VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: Don Desfosse on April 10, 2014, 05:11:56 PM
-
All, the FAA has released JO 7110.65V, effective 04/03/2014. Here's the link: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/O...JO_7110.65V.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.65V.pdf)
A couple of notable changes:
4-2-5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE AMENDMENTS
4-3-2. DEPARTURE CLEARANCES
4-3-3. ABBREVIATED DEPARTURE CLEARANCES
4-5-7. ALTITUDE INFORMATION
This change incorporates guidance on the use of “climb via” (CV) phraseology for route transitions and/or the assignment of SID/RNAV SID procedures incorporating speed and altitude restrictions. The CV phraseology is incorporated for departure operations, consistent with existing “descend via” phraseology.
5-7-1. APPLICATION
5-7-2. METHODS
5-7-4. TERMINATION
This change incorporates the phrase “resume published speed” and clarifies the requirement to advise pilots where to resume published speeds when speed adjustments are no longer needed on procedures with published speed restrictions.
There are, of course, others, but those are the ones that I felt were most applicable/interesting. That said, EVERY controller should download the document and review, at the minimum, the changes.
The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) was updated as well. Link: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publication...sic_4-03-14.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/AIM_Basic_4-03-14.pdf)
-
Now how much longer until they remove "Climb via . . . " again.
-
I give it a week.
-
It's been a week.
Anywho, we're having a good conversation over at ZLA with the use of 'climb via', when it is used, and potential conflicts.
I was listening to Clearance Delivery at KLAS, and in each clearance they gave in an RNAV procedure, they gave something like:
Southwest Three Sixty Six, Las Vegas Clearance Delivery. Cleared to the Houston Hobby Airport, COWBY5 Departure, Gallup Transition, then as filed. Climb Via SID, Squawk Seven Two Zero Five.
So they are giving this not just at the Departure controller level, but at the PDC and Clearance Delivery level. For us here at VATSIM, that poses a problem. at KLAS, the PRFUM2 and SHEAD8 departures have this in their description:
.. via (Transition), Maintain FL190. Expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure.
The problem a few RW pilots have found is that on the SHEAD8, there is a FL210 crossing restriction at DBIGE and BIKKR, while on the PRFUM2, there is a FL200 crossing restriction at KADDY. So the problem here is that if they are told at the DEL level to "climb via SID", the SID tells them to maintain FL190. They'd never make the crossing restriction at DBIGE, BIKKR, or KADDY, unless a controller told them to climb higher, which would effectively cancel the 'climb via SID' instruction.
That's fine and dandy for the real world, as there would always be someone staffing that level (Departure or Center) to do that. Here? not as much. We have more of a chance that not all positions will be staffed, so at L30, departure's ceiling is FL190. They couldn't climb them higher, so if Center isn't on, either the pilot is on their own, or may not make the restriction.
So far, this conflict has been restricted to RNAV procedures, but haven't seen it anywhere else yet. It may exist in other places, depending on the ceiling of the TRACON's airspace. But for now, it sounds like we should be giving this instruction at the DEL level.
BL.
-
So far, this conflict has been restricted to RNAV procedures, but haven't seen it anywhere else yet. It may exist in other places, depending on the ceiling of the TRACON's airspace. But for now, it sounds like we should be giving this instruction at the DEL level.
BL.
I generally throw on a "Leaving my airspace, Minneapolis Center closed. Further climb at pilot's discretion. Radar service terminated, frequency change approved" if I'm working a TRACON position with no Center above me. That may have to be a VATSIMism we deal with. I definitely agree that this is messy for network operations, but such is life. I fully expect that we'll soon be giving clearances Europe style and it'll be "Cleared to KLAX, BOACH5 departure, squawk xxxx" and all the restrictions in the SID will be implicit until you hear "Climb and maintain FLXXX" to cancel them or the current "Climb via BOACH5 departure, maintain FLXXX" to retain them.
