1500fpm OR GREATER
 

What's the thing with "or greater" added to the rate, speed instead of "or more", as it was taught to be standard a while ago.

I am talking mostly about EDDM ATC, but it is getting hold at other centers, too (swiss).

Of course it had been used in the US forever, but then, they aren't using standard phraseology anyways.

Was there a change in the regulations I missed?

Nic

Hi!


Opensightly :-)

Since at least two years you, me and all me colleagues have to say "or greater", it doesn´t matter if it is in a clearance for climb/descent or in a speed restriction!


P.S. I am talking about German ATC

Ok, thank you for advising me.

I will stop using the old "or more", or at least I will try hard.

Do you know, by any chance, where I could read up on the latest standards? I tried the DFS website, but it's not very helpful...

Nic

I have to say I've been using "or greater" for a while since it appears to sound more clear than "or more" on the frequency

For what it's worth, a clearance regarding rate of climb in the US is not a legal clearance. The only way around it is to issue a crossing restriction of the NAVAID being used or a time clearance. The time clearance is cumbersome and complicated, therefore, rarely used.

In other countries is a rate of climb a legit clearance?

Of course, its the only way to get them seperated in our crowded sky!

We use it (and I think I can speak for all ATCOs in central-europe) all over the time! No way to provide seperation without using rates!


You don`t use rate restrictions in a climb/descent clearance?

We give rates of climb and descent all the time. We add the 'or greater' to be not to restrictive. If I need 1500fpm for separation, why would I restrict a pilot would normally use with 2000fpm. But at least I am covered.

If we need a rate to make a restriction I often use time instead. eg, descend FLXXX, be level in 4 minutes.

What we use and what is legal are 2 separate things.

We cannot use a rate of climb/descent. We cannot say 'be at or above/below/level in X minutes'.

We can issue a time clearance off the clock, but a time check must be simultaneously issued using quarter minutes.
ie:
'ABC123 climb and maintain FL350, be at or above FL330 by one two three zero (1230), time now one two two seven and three quarters (12:27:45)'

That is the only legit US ATC way.

Admiral346,

Why you slamming us American controllers?

Quote:

What's the thing with "or greater" added to the rate, speed instead of "or more", as it was taught to be standard a while ago.

I am talking mostly about EDDM ATC, but it is getting hold at other centers, too (swiss).

Of course it had been used in the US forever, but then, they aren't using standard phraseology anyways.

Was there a change in the regulations I missed?

Nic

@ISaidRightTurn:

We are allowed to use climb/descent rates. Its legal over here (speaking for Germany). Thank god ;)

I don't think he is saying anything about the US controllers. Everyone knows we're as busy and professional as anywhere else. I think he is referring to our practice of ignoring ICAO standard. I agree with him on that point, but the FAA is trying to become more standardized to ICAO practices. The changes aren't going to stop at flight plans and SMS.

ISaidRightTurns>

Without any offence to US controllers, jusk asking...
I think plenty of us cannot imagine how you manage to separate those huge amounts of aircraft without assigning vertical speed. It seems almost impossible looking at "standard" European radar situation.

Some of the instructors who work at the training center here in the Czech Rep. (German, Swedish, and other) also think that rates of climb/descend are nowadays being overused. However, I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of "how to do it without it" from them - could you give us some insight on this?


MunichACC>
By the way - I hope I am not mistaken but I think ICAO only allows to assign vertical speeds if the aircraft are on the same route, i.e.
- A/C1 descend FL240 rate 1500 ft/min or greater
- A/C2 descend FL250 rate 1500 ft/min or less
However, in reality it is normally used as a means of ensuring separation on crossing tracks (to get a climber above an overflight or so).

How come? :-)

Plenty of US enroute/terminal controllers use climb or descent rates/FPM when trying to separate acft. But as mentioned before it is not a legal clearance here in the USA. I have seen a couple of controllers buy a separation error aka deal when using this procedure.
It is really easy to use a navaid or point in space to cross since most aircraft have better equipment then we use. Even a time to climb/descend clearance works well and as long as you learn the phraseology, just keep in mind the winds aloft.

For Isaidrightturns : you are probably right that he wasn't slamming us, I just read it after working busy sectors all day with weather and a new culture being implemented here...Regards CZHU

Sirinx>
I have to check this up. I thought there are no differences between same routing and crossing tracks. Wouldnt make sense, would it? But on the otherhand, that wouldnt be the first senseless regulation. ;)