"Leaving" or "Left" Altitudes (ATC'ers pls)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case that always p*****d me off when flying with guys from **** was the way they all, when cleared to a new level, always replied "Cleared 7000, leaving 8000." I would plead with them to wait until they had gone through the required ceremony of setting the new altitude, having it confirmed by the other pilot, selecting VNAV/FLChange and seeing the airplane actually start to move out of the old altitude before reporting leaving/left. I would say, "you are not actually leaving, are you? Just getting ready to do so, surely? And what happens if you select VNAV but the airplane is in ALT HOLD? Nothing will happen but you have already told ATC it is OK to let someone use our altitude, haven't you? (actually happened to me more than once, causing great grief to ATC and me!). The blank looks it earned me showed it was a waste of time trying to teach some of those yobbos what it is all about.."that's the way we have always done it!"
I had on old Airforce Wing Commander who insisted that we had to be at least 500 feet away from the old altitude, with an established rate of descent, before calling "left XXXX ft", and at the time I thought it was silly, but now I agree with it.
And never mind that in most parts of the world it is not necessary to call leaving. Clearances (such as Oceanic) will specify that you report "Reaching", and that makes more sense since separation will be based on the altitude you are currently occupying.
I guess when you get to see the belly of a 747 from real close you learn that little things can get you dead real fast.
I had on old Airforce Wing Commander who insisted that we had to be at least 500 feet away from the old altitude, with an established rate of descent, before calling "left XXXX ft", and at the time I thought it was silly, but now I agree with it.
And never mind that in most parts of the world it is not necessary to call leaving. Clearances (such as Oceanic) will specify that you report "Reaching", and that makes more sense since separation will be based on the altitude you are currently occupying.
I guess when you get to see the belly of a 747 from real close you learn that little things can get you dead real fast.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it is worth,
I checked my copy of AIP.
ENR 1.1-19, Paragraph 11.1.4
'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'
The copy on AsA's web site says the same thing.
Obviously this differs from BSD's copy in only one word but perhaps the good gentleman at Qantas is not as far off the mark as some may think.
I checked my copy of AIP.
ENR 1.1-19, Paragraph 11.1.4
'After any frequency change, pilots must advise the last assigned level and, if not maintaining the assigned level, the level maintaining or last vacated level: eg, "MELBOURNE CENTRE (CALLSIGN) CLEARED FLIGHT LEVEL TWO ONE ZERO, LEAVING FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO".'
The copy on AsA's web site says the same thing.
Obviously this differs from BSD's copy in only one word but perhaps the good gentleman at Qantas is not as far off the mark as some may think.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou GG
I will admit to being tardy by having the immediate past revision of the AIP on my computer. Time for an update!
ps Used 'Left'... ATC said TA... The capt. said ..'Leaving D!ckhead'
I will admit to being tardy by having the immediate past revision of the AIP on my computer. Time for an update!
ps Used 'Left'... ATC said TA... The capt. said ..'Leaving D!ckhead'
I've always been a "leaving" man myself. I brought it up on another thread earlier this year but was always taught to say everything in the present sense, i.e. leaving, climbing, turning, passing, lining up etc etc
Everyone has mentioned the descending case, so what about climbing. I.e.
ATC: "Qantas XX climb FL390"
Me :"Climbing FL390, leaving FL370, Qantas XX"
Is that not OK?
TL
Everyone has mentioned the descending case, so what about climbing. I.e.
ATC: "Qantas XX climb FL390"
Me :"Climbing FL390, leaving FL370, Qantas XX"
Is that not OK?
TL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checked the latest amendment and GaryGnu is spot-on.
Thankyou to all ATC'ers who replied...I've always been a "Left" person at heart but as the good book now says....
BSD has 'Leaving' the building.....
Thankyou to all ATC'ers who replied...I've always been a "Left" person at heart but as the good book now says....
BSD has 'Leaving' the building.....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
esreverlluf
Jeppesen AU-705
1.9.1.6
When making first contact with Approach Control:
b. Radar Identified - report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate, and receipt of the ATIS.
Maybe you should have a closer look!
Jeppesen AU-705
1.9.1.6
When making first contact with Approach Control:
b. Radar Identified - report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate, and receipt of the ATIS.
