AVCANADA

It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:19 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:00 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 78
http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... ology.aspx


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
Here it comes!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:49 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 59
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.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 570
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.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:41 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
I think our SMS will be busy for a while...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 6:05 am
Posts: 41
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:16 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 2:48 pm
Posts: 173
Location: pointy end
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:57 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 570
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:10 am 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 6:05 am
Posts: 41
@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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:25 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
I have spoken to 0 controllers who either like or approve this change.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:41 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 570
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



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:45 pm
Posts: 6
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:52 am
Posts: 39
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?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am
Posts: 103
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.


_________________
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:31 pm
Posts: 30
Location: Greater Toronto Area
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?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:43 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:50 am
Posts: 7
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.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 59
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 155
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.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:23 pm
Posts: 592
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 :D


_________________
"A good traveller has no fixed plan and is not intent on arriving." -Lao Tzu


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 6:37 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 181
Location: YYZ terminal
For once I am not going to post too much on a "public" forum, but I feel safe in saying that YYZ terminal really does NOT like this new phraseology and have MAJOR concerns about its implementation, rationale and overall effectiveness. We do not believe it has enhanced safety.
It has caused us unnecessary headaches!



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 135
Grey_Wolf wrote:
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 :D


It's been an interesting week at YTZ tower.
New phraseology
New approaches
We can now depart IFR traffic with inbound traffic 2 miles or more away - was 4 miles before
Tower now responsible for initial IFR separation for missed approaches
New SIDs
Tower now responsible for initial departure separation (either 1, 3 or 4 miles) for IFR aircraft



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Driving Comet wrote:
Tower now responsible for initial departure separation (either 1, 3 or 4 miles) for IFR aircraft

Does that mean no more "waiting for radar release"?


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 4
Overheard coming in to YYZ the other day:

ATC: "Descend via STAR 11,000, altimeter xx.xx"

US Major: "Descend via STAR 11,000....uh, what STAR is that?'

ATC: "The one you're currently flying"


So much for "eliminating possible misinterpretation"



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 135
photofly wrote:
Driving Comet wrote:
Tower now responsible for initial departure separation (either 1, 3 or 4 miles) for IFR aircraft

Does that mean no more "waiting for radar release"?


I really wish that were the case. Long story short, terminal validates the IFR and depending on what heading the aircraft is released on, and wake turbulence category, we provide the miles. Good news is that when there's a line of IFR taxiing out and we can get validations for all of them instead of one at a time.



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.