STAR Clearance limits
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: EU?
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another good reason on why ATC should tell the aircraft to hold at the CLP if needed. ATC should be ready to give Expected Approach Time at the same time so that crews know what to plan for based on fuel remaining. Even if crews do the right thing as you expect and enter the hold "automatically" , expect frequency clutter when they start asking about their EAT time. It is more efficient if you just tell them to hold, including EAT time.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some places they write in the small fonts that you keep heading after the clearance limit. In others, like HTR, that you hold. All pilots need to know is the What if?.
In london, since holding is very usual, you might expect to hold even if you haven't thoroughly read the STAR.
And of course, when approaching the clearance limit, an "aproaching Ockham" call is in order.
Regarding takeoffs, in some places they give you a "turn left on course". If you do a DIR TO or intercept an SID you are wrong. You have to intercept the airway.
Canada Kid
I agree with you. i don't understand why many can't stand a discontinuity on the FPLN. Specially when you "draw" an estimated path to the runway with PBDs and such, and then they clear the discontinuity. If you forget about it you may deviate from clearance. However if navigation reverts to heading, then you wake up. Discontinuities can be used to help you.
In london, since holding is very usual, you might expect to hold even if you haven't thoroughly read the STAR.
And of course, when approaching the clearance limit, an "aproaching Ockham" call is in order.
Regarding takeoffs, in some places they give you a "turn left on course". If you do a DIR TO or intercept an SID you are wrong. You have to intercept the airway.
Canada Kid
I agree with you. i don't understand why many can't stand a discontinuity on the FPLN. Specially when you "draw" an estimated path to the runway with PBDs and such, and then they clear the discontinuity. If you forget about it you may deviate from clearance. However if navigation reverts to heading, then you wake up. Discontinuities can be used to help you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: sunny south
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topjet, thanks ;-)
I have obviously caused somewhat of a stir here, now, it may be true that you may not be required to hold in other countries. Surely though, there is some awareness that when you are inbound to one of the busiest airfields in the world, where there are a number of other airfields within a 30 mile radius which also have a reasonable amount of traffic, there may just be some holding required? On the STAR charts it clearly states not to proceed past the hold unless instructed by ATC. Would you just climb to your requested cruising level without ATC Clearance because we have not told you to climb? Or same point, would you make a landing without having received the clearance 'cleared to land Runway.... ' i doubt it very much. That said, for all the doubters out there, i have a link to the LAM arrival into Heathrow
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2010-06-03.pdf
The other STARs for the other holds are the same. Some caution is exercised, but at times during a busy period when you have pilots stepping on each other, we can occasionally miss out the 'hold at....' it is not often, however, this is not a requirement from at ATC point of view. We give that info to AID the pilot for flight planning purposes. The only requirement i have seen for aircraft inbound to LHR is published plainly for all to see..... 'Do not proceed beyond (hold) without ATC clearance.'
Falcocharlie:
In the London TMA, the delays are very usually less than 20 mins.... hence we need to give no EAT. If we were to be in a situation where holding was above 20 minutes, then you could expect the 'Hold at LAM, EAT is....' but on occasions where we don't have EATs in force, and specifically when you have reduced the aircraft to 'holding speed' and then said aircraft still ploughs straight through the hold, it can be most frustrating.
I just wondered if there should be something more that can be done about this. Maybe as others have said, it needs to become another air traffic rule that we have to tell pilots on first contact to hold at ...., just in case, there are the few pilots incapable of reading the STAR chart and complying with the rules.
