Level Restrictions Question
 

Does anyone know the law with regard to FL restrictions that aren't restated on handover?
For example:
''G-ABCD, climb flight level 210 be level by GASKO''
''[readback]''
---frequency change---
''Manchester, G-ABCD climbing flight level 210 level by GAGKO''
''G-ABCD, climb flight level 280''
''[readback]''
Does the FL210 by GASKO still apply?
I realise common sense dictates that it does, and yes, I have looked in CAP413 and have found nothing to suggest the restriction is erased, nevertheless, such a number of people have said it is erased that I thought I'd ask our illustrious controllers.

Since I have never used books during the work, I am not able to give answer with references , but what is going on in operational work.
If you received conditional clearance:Climb to FL 210 to be FL210 before POINT, it means that accepting unit gave such conditional clearance to transfering unit , or it could be part of standard procedures between two units. Once when you have been transfered to accepting unit ATCO is able to change level( or route) because you are just entering his/her airspace and current traffic conditions allow it. And of course you have to follow new clearance , not previous one.

This must be about the third time this question has been asked in the last few months!:)
A search of the threads will find you every answer going on this one.
The definitive answer in the UK, is that an ATC clearance cancels all previous clearances. If the controller wants you to comply with a previous restriction then it must be restated in the clearance.
That said a lot of pilots will comply with the previous restriction even when it has not been restated and a lot of UK controllers think that the previous restriction still applies....
My advice is: if in doubt ask!

Ok I will have to disagree with the previous 2 posts. If a previous controller for example tells you to descend FL280 and to cross a point FL310 or below, and then transfers you to me, and I then give you continuous descent to FL150, I would still expect you to meet the previous restriction because it hasn't been specifically cancelled. If I give an amended clearance that clearly precludes you from meeting that restriction, ie. Stop descent FL330, then obviously restriction is cancelled.

Just my opinion a restriction to cross, just like an ATC requirement is only cancelled through specific cancellation not just because you have been given an onwards subsequent clearance. We have a standard height restriction on one of our major inbound routes to Dubai, and if we had to reiterate the restriction to every inbound flight when we further descent we would go under in a second. Just my opinion.

Crazy as it sounds AirNo you are incorrect:ugh::ugh:

At present a clearance automatically cancels any level restriction already imposed. I am at present trying to push for a change in the UK that will require a specific instruction to cancel any previous instruction with regard to level restrictions-but it isn't easy getting anyone to listen.

Just the mere fact that this subject is raised every few months just goes to prove the degree of uncertainty that exists.

Well in Oz...
 

Downunder a requirement or restriction once imposed requires compliance; unless it is specifically cancelled or amended; or a further restriction or requirement is imposed.

From our AIP:

Why would you want the UK to do it different from ICAO and file yet another difference ?? We have a busy piece of international airspace with international carriers, not to mention lots of pilots who are not necessarily from the UK but flying UK registered aircraft, using it. Having our 'rules' 180 degrees out from the international norm is crazy, and setting up someone for a nasty. We have far too many 'differences' filed as it is IMHO.

If you can't restate the restriction because you're too busy on the RT, then delay the instruction till you sure the aircraft will comply by default anyway. Or file an overload since you don't have enough RT time to manage the sector properly.

The UK changed some years ago to a clear and unambiguous position on restrictions vs. reclearances, which fitted in with ICAO, precisely to remove doubt. It's in the UK AIP in black and white, and has been published in various internal UK NATS documents as well as UK CAA ones. Some folks seem in denial (in the UK) or are not up to speed on the procedure. That's an issue for their competency checker methinks ;)

I think your AIP is open to interpretation. In isolation, the quoted piece doesn't read well. Is a 'requirement' the same as a clearance or reclearance ??

Ok so lets be clear here, if a pilot is told to meet a requirement to cross "SMACK" at or above FL310 when climbing FL350, and is then transferred to another frequency which is before reaching "SMACK", and then on the new frequency the pilot requests further climb to FL370, and the controller approves further climb to FL370, that further climb clearance cancels the requirement to make FL310 X "SMACK". Well thats just great! :eek:

I was trained in Oz and I for one think ICAO should change to our way of doing things cos the OZ way seems a hell of a lot safer IMHO.

Working in an airspace here in the Gulf where everybody is from everywhere, I do find at least 90% of pilots will meet a previously stated requirement even when recleared to a lower/higher level. I guess they were all trained in Oz, or they just do it cos they want to go home that night.

