Step climb departure best practices

[Journey Man]

Latetonite,

Don't be worried. Understand the thread, instead.

We're not discussing how best to 'let the autopilot fly' the aircraft. I've repeatedly tried to steer the post away from individual preferences towards discussing if there is a specific industry best practice or regulation in the presented scenario as we're merely a part of a larger system of traffic nowadays, and it's each of our professional responsibilities to each other to integrate as seamlessly into that system.

I've framed that discussion with reference to a particular case to give some context. If the technology we carry is creating new threats, in this case enhanced Mode S Tx displaying preselected altitude causing ATC to intervene despite the aircraft being flown on the correct lateral and vertical path, then I believe there is a wider discussion to be had.

One of the many benefits of never being the smartest guy in the room is that I can come to PPRuNe and ask my peers for advice. It really is a great tool for that and allows me to be exposed to a wider experience pool.

I hope now you understand the thread and feel less concerned. You could possibly even contribute something constructive.

[de facto]

Here is some information about step climb after a given heading:
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493...tion201004.pdf
And about level bust:https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP710.PDF

I dont think you will get a rule by a CAA how to set your MCP as they are too many types of aircraft,some even without an MCP mind you
I know how it will be set in mine thats all i can say.

If the technology we carry is creating new threats, in this case enhanced Mode S Tx displaying preselected altitude causing ATC to intervene despite the aircraft being flown on the correct lateral and vertical path, then I believe there is a wider discussion to be had.

They dont fly your aircraft,they are just making sure you will level off at the correct altitude.
They dont inquire to make you feel like you dont know how to manage your aircraft,they are just responding to risk as level busts are recurrent at these airports....and well lets face it some are because the initial altitude wasnt set and crews ended up in an "open" mode eventhough vnav was planned.
I find it normal that ATC is using this tool and if they recognise a potential risk,(aircraft will pass 1000 ft above the initial hard altitude )to confirm with you,that is CRM whether pilots like it or not.


Good luck with your thread.

[Journey Man]

CAP710 was interesting.

CAP493 is common sense. i.e. you go on a heading, you're no longer on the SID as I stated earlier (post #35) in response to one of the other poster's 'what if, what if' scenarios. Steps are defined by a fix not a distance, as you've said in post #37, for a reason. A fix has a lateral element to it. A distance merely prescribes a circle around a DME.

You seem not to understand what I've asked in the opening post. Enhanced Mode S may be introducing conflicts in the overall system. I'm not asking for ATC to "fly my aircraft". With over 3000 hours of hand flown IFR, I'm aware not all aircraft have an Alt preselect. They also, therefore, don't create the conflict caused by Enhanced Mode S, which is the main subject of the thread. Would a smiley face help here? How about ""? PPRuNe could be such a valuable resource for peers to discuss issues were it not for the flight sim brigade.

Thanks to those who've been constructive; this has probably run its course now.

[de facto]

You seem not to understand what I've asked in the opening post.

This?

Hi,

I'm looking for some guidance on industry best practices for managing step climb SID profiles with particular reference to vertical mode selection and armed/pre-selected altitude.

It was clearly answered by Citation 2.
There is not such guidance for the reason i tried to explain,each airliner systems has it own limits and pilots need be aware of them.(systems which the manufacturer need to make sure operators/pilots understand the limits/traps of).
The regulator job is to make sure that if level busts are frequent,the airlines are made aware of it and get a contingency procedure in place to avoid recurrence.
If i didnt answer your question,i apologise.

How about ""? PPRuNe could be such a valuable resource for peers to discuss issues were it not for the flight sim brigade.

Need variety to make a world...

this has probably run its course now.

I think so too.

[Journey Man]

opinion presented as fact

Copy and pasting an excerpt of text does not indicate understanding. I was seeking industry best practice (i.e. Company SOP) or regulation. De facto, what you have repeatedly attempted is to present your opinion as regulation without a single relevant reference to give credence to your statements.

The only reference you have provided is a link to the usage of the UK usage of the phraseology 'climb now', which has at no point been queried in this thread and is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

You've presented an en route SARP as applicable regulation to the departure phase. Explain the difference between 'must' and 'should'. I can't speak for your virtual airline's performance calculations, but my take-off performance analysis is predicated on a specific climb speed in the CLB thrust detent until the acceleration altitude.

Originally Posted by de facto

It was clearly answered by Citation 2.

Citation2 has provided no such definitive clarification, nor regulatory reference. Indeed, in their post they state:

Originally Posted by citation2

You might be on heading to avoid weather in a busy environment , where you exercised your emergency authority to avoid weather due to a busy frequency , but still ATC expect you to maintain an initial altitude.