I have obviously caused somewhat of a stir here, now, it may be true that you may not be required to hold in other countries. Surely though, there is some awareness that when you are inbound to one of the busiest airfields in the world, where there are a number of other airfields within a 30 mile radius which also have a reasonable amount of traffic, there may just be some holding required? On the STAR charts it clearly states not to proceed past the hold unless instructed by ATC. Would you just climb to your requested cruising level without ATC Clearance because we have not told you to climb? Or same point, would you make a landing without having received the clearance 'cleared to land Runway.... ' i doubt it very much. That said, for all the doubters out there, i have a link to the LAM arrival into Heathrow
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2010-06-03.pdf
The other STARs for the other holds are the same. Some caution is exercised, but at times during a busy period when you have pilots stepping on each other, we can occasionally miss out the 'hold at....' it is not often, however, this is not a requirement from at ATC point of view. We give that info to AID the pilot for flight planning purposes. The only requirement i have seen for aircraft inbound to LHR is published plainly for all to see..... 'Do not proceed beyond (hold) without ATC clearance.'
Falcocharlie:
In the London TMA, the delays are very usually less than 20 mins.... hence we need to give no EAT. If we were to be in a situation where holding was above 20 minutes, then you could expect the 'Hold at LAM, EAT is....' but on occasions where we don't have EATs in force, and specifically when you have reduced the aircraft to 'holding speed' and then said aircraft still ploughs straight through the hold, it can be most frustrating.
I just wondered if there should be something more that can be done about this. Maybe as others have said, it needs to become another air traffic rule that we have to tell pilots on first contact to hold at ...., just in case, there are the few pilots incapable of reading the STAR chart and complying with the rules.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since procedures are different all over the world all we as pilots have to do is read the charts, so there is really no excuse for not joining the hold if no further clearance is received. No so difficult I think...
If there are airlines which don't follow the procedure maybe just contact the airline to remind the pilots of the procedure.
On another note; you were also writing about the numer of calls and in my experience sometimes ATC doesn't help keeping the volume of calls down. Often I check in on a new freq with the cleared level and hdg and instead of receiving an acknowledgement I'm told to maintain the level and hdg I just reported which we then have to read back again. Correct me if I'm wrong but would a "roger" not suffice (saving us from saying the same again)?
If there are airlines which don't follow the procedure maybe just contact the airline to remind the pilots of the procedure.
On another note; you were also writing about the numer of calls and in my experience sometimes ATC doesn't help keeping the volume of calls down. Often I check in on a new freq with the cleared level and hdg and instead of receiving an acknowledgement I'm told to maintain the level and hdg I just reported which we then have to read back again. Correct me if I'm wrong but would a "roger" not suffice (saving us from saying the same again)?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can get the airlines to program the hold in as part of the STAR in the Dep/Arr page of the FMC, you wouldn't have to worry about guys following the magenta line past the hold.
The aircraft would automatically enter the hold as part of the STAR & the flight crew would manually have to exit the hold when given onwards clearance.
Every aircraft with an FMC should be able to have this programming. The airlines just have to be convinced (a few fines should do the trick) & then instruct their data supplier that this is what they require.
The aircraft would automatically enter the hold as part of the STAR & the flight crew would manually have to exit the hold when given onwards clearance.
Every aircraft with an FMC should be able to have this programming. The airlines just have to be convinced (a few fines should do the trick) & then instruct their data supplier that this is what they require.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think in a busy environment like the London TMA, anyone would be so foolish to endevour a track from LAM without clearance, whether it was started in the charts or not. Anyway the flight plan ends at at the ingress fix in this case LAM. Very unusual to say the least that ATC doesn't come back on the horn to inform of a hold required, with the possible exception of the A380 during early morning arrivals where exemption is given during the curfew periods.
On a different tack, why is transition levels not given during descents into LHR at least not broadcast on ATIS? Are pilots allowed to reset to QNH immediately being given a altutude below transition or to wait after passing transition? Is there any laid down procedure regarding this( in the AIP maybe)? Sorry if this is a newbe question!!!
