New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if you take off on a QNH of 990 with a SID stop altitude of 5000' but are then cleared to FL080? Not only do you have to remember to respect the SID stop altitude but also remember to change to 1013 at the SID's end and re-set FL080........ When I did my TRE course for the CAA I recall that the UK Air Pilot states that when first cleared to a flight level all subsequent level instructions/limitations will be referenced to 1013. Are these new rules now saying thats now not the case and we'll now be having to respect 2 different level restrictions on 2 different altimeter settings all at the same time? I know its not a big deal but if you're distracted etc. then these errors are very easy to make.
The sky has just become a less safe place...........
The sky has just become a less safe place...........
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: right here
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Restrictions
A4 - in full flow in India (BOM) clearance to FL 140 "with SID restrictions" - look at the SID's and you have stop heights of 1000', 2600' and FL70 depending on which one you are cleared for. Whole thing's a mess and it's plain from the RT that confusion is rife.
Don't go there!!!
Don't go there!!!
Having stop altitudes on SIDs is as stupid as having a different transition altitude for each airport, IMHO. Leave the altitudes off the SIDs (as in Australia, and most of Spain), and simply issue the altitude with the clearance. No mess, no fuss, no misreading of charts, and everyone knows what is expected.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having stop altitudes on SIDs is as stupid as having a different transition altitude for each airport....
Me thinks it's time for these same pilots to actually pay attention to reading the SID chart...and flying the airplane.
Or... SIDS could be done away with altogether.
IF you think the the RT is busy now...it would be far more restrictive and congested without published standard departure procedures.
...in full flow in India (BOM) clearance to FL 140 "with SID restrictions" - look at the SID's and you have stop heights of 1000', 2600' and FL70
So...now all of a sudden it's not appropriate...or doable?
I think what we have here (demonstrated by the complaint about BOM, above) is the dumbing down of new(er) pilots who, in spite of the fact that nice new automation is installed on the flight deck, are unable (or unwilling) to do the job for which they were hired in the first place.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Nice one 411, as ever you have attempted to turn a reasonable discussion into a "look at me..I'm better than the rest of you" type thread.
Nobody cares what you say or think anymore, other than those of us who get a chuckle out of your alternative reality......
Personally I can't understand why you weren't part of the the Mercury seven, its obvious you could have taught those simple fellas a thing or two..........
Here here for common sense, this is a poorly thought through proposal
Nobody cares what you say or think anymore, other than those of us who get a chuckle out of your alternative reality......
Personally I can't understand why you weren't part of the the Mercury seven, its obvious you could have taught those simple fellas a thing or two..........
Here here for common sense, this is a poorly thought through proposal
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm...not wanting to get stuck in like the above posts, but 411A have you read the rest of the thread? The main objection to this proposed change was that the R/T phrase "climb FL 130" would NOT mean 'climb to FL130' but 'after you have finished flying the SID climb to FL 130', and "climb FL130, SID restrictions cancelled" would mean 'climb FL130. Patently bollocks -the fact that the FODCOM has been withdrawn speaks for itself.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather from your comments, haughtney1, that you are unable to actually read a SID chart and apply height restrictions, as appropriate.
One then wonders...how ever have you been able to cope for all these years? Height restrictions on many SID charts have been there seemingly forever.
The original proposal appears to have been poorly thought out and written, however...to suggest that height restrictions be removed from all SIDS (as checkboard mentions) would only add to RT use...and additional confusion.
One then wonders...how ever have you been able to cope for all these years? Height restrictions on many SID charts have been there seemingly forever.
The original proposal appears to have been poorly thought out and written, however...to suggest that height restrictions be removed from all SIDS (as checkboard mentions) would only add to RT use...and additional confusion.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I gather from your comments, haughtney1, that you are unable to actually read a SID chart and apply height restrictions, as appropriate.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, assuming the ATC agencies of all ICAO states are expecting aircraft to be operating in accordance with DOC 4444 with respect to SID constraint compliance with the exception of the UK now as FODCOM 01/09 is cancelled, where I am going to find the equivalent small print to FODCOM 01/09 regarding worldwide states? Is the UK the only exception? Our company certainly doesn't issue this information and I haven't seen such info printed in our Jepp guides. Clearly, the only way around it has to be to check with ATC at the time if there is any doubt.
For what it's worth, was operating to a Spanish airport recently and flying a STAR cleared to a level lower than an 'at' altitude constraint. In accordance with DOC 4444 we crossed the constraint at the published level before descending further, but had previously made 3 attempts to ask if the descent was unrestricted and could not get ATC to understand our query. The issue clearly does not get brought up very often for this airport....
For what it's worth, was operating to a Spanish airport recently and flying a STAR cleared to a level lower than an 'at' altitude constraint. In accordance with DOC 4444 we crossed the constraint at the published level before descending further, but had previously made 3 attempts to ask if the descent was unrestricted and could not get ATC to understand our query. The issue clearly does not get brought up very often for this airport....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I just confirm my understanding of EXISTING procedures are correct? (Be gentle with me please!)
Example: SID out of LHR with final level of 6000ft but restricting `height gates` of say 4000ft and then 5000ft during the SID.
On handover to London Ctl: `..... climb to 6000ft (same as `final` SID level), no ATC speed restriction`
Are the height restrictions of 4000ft and 5000ft now cancelled, and an uninterrupted climb to 6000ft permitted? Thanks!
Example: SID out of LHR with final level of 6000ft but restricting `height gates` of say 4000ft and then 5000ft during the SID.
On handover to London Ctl: `..... climb to 6000ft (same as `final` SID level), no ATC speed restriction`
Are the height restrictions of 4000ft and 5000ft now cancelled, and an uninterrupted climb to 6000ft permitted? Thanks!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what we have here (demonstrated by the complaint about BOM, above) is the dumbing down of new(er) pilots who, in spite of the fact that nice new automation is installed on the flight deck, are unable (or unwilling) to do the job for which they were hired in the first place.
Thanks for this - I bow to your superior airmanship (can we still use this phrase?) - I was merely trying to offer some insight to the problems faced with this procedure which clearly gives problems. Maybe it's time I went after 40 years and left it to your so called "new(er) pilots.
Thanks for this - I bow to your superior airmanship (can we still use this phrase?) - I was merely trying to offer some insight to the problems faced with this procedure which clearly gives problems. Maybe it's time I went after 40 years and left it to your so called "new(er) pilots.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admiral 346,
Making a statement hoping that ATC will correct you if you are wrong is very unsafe. In a busy ATC environment or one where English is not the first language of one of the parties, it is more than possible that the "error" in your readback will be missed. The examples of this are numerous. In any situation if you are unsure of exactly what is required or what your clearance is then the only approved method of seeking clarification is to ask a direct question, as unambiguously as possible.
TC
Making a statement hoping that ATC will correct you if you are wrong is very unsafe. In a busy ATC environment or one where English is not the first language of one of the parties, it is more than possible that the "error" in your readback will be missed. The examples of this are numerous. In any situation if you are unsure of exactly what is required or what your clearance is then the only approved method of seeking clarification is to ask a direct question, as unambiguously as possible.
TC
It is interesting to note (on another forum) that dear-old 411A has recently had to shut down one of his beloved RB211s on his immaculate L1011 and then subsequently had to make a 2-engine ferry back to salvation.
I wonder just how many of his critics had that much excitement last week?
I wonder just how many of his critics had that much excitement last week?