Revised departure clearance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revised departure clearance
Revised departure clearance.
Hi folks, have been told about following situation, would like to hear your opinion. Departure in MNL RWY 06, initial clearance: “cleared to destination XXX, FPR, follow SID xxx, which basically says strait ahead at 2000 ft right turn opposite heading maintain 3000 ft, climb FL 280, sq XXXX. After line up RWY 06, ATC has revised the departure clearance as follow: “Maintain RWY HEADING, after airborne contact departure freq. xxx,xx ”
I also have to say, that the MSA in departure direction is 7000, basically hills start somewhere after departure, let’s say btw 10 and 15 miles.
So, here comes the first curiosity: laterally revised departure “maintain rwy heading” clearance without having revised first cleared altitude, which in my opinion was necessary in order to meet the obstacle clearance requirements, in case of loss of communication. (3 min last assigned alt, before proceding on filed route)
After take off climbed to 3000 ft and maintaining the RWY heading, crew has tried to established communication with approach, which was unsuccessful. Flying towards the hills the crew decided to initiate the turn to the right, while still maintaining 3000. Doing this, the aircraft will cross the departure direction of the RWY 15, for domestic traffic. The crew established the communication prior to cross abeam the RWY 15 and has been cleared to climb to FL280, as per initial clearance.
So, here are my questions:
1. Has the ATC had to revise the clearance vertically, in terms of meeting the OCA?
2. Has the crew had to set the MSA or FL 280 as the first cleared altitude, since the clearance was amended?
3. Was the action of the crew correct, by turning right still maintaining 3000 ft in VMC or were they supposed to follow on heading, but climbing to MSA or FL 280, while following the loss of comm. Procedure?
Appreciate your comments,
Thanks.
Hi folks, have been told about following situation, would like to hear your opinion. Departure in MNL RWY 06, initial clearance: “cleared to destination XXX, FPR, follow SID xxx, which basically says strait ahead at 2000 ft right turn opposite heading maintain 3000 ft, climb FL 280, sq XXXX. After line up RWY 06, ATC has revised the departure clearance as follow: “Maintain RWY HEADING, after airborne contact departure freq. xxx,xx ”
I also have to say, that the MSA in departure direction is 7000, basically hills start somewhere after departure, let’s say btw 10 and 15 miles.
So, here comes the first curiosity: laterally revised departure “maintain rwy heading” clearance without having revised first cleared altitude, which in my opinion was necessary in order to meet the obstacle clearance requirements, in case of loss of communication. (3 min last assigned alt, before proceding on filed route)
After take off climbed to 3000 ft and maintaining the RWY heading, crew has tried to established communication with approach, which was unsuccessful. Flying towards the hills the crew decided to initiate the turn to the right, while still maintaining 3000. Doing this, the aircraft will cross the departure direction of the RWY 15, for domestic traffic. The crew established the communication prior to cross abeam the RWY 15 and has been cleared to climb to FL280, as per initial clearance.
So, here are my questions:
1. Has the ATC had to revise the clearance vertically, in terms of meeting the OCA?
2. Has the crew had to set the MSA or FL 280 as the first cleared altitude, since the clearance was amended?
3. Was the action of the crew correct, by turning right still maintaining 3000 ft in VMC or were they supposed to follow on heading, but climbing to MSA or FL 280, while following the loss of comm. Procedure?
Appreciate your comments,
Thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popay
If the original clearance was to FL280 the 3000ft restriction doesn't apply as ATC have effectively ' cancelled' it.
As the revision is lateral only I would maintain rwy hdg and climb FL280 calling departure.
Sorry edited to add this, of course I am presuming that the 3000ft clearance is not conditional on maintaining until a specific position.
If the original clearance was to FL280 the 3000ft restriction doesn't apply as ATC have effectively ' cancelled' it.
As the revision is lateral only I would maintain rwy hdg and climb FL280 calling departure.
Sorry edited to add this, of course I am presuming that the 3000ft clearance is not conditional on maintaining until a specific position.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Real Slim Shady, I agree with you on the statement, that the SID altitude was superseded by FL 280. That’s how I would have interpreted that, but it’s hard to tell sometimes what the ATC really mean in this part of the world. There are a lot of confusions. Although I would have expected ATC to say: “follow SID….climb unrestricted FL 280….”, but again I wouldn’t like the idea to climb out straight and just maintain 3000 ft, so I would have asked ATC again.
Well, that’s teaches us again and again, ask as often as necessary until you clear, what you are doing.
Thanks for your comment.
Well, that’s teaches us again and again, ask as often as necessary until you clear, what you are doing.
Thanks for your comment.
