AVCANADA

It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:47 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:22 am 
Online
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am
Posts: 332
I asked a YYZ controller the other day why we had to read back an altitude now after calling in a PDC, since the SID has a charted altitude published. Apparently, the SID altitudes are going to be removed, and the controllers will be able to give whatever climb limit they want/need.

I thought the whole point of PDC was to reduce radio calls, but now we need 2 more to achieve the same thing. It is going to be great trying to get a call in when the clearance guy/gal is also working ground.

YUL is also interesting. I used to be able to just acknowledge a PDC, and call apron for push. No call was required to clearance. Now I have to call them after I acknowledge it to get a climb limit on the SID I don't mind making a call, it really isn't any trouble, but it would seem we are moving backwards.

I find it amusing though, I can almost hear the annoyance of the controller's voice when they clear me VIA the STAR to another altitude for the 5th time.

I feel we will be seeing many memos over the next few weeks clarifying this whole new process.


_________________
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere


Last edited by skypirate88 on Wed May 03, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:22 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am
Posts: 506
You keep saying STAR. Do you mean SID?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:51 pm 
Online
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am
Posts: 332
av8ts wrote:
You keep saying STAR. Do you mean SID?


I sure did. I've made the changes.

Too many days on in a row it would seem.

Thanks


_________________
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 209
What a bunch of absolute nonsense this new "via SID/STAR" terminology is. I give it less than 3 months before they get rid of it. What idiotic brain trust in ICAO/Nav Canada came up with this crap ? They should ALL be fired !


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 59
Most likely it was somebody who has never worn a headset, and has no comprehension or appreciation of the implications this "improvement" would cause.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 5313
Location: Vancouver
Actually, descend via star is an excellent addition to standard phraseology. The controller issues it, and you can descend when and how you want as long as you meet the star restrictions. Allows you to plan your descent and then fly it exactly as planned.

The NavCanada version where they issue you 5 separate descend via star instructions ... well let's be charitable and say they maybe didn't understand what the words via and star mean.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 5:29 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 181
Location: YYZ terminal
Quote:
Actually, descend via star is an excellent addition to standard phraseology. The controller issues it, and you can descend when and how you want as long as you meet the star restrictions. Allows you to plan your descent and then fly it exactly as planned.

The NavCanada version where they issue you 5 separate descend via star instructions ... well let's be charitable and say they maybe didn't understand what the words via and star mean.


It would work if you are the only aircraft in the sky and you are flying on a closed STAR.
If you are number 8 in the sequence and are going to be vectored/sequenced on or off the STAR into the downwind (like YYZ), then kept at an altitude above the published restrictions due to running parallel approaches, all it does is create highly unnecessary RT clutter and confusion.

I shouldn't have to say it 5 times to one aircraft. I shouldn't have to reiterate an altitude to an aircraft who is level just because I have issued a vector.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:38 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 181
Location: YYZ terminal
SID/STAR phraseology was cancelled today...officially.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:39 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5927
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
What was the official reason given?

_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm
Posts: 232
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:08 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
Married a Canadian wrote:
SID/STAR phraseology was cancelled today...officially.

What? I'm at work and have not heard anything about this. I so hope this is true!



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am
Posts: 446
PostmasterGeneral wrote:
Image

+1

Although I don't know for certain it seemed to me this was put together by desk jockeys at Nav Canada with the help of management pilots from my airline, trying to solve a problem that never existed. I do understand it was to more closely align with ICAO but any other jurisdiction I have flown through in Central America or the Caribbean (albeit simple airports) never issued it like that.

From a pilots perspective the way the US clears you to descend via the XXX arrival is indeed better and yes many of the arrivals do end on a DTW and are not closed up. The way the arrivals and sids intersect in YYZ is part of the problem so you basically protect the stars and sids and you could do it here... it might not be ICAO but it's much better it seems for both us and ATC.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:48 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 181
Location: YYZ terminal
Quote:
From a pilots perspective the way the US clears you to descend via the XXX arrival is indeed better and yes many of the arrivals do end on a DTW and are not closed up. The way the arrivals and sids intersect in YYZ is part of the problem so you basically protect the stars and sids and you could do it here... it might not be ICAO but it's much better it seems for both us and ATC.




