Ross Carlson Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:07 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:07 PM I haven't recently reviewed all of the relevant 7110.65 sections on this, so I may be missing something, but I'd just like to point out that: "Use one of the following when the SID contains published crossing restrictions" Does not equate to: "Do not use any of the following when the SID does not contain published crossing restrictions" So, the fact that a SID contains only a top altitude does not mean (solely on the basis of the section the first quote above came from) that you cannot use "climb via SID". Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:10 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:10 PM Alright. All good points. So we are sticking with: 1. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and an altitude to maintain per the chart, it's "climb via SID". 2. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and no altitude to maintain per the chart, it's "climb via SID except maintain". 3. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and you want the aircraft to maintain a different altitude instead of what is published per the chart, it's "climb via SID except maintain". 4. If a SID has no published crossing altitudes but has a top altitude, it's "climb via SID". 5. If a SID has no published crossing altitudes and has no top altitude, it's "climb and maintain". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Geckler Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:15 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:15 PM One could argue that a published altitude in the chart is a published crossing restriction, which is what I think most facilities are using as their argument to give the "climb via". This would work if the 7110.65 said "Published Altitude" and not "Published Crossing Restriction". These are two completely different things. But are they? Published altitude = altitude. