In Australia if an aircraft is taken off a STAR, we have to use the phraseology "cancel Star, turn right heading---". Is this not the case in Europe?

Look,

all I was saying was: if a pilot is descending (or climbing) to make a level restriction, then issued with a further descent/climb why would they deliberately not comply with the previous restriction?

ROGEROUT - please don't be sarcastic. My point wasn't as simple as "use common sense". It was part of my viewpoint.

You are right though, one clearance does cancel a previous. But I'll tell you this - I'd bet a fair amount of money that the majority of us don't always remember to restate clearances when we're working hammer and tongs.

GW

Goldfish Watcher;

The reason that a pilot wouldn't comply with the old restriction is because the restriction no longer applies. If you need them to be level at a certain place, then you MUST advise them via an updated clearance as to where you need them to be for separation purposes.

We expect pilots to tell us when they can't do something. We don't read their minds. The same goes for us. If we need something then we have to issue an appropriate clearance.

regards

YES I KNOW!. Either I'm not explaining myself clearly or you are completely missing my point.

I think I shall withdraw from this, to save us from going round in circles.

GW

Well my wife accuses me of missing the point quite often <BG>...

regards

:D

Who started this ? !
Interesting.
Many of the Alt restrictions on some STARS are well below the ideal profile. This costs fuel in thses belt tightening times. When cleared to a lower altitude ( below the restriction ) and put on a heading, I would say most Pilots would apply the 'common sense' mentioned earlier, I certainly do.
Food for thought though.

The altitudes on STARS and SIDS are for aircraft separation purposes. If there is no one in the way, then they are designed for the ease of the flight crew. When traffic is the main issue, then you do what you must to keep everyone moving and separated...

regards

Had a good one the other day. We had been cleared to a level, to be level at a certain point. So we started our descent. Then we were told to change our cleared level to a higher one and bring our speed back. Then we waited a good few minutes until we were told once again to descend and make that FL by the same point. At the time we were probably about 5 miles from the point and, oh, about 8,000 feet higher than the level restriction. We suggested to ATC at the time that it was rather unlikely we were going to make it!!

Goldfish Watcher, I am more than happy for an "expedite through FL XX". Not a problem. In the machine I fly we can choose to increase the speed to increase the rate of descent or we can give you a fixed vertical speed (ie. rate of descent), XXXX feet per minute.
The only problem for this lies in the speed. If you tell us to expedite AND reduce speed or if we are limited to say 250 knots and we're still pretty high we can't increase the rate of descent much more. We try and descend with power right back, at idle, so the only way to increase the descent is to put the nose down, which means an increase in speed, if only temporarily.

Wow, does that make any sense at all?!!

Thank you, PPRuNe Radar (from a sometimes confused pilot) for the clarification. That said, there are still (IMHO) too many occasions that ambiguity allows scope for confusion, and more importantly, mistakes and loss of separation, especially if operating into an unusual airfield (or if English is not the prime language). At the risk of increasing the RTF workload, perhaps we need something to ensure that crews are advised of any significant revision to clearance - I like the post from Check Wheels "Cancel STAR...." Anything for an easy life for both ATC and us pilots!!