On a different tack, why is transition levels not given during descents into LHR at least not broadcast on ATIS? Are pilots allowed to reset to QNH immediately being given a altutude below transition or to wait after passing transition? Is there any laid down procedure regarding this( in the AIP maybe)? Sorry if this is a newbe question!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you just climb to your requested cruising level without ATC Clearance because we have not told you to climb? Or same point, would you make a landing without having received the clearance 'cleared to land Runway.... ' i doubt it very much. That said, for all the doubters out there, i have a link to the LAM arrival into Heathrow
Make it easy for yourself and the pilots to avoid confusion. Tell them what you want them to do, otherwise some will decide for you... (and they may not make the decision you want them to - I am just being the devils advocate here)
I am sure its easier to give an instruction such as this, rather than the radio work required to get a stray aircraft and conflicting traffic back to where it all should be.
Failing that, ask for a chart amendment, asking for clear instructions to be written on the chart advising the pilots what they should do in the event of no onwards clearance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: sunny south
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read the link to the LAM arrival into LHR i posted? It is clear as day on the STAR chart, 'WARNING: Do not proceed beyond LAM without ATC clearance.' How much more obvious can it be, than a note on the chart with a Warning attached to it?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Spain
Age: 68
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearance Limit
I don't understand the problem. Read the chart, brief the chart, identify the clearance limit and brief what you will do at the clearance limit if no further clearance is received. It's not rocket science. The London charts clearly state "do not proceed beyond (clearance limit) without specific clearance" or words to that effect. That means "Hold unless instructed".
Simples.
Simples.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have obviously caused somewhat of a stir here, now, it may be true that you may not be required to hold in other countries. Surely though, there is some awareness that when you are inbound to one of the busiest airfields in the world, where there are a number of other airfields within a 30 mile radius which also have a reasonable amount of traffic, there may just be some holding required? On the STAR charts it clearly states not to proceed past the hold unless instructed by ATC.
. . .
The other STARs for the other holds are the same. Some caution is exercised, but at times during a busy period when you have pilots stepping on each other, we can occasionally miss out the 'hold at....' it is not often, however, this is not a requirement from at ATC point of view. We give that info to AID the pilot for flight planning purposes. The only requirement i have seen for aircraft inbound to LHR is published plainly for all to see..... 'Do not proceed beyond (hold) without ATC clearance.'
Falcocharlie:
In the London TMA, the delays are very usually less than 20 mins.... hence we need to give no EAT. If we were to be in a situation where holding was above 20 minutes, then you could expect the 'Hold at LAM, EAT is....' but on occasions where we don't have EATs in force, and specifically when you have reduced the aircraft to 'holding speed' and then said aircraft still ploughs straight through the hold, it can be most frustrating.
. . .
The other STARs for the other holds are the same. Some caution is exercised, but at times during a busy period when you have pilots stepping on each other, we can occasionally miss out the 'hold at....' it is not often, however, this is not a requirement from at ATC point of view. We give that info to AID the pilot for flight planning purposes. The only requirement i have seen for aircraft inbound to LHR is published plainly for all to see..... 'Do not proceed beyond (hold) without ATC clearance.'
Falcocharlie:
In the London TMA, the delays are very usually less than 20 mins.... hence we need to give no EAT. If we were to be in a situation where holding was above 20 minutes, then you could expect the 'Hold at LAM, EAT is....' but on occasions where we don't have EATs in force, and specifically when you have reduced the aircraft to 'holding speed' and then said aircraft still ploughs straight through the hold, it can be most frustrating.
I fly into Frankfurt, New York, Atlanta, Dubai, Hong Kong, Los Angeles and other busy, multi-airport TMAs regularly. NONE of them have STARs ending in holds as the default, and at ALL of them I do NOT expect a hold unless specifically told. I would expect the controllers at the exceptional airports (London) to realize their uniqueness and reinforce the unusual procedures. Not all of us have FMCs, either, so it is NOT "just" a matter of programming a computer in many cases!
Not required to issue an EAT?!? According to the FAA AIM:
5-3-7.
Holding
a. Whenever an aircraft is cleared to a fix other than the destination airport and delay is expected, it is the responsibility of the ATC controller to issue complete holding instructions (unless the pattern is charted), an EFC time and best estimate of any additional en route/terminal delay.