Exactly...and that was always part of the problem in YYZ.
Now we can debate all day about whether the way we run the planes in YYZ terminal is efficient...and what ways we can do it better....that is part and parcel of aviation...and part of discussion forums.

The problem we had was that this "generic" phraseology was not compatible with HOW terminal sequences aircraft. For a procedure to work it has to take into account ALL the sectors it will affect and how it will be interpreted. We do it differently to YVR to YYC to YUL etc etc.....each individual specialty had their own problems and unanswered questions with the change..that led to problems that were not there on April 26th.

I don't think management believed that such a "small" change would have such a large effect.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 5313
Location: Vancouver
Possibly because (predictably) it took less than a week to risk a loss of separation?

Quote:
An American corporately registered Embraer EMB-505 (N896LS) from Teterboro, NJ (KTEB) to Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) was instructed to descend via (STAR) and maintain 8 000 feet. The aircraft was observed descending below 8 000 feet and instructed to descend to 4 000 feet. An Air Transat Boeing 737-800 (TSC485) from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) to Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau, QC (CYUL) and a Chartright Air Inc. Gulfstream 200 (HRT119) from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) to Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier, ON (CYOW), were in close proximity and separation was not assured. However, no loss of separation occurred.


I know I'm not as smart as the chiefs at NavCanada but if I could make a suggestion: If you don't want an aircraft to descend via star, don't use the words descend via star.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... d2017O1216



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 5313
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Ladies, Gentlemen,

After discussion with Airlines, CATCA, Operational personnel, Safety and Quality and Senior Management, it has been decided to temporarily rescind all changes made on April 27th. This was not an easy decision. ATC and FSS across the country have given their utmost in trying to make this work but the continuing safety concern over altitude deviations and the unforeseen large increase in workload have brought about this decision.

Effective 0000z May 20th 2017, ATC clearances shall not include the phrase VIA SID/STAR.

The term VIA may be used in the routing segment of an IFR clearance. ATC will also not issue a climb altitude on an initial IFR departure clearance.

The following will be published in a NOTAM today and it is also a requirement on the ATIS for the following Airports: CYUL, CYYZ, CYYC, CYVR and any other airports where you may feel it is necessary.

On all STARS:
WHEN A LOWER ALTITUDE IS ISSUED, PILOTS SHALL DESCEND ON THE STAR PROFILE TO THE ATC ASSIGNED ALTITUDE.
CHARTED RESTRICTIONS ABOVE THE ASSIGNED ALTITUDE REMAIN MANDATORY.

NAV CANADA will follow-up in the coming weeks.

Thank you.

I don't understand how someone could implement this despite all the objections of the working controllers and pilots who had to actually deal with it, have their nose rubbed into how bad a decision it was, and then write something like the above acting as if it's still a good idea it just has a few unforeseen safety problems. How do these people retain credibility? I realize they won't sign their name to their decisions but surely most people involved know who these bright boys are no?



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm
Posts: 671
ahramin wrote:
Possibly because (predictably) it took less than a week to risk a loss of separation?

Quote:
An American corporately registered Embraer EMB-505 (N896LS) from Teterboro, NJ (KTEB) to Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) was instructed to descend via (STAR) and maintain 8 000 feet. The aircraft was observed descending below 8 000 feet and instructed to descend to 4 000 feet. An Air Transat Boeing 737-800 (TSC485) from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) to Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau, QC (CYUL) and a Chartright Air Inc. Gulfstream 200 (HRT119) from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson, ON (CYYZ) to Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier, ON (CYOW), were in close proximity and separation was not assured. However, no loss of separation occurred.


I know I'm not as smart as the chiefs at NavCanada but if I could make a suggestion: If you don't want an aircraft to descend via star, don't use the words descend via star.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... d2017O1216

Don't worry. We said this...multiple times. It's cancelled and gone for now.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 59
Quote:
Effective 0000z May 20th 2017, ATC clearances shall not include the phrase VIA SID/STAR.