If you are taking avoiding action and deviating from the SID, you are no longer following the SID profile and the SID step climb profile is not applicable. To state that the the SID vertical profile is still applicable when deviating from the SID lateral track is neither a comprehensive, nor correct, answer despite your claim. It is nonsensical and potentially unsafe. You claim step altitudes are purely defined by DMEs, when they are defined by a fix that has a lateral element (i.e. a radial). A DME distance purely prescribes a circle around the DME, which coupled with your friend Citation2's suggestion of going off on a heading, may never be intersected. In what way do you feel Citation2 'clearly answered' the initial query for industry best practice or regulation?

De facto, as a flight simmer, you do not have an approved Ops Manual. Unless providing regulatory references you are not qualified to answer the initial query of industry best practice. No need to apologise for this. Some of my colleagues have responded stating what their Ops Manuals mandates, thus providing an indication of the industry's current practices. Clarifying regulation has not been presented. Therefore, as a flight simmer, your input is reduced to mere opinion, which you've repeatedly brandish as incontrovertible. This you should apologise for.

If my tone is acerbic, contemplate the snide and patronising comments littering your posts:

You are from the uk...where were you trained??
[ATC] dont fly your aircraft...

etc…

In the last fifteen years I've held four licences, on various continents, and in my opening posts I freely admit that I am unsure of the applicable regulation in this instance. The whole raison d'ętre of my post was to seek clarification. I have absolutely no issue with admitting that. During attaining each of those licences I've sat exams for Air Law and, unfortunately, there has been some muddying of the waters and information lost to the fog of time. PPRuNe should be a valuable industry resource for professional pilots to discuss such matters, providing reference to regulatory documentation. Unfortunatley, the forums are frequented predominantly by arm chair experts who constantly present opinion as fact. You perfectly illustrate why certain sub-forums should be restricted to those who present a verifiable commercial licence.

Once again, thank you to my peers who've presented valuable input.

[de facto]

Well seems like you got me alright,I must be the flight simmer of the year
By the way ALL my last sim airlines SOP required Hard altitudes to be selected regardless of vertical mode used,PC or MAC.

[latetonite]

I think in Windows 10 there will be no more need to do this.

[Citation2]

Journey man: when on heading , SID restrictions are not applicable anymore. This has been clarified for UK only.
Other states still expect you to maintain SID restrictions while on heading. Aviation is not only in the UK ( unless you are only qualified for domestic flights).

From IATA document "SID STAR report on potential misunderstanding ften on SIDS, there are altitude restrictions. ATC often give clearance to a higher level without specifying whether those mandatory altitudes are still applicable. Also on STARs, ATC often give direct routings bypassing certain waypoints with mandatory crossing altitudes. Some ATCs expect pilots to cross abeam the mandatory waypoint at the specified altitude without actually instructing the pilots that the mandatory altitude still applies at the abeam waypoint position"

So I would carefully check the AIPs , charts and confirm with ATC if restrictions are still applicable and not apply a UK definition to the rest of the world.

Secondly I have already had this experience where I thought that on heading speed restriction was not applicable, still it was and we were asked about our deviation.

Thirdly logically speaking , in the UK if you were taken off the route by ATC Restrictions are no longer applicable.

But if ATC expected you to fly the SID and consequently based traffic separation on the assumption that you will fly the sid and profile then under your own initiative you took a heading left or right to avoid weather , it's a different thing as ATC expected you to be on profile in the SID , by the time you select your heading you are already overshooting and busting the level before even rotating the knob to the desired heading.

Industry best practice : better be safe than sorry.

[Journey Man]

Speed restrictions are different to altitude restrictions, for obvious reasons, and handled differently. You always have the option to clarify your clearance. Similarly, a STAR is a significantly different situation to a SID and handled differently in every jurisdiction I've flown in.

FAA "climb via" clarification (it's non-UK) http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...nd_via_faq.pdf Question 11 on page 4 may prove enlightening for you? I will seek out some more European based source documentation to clarify the differences further.

You haven't posted the source for the text you quote so I can't double check it, however it makes no mention of altitude restrictions when taking a heading off the SID, which is what you are alluding to. It does talk about being cleared to a higher level and confusion over whether the intermediary altitude restrictions apply, however this is whilst on the SID lateral track. This situation is handled in FAA regulated airspace using "climb via" and in the UK using "climb now", as your friend de facto has correctly stated. The excerpt you've copied does not mention being off the lateral profile of a SID at any time.

