New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Thread Starter
New SID RT Procedures -12 March 09
Hi,
Don't know how long this will stay in "News" but a heads up for all who fly in UK airspace. New RT procedures coming soon - with a potential for "problems" if people don't know the new procedures.......
FODCOM can be found here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200901.pdf
The important bit......
3 New UK Procedures and Phraseology
3.1 SIDs
3.1.1 Under the new procedures, when a departing aircraft is cleared to climb above the initially cleared level or the levels specified in a SID, the aircraft shall still follow the published vertical profile of the SID unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled by ATC.
3.1.2 Consequently, when the aircraft is required to follow the published vertical profile of the SID the new UK phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will follow the published vertical profile of the SID and, only after passing the end of the SID, commence a climb to FL100.
3.1.3 However, when the aircraft is required to climb immediately to a level above the final level on the SID, or above the initially cleared level if this is below the SID upper level, the phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX, SID level restrictions cancelled”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100, SID level restrictions cancelled”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will climb directly to FL100 without reference to any part of the published vertical profile of the SID including any minimum height requirements.
Fly safe and Happy New Year,
A4
Don't know how long this will stay in "News" but a heads up for all who fly in UK airspace. New RT procedures coming soon - with a potential for "problems" if people don't know the new procedures.......
FODCOM can be found here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200901.pdf
The important bit......
3 New UK Procedures and Phraseology
3.1 SIDs
3.1.1 Under the new procedures, when a departing aircraft is cleared to climb above the initially cleared level or the levels specified in a SID, the aircraft shall still follow the published vertical profile of the SID unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled by ATC.
3.1.2 Consequently, when the aircraft is required to follow the published vertical profile of the SID the new UK phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will follow the published vertical profile of the SID and, only after passing the end of the SID, commence a climb to FL100.
3.1.3 However, when the aircraft is required to climb immediately to a level above the final level on the SID, or above the initially cleared level if this is below the SID upper level, the phraseology is:
“Callsign, climb FLXXX, SID level restrictions cancelled”,
e.g. “JET123, climb FL100, SID level restrictions cancelled”.
In this example, assuming an upper SID level below FL100, the pilot will climb directly to FL100 without reference to any part of the published vertical profile of the SID including any minimum height requirements.
Fly safe and Happy New Year,
A4
Guest
Posts: n/a
This new procedure needs to proof first that it will work as engineered.
On first glance it is the perfect scenario to create dangerous situations as accidentally busting the SID restrictions will be a more than a daily occurrence.
The FMC should have the altitude restrictions programmed, this, however, will work only if operating in VNAV mode.....
Do not repair something if it ain't broken comes to mind....
On first glance it is the perfect scenario to create dangerous situations as accidentally busting the SID restrictions will be a more than a daily occurrence.
The FMC should have the altitude restrictions programmed, this, however, will work only if operating in VNAV mode.....
Do not repair something if it ain't broken comes to mind....
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Thread Starter
I agree Nightrider - potential disaster written all over it.
How's this for a similar scenario/problem? You're flying a SID with a stop altitude of 5000'. You're in CLB (Managed on Airbus, VNAV on Boeing I think) and ATC clear you to FL80. You preselect 8000' and if there is a constraint at 5000' you end up with 5000 MAGENTA and 8000 on the FCU (MCP). The aircraft will obey the constraints in "managed".
Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.
This is one problem with P-RNAV departures and preselecting final platforms - if ATC don't give you a recleared level if they put you on a heading........
Let's hope that all Airline Ops departments are very proactive in promulgating this one.
MODS can you leave this as a "sticky" at the top of rumours to give maximum awareness?
How's this for a similar scenario/problem? You're flying a SID with a stop altitude of 5000'. You're in CLB (Managed on Airbus, VNAV on Boeing I think) and ATC clear you to FL80. You preselect 8000' and if there is a constraint at 5000' you end up with 5000 MAGENTA and 8000 on the FCU (MCP). The aircraft will obey the constraints in "managed".
Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.
This is one problem with P-RNAV departures and preselecting final platforms - if ATC don't give you a recleared level if they put you on a heading........
Let's hope that all Airline Ops departments are very proactive in promulgating this one.
MODS can you leave this as a "sticky" at the top of rumours to give maximum awareness?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope that all Airline Ops departments are very proactive in promulgating this one
Just as well that our last sim checks included lots of TCAS alerts...
P
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So an ATC cleared level may not be the level you are intitially cleared to....at least not until you reach a point on the SID.
