"Leaving" or "Left" Altitudes (ATC'ers pls)
 

Vacating maintained FL's/ALT's, AIP says to report - LEFT FLxxx etc.
A large Aussie Airline tells their pilots that the word 'LEFT' is only to be used with heading instruction/confirmations IE "LEFT HDG xxx" BUT
Does "LEAVING" FL's/ALT's satisfy ATC'ers requirements for leaving/left maintained altitudes? or not???

Should we readback "CLEAR for take-off", or
"CLEARED for take-off"?
After all, clear is something I do with my nose when it's running, or refers only to the weather.

Forget them B S D, you've got more important stuff to concern yourself with, than to listen to people whose brains obviously aren't much bigger than a peanut.

IMO, either one is okay :ok:

"Left" is a positive affirmation that says you have departed that level. "Leaving" means that you intend to leave that level when it suits you but have not necessarily departed that level. This means there is uncertainty if you have actually left or not yet left.

It's like someone asking you if you are leaving your wallet behind or have you left your wallet behind. Significant difference in meaning There should be no ambiguity in radio procedures. For decades, the term "left" a level was in AIP, until some bureaucrat decided that ICAO terminology (regardless of its obvious flaws) should be used in Australia.

I believe that there are places that if you say "Left FL350" that means somebody else can then be assigned that level, even if you are only being polite and we can see on the radar that you haven't 'left' anything!

"Leaving" has the advantage of not meaning anything definite at all.

AIP ENR still says "left a level", can only find reference to "leaving" in datalink bits.

While we're bing petty. How about when people say taxying "this time" for XXXX or overhead XXX at "this time" .

You wouldn't give the call 10 mins after the action so every call by bloody definition is at"this time" .

Rant over. I feel better now (or is it at this time?)

Does anyone have a reference for the terminology in AIP?

And one of my petty dislikes on the radio, "IF AVAILABLE, request xxxxxxxx,"

If it's not available you won't get it, if it is, you probably shall.

"WHEN AVAILABLE" makes a lot more sense.

What could be clearer than;

vacated FL370 or
out of FL370.

No ambiguity there.

AIP ENR 1.1 General Rules
Operations in Controlled Airspace
Descent and Entry--
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, LEFT
FLIGHT LEVEL TWO NINER ZERO”.

Serious question to Bona Fide ATC'ers
1. Is 'leaving' not precise enough for you to do your job properly? (bearing in mind it may be procedural control on the odd occasion)
2. 'leaving' or 'left' both acceptable

What I find irritating is when i say the usual 'Identified, verify level', and I get some retard say 'approaching A040'. It makes me want to get all in my car and drive down to Bankstown and get Jackie Chan on them.

Thank you BSD. A pilot that reads his/her AIP.

The phrase is LEFT. The controller is not confused. Other pilots that read their AIP are not confused.

Clever folk tha wanna use their own phrases, go build your own airspace system and play there.

There is no problem. Thus no solutions or bright ideas are required.

AIP. You paid for it. Why not read the bluddy thing?

The use of "left Flight Level.." seemed perfectly clear to me over the past 35 years. And I don't recall any pilot problems either.

There was a certain group of controllers who were concerned about ATC issuing a clearance to "maintain" an intermediate altitude or level. EG "Maintain one thousand five hundred, cleared for take off." The protagonists suggested that a more correct phrase would be "Climb to and maintain.." There was never enough support to change the AIP (and I don't think it was necessary).

You can drive yourself nuts trying to come up with completely unambiguous phrases. Many can be misinterpreted. And this includes the many USA and UK peculiarities.

This reminds me of a funny episode at a GA airport when a pilot did not read back his cleared altitude when departing on an amended clearance. The aircraft became airborne and the controller tried once more in slow clear words; "ABC read back altitude"

The pilot replied "ABC, Back altitude one thousand!"

(Actually you had to be there - it doesn't sound quite so funny now!)

Tobzalp , LOL

Kooka , Is "vacated" the same as "vacating"?

BSD , I believe that leaving is not good enough, especially in a step climb/descent.

Cheers,

R-S.

Another case of Qantas knows best obviously... :rolleyes: Like the landing lights thing.

While we're at it, why the variation between ATCers on

"Descend 5000"
"Descend 5000 feet"
"Descend and maintain 5000"
"Descend to 5000" (descend 2 5 thousand)

The last one's a classic. I thought it went out after the Tiger tried to descend "to 5 zero zero feet" and hit a hill...???

A bit like "reduce speed 2 2 5 0 kts"

And as an aside, what about "over the top" calls. :rolleyes:

'Descend to 5000' is the correct Australian phrase. Feet can be added to make certain it is an altitude being given.

The confusion comes because some people drop the 'to' thinking they are doing the right thing because 'there was that crash where they did/did not say to and the plane crashed and I think it was because of to and it was in (insert one of 10 countries grapevine style). '

Poms do it different as do the seppos.

Whether or not it is the best way to do it, the book (in Oz) says to say 'to' so everybody should. Simple.

Bearing in mind that Australia is in a minority that calls vacating an altitude in a radar environment "Vacating" and "passing" seem to work fairly well in other parts of the world with "Left" being reserved for a lateral dirction change and "out of" sounding a bit retrospective.
It is only Down under where it is almost OK if you crash provided you got the poetry (Quacking) right that we are likely to have these sort of debates that often become heated and drawn out.. A false sense of security perhaps. The Tiger 66 accident in KL malaysia highlights flaws in the "To" and "For" brigade.
Here is another one why do people ask for an "airways clearance" where I am yet to see an airway in Australia? Even the regulators get things wrong and whilst we should follow procedures it is also our responsibility to notify any possible errors in our AIP's (latent failures) to those that write them rather than continue blindly following potentially flawed procedures just because they are in the AIP and react after an incident has occured. We have got brains havn't we? and we are supposed to use them out there and the judicious addition of "FEET" or omision of a "TO" or "FOR" to aid clarity in a situation where comunication has been difficult (perhaps a non English speaking country) would display airmanship. Be aware that procedures and even colloqualisms of one country could be fundamentaly fatal in another (where "to's and Two's don't sound the same) and flexibility is often required to achieve clarity and understanding. Perhaps this is why we study and practise good communication skills on our recurrent CRM courses. Some of the worst examples of radio communication that I have heard come from english speaking country's.

One small gripe :D

When we ask present level...............WE WANT THE LEVEL LEFT i.e. "......... left five thousand three hundred"

"...... approaching Six thousand" is 4/5ths of F$%kall use to us for separation purposes!! :ok:

Much obliged :E

Yes.
It is just so hard to infer that if someone reports "approaching six thousand" he must have "left five thousand", (or seven thousand if going the other way). :E
Or do you really separate aircraft in one hundred foot increments?

Tobzalp,

I'd think very carefully about driving out to Bankstown, getting out of there alive is the real challenge.

:D

"Leaving" is a present tense term and does not mean that you are no longer at the previously maintained altitude. "Left" is a past tense term and implies you are gone...no longer there and is therefor the correct information for ATC and thus the reason it is published as such I would say.