From the FAA: Pilots meet controllers face to face

[Shane VanHoven]

We've all been there on the network: "He said 'Climb and maintain...' does that mean I can cancel the altitude restrictions on the SID?"

The following video was created by the FAA and Delta Airlines in order to clear up confusion that has presented itself ever since the introduction of the "Climb via" phraseology. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSelRSvmxQI

[Brad Littlejohn]

We've all been there on the network: "He said 'Climb and maintain...' does that mean I can cancel the altitude restrictions on the SID?"

The following video was created by the FAA and Delta Airlines in order to clear up confusion that has presented itself ever since the introduction of the "Climb via" phraseology. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSelRSvmxQI

Colour me cynical, but I'm actually surprised that this need to be made.

I mean, the same situation existed when profiled descents were created and we had the ambiguity with "descend via" versus "descend and maintain". This basically is just the departure version of that, compared to the "descend via/Descend and maintain" used on STARs.

Or is this saying that we here at VATUSA are smarter than RW pilots? 

BL.

[Toby Rice]

Or is this saying that we here at VATUSA are smarter than RW pilots? 

That made me giggle   


I do agree with your point.  I don't see much confusion in the area....

[Shane VanHoven]

I agree that most (if any) confusion has been cleared up by now. But I will say that when real lives are a stake, and you're in a metal tube flying through the air at 300 kts, you pay a little more attention and use a little more caution when a controller assigns something different than what is expected. Especially since the pilots' certificates and employment could be at stake if it was misinterpreted.

[Brad Littlejohn]

I agree that most (if any) confusion has been cleared up by now. But I will say that when real lives are a stake, and you're in a metal tube flying through the air at 300 kts, you pay a little more attention and use a little more caution when a controller assigns something different than what is expected. Especially since the pilots' certificates and employment could be at stake if it was misinterpreted.

No argument there, Shane, but the issue here is that even before the implementation of 'climb via' was made.. you can even go back to when RNAV departures were implemented, it was made known and perfectly clear that if cleared via that particular SID, you were to comply with the restrictions of that SID. For example, the TRALR6 departure out of KLAS has this for departing 25R:

TAKEOFF RUNWAY 25R: Climb heading 255° to 2681, then direct RBELL, then on track 186° to cross ROPPR at or above 5900, at or below 7000, then on track 148° to cross CEASR at or above 8000, then on track 076° to FORGE, then on track 046° to cross WILLW at or above 14000, then on track 049° to TRALR, thence. . . .

. . . (Transition) maintain FL190, expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure.

With 'climb via', the instruction to "climb via" reinforces what was given at clearance delivery, and that any other altitude instruction given after that "climb via" call cancels the altitude restrictions on that SID until "climb via" is given again.

If anything, the ambiguity we've had here in VATUSA is that a pilot would file an RNAV SID, get clearance for that RNAV SID, and doesn't comply with the restrictions given on that RNAV SID, because while the chart tells them what to do, they are waiting on ATC to tell them what to do.

Again, "climb via" reinforces what is already listed as instructions on the chart, which is what pilots should already be complying with to begin with, until ATC overrides those instructions.

I will admit that with non-RNAV SIDs there can be some confusion, but with the FAA going RNAV for just about everything nowadays, there shouldn't be much confusion.

BL.