Maybe you should have a closer look!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Over yonder
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't care much whether you use "left" or "leaving" but definitely give a precise level when requested. If I can give you a turn out of a particular level or I'm wanting to assign a level to another aircraft then saying "approaching" isn't much good to me. And yes I do regularly separate using levels down to 100's of feet. Probably true though that it's more important in non-radar.
RI
RI
I do regularly separate using levels down to 100's of feet
Descend to 5000' is the correct Australian phrase.
As a result to avoid confusion ATC agencies worldwide adopted changes to preclude the use of the word to in altitude clearances (which parodoxically was what the KUL controller used). Oz took the opposite tact for probably for much the same reasons.
In non-English speaking countries odd bits of speech such as to are commonly left out. So the International default eliminated it also.
Perhaps we will need another “Flying Tiger” before we can agree on joining the rest of the ICAO World in standardizing ATC procedures based on the experience of others.
OVC002
Date: 19 FEB 1989
Time: 06:36
Type: Boeing 747-249F
Operator: Flying Tiger Line
Registration: N807FT
Msn / C/n: 21828/408
Year built: 1979
Total airframe hrs: 34000 hours
Cycles: 9000 cycles
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7Q
Crew: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Passengers: 0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: 12 km (7.5 mls) from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Phase: Approach (APR)
Nature: Cargo
Departure airport: Singapore
Destination airport: Kuala Lumpur-Subang Airport (KUL)
Flightnumber: 66
Narrative:
The Boeing, named "Thomas Haywood", was less than half loaded with textiles, computer software and mail when it departed Singapore. Approaching Kuala Lumpur, the crew were cleared to route direct to the Kayell (KL) beacon for a runway 33 approach. While on the NDB approach, the crew were cleared to "...descend two four zero zero..." which was interpreted by the crew as "...to 400...". The aircraft descended below minimum altitude and crashed into a hillside at 600 feet/180m msl just before reaching the Kayell NDB, where minimum descent height was 2400 feet. The Boeing hit treetops and started to break up until bursting into flames.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Non-standard phraseology was used by Kuala Lumpur ATC, causing the crew to misinterpret the instructions.
Time: 06:36
Type: Boeing 747-249F
Operator: Flying Tiger Line
Registration: N807FT
Msn / C/n: 21828/408
Year built: 1979
Total airframe hrs: 34000 hours
Cycles: 9000 cycles
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7Q
Crew: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Passengers: 0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: 12 km (7.5 mls) from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Phase: Approach (APR)
Nature: Cargo
Departure airport: Singapore
Destination airport: Kuala Lumpur-Subang Airport (KUL)
Flightnumber: 66
Narrative:
The Boeing, named "Thomas Haywood", was less than half loaded with textiles, computer software and mail when it departed Singapore. Approaching Kuala Lumpur, the crew were cleared to route direct to the Kayell (KL) beacon for a runway 33 approach. While on the NDB approach, the crew were cleared to "...descend two four zero zero..." which was interpreted by the crew as "...to 400...". The aircraft descended below minimum altitude and crashed into a hillside at 600 feet/180m msl just before reaching the Kayell NDB, where minimum descent height was 2400 feet. The Boeing hit treetops and started to break up until bursting into flames.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Non-standard phraseology was used by Kuala Lumpur ATC, causing the crew to misinterpret the instructions.
Last edited by FlexibleResponse; 27th Sep 2005 at 13:30.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can only cause a problem on the climb in oz.
"descend to one thousand feet" can only be missed as 21000'
"climb to five thousand feet" could be heard as 25000', so not a terrain issue.
"descend to one thousand feet" can only be missed as 21000'
"climb to five thousand feet" could be heard as 25000', so not a terrain issue.
descend two four zero zero..."
Ferris
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Flexible One, but if operating crew can't read their f
ing Jepps, and prefer to follow what they THINK they heard, then this profession is fed as well.
How about getting REAL on this subject!
If an aircraft suffers a rapid depressurisation and diverts LEFT of his assigned, flight planned track, then he's also going to transmit a "Pan", or a "Mayday".
LEFT is PAST tense, therefore to be chronologically correct - in the English Language terminology - one can only transmit LEFT,some time AFTER having vacated the altituide.
