Descend Via
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
Descend Via
Thoughts appreciated.
A PANC STAR chart depicts a bottom altitude (on the chart) of 2000 which is technically the IF for an ILS.
My understanding with a DESCEND VIA clearance is that I can descend to bottom altitude published on the STAR.
The ILS chart only specifies an IF and no IAF (rather common).
Am I right in saying I could descend to 2000 (IF) under a DESCEND VIA clearance simply because it’s the bottom altitude published on the STAR chart. Sounds strange…
Thanks in advance
A PANC STAR chart depicts a bottom altitude (on the chart) of 2000 which is technically the IF for an ILS.
My understanding with a DESCEND VIA clearance is that I can descend to bottom altitude published on the STAR.
The ILS chart only specifies an IF and no IAF (rather common).
Am I right in saying I could descend to 2000 (IF) under a DESCEND VIA clearance simply because it’s the bottom altitude published on the STAR chart. Sounds strange…
Thanks in advance
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 195
Likes: 4
From: Earth
The world has done a lousy job of standardizing STAR phraseology.
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
I do wish the US/FAA would just include the bottom altitude in their descend via clearances and the top altitude in their climb via clearances. Would it really take up that much extra air time, even if it is the same as what's charted?
-Edit apparently the Australians have changed their policy to include "descend via STAR" when issuing a lower altitude, which is good. The Canadians seem to be doing it the old Australian way now, though....haven't flown to either place in years.
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
I do wish the US/FAA would just include the bottom altitude in their descend via clearances and the top altitude in their climb via clearances. Would it really take up that much extra air time, even if it is the same as what's charted?
-Edit apparently the Australians have changed their policy to include "descend via STAR" when issuing a lower altitude, which is good. The Canadians seem to be doing it the old Australian way now, though....haven't flown to either place in years.
Last edited by RandomPerson8008; 13th February 2022 at 20:04.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 642
Likes: 5
From: Eastside
Australia does do “descend via star”, but still step you down according to CTA steps (which as far as I know are incorporated in the STAR anyway), thereby increasing radio talk and rendering the call pointless.
I apologise if I’m wrong, and someone wants to explain why, but that’s how it seems…
I apologise if I’m wrong, and someone wants to explain why, but that’s how it seems…
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 21
From: earth
RE: in Australia - not only that but they will descend you outside of controlled airspace on occasion. I mean what’s the fking point of having a controller if they do this? I always have the terminal chart handy so I can adjust descent rate to remain in controlled airspace. Shouldn’t have to.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 172
Likes: 3
From: EU
The world has done a lousy job of standardizing STAR phraseology.
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
Just to clarify: according to Doc. 4444 - 6.5.2.4 CLEARANCES ON A STAR
6.5.2.4.2 If there are no remaining published level or speed restrictions on the STAR, the phrase DESCEND TO (level) should be used.
so this would mean unrestricted - only because there are no more remaining restrictions.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,578
Likes: 412
From: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 9,226
Likes: 995
From: Seat 1A
Originally Posted by RandomPerson
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted)
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 180
From: USA
The world has done a lousy job of standardizing STAR phraseology.
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
I do wish the US/FAA would just include the bottom altitude in their descend via clearances and the top altitude in their climb via clearances. Would it really take up that much extra air time, even if it is the same as what's charted?
-Edit apparently the Australians have changed their policy to include "descend via STAR" when issuing a lower altitude, which is good. The Canadians seem to be doing it the old Australian way now, though....haven't flown to either place in years.
Why does the FAA do it this way, Australia just expects you to comply with STAR altitudes when given "descend 3000 feet" (everywhere else this would mean descend unrestricted), Germany uses "transition and profile", and most other places say "descend via STAR 3000 feet"?
I do wish the US/FAA would just include the bottom altitude in their descend via clearances and the top altitude in their climb via clearances. Would it really take up that much extra air time, even if it is the same as what's charted?
-Edit apparently the Australians have changed their policy to include "descend via STAR" when issuing a lower altitude, which is good. The Canadians seem to be doing it the old Australian way now, though....haven't flown to either place in years.
Haven't flown into Germany for a while, so what does "transition and profile" mean????
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 195
Likes: 4
From: Earth
2. "Cleared xxx Transition and Profile": Authorization to fly the GPS/FMS routing including assigned speeds and altitudes. AKA descend via the arrival in the US.
These are for "RNAV transitions" which are under the STAR charts section of my terminal procedures, so I still call them arrivals. They're pretty much RNAV arrivals that get special phraseology treatment by the Germans for some reason which I'm sure someone will be along shortly to describe. With that said, I very rarely hear them use it.
Last edited by RandomPerson8008; 16th February 2022 at 08:14.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 59
From: OZ
