Descend Via
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 Feb 2022 at 20:04.
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…
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RandomPerson8008
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RandomPerson8008
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?
Originally Posted by Gin Jockey
RE: in Australia - not only that but they will descend you outside of controlled airspace on occasion.
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)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RandomPerson8008
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????
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hans brinker
Mainly fly FAA, so: (IMHO) I think the tops/bottoms are specifically excluded, so that if an altitude is given by ATC it is more likely to be noticed by the pilots.
Haven't flown into Germany for a while, so what does "transition and profile" mean????
Haven't flown into Germany for a while, so what does "transition and profile" mean????
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 Feb 2022 at 08:14.
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
So do you think someone will be waiting there for you during your brief excursion OCTA?
