New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DFC,
In the LTMA the requirements to cross points "at" or "Above" on the SIDS is for traffic and route deconfliction when the aircraft are not being provided with radar separation. They are not for terrain clearance unlike some SIDS in parts of Europe. When a controller is providing Radar Control Service, the controller is responsible for ensuring terrain separation. Therefore when a controller clears you to a level off a SID, the controller accepts responsibility for ensuring that the aircraft a) remains clear of traffic conflictions, b) remains clear of terrain conflictions.
If an aircraft reduced its climb rate such that either condition may become possible, the controller is duty bound to take action to resolve the problem
In the LTMA the requirements to cross points "at" or "Above" on the SIDS is for traffic and route deconfliction when the aircraft are not being provided with radar separation. They are not for terrain clearance unlike some SIDS in parts of Europe. When a controller is providing Radar Control Service, the controller is responsible for ensuring terrain separation. Therefore when a controller clears you to a level off a SID, the controller accepts responsibility for ensuring that the aircraft a) remains clear of traffic conflictions, b) remains clear of terrain conflictions.
If an aircraft reduced its climb rate such that either condition may become possible, the controller is duty bound to take action to resolve the problem
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkdli,
The Controller is only responsible for terrain clearance when the aircraft is being vectored.
This ties in perfectly with the new procedure. If you want to vector the flight then you will assume responsibility for the vertical profile flight - both minimum and maximum levels.
If however you leave it on the SID and clear it to a higher level then even in the current system you are required to re-specify all level restrictions including the minimum ones in order to ensure safety.
Saying - if it looks like it won't work I will do something to sort it out does not work in the ensuring safety requirement and that is why the minimum levels are specified in the first place.
-------------
My company's SOPs are to set the Alt select to the first level off in the SID i.e. the first "at" or "at or below". As a back-p to our own actions to follow the SID vertical profile, the ever helpful FMS prompts us to reset the Alt select when it is time to climb to the next level and we would then set the next constraint or if no other SID restrictions the level provided by ATC.
Thus this procedure will not have much of an effect for us or our friends in TC who will see the first level off restriction on our mode S.
Regards,
DFC
The Controller is only responsible for terrain clearance when the aircraft is being vectored.
This ties in perfectly with the new procedure. If you want to vector the flight then you will assume responsibility for the vertical profile flight - both minimum and maximum levels.
If however you leave it on the SID and clear it to a higher level then even in the current system you are required to re-specify all level restrictions including the minimum ones in order to ensure safety.
Saying - if it looks like it won't work I will do something to sort it out does not work in the ensuring safety requirement and that is why the minimum levels are specified in the first place.
-------------
My company's SOPs are to set the Alt select to the first level off in the SID i.e. the first "at" or "at or below". As a back-p to our own actions to follow the SID vertical profile, the ever helpful FMS prompts us to reset the Alt select when it is time to climb to the next level and we would then set the next constraint or if no other SID restrictions the level provided by ATC.
Thus this procedure will not have much of an effect for us or our friends in TC who will see the first level off restriction on our mode S.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clear the aircraft to high levels in the airways clearance and let the SID do it's job.
If unrestricted climb is available - 'cancel altitude restrictions'.
If you need to take them off the SID then all bets are off. Stop climb if required for separation.
NB: The UK doesn't do it this way currently so the 'new' RT will cause confusion unless the procedures are changed. I wouldn't be changing one without the other.
Good luck guys.
If unrestricted climb is available - 'cancel altitude restrictions'.
If you need to take them off the SID then all bets are off. Stop climb if required for separation.
NB: The UK doesn't do it this way currently so the 'new' RT will cause confusion unless the procedures are changed. I wouldn't be changing one without the other.
Good luck guys.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Climb FL XXX" means Climb FL XXX now?
For anotherthing and ATC'ers:
Somewhere in a previous incarnation, I remember the MAP (Manual of Air Traffic Procedures) and AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) stating that a clearance to climb/descend must be initiated within one minute, unless the word "NOW" was also given, which meant (and still means) "NOW".
If ATC wants me to climb/descend, or turn/track direct to... "NOW", then they need to say "NOW" as part of the clearance.
Or is the UK ATC system have a peculiar idea of "NOW"?