I gotta say the AIP reads fine to me. Why does a requirement have to be a clearance or a reclearance. It is neither. A requirement is a restriction placed on an aircraft to be at a certain height/speed at a certain point in time or space. A clearance or reclearance is telling the aircraft how to get from A to B and how high or low they can go.

Maybe I am wrong but I still don't think what you guys are saying is right from a common sense or more importantly safety point of view.

Does the FL 210 by GASKO still apply?

My answer is definitely NOT.

As for a US controller point of view, if the restriction is still required it must be restated.

I'm with ANSA on this one. The reason for an intermediate level requirement or restriction doesn't vapourise into thin air just because a pilot decides that his/her aircraft can go another 2000FT higher than the current, cleared level.

If the pilot requests, and is cleared for additional climb, logic would suggest that this has in no way changed the situation that required the intermediate level requirement/restriction.

Controllers are conservative by nature and will defend the Status Quo in the face of logic and reason to the contrary, but surely people can see the danger in allowing this one to continue?

250 kts, keep on this one.

Vote 1: ANSO and QUOKKA
 

I am with these guys on this one but I go one further and have done this for a long time now. I always restate the requirement by saying....."RE-CLEARED FL...WITH THE REQUIREMENT....." so that I know it will be met if that is what I want. Personally I just don't leave anything to chance anymore. Requirements or restrictions of any sort are not cancelled unless specifically instructed by the controller unless such documentation exists that states otherwise. For example a Visual Approach cancels any speed requirements or restrictions in some countries or it's ICAO or whatever!!!!!!!!!:ugh:

Again I guess I am backing the losing horse in this race but I am going to keep whipping anyway.

I assume that in the case of an aircraft advising they have changed their destination, and so need to change their routing in 3 waypoints time, that that is a reclearing of the aircraft. That then means that any and all restrictions/requirements that were placed on that aircraft at the unaffected, unchanged preceding 2 waypoints have to be restated or they cease to exist?

Sorry guys, I can't see how this is a better system. A requirement is so important in our line of work that the only way it should be cancelled is by specifically cancelling it. No ambiguity there, it stays until the ATCO says otherwise.

And another one, and this one is a daily if not hourly one here. I have an aircraft on a heading, and I have issued a requirement to maintain a climb rate of 1,500 ft a minute or greater until through FL240 due crossing. Another converging aircraft departs and so I need to change the heading of the aircraft with the climb requirement. I have now recleared this aircraft and you're telling me I need to restate the climb rate requirement or he will resume own rate of climb????? Say it aint so!

I am still with you on this I just restate the requirement by saying....."WITH THE REQUIREMENT" Only because I am sick of being questioned.....confirm maintain blah blah blah!!! I do see it from a pilots point of view because I have seen too many times, a controller forgetting to cancel the requirement/restriction and the pilot has to ask.

We are all in this crazy line of work together so er on the side of safety and none of us should go wrong. Egotistically deciding something like a requirement/restriction is no longer required for whatever reason other than formalised documentation in place, is just stupidity and it will bite you on the ass.:=

V8,

Unfortunately, I have to do the same as you, although worded slightly differently:

"blah blah blah...the requirement still applies".

I am not saying that a controller shouldn't restate a requirement if it gives warm and fuzzy feelings all round, what I think is though it is a safety issue that a requirement should not be cancelled by default, but have to be specifically cancelled.

I mean if you need another example, I am vectoring a gaggle of aircraft for spacing, I have reduced everyone back to 250 kts and as I take the aircraft off the headings and route them direct to the arrivals gate to pick up the STAR each of those aircraft can disregard my restriction to maintain 250 kts IAS and fly whatever speed they like now cos I have recleared them. Yeh that is a workable situation :ugh::ugh:

AirNo - Although I can understand your original argument I think you have gone a bit off track - the question relates to a change in the specific item of the instruction which had the said restriction (If my English makes sense!!)

i.e. If a level restriction was given and another level instruction is issued does previous level restriction still imply?

NOT does a heading change alter a speed restriction as you state!!

My 2dhms worth!!

Ok Neptune, so does this qualify. You give an aircraft a requirement to be FL310 or above by time 32. The aircraft is transferred at time 25. The next controller gives the aircraft an amended route, eg. some track shortening. Does the original level requirement stand under your rules?

If it doesn't I think that is bonkers.

If it still does, why doesn't a route change cancel a level requirement, when further climb above and beyond the original required level does cancel the original requirement. I am trying to point out the grey areas in what PPRune Radar said was a black and white rule.

I would have thought the rule that a requirement can only be cancelled by specifically cancelling it would have been more black and white.

ANSA
I think you're introducing grey where there isn't any.

