Here it comes!

What a mess this new phraseology will be. It's not efficient, requires a far greater number of words to be transmitted, has many potential flaws for confusion and to add insult to injury, the FAA won't be following this ICAO idea, so we have to be prepared to handle all U.S. carriers differently, as they likely won't understand what is being said.

More words, no efficiencies. We have no speed or altitude restrictions on the transitions where I work, yet we have to use the new phraseology every time we give an altitude. And the pilot is required to read it back as issued. No read back means we have to chase it down.

I think our SMS will be busy for a while...

I just finished being exposed to this new phraseology and I can tell from a Pilots perspective that it sucks. We have been using climb and descend via clearaces for over a year in the US and it works like a charm because the clearances contain useful information while at the same time greatly reducing radio chatter.

For example....

Boston will clear you to "descend via the OOSHN 4 arrival, 04R transition"

And that, my friends, is the last you will hear until vectored on final.

Here...today inYOW, we were cleared to " descend via the star, maintain 290"...."descend via the star maintain 16 thousand...."descend via the star maintsin 10 thousand"...."descend via the star maintain 6 thousand" etc etc etc....

too much talk with NO useful information.

Im playing the devils advocate here...but really, the star is on the flight plan...we have already been cleared prior to departure ie "flight planned route". Not to mention the phrasology is not containing a specific star, for example "cleared to descend via the river 2 arrival", rather ATC just clears you to "descend via the star".

This would not fly south of the border.

So I have to ask the ATC types...what in your opinion makes this new phrasology safer??

If you nees a 4 page PDF file to explain what you are trying to do, whilst at the same time acknowledging there will be possible ambiguity with the FAA terminology....well, I think you get my idea.

Do Not think for a second that Controllers are happy with it either. In fact, I would say the majority do not see the benefit and are just as confused/frustrated as the flight crew.

This was jammed down the controllers throats by the company despite voicing several concerns prior to implementation.

Direct your anger and frustration towards Nav Canada Management.

Where I work there are no charted speed or altitude restrictions above 5000 on STARS or transitions. We only clear A/C to 10000. High level only clears them to FL290. The ICAO document that is the cause of this states that "descend via STAR" indicates to the pilot they must comply with all charted speed and altitude restrictions down to the cleared altitude. Seems stupid to use this phraseology when there are no restrictions. Plus, the STARS here only start in terminals airspace, with the transitions being in mine.

As noted by one poster above, it becomes cumbersome when laddering a/c down.

While receiving training on this prior to implementation we were told the US is not adopting it and we were briefed on how they do it instead so that we could be aware some US carriers might react differently to descend via STAR.

More words, no efficiencies to be gained. Universally ridiculed among my peers.

@wordstwice

If my comments appeared to be blaming controllers then I apologize. That was not my intent as I am fully aware they are just as frustrated as the Pilot group(s).

On the positive side We have already found some controllers that are circumnavigating the phraseology by clearing Aircraft direct to a fix on the star thereby alleviating the nausea attached with the "cleared via star" terminology.

I have spoken to 0 controllers who either like or approve this change.

Mach7 wrote:On the positive side We have already found some controllers that are circumnavigating the phraseology by clearing Aircraft direct to a fix on the star thereby alleviating the nausea attached with the "cleared via star" terminology.

Though I may clear an aircraft to any point on the STAR ("proceed direct XXXXX") any descent given subsequent to it still requires "descend via STAR.....".

On a side note, use of the term "descend via STAR" implies that descent is at pilots discretion. If I want the aircraft to descend now I have to say "descend via STAR 10000 now" lol

Braun wrote:I think our SMS will be busy for a while...

If by "our" you mean Nav Canada, I would ask, "What SMS?"

I say that with very high respect for controllers in Canada, and the profession as a whole. But Nav Canada's SMS is a shining example of what a functional SMS should not look like, and how a functional SMS should not operate.

avsafe wrote:

Braun wrote:I think our SMS will be busy for a while...

If by "our" you mean Nav Canada, I would ask, "What SMS?"

I say that with very high respect for controllers in Canada, and the profession as a whole. But Nav Canada's SMS is a shining example of what a functional SMS should not look like, and how a functional SMS should not operate.

I disagree. We often flag issues and they more often than not get sorted out. Definitely isn't perfect but it isn't as bad as you say.

avsafe wrote:

Braun wrote:I think our SMS will be busy for a while...

If by "our" you mean Nav Canada, I would ask, "What SMS?"

I say that with very high respect for controllers in Canada, and the profession as a whole. But Nav Canada's SMS is a shining example of what a functional SMS should not look like, and how a functional SMS should not operate.

Should it be more like every operator in Canada, that for the most part sweeps things into the abyss, especially when it comes at any sort of cost?

Agreed on the STARs useless chatter, hate it.

I also dislike the SID readback which now has to include altitude. As far as I'm concerned, SID readback should be the sid itself and transponder code, everything else is on the procedure, unless obviously there is an ATC amendment.

What happens when a point on the STAR states At or Below 4500' and you are cleared to 5000' descend via STAR. The altitude cleared was above the At or Below but it was Descend Via STAR so what trumps what, the clear Altitude or the STAR requirement?

The ATC altitude trumps the star restriction. If ATC doesn't clear you at or below a restriction you obviously can't meet the restriction. They probably should have stated in the clearance to delete the restriction but maybe due to traffic volume or the traffic underneath you being obvious it was omitted. I think of the star as a guideline and ATC altitude as the rule.

daedalusx wrote: As far as I'm concerned, SID readback should be the sid itself and transponder code, everything else is on the procedure

This. 100% this.

daedalusx wrote: I also dislike the SID readback which now has to include altitude. As far as I'm concerned, SID readback should be the sid itself and transponder code, everything else is on the procedure, unless obviously there is an ATC amendment.

Prior to this change, if a departure clearance included a SID, the only thing you were required to read back was the transponder code.

Now you are required to read back the altitude and your transponder code.

At most airports where there is more than 1 SID, they usually want you to read back the SID as well, but it is not required unless ATC asks you to.

daedalusx wrote:I also dislike the SID readback which now has to include altitude. As far as I'm concerned, SID readback should be the sid itself and transponder code, everything else is on the procedure unless obviously there is an ATC amendment.

Interesting series of flights today ...

We flew out of YUL, and got a PDC via ACARS. We acknowledged. Contacted Apron for the push and was advised to contact Clearance. Clearance wanted us to confirm the Trudo 2 and read back a SID altitude of 3000'. We then flew out of YTZ. Same scenario (PDC) but no altitude readback was required.

We asked Ground, why the difference? The answer, because YTZ includes altitudes in the PDC; pilots aren't required to read back an altitude. Acknowledging the PDC implies you'll conform to the SID and fly the altitude depicted on the chart. Since YUL doesn't include an altitude; Pilots are required to read back the SID and altitude assigned to them (which ironically is depicted on the chart).

Looking forward to the growing pains on this one