Selection of Levels in Controlled Airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selection of Levels in Controlled Airspace
Has anyone noticed the subtle change recently introduced into the AIP re selection of levels in controlled airspace (ref AIP ENR 1.7-6 para 3.1.2.1)?
Under para 3.1.2, it is clear that pilots can request a level not conforming to the Table of Cruising Levels and ATC are authorised to assign non-standard levels.
Previously para 3.1.2.1 stated:
However, in a recent amendment to the AIP, this paragraph has now been amended to:
To my mind this recent amendment to para 3.1.2.1 would appear to prevent a pilot, who wishes to simply achieve a more efficient fuel burn, from requesting a non-standard level unless the standard level is so fuel inefficient that the pilot runs a real risk of running out of fuel. Does this recent amendment really prevent the PIC of, say, a B747 flying from SYD to BKK from requesting a non-standard level simply to achieve improved fuel economy? Is my interpretation correct?
I would be interested in other pilot or ATC viewpoints on this issue.
Under para 3.1.2, it is clear that pilots can request a level not conforming to the Table of Cruising Levels and ATC are authorised to assign non-standard levels.
Previously para 3.1.2.1 stated:
Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is an operational requirement. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.
Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.
I would be interested in other pilot or ATC viewpoints on this issue.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I request them and get them offered to avoid weather quite a bit, and ATC are very willing to agree.
As for Jets in busier airways, maybe this has been getting too messy and to likely to have a conflict like the one in the report recently over Victoria (even if that was not the cause in that incident).
J
As for Jets in busier airways, maybe this has been getting too messy and to likely to have a conflict like the one in the report recently over Victoria (even if that was not the cause in that incident).
J
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pretty specific:
"Reducing fuel burn" is not essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants and you can't say you're going to run out if you don't get it, so that doesn't qualify.
determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of flight and its occupants.
"Reducing fuel burn" is not essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants and you can't say you're going to run out if you don't get it, so that doesn't qualify.
After the Brazil midair, I surmise that the people in charge had a rethink about the appropriateness of routinely cruising at non-standard levels.
The previous AIP amendment was an attempt to get the message across. One that was pretty obvious, I thought, but which was being routinely flouted in the name of saving a few kilos of gas. But no, those lacking in commonsense ie the enviro-nazis needed more a pointed message, so this amendment is the result.
Safety=1, Environment=2
The previous AIP amendment was an attempt to get the message across. One that was pretty obvious, I thought, but which was being routinely flouted in the name of saving a few kilos of gas. But no, those lacking in commonsense ie the enviro-nazis needed more a pointed message, so this amendment is the result.
Safety=1, Environment=2
I fly non-standard levels quite regularly - for a variety of reasons (weather, comms, winds, too lazy to change - especially for just a short dogleg in my track). I request them, ATC either approve the request or they don't. If being non-standard brings me into potential conflict with someone flying the standard, I am happy to return to a standard level even if it means a rough ride.
Never had a hint from ATC that it was a problem. Hard to see an issue - especially if you are on radar and (or) in two-way comms.
Forkair SOPs say "Fly as high as practical at all times"! I guess belting in an out of the tops of Cu, or staying out of cloud (when above the freezing level) could be construed as a safety issue.
Dr
Never had a hint from ATC that it was a problem. Hard to see an issue - especially if you are on radar and (or) in two-way comms.
Forkair SOPs say "Fly as high as practical at all times"! I guess belting in an out of the tops of Cu, or staying out of cloud (when above the freezing level) could be construed as a safety issue.
Dr
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to see an issue - especially if you are on radar and (or) in two-way comms.
I guess belting in an out of the tops of Cu, or staying out of cloud (when above the freezing level) could be construed as a safety issue.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard levels will ALWAYS be a defence for pilot and controller. Having said that there are some pretty nasty traps for the inexperienced or un-alert when both aircraft in a possible confliction are at standard levels.
For pilot and controller it is wise to be extra vigilant when you are at a non-standard or assign a non standard level.
In the end a non-standard level request could always be justified as an operational requirement couldn't it?......................