This will cause mayhem with certain (non-'native english' speaking) operators. Why change what already works? Why jam up the (already overloaded) frequencies with ATC having to issue longer clearances when wanting you to ignore SID restrictions? How much time/distraction will ATC have to give when someone mis-understands their clearance and climbs into the stack?!!?
This will cause mayhem with certain (non-'native english' speaking) operators. Why change what already works? Why jam up the (already overloaded) frequencies with ATC having to issue longer clearances when wanting you to ignore SID restrictions? How much time/distraction will ATC have to give when someone mis-understands their clearance and climbs into the stack?!!?
=
So, with out "Vnav" in our vintage A300's, what are we supposed to do.
Do we go back to the old days of writing down the cleared level and then remember to dial this up at the end of the SID, or dial it up straight away and remember to hit ALT when at the SID limit level?
Also, I fly with a lot of people whose first language is not English and have difficulty getting the first call right after take off. (ie. SID designator, Passing level and Cleared level).
I don't think they will get this right all of the time either! More ATC congestion!
Fly safe.
Do we go back to the old days of writing down the cleared level and then remember to dial this up at the end of the SID, or dial it up straight away and remember to hit ALT when at the SID limit level?
Also, I fly with a lot of people whose first language is not English and have difficulty getting the first call right after take off. (ie. SID designator, Passing level and Cleared level).
I don't think they will get this right all of the time either! More ATC congestion!
Fly safe.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it would appear with this change that for practical purposes ATC begins where the SID ends. If you have FMS then program the stop heights in the FMS and don't delete them, if you don't have FMS um.... good luck 
Quite agree that this is an accident (or a very near miss) waiting to happen. It's not a UK thing, it's come from ICAO and they need to re-think this and change it. The only way it will work is for new levels never to issued until the aircraft is past the restriction point or for the SID restriction to be cancelled every time when issuing the level.
In the same way as the phrase "take-off" is never used by aircraft or ATC except to actually issue the take-off clearance the same should apply to "climb" or "descend". The phrase should never be used except when it is safe for the aircraft to follow the clearance. Another piece of madness dreamt up in an ivory tower by people who have probably never been near an ATC radar unit or an aircraft.
It's basically a conditional clearance and I thought that was something ICAO where trying to get away from, very strange.
In the same way as the phrase "take-off" is never used by aircraft or ATC except to actually issue the take-off clearance the same should apply to "climb" or "descend". The phrase should never be used except when it is safe for the aircraft to follow the clearance. Another piece of madness dreamt up in an ivory tower by people who have probably never been near an ATC radar unit or an aircraft.
It's basically a conditional clearance and I thought that was something ICAO where trying to get away from, very strange.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point? Why? If there's a good reason (and Europe is NOT a good reason - that's what the 'exceptions' bit at the back of CAP 413 is for) then fair enough but this just looks like lots of unnecessary R/T for nothing, and definitely ambiguous. 'Climb FLXXX' means just that in other circumstances, why different on a SID? Toooooooo dodgy.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone from ATC have any idea what the logic is behind the changes? Will it help with flow management? Will it reduce frequency congestion? I doubt it will help to achieve the latter for the reasons already mentioned.
Totally agree A4
I'm yet to fly a P-RNAV departure and be left alone by atc to follow the SID without being given a more direct routing/ heading. Level bust city.
This is one problem with P-RNAV departures and preselecting final platforms
I'm yet to fly a P-RNAV departure and be left alone by atc to follow the SID without being given a more direct routing/ heading. Level bust city.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other potential gotcha is that you may be given the higher level quite early on in the SID. In the meantime the controller may have to deal with non-expected conflicting traffic (say someone on a requested heading to avoid w/x for instance) and the only thing that saves a woopsy is him remembering that he gave you a higher level some time ago.
This strikes me as very very dodgy with no obvious potential gain. Far too much projecting ahead required on the part of the controller, who cannot just clear & forget for the reason I envisaged above and no doubt many others.
Truly, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
This strikes me as very very dodgy with no obvious potential gain. Far too much projecting ahead required on the part of the controller, who cannot just clear & forget for the reason I envisaged above and no doubt many others.
Truly, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Plus one for the unhappy club. As a postholder I am not looking forward to being responsible for implementing something that I know to contain a substantial source of confusion/error and that I consider to be an accident waiting to happen. How the hell can I justify that within a meaningful safety management system? 
Slow clap for whoever came up with the safety case for it. In fact, I'd like to *see* the safety case...