The term VIA may be used in the routing segment of an IFR clearance. ATC will also not issue a climb altitude on an initial IFR departure clearance.


Interesting that you got this email. I just got one saying the procedure was now cancelled, but nothing regarding the cancellation of the mandate to issue an altitude in the initial IFR clearance. And I was in work today and nothing at all given in our mandatory briefings at sign-in.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 1:31 pm 
Online
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 570
RexKrammer wrote:
Quote:
Effective 0000z May 20th 2017, ATC clearances shall not include the phrase VIA SID/STAR.

The term VIA may be used in the routing segment of an IFR clearance. ATC will also not issue a climb altitude on an initial IFR departure clearance.


Interesting that you got this email. I just got one saying the procedure was now cancelled, but nothing regarding the cancellation of the mandate to issue an altitude in the initial IFR clearance. And I was in work today and nothing at all given in our mandatory briefings at sign-in.


What it is referring to was the requirement to include an altitude when issuing a SID. This was rescinded along with the VIA SID/STAR. If you issue a departure clx that doesn't include a SID you still need to issue an altitude. That was what we received for direction here.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 5:17 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm
Posts: 2728
How about we just do it the same as the USA instead of ICAO. Maybe we should try Fahrenheit and miles again too.

"After discussion with stakeholders, it has been decided to temporarily rescind, effective 0000Z May 19th, all SID/STAR phraseology changes made on April 27th. Today’s move was made out of concern over altitude deviations we were seeing in the system and the unforeseen large increase in workload as a result. We are continuing to communicate with airlines, aircraft operators and our employees as we revert back to the phraseology rules that were in place prior to this change."



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 7:57 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 2:19 pm
Posts: 61
Location: YUL
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


The Altitude info that the PDC sends is usually the cruise altitude.

There is no official parameter in which you can send an initial climb altitude with a PDC (which is stupid!). So a workaround (that apparently YTZ adopted) was to use the remarks field to send the initial climb altitude. I have no idea if this was legal or not with these new procedures.

Scroll down to see an example of a PDC with initial alt in remarks field here.

Here at YUL, readbacks of the altitude were required. We modified all PDC's to include "contact CLX" in the remarks field to make sure of it. If you didn't, your flight plan wasn't activated, meaning apron had no info on you, which is why they told you to call us back (Which you should have in the first place, as your PDC said so in the remarks field.)

I have no idea who approved the "no readback" scenario at YTZ.

As I just pointed out, not all pilots pay particular attention to the remarks field of a PDC, so If i use that box to send "climb 5,000", and you don't catch it in the cockpit, there is a potential for a SID bust.


_________________
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record ! We haven't left one up there yet !


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm
Posts: 232
In that case, can the PDC not be acknowledged electronically over ACARS if it has an initial altitude provided in it? Or must it be read back via voice?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:35 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 2:19 pm
Posts: 61
Location: YUL
PostmasterGeneral wrote:
In that case, can the PDC not be acknowledged electronically over ACARS if it has an initial altitude provided in it? Or must it be read back via voice?



Yes it can be acknowledged electronically. Question is, with these new (now old) procedures, is sending an altitude in the remarks field considered a valid method? I don't know. YTZ seemed to think so. We didn't and required a readback.


_________________
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record ! We haven't left one up there yet !


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 59
kevenv wrote:
RexKrammer wrote:
Quote:
Effective 0000z May 20th 2017, ATC clearances shall not include the phrase VIA SID/STAR.

The term VIA may be used in the routing segment of an IFR clearance. ATC will also not issue a climb altitude on an initial IFR departure clearance.


Interesting that you got this email. I just got one saying the procedure was now cancelled, but nothing regarding the cancellation of the mandate to issue an altitude in the initial IFR clearance. And I was in work today and nothing at all given in our mandatory briefings at sign-in.


What it is referring to was the requirement to include an altitude when issuing a SID. This was rescinded along with the VIA SID/STAR. If you issue a departure clx that doesn't include a SID you still need to issue an altitude. That was what we received for direction here.


I understand that. My point was, as a tower controller, I was surprised that I've not received official notification of no longer having the requirement to issue an altitude in the initial IFR clearance.



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

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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.