Training pilots should not be confused by this but….
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 2
From: Sutton
Training pilots should not be confused by this but….
Hi all, Two different versions of the same scenario where a climb is issued by ATC in the UK whilst below one or more SID clearance altitudes. Can anyone advise which is up to date. I know what I believe is current but all input gratefully received as there is confusion amongst UK Training Pilots from different companies on this!
Quote from UK AIP ENR 1.1:
Quote:
3.2.2.2 When a departing aircraft on a SID is required to climb directly to the cleared level without complying with the published vertical restrictions on the SID, ATC will include the word ‘now’ in climb instructions (e.g. Jet 347 climb now FL 120).
Is it superseded by this
“ GEN 1.7-46 UNITED KINGDOM AIP27 Jun 2013 GEN 1.7 DIFFERENCES FROM ICAO STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES (continued)
Chapter 6 Separation in the vicinity of Aerodromes 6.3.2.4
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 climb directly to the cleared level, unless the SID vertical restrictions are reiterated as part of the clearance.”
Quote from UK AIP ENR 1.1:
Quote:
3.2.2.2 When a departing aircraft on a SID is required to climb directly to the cleared level without complying with the published vertical restrictions on the SID, ATC will include the word ‘now’ in climb instructions (e.g. Jet 347 climb now FL 120).
Is it superseded by this
“ GEN 1.7-46 UNITED KINGDOM AIP27 Jun 2013 GEN 1.7 DIFFERENCES FROM ICAO STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES (continued)
Chapter 6 Separation in the vicinity of Aerodromes 6.3.2.4
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 climb directly to the cleared level, unless the SID vertical restrictions are reiterated as part of the clearance.”
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 32
From: France
IMHO this whole subject makes me very anxious. The UK seem hell-bent on publishing procedures and terminology that require PhD-level linguistics. "Caution stepped climb", "Descend Flight Level two hundred, expect FL180 by TIGER", "Climb now", "Intercept the localiser", followed by "descend with the glidepath", etc, etc.
I'm now retired, but although I reckon British ATC are still the best, their procedures, airspace design, and terminology were always unnecessarily complicated.
US controllers were "good in parts", but their procedures, airspace design and terminology were mainly simple and clear.
I always thought that US controllers should spend a couple of years in the UK, to learn how to talk properly.
UK controllers should spend a couple of years in the US, to learn how to integrate IFR and VFR traffic, and accept a practice approach without having to book a day in advance.............
I'm now retired, but although I reckon British ATC are still the best, their procedures, airspace design, and terminology were always unnecessarily complicated.
US controllers were "good in parts", but their procedures, airspace design and terminology were mainly simple and clear.
I always thought that US controllers should spend a couple of years in the UK, to learn how to talk properly.
UK controllers should spend a couple of years in the US, to learn how to integrate IFR and VFR traffic, and accept a practice approach without having to book a day in advance.............
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,446
Likes: 367
From: Wildest Surrey
I'm now retired, but although I reckon British ATC are still the best, their procedures, airspace design, and terminology were always unnecessarily complicated.
I always thought that US controllers should spend a couple of years in the UK, to learn how to talk properly.
UK controllers should spend a couple of years in the US, to learn how to integrate IFR and VFR traffic, and accept a practice approach without having to book a day in advance.............
I always thought that US controllers should spend a couple of years in the UK, to learn how to talk properly.
UK controllers should spend a couple of years in the US, to learn how to integrate IFR and VFR traffic, and accept a practice approach without having to book a day in advance.............