For pilot and controller it is wise to be extra vigilant when you are at a non-standard or assign a non standard level.
In the end a non-standard level request could always be justified as an operational requirement couldn't it?......................
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand standard levels in procedural/non-radar airspace, but radar airspace, c'mon!!!! If you cant see a confliction coming then you need a bit of remedial training in planning, me thinks.
Thats what radar is for and tieing everyones hands behind there back is defeating the object, just trying to make radar airspace as bad as non-radar .
Its a pants rule, and even standard levels arent a cure for all the ills. My airspace has several crossing tracks where the crossing levels are either both even or both odd. And one northbound (SY-RJAA) changes direction about 4 times, supposed to change level 4 times, I dont think so.
On the other hand, If its busy or a lot weather avoidance going on dont bother asking for non-standard levels unless absolutely essential. Because I aint gonna scan the next airspace along for conflictions at the non-standard level when Im working my ass off!
I'm sure a million & one 'bookies' will shoot me down in flames but hey-ho, tell someone who cares
I have radar let me use it to its potential....
I think it was brought in just because there wasnt enough R/T & co-ordination already and was felt a 10min conversation on the air about if its operationally required, why it is & when a standard level can be taken was just what the doctor ordered.
Rant over
Thats what radar is for and tieing everyones hands behind there back is defeating the object, just trying to make radar airspace as bad as non-radar .
Its a pants rule, and even standard levels arent a cure for all the ills. My airspace has several crossing tracks where the crossing levels are either both even or both odd. And one northbound (SY-RJAA) changes direction about 4 times, supposed to change level 4 times, I dont think so.
On the other hand, If its busy or a lot weather avoidance going on dont bother asking for non-standard levels unless absolutely essential. Because I aint gonna scan the next airspace along for conflictions at the non-standard level when Im working my ass off!
I'm sure a million & one 'bookies' will shoot me down in flames but hey-ho, tell someone who cares
I have radar let me use it to its potential....
I think it was brought in just because there wasnt enough R/T & co-ordination already and was felt a 10min conversation on the air about if its operationally required, why it is & when a standard level can be taken was just what the doctor ordered.
Rant over
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor, agree, on the same page
I've never knocked back a non-standard request, (barring a confliction). An adjoining sector does regularly though.
Just saying though, if they are to be used, keep an ear out
I've never knocked back a non-standard request, (barring a confliction). An adjoining sector does regularly though.
Just saying though, if they are to be used, keep an ear out
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was in incident north of CNS a year or so back where ATC failed to give traffic to both aircraft at the same level nose to nose. If one controller involved had not realised it as a conflict close to the FIA boundary, and issued a last second traffic advisory, it is likely the pitot tubes would have met courtesy of GPS! One of the wash up items from this is that there was no specific phraseology to alert the controller that operations were to be conducted at a non-standard level! One of the fall back comments from ASA was that the controller was there to provide a service to high level traffic in Class C and only to IFR in Class G subject to workload! I wonder what the coroner would have said at the subsequent inquiry on that one? I think the system would have changed big time! This amendment will hopefully provide a mitigator against this sort of incident in the future. Standard levels are a safeguard and use of non-standard levels increases risk, no matter how good the radar coverage and the co-ord.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The history of this pre-dates any of the incidents mentioned. The instruction has been in MATS (Manual of Air Traffic Services, the ATC bible) for a significant period of time prior to its inclusion in AIP. I understand the instruction originated from the ASA Board in response to an incident with an aircraft at a non-standard level. The original wording was poor and ill defined. It was promptly ignored by nearly all ATCs. A year or so ago it came to the attention of the powers that be that the instruction was ignored almost universally and they started to push onto the checkies that it had to be adhered to. The checkies pushed back that there was no equivalent instruction in AIP and it was unfair to expect pilots to comply with a rule that wasn't in AIP and we didn't wan't to have to "educate" everytime there was a request for a non-standard level, particularly with international crews who wouldn't have something so stupid in their own countries. The push from the checkies at the time was to include in AIP something like 'you should only request a non-standard level if you operationally require it" If you requested a NS-level this was implicit and hence it would have got rid of the stupid "confirm it is an operational requirement" BS we have today.
