Climb/Descend Via Phraseology and Procedures.

[Anthony Pavlak 1058071]

Hi Folks,

 

As many probably already know, new procedures have taken place in the real world in regards to SIDs/STARs containing mandatory altitude restrictions. You can find these changes in the new 7110.65V, specifically in 4-3-2, 4-3-3, and 4-5-7. Since the changes are brand new with this recent .65 revision, you can easily scan those sections in the PDF file for "black bars" indicating the new procedures. There is also a briefing guide at the beginning of the file detailing all the changes.

 

Helpfully, there is also this youtube video explaining pilot and controller responsibilities under these new rules, I hope you find this information helpful:

 

 

Please note, that though the video title says "RNAV," the .65 specifies that these procedures are used any time a SID/STAR contains mandatory altitude restrictions (not "expect" altitudes, but "maintain," or "at or above/below" restriction bars on the planview of the procedure). This includes many conventional procedures as well.

Edited April 29, 2014 at 01:59 AM by Guest

[Bradley Grafelman]

"... turn left direct the Los Angeles VOR, climb via the LOOP7 departure, except maintain 15,000"

 

If only they would have made enough ruckus to get the feds to back off on this change again...

[Anthony Pavlak 1058071]

It's a little bit more brief than that. You can say "climb via SID, except maintain 15,000."

 

Also, please nobody pick up that video narrator's pronunciation of "phraseology." It sounds silly.

 

Phrase-OL-ogy = Super Cool

 

Phrase-EE-ology = Super Uncool

[Bradley Grafelman]

It's a little bit more brief than that. You can say "climb via SID, except maintain 15,000."

I was talking about when DEP vectors an aircraft (LOOP7 is a hybrid SID). The "climb via SID" only works in clearance delivery; when given as part of an altitude [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment by DEP/CTR, it's "CLIMB VIA (SID name and number)" (7110.65V § 4-5-7(h)).

 

By the way... note that your hyperlink still links to 7110.65U.

 

EDIT:

Phrase-EE-ology = Super Uncool

Maybe "uncool"... but also "correct (according to 'official' sources such as Merriam-Webster)." When it comes to FAA phrase-EE-ology, what's "cool" and natural is... not always a concern.

[Anthony Pavlak 1058071]

The "climb via SID" only works in clearance delivery; when given as part of an altitude [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment by DEP/CTR, it's "CLIMB VIA (SID name and number)" (7110.65V § 4-5-7(h)).

 

I see what you're saying here, I don't deal with any of these so my experience is limited(read: nil). But even on the LOOP7 shouldn't they get "climb via SID" from clearance delivery since it contains an altitude restriction?

 

 

By the way... note that your hyperlink still links to 7110.65U.

 

Thanks, fixed.

 

Maybe "uncool"... but also "correct (according to 'official' sources such as Merriam-Webster)." When it comes to FAA phrase-EE-ology, what's "cool" and natural is... not always a concern.

 

Bluh, you're correct but it just sounds so bad. 0% of anyone I've worked with in the field says it that way. I think I remember hearing it from some Academy instructors a while back though.

[Bradley Grafelman]

But even on the LOOP7 shouldn't they get "climb via SID" from clearance delivery since it contains an altitude restriction?

It certainly could... in fact, that's a great point that adds even more salt in the wound. You could get two climb via's, both with the clunky "except maintain..." phraseology...

 

LAX_DEL: "... LOOP7 departure, DAG transition, then as filed; climb via SID, except maintain 5000; ..."

LAX_DEP: "... turn left direct LAX VOR; climb via LOOP7 departure, except maintain 15,000"

 

[Daniel Hawton]

Maybe "uncool"... but also "correct (according to 'official' sources such as Merriam-Webster)." When it comes to FAA phrase-EE-ology, what's "cool" and natural is... not always a concern.

 

Bluh, you're correct but it just sounds so bad. 0% of anyone I've worked with in the field says it that way. I think I remember hearing it from some Academy instructors a while back though.

 

I've heard it said real world.. but it's a personal opinion of "uncool". I get ragged on real world for saying via as veye-ah instead of vee-ah. My argument to them is the dictionary lists my pronunciation first, and you don't say Viagra or Viacom as Vee-ag-ra and Vee-ah-com. When I worked with those guys before they transferred, I used to make sure I clearly said my pronunciation loud enough for them to hear just to watch their teeth grind a bit. lol

[Kyle Rodgers 910155]

Phrase-EE-ology = Super Uncool

It may be "Super Uncool," but according to just about every language guide out there, it's "Super Correct."

 

Don't let colloquial use throw you off guard. Other common language stupidity seen as "correct" when it isn't, at all:

-Comfterble (comfortable should be pronounced "comfort-able")

-Nuculer (nuclear is pronounced "new-clear")

-Hyper-foreignisms like habañero instead of habanero (I believe that jalapeno is the same, but I don't speak Spanish - I've given up on correcting people's German loan words)

-Various redundancies, like PIN number, VIN number, and ATM machine

-"...a whole 'nother issue..." (You're literally saying "a whole another issue." It should be "a whole other issue," or "it's another issue.")

[Don Desfosse]

Various redundancies, like PIN number, VIN number, and ATM machine

Didn't you know that those were invented by the Department of Redundancy Department?

[Miguel Frias]

Fully established on the ILS, localizer and glideslope.

[Anthony Pavlak 1058071]

Phrase-EE-ology = Super Uncool

It may be "Super Uncool," but according to just about every language guide out there, it's "Super Correct."

 

You were also "super beaten" by Bradley, and I super corrected myself.

[Bradley Grafelman]

... and this thread has gone more "super" off-track than an oceanic A388 flight.

[Don Desfosse]

True enough. Thanks for the information on the phraseology and procedures update, and thanks for playing!