If you revise a routeing profile (either by heading or new waypoints), then that doesn't automatically amend the aircraft's vertical profile and stated restrictions (although see the SID example below), nor does it amend any imposed speed. The only problem it might introduce is if the aircraft is no longer routeing via a waypoint where you have specified a level restriction since the pilot is no longer going there. You can set up a new restriction either as an 'abeam' or a distance from a waypoint in that case if you still need it.

If you revise a speed profile, then it doesn't change anything in respect of a previously issued routeing or level. Why would it ??

If you revise a vertical profile, then it doesn't change the aircraft's cleared route or speed. Again, why would it ??

As controllerzhu confirms, the procedure is used and, I personally think, works pretty well in the busiest aviation nation on earth, and I also believe it works fine in the UK, which has it's busy bits of sky as well.

From a recent UK CAA Ops Notice to pilots:

Well I will let PPRuNe Radar come back with his response for your specific question but my take on the subject in general is as follows...

Because the pilots are questioning if relative restrictions still apply to new clearances, if there is a chance of either mis-understanding or assumption on the part of the pilot, then the controller should re-state that the restriction still applies, if that restriction is still what the controller wants, or say that the restriction is lifted if the controller does not require it anymore.

Also if the pilot is in doubt and the controller has not made it clear, then the pilot should ask for clarification.

As we all know, we all have to go above and beyond the required procedures on occasion, so to save the necks of all concerned, make it crystal clear what you want.

This phrase is what I was getting at. You choose to put that only into the context of if the level is changed any other level restrictions are cancelled unless restated in the new clearance. The phrase above clearly states that when issued with a new clearance the clearance cancels any previous clearance. That said as I outlined in my examples, does that mean that any restrictions that were issued as part of that original clearance are cancelled along with the clearance.

Example. ABC cleared DESDI for the DESDI 4V arrival descend FL150, speed on the descent not above 270 kts Indicated.

Next call is ABC you are now recleared direct to UKRUM for the ILS RWY 12L, descend A100 QNH 1012.

As far as your quote from the UK CAA Ops Notice to pilots, says subsequent clearance cancels previous clearance. Does that also cancel the speed restriction that was part of the original clearance?

BTW I still think in the case given where,
that the restriction is automatically cancelled, is crazy and in my opinion open to errors by pilots and controllers alike.

Also I don't appreciate the condascending tone about the amount of traffic in someones airspace. We all have our unique challenges and the airspace around Dubai has more than its fair share. Try working with the Iranians for a few days and see how you get on.

For Neptune, maybe the alternative (since the existence of this need for clarification means that despite what PPRune Radar says this isn't black and white for everybody) is to make the whole situation crystal clear for everyone by making it that any requirement but me specifically cancelled by a controller otherwise it continues to be required. Seems pretty crystal clear to me.

That's not what I was getting at, and I suspect you know it deep down. :) I was trying to illustrate that the practice of having to restate a restriction seems not to be an unacheivable burden in parts of the world where traffic densities are high, and so where you might expect the procedure to be unworkable. So it can probably work in other areas too (which have their own local problems as you allude - but unconnected with this debate). The US invented aviation (in the form of mass transport we know today), so if they invented something that works and ain't broke, why fix it ??

I still think folks are losing sight of the fact that a clearance has up to 4 elements which are not intrinsically linked (unless a link is stated as part of a specific condition) - namely vertical profile, horizontal profile, speed profile, and time constraints. If you change one element, you only change that element in the reclearance, the rest remains the same (unless you have linked it to another element and then it requires restating or amending).

Otherwise, if we take the logic of a reclearance being everything previous is null and void, we would have aircraft routeing direct to their terminal fix and climbing/descending as they wished simply because we told them there was no ATC speed restriction on departure !!!

You talk about the 4 elements of a clearance, and if you change the specific element that relates to the restriction then that restriciton is cancelled. That isn't what your own advice to pilots says. It says that if you reclear an aircraft restrictions relating to the previous clearance are cancelled.

Above and beyond that, please tell me the logic of a rule where you have a restriction due to crossing aircraft at FL210, so you give a requirement to be FL220 by a time/place. The aircraft is climbed to FL270, then FL290, and then FL310 as the upper levels become available, all while the aircraft is still in the FL's below the crossing problem. Why does it make sense that while you are not changing a level that has anything to do with the segment of the flight trajectory that the restriction relates to, that restriction keeps getting cancelled and having to be restated? It keeps getting said that this works and so the rest of the world can and should do it this way. Do you think you could open your mind to a different way of operating and even just consider that there are others out there that may have a better way of doing things. I am certainly not saying that Australia or Australian controllers have the answer to everything and do everything as efficiently as they could, but just maybe on this one, they have something.