-
I generally throw on a "Leaving my airspace, Minneapolis Center closed. Further climb at pilot's discretion. Radar service terminated, frequency change approved" if I'm working a TRACON position with no Center above me. That may have to be a VATSIMism we deal with. I definitely agree that this is messy for network operations, but such is life. I fully expect that we'll soon be giving clearances Europe style and it'll be "Cleared to KLAX, BOACH5 departure, squawk xxxx" and all the restrictions in the SID will be implicit until you hear "Climb and maintain FLXXX" to cancel them or the current "Climb via BOACH5 departure, maintain FLXXX" to retain them.
We are trying to be more European in any facets of government, so the FAA making phraseology go all European makes total sense to me! Vegas is the place that immediately came to mind when I saw this, is anyone else dealing with "Climb via" (I know in ZDC we do not have to . . . yet).
-
I generally throw on a "Leaving my airspace, Minneapolis Center closed. Further climb at pilot's discretion. Radar service terminated, frequency change approved" if I'm working a TRACON position with no Center above me. That may have to be a VATSIMism we deal with. I definitely agree that this is messy for network operations, but such is life. I fully expect that we'll soon be giving clearances Europe style and it'll be "Cleared to KLAX, BOACH5 departure, squawk xxxx" and all the restrictions in the SID will be implicit until you hear "Climb and maintain FLXXX" to cancel them or the current "Climb via BOACH5 departure, maintain FLXXX" to retain them.
Prior to the .65V going into effect, Vegas Clearance Delivery was doing exactly that. The description of the RNAV SID tells you your initial altitude. The departure frequency is on the SID, so all you'd need is the squawk code. The only thing that changed for them at some times of the day was the departure frequency.
so since ours at L30 was different than what was on the chart, I had been giving that same clearance:
cleared to the Denver International Airport, STAAV5 Departure, Dove Creek Transition then as filed. Departure Frequency xxx.xx. Squawk yyyy.
That way, all the Departure controller would need effectively is two calls: The radar contact call, and the handoff (assuming no conflicts/separation between aircraft needed).
What I'm guessing is that there is going to be an update to those two charts in a cycle later this year. Not sure what, though.
BL.
-
We are trying to be more European in any facets of government, so the FAA making phraseology go all European makes total sense to me! Vegas is the place that immediately came to mind when I saw this, is anyone else dealing with "Climb via" (I know in ZDC we do not have to . . . yet).
I believe ZDV has them in place with all the RNAV departures out of DEN.
The only thing I can't get a straight answer about, is if there are altitude restrictions on vectored non-RNAV departures, are we required to clear for those the same way? Take for example the MSP6 (http://'http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00264MINNEAPOLIS.PDF') out of KMSP. Note the 7DME crossing restrictions. Would this departure necessitate a "Climb via SID" or not? If so, do we get away with "Climb via SID", or do we need to add "Climb via SID, except maintain 7000 (5000 if props)"?
EDIT: Spoke to a friend at MSP ATCT who advised me that to reduce confusion (?) they're using "Climb via SID, except maintain 7,000/5,000/etc.".
-
I'm seeing this on the SHEAD8 departure out of KLAS as they (ATC) are expecting to clear you to your filed altitude before you have to worry about being above FL210 at DBIGE. It gets you to SHEAD above 14000, then ATC tells you to C/M your filed altitude and the pilot is expected to be above FL210 by the time they get to DBIGE.
That's how I would read it.
-
I'm seeing this on the SHEAD8 departure out of KLAS as they (ATC) are expecting to clear you to your filed altitude before you have to worry about being above FL210 at DBIGE. It gets you to SHEAD above 14000, then ATC tells you to C/M your filed altitude and the pilot is expected to be above FL210 by the time they get to DBIGE.
That's how I would read it.
That's correct, but that is also with the assumption that ATC will always be there. Which, in the real world, they are.
Now.. apply that here, where we may have an Approach/Departure controller on, but no Center. Or better yet, only LAS Tower is on, with no-one at APP/DEP or CTR. With no-one to issue that clearance above FL190, what would the pilot do?