It does mention being off the lateral profile of a STAR. These are two very different situations. Read the excerpt you've copied again.

This is not pertinent to the thread's initial purpose. May I suggest debating this in a separate thread, or perusing the source documents.

[piratepete]

Standard initial radio call on an ifr flight

Standard ICAO RADIO TELEPHONY requires you to state (initial contact once airborne) for example .........." passing 800 feet, climbing 5000 feet TIMBUCKTOO SEVEN DEPARTURE".If the LAST HARD ALTITUDE in your assigned SID is say 16000 feet (you might even be given this number in your ATC CLEARANCE) but the FIRST HARD ALTITUDE is 5000 feet you must both SET 5000 feet in your MCP and mention this number in your first radio call to DEPARTURE FREQUENCY.You ARE NOT ALLOWED to just put the last HARD ALTITUDE in the MCP and rely on VNAV to keep you legal.With close proximity other aerodromes you MIGHT HIT SOMEONE.Watch the reaction from DEPARTURE when you mention "CLIMBING TO 16000 feet......" you will be told off because you are only cleared to the INITIAL HARD ALTITUDE until ATC says otherwise........Dont be silly.

[Journey Man]

Citations2,

Doc 8168 Volume I Flight Procedures, take a look at 1.7 discussing radar vectors on a SID, 4.2 describing a SID and 4.3 describing an omnidirectional departure. Should help clarify, and note this is ICAO Doc. 8168.

Originally Posted by piratepete

you are only cleared to the INITIAL HARD ALTITUDE until ATC says otherwise........Dont be silly.

So on reaching the first altitude restriction, you will maintain it beyond the navigational fix describing the start of a higher intermediate altitude restriction regardless until ATC call to 'clear' you to the next altitude restriction.

[piratepete]

DONT BE SILLY

That is a silly statement mate.You know the answer.If your CLEARANCE LIMIT IS SAY 16000 feet/FL then you of course you may follow the SID steps, AS CLEARED, but you cannot put the CLEARANCE LIMIT/FINAL HARD ALTITUDE in the MCP as some are suggesting before you set off.Try doing that AND SAYING THAT at most major airports around the planet and get back to me how you get on, Pete.

[Journey Man]

Are you're now reversing on your statement that you are only cleared to the initial altitude constraint until ATC clear you further? Incidentally, that would completely negate the need for SID altitude constraints.

Please describe the difference between a SID cleared altitude, and an SID altitude constraint.

I'm more than happy to accept that there is regulation stating you can't set the SID altitude, but must set the intermediary altitude constraints, as being the definitive regulation if you can link to an official source document. Thank you.

Originally Posted by piratepete

If your CLEARANCE LIMIT IS SAY 16000 feet/FL then you of course you may follow the SID steps, AS CLEARED, but you cannot put the CLEARANCE LIMIT/FINAL HARD ALTITUDE in the MCP as some are suggesting before you set off.Try doing that AND SAYING THAT at most major airports around the planet and get back to me how you get on, Pete.

As per CAP417, you report the intermediary altitude constraint in your initial call to APP. It is clearly stated in 3.25. So, I'm in complete agreement. But this has no bearing on how you manage your aircraft systems. This is purely radiotelephony.

Originally Posted by piratepete

you cannot put the CLEARANCE LIMIT/FINAL HARD ALTITUDE in the MCP

This is exactly what we're looking for - obviously there is a regulation?

Originally Posted by piratepete

you are only cleared to the INITIAL HARD ALTITUDE until ATC says otherwise

This clearance would normally be: "Cleared XXXXX Departure; stop climb Altitude XXXX" THis was not the stated clearance.

Look, just for clarification, maybe it's worth re-reading my opening post. We're not discussing whether intermediary altitude constraints on a SID are applicable; they are unless ATC cancel them via whatever radiotelephony mechanism is applicable. We're discussing how the aircraft automation is managed, and if there is regulation.

Perhaps réponses should be along the format of "My Company SOP is X, Y, Z." Or, "Applicable regulation is available here." With a hyperlink. It would certainly prevent thread creep.

[piratepete]

NORMAL PRACTICES AROUND THE PLANET

J.M. Im afraid you are being far too pedantic here.My experience (im still an active TRE and PIC on a widebody) around the planet including UK airports and most areas worldwide in 40 years (next month) and 22000 hours, mostly in an IFR environment is you would normally start an SID with the first constraint/hard altitude in the MCP and this is what you must STATE to ATC when your PM first makes contact airborne.IF ATC SAY NOTHING TO YOU regarding cleared altitude/FL then of course , away you go following the steps to your CLEARANCE LIMIT.This has nothing to do with SOPs although in some companies there may be a stated policy WRT this part of your flight, but when was the last time you heard nothing from ATC after initial contact regarding cleared altitude/FL.I cant recall one.PP

[latetonite]

And I am afraid pilots nowadays, not hindered by experience and common sense, are flying planes purely by SOP's. In absense of an adequate answer from the company books, they are now looking to the regulator to govern them how to manage automatics. Well this is pathetic.