Somewhere in a previous incarnation, I remember the MAP (Manual of Air Traffic Procedures) and AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) stating that a clearance to climb/descend must be initiated within one minute, unless the word "NOW" was also given, which meant (and still means) "NOW".
If ATC wants me to climb/descend, or turn/track direct to... "NOW", then they need to say "NOW" as part of the clearance.
Or is the UK ATC system have a peculiar idea of "NOW"?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weapons_hot
When you are given an instruction to climb or turn, that means do it now.
Unfortunately, people try to use the English language to complicate natters (as per your question).
It is the 'do it now' that some people fail to understand.
What I and every every other controller means when we say that a climb instruction means 'do it now' is that the pilot should carry out the instruction in a timely manner i.e. as soon as they and the aircraft are ready.
'Do it now' means do not stop off at SID restriction levels etc if they have not been reiterated.
The one minute you allude to is a notional time published so that if pilots have something going on in the cockpit that we controllers are not privy to, which means it will take more than one minute to initiate the response to our instruction, you must inform us.
The 'one minute' rule is a case of having something in black and white because unfortunately some people cannot think for themselves. As ATCOs we should know that it takes a finite amount of time for pilots to initiate an action... as pilots you should know that if you cannot initiate an action within a reasonable amount of time, you should tell us.
Having said that, in a radar environment, we will soon get onto you if you have not started after a minute!
If I want you to drop everything else you are doing and make my instruction a priority, then I would use the word 'immediately'. I would only use this if there were safety implications. To tell the truth, if that were the case, then chances are in that scenario, I should be using the prefix 'avoiding action'.
The word now is a pointless word to use IMHO and only covers up a lack of understanding of the requirements of ATC. Having said that, because of this stupid new phraseology, I will be using the word 'now' to indicate to pilots that I mean cancel the previous SID restrictions and climb to the level I have just given you.
It is concise, clear and a lot better than what the CAA (because of ICAO), has suggested.
DFC
If we instruct you to climb above SID levels, we are taking you off the SID - that means you can reduce your rate of climb to below that required to meet the previous 'cross tunby at 5000A' etc.
However:
There is a minimum climb performance requirement for all aircraft INCAS - if you can't meet it, you should tell ATC.
If you look at the SID levels in the LTMA, you will find the the cross instructions are mainly to do with track seperation.
In fact, if an aircraft does meet the minimum climb performance criteria, then it will stay INCAS - that's one of the many factors that are taken into consideration when designing airspace, hence the reason why the LTMA and other pieces of airspace step up the further from the airfields you get.
In fact, the Designated base at TUNBY is 2500 to the west and 3500 to the east (the dividing line goes through TUNBY) - cross TUNBY at 4000' would be the instruction required to remain INCAS.
When you are given an instruction to climb or turn, that means do it now.
Unfortunately, people try to use the English language to complicate natters (as per your question).
It is the 'do it now' that some people fail to understand.
What I and every every other controller means when we say that a climb instruction means 'do it now' is that the pilot should carry out the instruction in a timely manner i.e. as soon as they and the aircraft are ready.
'Do it now' means do not stop off at SID restriction levels etc if they have not been reiterated.
The one minute you allude to is a notional time published so that if pilots have something going on in the cockpit that we controllers are not privy to, which means it will take more than one minute to initiate the response to our instruction, you must inform us.
The 'one minute' rule is a case of having something in black and white because unfortunately some people cannot think for themselves. As ATCOs we should know that it takes a finite amount of time for pilots to initiate an action... as pilots you should know that if you cannot initiate an action within a reasonable amount of time, you should tell us.
Having said that, in a radar environment, we will soon get onto you if you have not started after a minute!
If I want you to drop everything else you are doing and make my instruction a priority, then I would use the word 'immediately'. I would only use this if there were safety implications. To tell the truth, if that were the case, then chances are in that scenario, I should be using the prefix 'avoiding action'.
The word now is a pointless word to use IMHO and only covers up a lack of understanding of the requirements of ATC. Having said that, because of this stupid new phraseology, I will be using the word 'now' to indicate to pilots that I mean cancel the previous SID restrictions and climb to the level I have just given you.
It is concise, clear and a lot better than what the CAA (because of ICAO), has suggested.