Slow clap for whoever came up with the safety case for it. In fact, I'd like to *see* the safety case...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fod200901
Now ATC tell you to continue present heading whilst climbing and bingo - the Airbus reverts to OP CLB (LVL Change on Boeing?) and ignores the 5000 constraint and carries on to 8000' - level bust.
Does that mean as soon as you are given a radar heading, you climb straight away? As you won't be following the SID anymore
3.1.4 If instructions are issued that change an aircraft’s SID route (e.g. placing the aircraft on a heading), the SID’s vertical constraints are automatically cancelled. Therefore the controller will state the vertical profile to be followed
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we've had this confusion for years and innumerable posts on PPrune about 'what am I supposed to do'
I can see major problems, but maybe if we adopt the same mindset as we do on 'cleared for the procedural approach' where we do not set the final platform altitude UNTIL it becomes appropriate, we might learn to adapt.
BIG question, however, is how is this going to fit with furrin visitors - do all ICAO procedures operate this way (in theory, anyway) or will this be a huge 'gotcha' for 'mr overseas'?
I can see major problems, but maybe if we adopt the same mindset as we do on 'cleared for the procedural approach' where we do not set the final platform altitude UNTIL it becomes appropriate, we might learn to adapt.
BIG question, however, is how is this going to fit with furrin visitors - do all ICAO procedures operate this way (in theory, anyway) or will this be a huge 'gotcha' for 'mr overseas'?
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Thread Starter
Thanks for all the replies - glad I'm not the only one who's concerned.
Interestingly at the end of the FODCOM it states they are not YET going to implement changes for STARS - a deviation from ICAO. They will wait until further implementation of P-RNAV has taken place.......... so why not deviate from ICAO with SID's? The vast majority of views expressed on here from drivers is that it is a retrograde and dangerous step.
Why do the CAA think this is a good idea?
A4
The big concern is foreign crews who may be completely unaware of this - or their respective Authorities have decided to not implement it. Recent case in point is TCAS phraseology. We now say "TCAS RA" instead of "TCAS CLIMB/DESCENT"..... but in Spain I believe they have retained CLIMB / DESCENT in the call. Why can we not standardise?
A4
Interestingly at the end of the FODCOM it states they are not YET going to implement changes for STARS - a deviation from ICAO. They will wait until further implementation of P-RNAV has taken place.......... so why not deviate from ICAO with SID's? The vast majority of views expressed on here from drivers is that it is a retrograde and dangerous step.
Why do the CAA think this is a good idea?
A4
The big concern is foreign crews who may be completely unaware of this - or their respective Authorities have decided to not implement it. Recent case in point is TCAS phraseology. We now say "TCAS RA" instead of "TCAS CLIMB/DESCENT"..... but in Spain I believe they have retained CLIMB / DESCENT in the call. Why can we not standardise?
A4
Hmmm... standard ways of doing things, so everyone knows what each other is going to do. You know, it's crazy but it might just work - quick, someone think up an acronym!
It would be nice if the UK powers-that-be would tell us - rather than all having to go and find out, individually - if any other regulator going to implement this, ICAO standard though it might be. I would be very interested to hear from our colleagues elsewhere.
It would be nice if the UK powers-that-be would tell us - rather than all having to go and find out, individually - if any other regulator going to implement this, ICAO standard though it might be. I would be very interested to hear from our colleagues elsewhere.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This strikes me as a classic example of being instructed by ATC to do something that you are not necessarily yet cleared to do, and I am sure that at best it will cause a significant increase in level busts, and at worst a catastrophe,
It goes completely against the grain, and appears to be contrary to the wisdom of previous initiatives designed to avoid confusion, for example the "behind the landing XYZ, line up behind." In this example the aditional use of "behind" was added (I presume) to ensure clarity and reduce the chance of any missunderstanding.
Here we have a procedure that may be necessary for ATC operation reasons, and it is clear that all posters agree it is going to lead to confusion. It seems appropriate to me that there would be little difficulty in introduing this initiative if a qualifier is added to the instruction - for example "AFTER ABC, climb FL100.
It goes completely against the grain, and appears to be contrary to the wisdom of previous initiatives designed to avoid confusion, for example the "behind the landing XYZ, line up behind." In this example the aditional use of "behind" was added (I presume) to ensure clarity and reduce the chance of any missunderstanding.
Here we have a procedure that may be necessary for ATC operation reasons, and it is clear that all posters agree it is going to lead to confusion. It seems appropriate to me that there would be little difficulty in introduing this initiative if a qualifier is added to the instruction - for example "AFTER ABC, climb FL100.