New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are in "managed" in the modern Airbus (A318-321, 330-380) and you select HDG during the climb it will indeed revert to OP CLB - the theory being you cannot be on a "managed path" (LAT+VERT) if you're in HDG (same for descent - I think). If you're in ALT* it will revert to V/S -even more problematical! If in ALT* - DON'T TOUCH the FCU if you want to stay level!
Surely this change is also going to complicate things for ATC? They're now going to have to differentiate between a cleared level and a constraint on the SID. Isn't it better that the controller knows what level the A/C is climbing to, rather than having to second guess a possible level off half-way!
I can see the phrase "Climb FLXXX, SID level restrictions cancelled" being used as standard.
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by in my last airline
Agree with BOAC on this. We mustn't be scared of change, we should ask ourselves, 'how can we do this safely?'
We cannot do this safely. It is inherently dangerous.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: As far away from work as possible
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with all the previous postings, the person who came up with this obviously doesn't fly/control....
I wonder if any controller will be brave enough to use this RT!
I wonder if any controller will be brave enough to use this RT!
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DownloadDog
I wonder if any controller will be brave enough to use this RT!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: europe
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First time poster, so hello to all.
Would there have been a consultation process? If so, when did it take place, and whom I wonder was invited to participate to air the view of those representing the folks from ATC, and us drivers who will soon almost certainly be faced with more RA's than one can shake a stick at?
Utter madness!
Would there have been a consultation process? If so, when did it take place, and whom I wonder was invited to participate to air the view of those representing the folks from ATC, and us drivers who will soon almost certainly be faced with more RA's than one can shake a stick at?
Utter madness!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I understand it from our ATC Liason... ATC are having this change pushed onto them to comply with ICAO standard. In theory, they will have to use this standard phraseology if they want you to climb above the SID restriction, while still following the SID laterally.
In practice, I am told that any instruction to climb above the SID limit will be accompanied by a heading instruction- the fact that the headings may coincide with the lateral route of the SID is irrelevant.
In practice, I am told that any instruction to climb above the SID limit will be accompanied by a heading instruction- the fact that the headings may coincide with the lateral route of the SID is irrelevant.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folk look to the future, RNP RNAV. To get there we have to make many huge changes to the current system. I can't agree with those who think the system is good enough as is! Jumbos and Dumbos (380) levelling at 6000ft is not clever and is far from perfect. Now the new system in reality is introducing the first phase of a more automatic system. More automation should mean more capacity in the long run. Let's face it, VHF comms in the London TMA sucks when it's busy. So the system is broken, and whilst I know the contillers are amongst the best in the world, we have a long way to go and not very long to get there. In 10 years from now twice as many people will be flying in Europe (all things being equal).
I'm looking forward to change it should mean less work/stress for a start and hopefully the safety case will improve. Some airlines never got the hang of the current system, passing, climbing SID, so they will continue to screw up and the likes of UK carriers will carry on without a hiccough.
I'm looking forward to change it should mean less work/stress for a start and hopefully the safety case will improve. Some airlines never got the hang of the current system, passing, climbing SID, so they will continue to screw up and the likes of UK carriers will carry on without a hiccough.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elysion
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's that got to do with the price of wolly socks?
in my last airline,
There is nothing in this change that will not cause Jumbo & Dumbo to level off at 6000', quite the opposite in fact. Unless Jumbo & Dumbo are told to abandon the SID at the same time. How is that for making things easy and reducing RT.
To use PRNAV rules for non-PRNAV departures and equipped aircraft is just asking for trouble.
There is nothing in this change that will not cause Jumbo & Dumbo to level off at 6000', quite the opposite in fact. Unless Jumbo & Dumbo are told to abandon the SID at the same time. How is that for making things easy and reducing RT.
To use PRNAV rules for non-PRNAV departures and equipped aircraft is just asking for trouble.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No nothing to stop that in this first round of changes but next the PRNAV SIDs will probably be re-drawn and slowly slowly efficiencies will come. You are also right when you say non FMS planes are gonna struggle, they are and the NAAs are aware of it. I guess they may have to gently persuade them to fly to non PRNAV fields.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: europe
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear "In my last airline," I don't think it is of much consequence that non FMS aircraft are going to struggle, surely the problem here is that many (overseas in particular) operators are going to assume, quite naturally, that the instruction from ATC "climb FL100" really means "don't do it now, but when you pass CLN, climb FL100."
I can't speak for other posters, but I'm sure that this is what most of us find very alarming.
I can't speak for other posters, but I'm sure that this is what most of us find very alarming.
Last edited by mr. small fry; 12th Jan 2009 at 21:17.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my last airline
get a map of south east england and highlight the airfields.