DFC
If we instruct you to climb above SID levels, we are taking you off the SID - that means you can reduce your rate of climb to below that required to meet the previous 'cross tunby at 5000A' etc.
However:
There is a minimum climb performance requirement for all aircraft INCAS - if you can't meet it, you should tell ATC.
If you look at the SID levels in the LTMA, you will find the the cross instructions are mainly to do with track seperation.
In fact, if an aircraft does meet the minimum climb performance criteria, then it will stay INCAS - that's one of the many factors that are taken into consideration when designing airspace, hence the reason why the LTMA and other pieces of airspace step up the further from the airfields you get.
In fact, the Designated base at TUNBY is 2500 to the west and 3500 to the east (the dividing line goes through TUNBY) - cross TUNBY at 4000' would be the instruction required to remain INCAS.
Last edited by anotherthing; 14th Jan 2009 at 10:11.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big question...
We need to ask: Why are these changes being made? Does anyone know yet? The FODCOM forgot to mention this. It's useful to know why you need to do something before doing it. And for the record I agree with what people are saying: This is going to cause ATC busts left right and centre. I propose we don't implement this change.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to ask: Why are these changes being made? Does anyone know yet? The FODCOM forgot to mention this.
FODCOM 01/09
1 Introduction
1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) introduced new procedures and phraseology associated with climb and descent instructions issued to aircraft following a SID or a STAR.
1.2 The purpose of this FODCOM is to inform operators how the CAA intends to implement these new ICAO procedures.
1 Introduction
1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) introduced new procedures and phraseology associated with climb and descent instructions issued to aircraft following a SID or a STAR.
1.2 The purpose of this FODCOM is to inform operators how the CAA intends to implement these new ICAO procedures.
A little bit of the ATC chronology to add further confusion to the issue perhaps
10th December 2008 -
ATSIN 119 Climb Above Notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes was issued which provided details of the Eurocontrol Safety Warning Message mandating Authorities in Europe to make the relevant changes. At this point the UK CAA did not introduce the change since they had not fully assessed it for safety impacts. In other words, no adoption of the ICAO revised procedure at that time.
ATSIN 119
17th December 2008 -
CAP493 SI 2008/04 Procedures and Phraseology Concerning Level Restrictions associated with Standard Instrument Departures was issued with immediate effect, requiring UK ATC to adopt the new ICAO procedure, on 12th March 2009.
The rationale for this change was as follows:
The CAA has completed a lengthy safety analysis, which included assessment of the advantages, disadvantages and impact of various options. As a result, it was established that the pre ATSIN 119 UK procedure would generate a significant risk of confusion and potential for level busts by UK pilots operating overseas, and by overseas pilots operating in the UK, due to its contrary intent to the revised ICAO provisions. There was evidence that the interim ATSIN 119 procedure did not adequately mitigate these risks, and that in recent months foreign pilots operating in the UK were increasingly requesting clarification from ATC on when to initiate the new climb instruction. Therefore, the CAA has concluded that the ICAO procedure should be adopted, albeit with amended RTF and expanded controller guidance, as this will reduce the risk of level busts, mitigate the negative effects of verbose phraseology and the impact of the new procedure on UK SIDs.
14th January 2009 -
Today !! Another CAP 493 SI has been issued with immediate effect, withdrawing SI 2008/04. Until further notice, the UK shall continue to use the ATSIN 119 procedures found above. A small victory for common sense and hopefully the comments provided here, and in other channels of communication, have made the CAA see sense.
1. Introduction
1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) had the effect of introducing new procedures and phraseology associated with climb instructions issued to aircraft following a SID. Following consultation with industry and a safety assessment of the changes to ICAO procedures and phraseology, SRG issued CAP 493 MATS Part 1 SI 2008/04 (Procedures and Phraseology concerning Level Restrictions associated with Standard Instrument Departures (SID)). This SI provided details of revised UK procedures for aircraft on SIDs.
1.2 Since the publication of the SI and the associated FODCOM to aircraft operators, SRG has received a number of comments from both aircraft operators and air traffic service providers.
2. Withdrawal of SI 2008/04 and Reversion to Interim Procedures and Phraseology
2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.