Holding
a. Whenever an aircraft is cleared to a fix other than the destination airport and delay is expected, it is the responsibility of the ATC controller to issue complete holding instructions (unless the pattern is charted), an EFC time and best estimate of any additional en route/terminal delay.
You started this thread with the admission that controllers make mistakes EVEN WHEN USING THEIR OWN LOCAL PROCEDURES, but still seem to be unwilling to accept the fact that pilots might also make mistakes when attempting to use MANDATED NON-STANDARD PROCEDURES! Why is that?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: titan
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the charts and follow the instructions, its crystal clear. Who cares if its different to everywhere else, its there for a reason particular to that area. Its the same as not receiving your Atlantic crossing clearance from Shanwick in time, your clearance limit is the entry point (assuming you have been cleared as far as that!) and you would be expected to hold there until getting clearance to enter the NAT region. There are no holds mentioned on the charts for this, but you would still be expected to do it. By the sounds of it, some folks here would go bumbling in without a clearance anyway, because they cant or wont follow a few simple rules.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes London is a unique destination as far as ATC procedures, professional crews should'nt need extra prompting by busy controllers, yes it's a different system, get over it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a new (but now frequent) guest to London TMA, I have initially found this "clearance limit" stuff rather surprising. Never encountered mandatory hold requirement elsewhere and hadn't I been given a warning by my more experienced colleagues, hold would the last thing I'd do in case of reaching the last point of the STAR, as I always thought the ATC were not expecting this and it could really mess up the traffic behind... To make things worse, the STAR chart we use most often had had the "clearance limit" disclaimer recently removed - I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't been told by someone, who has flown there before...
Call me uneducated, or whatever, but I think these procedures aer not as obvious to the pilots as the ATC would think...
Call me uneducated, or whatever, but I think these procedures aer not as obvious to the pilots as the ATC would think...
[lights blue touch paper]
You could always transfer them to director in sufficient time so they can tell the pilots to hold before they reach the clearance limit.
[/stands well back]
You could always transfer them to director in sufficient time so they can tell the pilots to hold before they reach the clearance limit.
[/stands well back]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes London is a unique destination as far as ATC procedures, professional crews should'nt need extra prompting by busy controllers, yes it's a different system, get over it.
I also find it interesting that you don't seem to think pilots are busy during the arrival...
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of an airline sends there aircraft to such a destination without some type of line training involved, if you work at an outfit like that, guess what, it's your responsibility as a pilot, is that too hard on flight crews? 
At ORD, the uniformed got to go to the penalty box.
At ORD, the uniformed got to go to the penalty box.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: sunny south
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying that ATC can be exempt from any sort of responsibility here. What I was asking was why does this happen, it seems fair to me, to say that it is written clear enough on the STAR charts, however, after discussions with a colleague of mine who works one of the London sectors that aircraft may talk to on arrival into Heathrow, I was informed that on occasion the controllers may say 'cleared (insert STAR here) for landing R27 L'. Now, maybe this is confusing to some pilots, as it seems a sort of onward clearance has been given. That will have to be looked into from our side. However, my colleague did say this was given just as an information aid, and it was only the odd ATCO that did this as far as he was aware.
Intruder:
Yes, you are right, and we do tell pilots the rough estimates of how long they are expected to hold. Usually they are informed this by the first London sector they reach, and then retold again and again until they come into contact with the guy who works the holding stack. My bugbear here is that I have heard colleagues of mine tell an aircraft, 'expect a 10 min delay at ...' but the aircraft still ploughs through the hold. An EAT is a totally different matter... an EAT is the time at which there is holding expected of over 20mins, and it is the time that the aircraft can expect to leave the holding facility to commence an approach to land'. Our rules are such that if delays are over 20 minutes, then we have to give the aircraft an EAT. Furthermore, ATCO's are just as responsible for any mistakes we make due to incorrect clearances etc etc. There are consequences if we make mistakes aswell.