Now look more closely and have a think about why prnav will likely never work in the LTMA - unless of course we want things to be less efficient than they are today.
Yes, I agree that it is a bit messy in the LTMA, but unless you want big restrictions, that's the way it will always be, due to the interaction of all the SIDS and STARS.
There is always room for improvement, but PRNAV is tens of years off... it may be intoduced on one or two routes, but having it over the whole of the LTMA is a pipe dream at this point in time!
What is wrong with the current phraseology which states that a new clearance cancels the old one?
If we do manage to change procedures to PRNAV, then we can change the phraseology at the same time. Changing phraseology to fit procedures that are years away at the least, is ridiculous.
You have said yourself
so explain just exactly how adding confusing and lengthier phraseology will help that out?
All this will do is make controllers have to repeat themselves or have pilots ask for clarification.
Putting an aircraft on a heading will not get round the problem, because people will still ask if the climb is unrestricted... Some pilots can't get a grasp of the idea that an instruction to climb whilst on a SID is an instruction that cancels the SID, so why should they understand that a heading does the same thing?
get a map of south east england and highlight the airfields.
Now look more closely and have a think about why prnav will likely never work in the LTMA - unless of course we want things to be less efficient than they are today.
Yes, I agree that it is a bit messy in the LTMA, but unless you want big restrictions, that's the way it will always be, due to the interaction of all the SIDS and STARS.
There is always room for improvement, but PRNAV is tens of years off... it may be intoduced on one or two routes, but having it over the whole of the LTMA is a pipe dream at this point in time!
What is wrong with the current phraseology which states that a new clearance cancels the old one?
If we do manage to change procedures to PRNAV, then we can change the phraseology at the same time. Changing phraseology to fit procedures that are years away at the least, is ridiculous.
You have said yourself
...VHF comms in the London TMA sucks when it's busy...
All this will do is make controllers have to repeat themselves or have pilots ask for clarification.
Putting an aircraft on a heading will not get round the problem, because people will still ask if the climb is unrestricted... Some pilots can't get a grasp of the idea that an instruction to climb whilst on a SID is an instruction that cancels the SID, so why should they understand that a heading does the same thing?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I'm just not grasping the theory - but WHY the change?
The effect will be, on paper at least, to keep (jet) aircraft at a lower level, by default, than that to which they would be capable of climbing by the end of the SID.
Lower levels means (slightly) more noise and greater fuel consumption.
All this should please the environmentalists who at this point in time are latching on to any conceivable means to criticise aviation!
Other than improved ATC procedures (?), where's the benefit?
KR
FOK
The effect will be, on paper at least, to keep (jet) aircraft at a lower level, by default, than that to which they would be capable of climbing by the end of the SID.
Lower levels means (slightly) more noise and greater fuel consumption.
All this should please the environmentalists who at this point in time are latching on to any conceivable means to criticise aviation!
Other than improved ATC procedures (?), where's the benefit?
KR
FOK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ATC tells me to climb, I WILL climb to that assigned level asap. if no other restrictions were given during the same clearance.
Any new heading, altitude, speed clearance cancels the previous clearance.
Any new heading, altitude, speed clearance cancels the previous clearance.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, (ATCO's correct me if I am wrong) london area controllers can now see the alt/level selected on the MCP on their radar screens via the aircraft's mode s transponder.
This is in my view a bloody good idea with the potential to catch a level bust before it even becomes one, however if we are all settting the new cleared level post SID in the MCP and using the FMS VNAV constraints to level off during the SID assuming you programmed the correct ones, then this information is not being sent by the transponder and now the controllers screen is full of aircraft showing one level selected but doing something else.
This is in my view a bloody good idea with the potential to catch a level bust before it even becomes one, however if we are all settting the new cleared level post SID in the MCP and using the FMS VNAV constraints to level off during the SID assuming you programmed the correct ones, then this information is not being sent by the transponder and now the controllers screen is full of aircraft showing one level selected but doing something else.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly dj -
you are 100% correct in your assumption about what we see on radar (though only LTMA controllers, not en-route controllers)
Mode S has prevented countless level busts on the SID, as you say, once this new procedure comes in, if I was now to instruct you to climb to FL100 without cancelling the SID, you would dial that into the MCP and I would see FL100.
I wouldnow not have any reassurance that you are not going to bust the SID restrictions. To reassure myself, I would reiterate that you were to follow the SID levels!!
That is why this procedure is completely flawed!!
Not only does it not make any sense, it reduces the safety benefit of MODE S.
HOWEVER - on the plus side - working in the LTMA, you will never be given what amounts to a conditional climb clearance (which is what this new procedure efectively is). We do not teach conditional climb clearances and we do not condone them - they are unsafe.