2.2 Consequently, and until further notice, controllers are to continue to apply the interim procedures and phraseology detailed in ATSIN 119 entitled ‘Climb above notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes’.
1.1 A recent change to ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM) had the effect of introducing new procedures and phraseology associated with climb instructions issued to aircraft following a SID. Following consultation with industry and a safety assessment of the changes to ICAO procedures and phraseology, SRG issued CAP 493 MATS Part 1 SI 2008/04 (Procedures and Phraseology concerning Level Restrictions associated with Standard Instrument Departures (SID)). This SI provided details of revised UK procedures for aircraft on SIDs.
1.2 Since the publication of the SI and the associated FODCOM to aircraft operators, SRG has received a number of comments from both aircraft operators and air traffic service providers.
2. Withdrawal of SI 2008/04 and Reversion to Interim Procedures and Phraseology
2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.
2.2 Consequently, and until further notice, controllers are to continue to apply the interim procedures and phraseology detailed in ATSIN 119 entitled ‘Climb above notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes’.
Perhaps the further consultation can provide an opportunity for the idea to be kicked in to touch .. permanently !!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can tell FODCOM 01/09 was derived from this document from paragraph 1.3 of this document from Eurocontrol:
http://www.vcockpit.de/images/attach...20version).pdf
Which it claims reflects ICAO Doc 4444 which is available here:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc...%20Management/
The problem is that the information given in paragraph 3.1.2 of the FODCOM does not accurately reflect the Eurocontrol document paragraph 1.3, which in turn does not accurately reflect ICAO Doc 4444 Paragraph 12.3.1.2.
Or more simply FODCOM 01/09 is entirely incorrect in stating that this is an ICAO requirement - it isn't - it has been entirely made up to the detriment of safety in the UK.
Appears to me like this is Chinese Whispers, with some very serious safety implications - even if UK pilots understand and do this, how are non UK pilots conforming to ICAO standards going to react to the instruction "Climb FL XXX" on a SID?
http://www.vcockpit.de/images/attach...20version).pdf
Which it claims reflects ICAO Doc 4444 which is available here:
http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc...%20Management/
The problem is that the information given in paragraph 3.1.2 of the FODCOM does not accurately reflect the Eurocontrol document paragraph 1.3, which in turn does not accurately reflect ICAO Doc 4444 Paragraph 12.3.1.2.
Or more simply FODCOM 01/09 is entirely incorrect in stating that this is an ICAO requirement - it isn't - it has been entirely made up to the detriment of safety in the UK.
Appears to me like this is Chinese Whispers, with some very serious safety implications - even if UK pilots understand and do this, how are non UK pilots conforming to ICAO standards going to react to the instruction "Climb FL XXX" on a SID?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot mike
I was talking about what happens today, not what was scheduled to happen in March (but it won't be coming in now subject to further (proper?) consultation).
I was replying to an earlier post by weapons_hot - hence the reason his name was at the top of my post - which specifically talked about the word 'now' and the application of the 'one minute' rule, and how the interpretation of the poster who mentioned those things was at odds with what an ATCO expects.
I further amplified this by stating in my post tha I thought under preset conditions, the use of the word 'now' is actually a little pointless, and is just an ass covering method for the continual year on year 'dumbing down' of the aviation industry.
Therefore, no contradiction on my part, I fully understand the implications of the new procedures and am totally against them. Savvy?!
I stand by my assertion that a conditional climb is dangerous - possibly one of the many reasons why this flawed phraseology is being reconsidered?
I was talking about what happens today, not what was scheduled to happen in March (but it won't be coming in now subject to further (proper?) consultation).
I was replying to an earlier post by weapons_hot - hence the reason his name was at the top of my post - which specifically talked about the word 'now' and the application of the 'one minute' rule, and how the interpretation of the poster who mentioned those things was at odds with what an ATCO expects.
I further amplified this by stating in my post tha I thought under preset conditions, the use of the word 'now' is actually a little pointless, and is just an ass covering method for the continual year on year 'dumbing down' of the aviation industry.
Therefore, no contradiction on my part, I fully understand the implications of the new procedures and am totally against them. Savvy?!
I stand by my assertion that a conditional climb is dangerous - possibly one of the many reasons why this flawed phraseology is being reconsidered?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Handbags from either me nor Pilot Mike, BOAC - just keen to get the correct message across.