[Journey Man]

Firstly, congratulations on your vast experience. Whilst I know that with your experience your opinions must therefore be irreproachable, I disagree with you.

I believe, as I stated in my opening post, that technology (specifically the capabilities of enhanced Mode S transponders) are creating situations that were not anticipated, and a wider discussion on creating industry best practice or regulation may now be necessary.

The thread is not about the applicability of altitude restrictions on a SID, or the use of automation. The discussion is based on whether there exists a specific applicable regulation that I may be ignorant of and various companies' SOPs are.

We're three pages in and despite various poster's assertations, no regulation has been presented for reference. Am I to understand that by resorting to belittling the subject you're also throwing in the towel when it comes to producing a reference? Does airing your resume normally end further discussion? An interesting TRE technique.

You do not have to state the MCP altitude. Please provide some reference to this, as I can't find one. You have to state the altitude you're climbing to, and in the case of intermediary altitude restrictions, this is the first altitude constraint you state. I have referenced CAP417 above, but a review of Appendix 1 shows that this is not a listed change from ICAO. There is no regulation stating you must state the pre-selected/MCP altitude, and not manage the climb using VNAV in the automation. If there is, then that would certainly clarify things if you could reference it. In VNAV climb with intermediary altitude constraints in the FMS, you are climbing to the first intermediary altitude constraint.

In the situation you describe, especially as you say ATC will always give you further climb on first contact (which is irrelevant to the discussion, incidentally) then there would be no need for intermediary altitude constraints on the SID. The departure would have a vertical limit of the lowest step and thereafter climb would be upon clearance by ATC.

Again, it is a wider discussion on issues that may be arising through technology and how best to adapt so that the entire system works in unison. If we have reliable VNAV capabilities and a published departure, then flying the departure in accordance with the altitude constraints in VNAV results in a lower flightdeck workload, more capacity and less frequency saturation. However these advantages are moot if ATC are expecting to see information via the enhanced Mode S transponder that isn't required and interject, increasing radio chatter and workload for both parts of the overall system. If that's the case then the introduction of SARPs may be beneficial. Alternatively, consideration by ATC of the implications of the reported selected altitude may be appropriate, as alluded to in the Skybrary article on Enhanced Mode S. The response from the UK Regulator has been quite positive. Maybe they don't benefit from your wealth of experience, though?

So, with all due deference to your extremely impressive resume, I believe the conversation is worth having. Might I suggest not getting involved if you don't feel it is a valid conversation, or indeed post erroneous information such as stating one must level off at the first altitude constraint and await further ATC clearance to climb to further intermediary altitude constraints.

[Journey Man]

Late, You're once again missing the point. As stated repeatedly, the conversation is hopefully about integration into a wider system. I'm afraid that cannot be made any clearer. Repeatedly.

[piratepete]

NO FURTHER COMMENT

J.M. as Late has stated, you are completely missing the point.I would welcome meeting you in the SIM and if you have a copy of your UK Radio Procedures CAP you will find the reference to the requirement to state YOUR INITIAL CLEARED ALTITUDE on first contact, same as ICAO.Typical PPRUNE rubbish being spouted again and again.My resume is not relevant, but my worldwide exposure sure is.Stop being a pedant looking for references/regulations and accept real world standard practice.Why do you have to join the many others and get so personal? Jesus, go to the local and have a nice relaxed pint mate.No further comment.

[Journey Man]

Originally Posted by piratepete

Stop being a pedant looking for references/regulations and accept real world standard practice.

So, accept PPRUNE's anonymous heroes without confirming the veracity of the information? If not taking anonymous internet poster's opinion as all encompassing, definitive regulation is pedantic then I am an unapologetic pedant.

For the benefit of yourself and Latetonite: in many respects the SID is merely a mechanism for framing the wider discussion on enhanced Mode S interaction with ATC. That is the discussion.

[latetonite]

To JM.

I got your point from start. I just do not see how, even if our mode-s transponder would relay bank angle, lateral and vertical mode, or even a entire
Flight deck picture to ATC, it would enhance safety. A controller is not a pilot, nor is it his responsibility.
Looks like you are advocating passenger drones.