Del Prado, as a fellow ATCO I am quite surprised to hear you say that. If you are TMA then you know more often that not that we hold rather high at some of the stacks. Shall we just change the highest release level to more than FL120 and let LL DIR deal with all the aircraft holding high and en-route?
Overall though, for me, this has been quite a learning exercise. It is very interesting to see the differing opinions, obviously us in the UK have slightly different procedures to the rest of the world, however, this may be due to the relative complexity and small amount of airspace with so many airfields in it. I guess the STAR charts are supposed to take any ambiguity away as to whether you should hold or not, they obviously don't. So a question then, if you are inbound to an airfield on a busy frequency, you can kind of guess that it might be busy, if you haven't been told to hold by the ATCO working you, and you are approaching the clearance limit point, then surely, a quick 'London, we are approaching BIG/OCK/BNN/LAM, are we to take up the hold' is surely the most common sensical thing? It is quite a scary thought to read that there are quite a few pilots out there who would be willing to fly through airspace without a clearance in such a busy section of airspace, just because the ATCO hadn't reinforced what is written down on the sheet in front of them. I understand, people make mistakes, we are human after all, ATCO's not reinforcing that you should hold = mistake, pilots ploughing straight through someone elses airspace because they havent read the STAR sheet properly = mistake, however, it has started to become a fairly common occurrence just recently, which was why i posed the question in the first place.
Intruder:
Yes, you are right, and we do tell pilots the rough estimates of how long they are expected to hold. Usually they are informed this by the first London sector they reach, and then retold again and again until they come into contact with the guy who works the holding stack. My bugbear here is that I have heard colleagues of mine tell an aircraft, 'expect a 10 min delay at ...' but the aircraft still ploughs through the hold. An EAT is a totally different matter... an EAT is the time at which there is holding expected of over 20mins, and it is the time that the aircraft can expect to leave the holding facility to commence an approach to land'. Our rules are such that if delays are over 20 minutes, then we have to give the aircraft an EAT. Furthermore, ATCO's are just as responsible for any mistakes we make due to incorrect clearances etc etc. There are consequences if we make mistakes aswell.
Del Prado, as a fellow ATCO I am quite surprised to hear you say that. If you are TMA then you know more often that not that we hold rather high at some of the stacks. Shall we just change the highest release level to more than FL120 and let LL DIR deal with all the aircraft holding high and en-route?
Overall though, for me, this has been quite a learning exercise. It is very interesting to see the differing opinions, obviously us in the UK have slightly different procedures to the rest of the world, however, this may be due to the relative complexity and small amount of airspace with so many airfields in it. I guess the STAR charts are supposed to take any ambiguity away as to whether you should hold or not, they obviously don't. So a question then, if you are inbound to an airfield on a busy frequency, you can kind of guess that it might be busy, if you haven't been told to hold by the ATCO working you, and you are approaching the clearance limit point, then surely, a quick 'London, we are approaching BIG/OCK/BNN/LAM, are we to take up the hold' is surely the most common sensical thing? It is quite a scary thought to read that there are quite a few pilots out there who would be willing to fly through airspace without a clearance in such a busy section of airspace, just because the ATCO hadn't reinforced what is written down on the sheet in front of them. I understand, people make mistakes, we are human after all, ATCO's not reinforcing that you should hold = mistake, pilots ploughing straight through someone elses airspace because they havent read the STAR sheet properly = mistake, however, it has started to become a fairly common occurrence just recently, which was why i posed the question in the first place.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: In the SIM
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am based at LHR and know the score, but this is part of our briefing when discussing the approach. I always make a point of saying, if we are on the STAR, without an onward clearance we will enter the hold as this is the clearance limit and talk about the hold and the axis etc.
This is always dictated on the approach plate, so I dont really see an excuse if a brief between the pilots is done properly.
This is always dictated on the approach plate, so I dont really see an excuse if a brief between the pilots is done properly.