If you are told to climb, then that means climb now!
you are 100% correct in your assumption about what we see on radar (though only LTMA controllers, not en-route controllers)
Mode S has prevented countless level busts on the SID, as you say, once this new procedure comes in, if I was now to instruct you to climb to FL100 without cancelling the SID, you would dial that into the MCP and I would see FL100.
I wouldnow not have any reassurance that you are not going to bust the SID restrictions. To reassure myself, I would reiterate that you were to follow the SID levels!!
That is why this procedure is completely flawed!!
Not only does it not make any sense, it reduces the safety benefit of MODE S.
HOWEVER - on the plus side - working in the LTMA, you will never be given what amounts to a conditional climb clearance (which is what this new procedure efectively is). We do not teach conditional climb clearances and we do not condone them - they are unsafe.
If you are told to climb, then that means climb now!
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly-dj, only London TMA controllers have access to Mode S downlinked parameters (or whatever they're called!) such as selected flight level. You are quite right that if the new procedure is introduced, the information on the radar display won't necessarily correspond to what each respective aircraft is doing. More confusion, more workload and more danger.
It appears to me the only reason for introducing this is to fall in line with ICAO. It offers no benefits at all and in my opinion, goes as far as turning a perfectly safe procedure into an accident waiting to happen. One has to ask why this was introduced? The danger is blatently obvious. Any controller or pilot worth their salt will have realised this straight away. Am I wrong to assume that the CAA has controllers and pilots look over such procedures before implementing them?
It appears to me the only reason for introducing this is to fall in line with ICAO. It offers no benefits at all and in my opinion, goes as far as turning a perfectly safe procedure into an accident waiting to happen. One has to ask why this was introduced? The danger is blatently obvious. Any controller or pilot worth their salt will have realised this straight away. Am I wrong to assume that the CAA has controllers and pilots look over such procedures before implementing them?
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA senior training and safety management are not amused (first they heard of it was the FODCOM) and are making the appropriate noises to CAA/NATS. Hopefully if others do the same...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Outside the EU
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But presumably some anonymous beaurocrat buried in the depths of 'ICAO', thinks it is 'a good idea'. I thought it was possible for national AAs to file 'differences' from ICAO Procedures; if so, has nobody down in Sussex raised any concerns or are we just being good, international buddies about this and don't want to upset anyone? Has the rest of the ICAO world given it the thumbs-up or is it just we Brits (no offence meant) who see the inherent failings. Any international (Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis et al) ATCOs care to comment?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but the current system is not being used correctlt either!!
If you say that a new climb instruction cancells the previous clearance then you must remember that all mandatory restrictions have to be included in the "new clearance".
eg aircraft departs EGKK on the DVR 2P / 2W SID
on first contact with London Control, the controller wants to clear the aircraft to FL170.
To be 100% correct, the controller should say;
"ABC123 climb flight level 170 cross TUNBY altitude 5000 or above and thirty three miles before dover altitude 6000 or above"
Otherwise, the aircraft may reduce the rate of climb and not make the required profile.
OK, not staying in controlled airspace is not such a big thing........but elsewhere in the world those minimum levels can be for terrain avoidance.
Therefore, the has to be the arguments that;
a) the current system is far from perfect and
b) If aircraft are constantly being given higher levels on the SIDS, the SID design needs to be looked at again.
Regards,
DFC
If you say that a new climb instruction cancells the previous clearance then you must remember that all mandatory restrictions have to be included in the "new clearance".
eg aircraft departs EGKK on the DVR 2P / 2W SID
on first contact with London Control, the controller wants to clear the aircraft to FL170.
To be 100% correct, the controller should say;
"ABC123 climb flight level 170 cross TUNBY altitude 5000 or above and thirty three miles before dover altitude 6000 or above"
Otherwise, the aircraft may reduce the rate of climb and not make the required profile.
OK, not staying in controlled airspace is not such a big thing........but elsewhere in the world those minimum levels can be for terrain avoidance.
Therefore, the has to be the arguments that;
a) the current system is far from perfect and
b) If aircraft are constantly being given higher levels on the SIDS, the SID design needs to be looked at again.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have to follow the SID with a 6000' stop height, but have been cleared to FL100, what will I put on the MCP?
6000'; as that is my cleared level until passing XYZ?
FL100; as procedures are to put the cleared level on the MCP?
What will the LTMA controller expect to see on mode S?
SOP is to delete FMC hard heights, will this now change? Will we end up doing a load of FMC number punching in the climb in a busy TMA?
6000'; as that is my cleared level until passing XYZ?
FL100; as procedures are to put the cleared level on the MCP?
What will the LTMA controller expect to see on mode S?
SOP is to delete FMC hard heights, will this now change? Will we end up doing a load of FMC number punching in the climb in a busy TMA?