Here is a SID: " After departure RWY36, maintain runway heading to 5DME ABV, turn left heading 300 to intercept R340 ABV outbound. Climb to FL080 and cross 15DME ABV FL040 or above. At 25DME ABV set course as per flightplan. "

So on first contact you identify the aircraft and clear the aircraft to climb FL120. Does this automatically negate the requirement to "...cross 15DME ABV FL040 or above."?

Certainly YES unless the controller says ''proceed as cleared''.

Irrespective of the reason for the restriction on the the SID?

As cleared by who, the SID or the ATC?

Bottom line:

A responsible controller would re-itterate if it's still required.

A responsible pilot would either meet the restriction anyway, or inquire to the new controller.


Simple, safe, and easy, no need for discussion really.

Thats bollocks CDN. There is a need for a discussion because certain parts of the world do it one way and other parts do it another way. Just cos ICAO have their tea parties in Montreal doesn't mean they are always right.
All I get in response to my questions as to why a requirement to get an aircraft above a crossing aircraft at FL150 should be cancelled by a revised final cleared level of FL350 to FL370 is that "That is just the way it is".
My answer is no, that is not the way it is everywhere, and IMHO it shouldn't be that way anywhere cos it is plain stupid and makes no sense.

Bottom line, a responsible Air Navigation Service provider will ensure that an ATC requirement is cancelled specifically rather than cancelled by default due to a revised clearance.

I think you can make a case for either way of doing things and there's certainly no lack of respect for the Oz way. It's just that I think the other way is more cast iron because I know the restriction is cancelled and will either not be adhered to, as expected, or alternatively the pilot might adhere to the restriction anyway which will be no big deal. The other benefit is there are more airspace users throughout the world used to doing it this way. The problem with assuming that the restriction will still be adhered to with the other method is that some pilots won't, because they have not been trained to do so. This might end up with you getting egg on your face.

The bottom line is that we should standardise things so that pilots know what to do, wherever they are from. If the standard is 180 degrees out from what I personally would like then I either live with it, or live with it in the meantime and try to get it changed through the appropriate channels. But any change is going to take a long time and a lot of debate and lobbying if you want to change the world who might all prefer the current way of doing things anyway.

BlueSkye, I meant ''as cleared'' by the previous ATC.

PPRuNe, in your notice in post #20 under amendments, it mentions that the vertical profile of the SID is cancelled if you climb the traffic above the "SID FL." In your books this provides ample opportunity for a mess. A SID is designed so as to keep you clear of inter alia, other SIDs, STARs, other airspaces and the big daddy, terrain. It also provides guidance in radio failure procedures and cuts R/T time.

I am perfectly happy with the fact that when you issue a heading before the SID is completed, the entire SID is cancelled. In this case ATC would then be responsible for terrain clearance, which was provided for in the SID. What does not sit well with me is the part where you give a climb instruction and then the vertical profile is also cancelled. Lets go further, if the vertical profile is cancelled why not just cancel the whole thing and upon receiving climb (as mentioned earlier), route direct to your first waypoint.

To say "Comply with SID and climb to FL120" would be a contradiction, because the SID clears you to FL080. Semantics, maybe, but this is suppose to be black and white.

What if you are in a procedural environment? Then you must wait for the aircraft to level of at the end of the SID before giving further climb? Or report passing the built in vertical profile level before issuing further climb? If you do climb the aircraft higher on first contact and the pilot disregards the vertical profile and fly into high terrain, then what?

The question I guess is, which parts do you adhere to and which parts do you disregard? Do you as a controller assume that he will comply with part of the SID, half of it or all of it? Where is the line and do you always have the time to consider these possibilities?

Sorry, but the UK way leaves way to many unanswered questions.

One more thing,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is exactly my point. If your clearance contains a clearance limit with a vertical profile requirement at point XYZ and you change only the clearance limit, then the requirement does not change. The vertical profile is linked to XYZ not the clearance limit.

Obviously if the clearance limit changes to either above or below the profile requirement, the restriction becomes null and void. If a route reclearance is given that omits XYZ from the route, then the vertical profile restriction is cancelled because XYZ was the link to the vertical requirement.

My head is going to explode, good night.

Amendment to ICAO
 

Does this now mean that SIDs, STARs or other 'plated' procedures must be complied with as the levels/restrictions etc. aren't issued over "air-ground comms"?

Thoughts?

Has the UK updated your procedures/doc yet?

Also see this link