Having read my posts on this subject (to make sure I was not giving bad info), I stand by them. I clearly state when I am talking about procedures as they are today, and I clearly state that I think the new procedures are flawed.
Furthermore, I clearly state that I believe conditional climbs are dangerous,which is why none of my colleagues that I have spoken to, would use this new procedure - whicj amounts to basically hoping that the pilot understood I meant climb after the SID ends.
I cannot see any benefit for a climb instruction in the LTMA that takes effect after the SID restrictions. In the LTMA (like most other places I would hazard a guess), climb means do it now, without the restrictions (unless they have been re-iterated).
However, as BOAC has stated, common sense has prevailed, lets just hope it stays that way!
Having read my posts on this subject (to make sure I was not giving bad info), I stand by them. I clearly state when I am talking about procedures as they are today, and I clearly state that I think the new procedures are flawed.
Furthermore, I clearly state that I believe conditional climbs are dangerous,which is why none of my colleagues that I have spoken to, would use this new procedure - whicj amounts to basically hoping that the pilot understood I meant climb after the SID ends.
I cannot see any benefit for a climb instruction in the LTMA that takes effect after the SID restrictions. In the LTMA (like most other places I would hazard a guess), climb means do it now, without the restrictions (unless they have been re-iterated).
However, as BOAC has stated, common sense has prevailed, lets just hope it stays that way!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N59W30
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all i know is i;ll be levelling at 6000 ft on cpt depts ex LHR and before I clb irrespective of a FL100 clearance, I'll be reconfirming that I am cleared to climb after the 6000' restriction.. Covering my ass as every other skipper will do and doubling the r/t calls will just block the frequencies and wreck the controllers heads. This is a fuk up and a major incident on the mat. Can some one with common sense just stand up and say "stop, nice in theory but totally unworkable, bin it." Lets not reinvent the wheel.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Outside the EU
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love 2.1 ............
2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.
I spy some rapid back-peddling by the CAA.
2.1 SI 2008/04 is therefore withdrawn. This is in order to ensure that the comments received from industry are given appropriate consideration and allow time for further consultation.
I spy some rapid back-peddling by the CAA.
confusion
Though this is applicable today, from 12th March this will be dangerously WRONG according to the wording of the new procedures:
Some countries such as Japan, have had this position in respect to clearances on SIDs/STARs for a decade or more, predating DOC 4444's recent amendment. China has expected operators to comply with STAR restrictions even when not cleared by such, and to some extent so does Korea. Korea implemented this amendment in 2008.
The result appears to be that every time you get a clearance, it is not unreasonable to clarify the intent of the controller. Even in the states, you will either get a 14 CFR part 91.13(a) Careless or reckless operation or a 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions. violation if you proceed on an assumption of the clearance. If you refer to Jeppesen ATC or State differences from ICAO, it does not clarify the situation.
It would be far more boring but safer if the DOC 4444 "standard" was rational from a safety point of view, and was "standard"ised. Change itself does not have to be a negative, but not providing adequate change management and education prior to implementing change may result in adverse reaction and outcomes.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have it on good authority that this 'silly' scheme will be withdrawn by the CAA this afternoon or first thing in the morning. The concern is that other states have already implemented this change so 'be careful out there'.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Thread Starter
As the thread starter I am delighted that it has stimulated such a rapid and in depth debate. I'm also pleased that it has perhaps played a very small part in the CAA taking a second look and actually realising that the people who this is going to directly affect are not happy.
I do still have one major concern. Which countries have ALREADY introduced this new system? I sure as hell don't know which countries have - do you? This is a major flight safety issue for all of us. So let's use the collective brains here on PPRune to try and educate each other as to where we are supposed to implement this.
A4
I do still have one major concern. Which countries have ALREADY introduced this new system? I sure as hell don't know which countries have - do you? This is a major flight safety issue for all of us. So let's use the collective brains here on PPRune to try and educate each other as to where we are supposed to implement this.
A4
I do still have one major concern. Which countries have ALREADY introduced this new system? I sure as hell don't know which countries have - do you? This is a major flight safety issue for all of us. So let's use the collective brains here on PPRuNe to try and educate each other as to where we are supposed to implement this.