I'm not asking this because we are talking about a VATSIMism here; this was something actually spotted by an Alaska Airlines pilot when I was listening to the APP/DEP LiveATC feed. They caught this, which is what had me look at the charts as soon as the .65V went into effect. If they caught it, it is just as easily that we would catch it as well.
So I guess my question is, should we look at the airspace ceilings of our various TRACONS that implement RNAV procedures, and see if the charts used have a crossing restriction that is higher than the initial altitude depicted on the chart?
BL.
-
If no one is on above, lost comms procedure should dictate since the chart still says to "expect filed cruise altitude 10 minutes after departure"?
-
FWIW, I had some questions about final altitude in clearances before I saw this thread. I spent a good deal of time listening to various busy delivery freqs on liveatc today, and in all cases where "climb via SID" was given, no final altitude was mentioned, unless an "except" was given. "Climb via SID except maintain 3000, expect XXX."
And all the airports I listened to when using the non-rnav DPs were giving "climb via SID" if there was any crossing or top altitude in the published procedure. Philly, Boston, SFO ... all of them. Didn't get around to LAS.
I've amended all my relevant alias files now. They better NOT revert this!
-
Now.. apply that here, where we may have an Approach/Departure controller on, but no Center. Or better yet, only LAS Tower is on, with no-one at APP/DEP or CTR. With no-one to issue that clearance above FL190, what would the pilot do?
BL.
When the TWR controller issues the "no further ATC", the pilot would then proceed according to the SID then up to their final cruise.
-
When the TWR controller issues the "no further ATC", the pilot would then proceed according to the SID then up to their final cruise.
Again, that's the problem.. the SID conflicts with itself. the SID says to maintain FL190, but the SID also has a FL200 and FL210 crossing restriction. If proceeding according to the SID (notwithstanding the 'expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure), you're going to maintain an altitude that won't ever meet the restriction the very same SID calls for.
BL.
-
Possibly in this case "except maintain FL210" might not be a bad idea?
Alternatively, "Climb via the SHEAD8 departure except cross DBIGE and BIKKR at FL190"?
As an aside this link (https://s3.amazonaws.com/nbaa/ops/cns/pbn/climb-via/NBAA-Pilot-Briefing-Climb-Via-Descend-Via-Speed-Adjustments-2.00-20140228.pdf) may be generally helpful.
-
(notwithstanding the 'expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure)
But that's the key here, innit?
If your average groundspeed from runway 25R to SHEAD was 250 knots, it would take you almost right at 10 minutes to get to SHEAD. Considering you've got an extra 45 NM to get from SHEAD to DBIGE (the AoA FL210, which also happens to be the MEA between SHEAD and DBIGE)... the FL190 is a non-issue; either you're with CTR and they've either climbed you higher, canceled the restriction, or vectored you for holding... or you aren't with CTR because this is VATSIM and CTR isn't always online, in which case you execute the lost comms procedure of climbing to your filed altitude.
-
From a "Climb Via/Descend Via" FAQ published by FAASafety here (https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2014/Mar/Climb_Descend_Via_FAQ.pdf):
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]8. Q. I am cleared to “Climb Via SID”. What if there is a published altitude restriction at a fix that is higher than the charted “Top Altitude” ?
A. You are only cleared to the charted “Top Altitude” contained in the narrative of the procedure, unless ATC assigns a different altitude.[/quote]
-
From a "Climb Via/Descend Via" FAQ published by FAASafety here (https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2014/Mar/Climb_Descend_Via_FAQ.pdf):
This implies that the altitude in the description would be the highest an aircraft could go without ATC overriding it with another call to climb.
So for all intents and purposes, both L30 and ZLA would have to go NORDO for something like this to take place. I wondr if they'll update the charts to reflect this, or if it would be mentioned in an LOA between, say, ZLA and ZOA as to what happens should this occur.
BL.