn't been provided to the pilot fraternity.
Also, this change would have worked much better if there had been a EUROCAT changes to support Descend from TOD via STAR to 3000ft. Can't be done with current technologies, OneSky maybe but I doubt it.
Also, this change would have worked much better if there had been a EUROCAT changes to support Descend from TOD via STAR to 3000ft. Can't be done with current technologies, OneSky maybe but I doubt it.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many ambiguities exist because every country knows better than another and files 'differences'. These can easily become quite dangerous and the 'climb/descend via' can help to reduce these problems.
As an example: imagine in the UK there is an SID with a 3000B restriction on it. ATC clears you to climb to FL 90. You can now ignore the 3000' restriction unless ATC restate the requirement. Now we go to the USA where a similar SID exists and ATC tell you to climb to 9000'. This time you'd better not ignore the 3000B unless ATC tells you you're unrestricted.
I've obviously over-simplified things but it is easy to see where individual countries' differences can cause a problem; especially when you're on the back of the clock and can't remember if country A does it this way, while country B does it another.
Climb via the SID is easy to understand. 'Climb' is easy to understand. I don't see where the problems are.
As an example: imagine in the UK there is an SID with a 3000B restriction on it. ATC clears you to climb to FL 90. You can now ignore the 3000' restriction unless ATC restate the requirement. Now we go to the USA where a similar SID exists and ATC tell you to climb to 9000'. This time you'd better not ignore the 3000B unless ATC tells you you're unrestricted.
I've obviously over-simplified things but it is easy to see where individual countries' differences can cause a problem; especially when you're on the back of the clock and can't remember if country A does it this way, while country B does it another.
Climb via the SID is easy to understand. 'Climb' is easy to understand. I don't see where the problems are.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would all be much easier to bear if aircraft were designed to have two different cleared levels, without relying absolutely on VNAV. They’re not. As such, the procedure makes no sense, no matter how convenient it may be for ATC. Relying on VNAV deprives the pilot of the ability to step down the automation hierarchy, which is at odds with conventional wisdom, that he should be ready to step down that hierarchy at any moment.
I’m genuinely astonished that this whole thing hasn’t been binned. That it hasn’t, gives me grave concern about the wisdom being exercised by those involved, and in particular, their awareness of how automatic flight systems work.
I’m genuinely astonished that this whole thing hasn’t been binned. That it hasn’t, gives me grave concern about the wisdom being exercised by those involved, and in particular, their awareness of how automatic flight systems work.
Last edited by B737C525; 7th Nov 2017 at 16:46.