The irony of all this is that we are permitted to "assign NS-levels if traffic or other circumstances warrant it". So this means I can assign a NS-level if you are in conflict with another aircraft but I can't if you are not in conflict with another aircraft.
The irony of all this is that we are permitted to "assign NS-levels if traffic or other circumstances warrant it". So this means I can assign a NS-level if you are in conflict with another aircraft but I can't if you are not in conflict with another aircraft.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
What about those many occassions when routes conflict at the standard level? Have a look at the BN-ML-BN routes and the RI-NBR or MDG/WLG WLG/SCO routes.
ASA have had a 'fixation' on standardisation for quite a while now. The fact that in a dynamic environment there is no one size fits all
As long as a pilot appends 'Operational Requirement' I don't ask questions. However I am now required to ask when they will be able to resume a standard level.
And having just read willadvises' post, what he/she said.
Standard levels are a safeguard and use of non-standard levels increases risk, no matter how good the radar coverage and the co-ord.
ASA have had a 'fixation' on standardisation for quite a while now. The fact that in a dynamic environment there is no one size fits all
As long as a pilot appends 'Operational Requirement' I don't ask questions. However I am now required to ask when they will be able to resume a standard level.
And having just read willadvises' post, what he/she said.
The history of this pre-dates any of the incidents mentioned.
I assume that this is all directed towards unsurveilled airspace and procedural control, of which we have a lot. Pretty hard to see a midair occurring when radar or ADSB-identified; if the transponder gets turned/bumped off, then I assume TARTS goes bananas if it previously had the aircraft IDed but then loses it?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No alarms, just a change in the way your symbol is displayed on the screen. You get to know where in your airspace you should have radar/ADSB coverage and will notice it (and it varies daily even though in theory it probably shouldn't).
Still nothing stopping us requesting block levels?
Also,
Let's just timetable it so no two aircraft are in one place at one time - should mean we can get rid of ATC all together - imagine the cost savings!!!!1!11!!one
Also,
Originally Posted by max1
ASA have had a 'fixation' on standardisation for quite a while now. The fact that in a dynamic environment there is no one size fits all
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent a few years in ATC, to my knowledge most of the nearest things to MACs in procedural CTA have been due to pilots requesting and receiving non-standard levels. In the 70s, a non-standard level PD-DN DC9 nearly met a B747 WSSS - SY over the top of Derby, the controller concerned left the job and spent some time in the funny farm as a result. It's a particularly risky practice if it is combined with diverting off track due weather, so it is strongly recommended to get back to a standard level if you wish to go off track.
Still nothing stopping us requesting block levels?
Now, if 1nm right of track (SLOP) were to be built-in to the airways design standard, we'd be on to an environmental winner. Lower fuel burns and less chance of an aluminium shower.
Block levels
Block levels are a pet hate of mine, when not operationally necessary. I am aware of one international carrier that requests them as a matter of course, and when they fly into an adjoining FIR ATC would rather deny everyone else their planned level than cancel the block clearance. Grrrrrr.
On the subject of SLOP's, the AIP already offers this as an option, provided it is 1 or 2 nm right of track. As I understand it some carriers (notably Cathay) apply a SLOP in all oceanic airspace.
As I read through the ATSB weekly summaries I am apalled at the number of people (it appears mainly Asian carriers) who appear on radar way off track. To deviate off route without a clearance (in other than an emergency) displays a complete lack of airmanship, and will eventually result in a major incident.
On the subject of SLOP's, the AIP already offers this as an option, provided it is 1 or 2 nm right of track. As I understand it some carriers (notably Cathay) apply a SLOP in all oceanic airspace.
As I read through the ATSB weekly summaries I am apalled at the number of people (it appears mainly Asian carriers) who appear on radar way off track. To deviate off route without a clearance (in other than an emergency) displays a complete lack of airmanship, and will eventually result in a major incident.