LEAVING - in the English Language terminology - is PRESENT tense, meaning it must be transmitted at the very moment the action is initiated.
10 seconds or more later, and you are transmitting false information!
(Was this introduced during The Dick's Reign? It sounds like the trivial sort of **** he'd think of....as a professional wannabee).
ing Jepps, and prefer to follow what they THINK they heard, then this profession is fed as well.How about getting REAL on this subject!
If an aircraft suffers a rapid depressurisation and diverts LEFT of his assigned, flight planned track, then he's also going to transmit a "Pan", or a "Mayday".
LEFT is PAST tense, therefore to be chronologically correct - in the English Language terminology - one can only transmit LEFT,some time AFTER having vacated the altituide.
LEAVING - in the English Language terminology - is PRESENT tense, meaning it must be transmitted at the very moment the action is initiated.
10 seconds or more later, and you are transmitting false information!
(Was this introduced during The Dick's Reign? It sounds like the trivial sort of **** he'd think of....as a professional wannabee).
Just to throw a spanner in the works...
What if you say "leaving" and do it within one minute Ronnie? Or commence the descent, then 50 secs later say "leaving"?
Don't the regs say that when instructed to climb or descend it must be initiated within one minute? Therefore you've got a minute up your sleeve from the moment you say you're leaving, the same way you have one minute from when you are instructed to leave. Or am I interpreting the regs a little loosely?
TL
What if you say "leaving" and do it within one minute Ronnie? Or commence the descent, then 50 secs later say "leaving"?
Don't the regs say that when instructed to climb or descend it must be initiated within one minute? Therefore you've got a minute up your sleeve from the moment you say you're leaving, the same way you have one minute from when you are instructed to leave. Or am I interpreting the regs a little loosely?
TL
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggsie
You must be spending most of your time in the comfort of Vectors and maestro infected radar comfy stuff
......
In my world (procedural App/Twr) those hundreds can mean the difference between getting following Acft below the Cloudbase on a 'Deary Me' arrival etc or to check sep with a bug smasher (class D)etc etc
soooooo........play nice and give us accurate levels......none of this approaching ****e'..............or I'll bust ya chops
True Story (no names, no pack drill)
737 departure report just the other day
..........Departed blah blah, tracking blah blah, approaching eight thousand.............the f#$ker had just left 1900ft on the TSAD (which we cannot use for altitude/mode C verification)..............getting in early for further climb is one thing but......pppppppppppppplllllease..
You must be spending most of your time in the comfort of Vectors and maestro infected radar comfy stuff
...... In my world (procedural App/Twr) those hundreds can mean the difference between getting following Acft below the Cloudbase on a 'Deary Me' arrival etc or to check sep with a bug smasher (class D)etc etc
soooooo........play nice and give us accurate levels......none of this approaching ****e'..............or I'll bust ya chops
True Story (no names, no pack drill)
737 departure report just the other day
..........Departed blah blah, tracking blah blah, approaching eight thousand.............the f#$ker had just left 1900ft on the TSAD (which we cannot use for altitude/mode C verification)..............getting in early for further climb is one thing but......pppppppppppppplllllease..
Bottums Up
Scurvey,
What if said No Name 737 was going up at > 3000 fpm? Perhaps s/he wanted to avoid the bunt as the automatics captured 8000 because if they left the call till passing 7000 there'd only be 20 seconds for onwards clearance to be issued (and of course some dill would be reading back his war and peace R/T) and by about 5 secs after reporting it'd be in capture mode.
What if said No Name 737 was going up at > 3000 fpm? Perhaps s/he wanted to avoid the bunt as the automatics captured 8000 because if they left the call till passing 7000 there'd only be 20 seconds for onwards clearance to be issued (and of course some dill would be reading back his war and peace R/T) and by about 5 secs after reporting it'd be in capture mode.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Getting there..!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleeeease... listen to you guys..
it is absolutely painful to read all the drivel on this thread. Im outta here (bit like leaving but not left) and Im not a labor supporter.
listen to you guys.. it is absolutely painful to read all the drivel on this thread. Im outta here (bit like leaving but not left) and Im not a labor supporter.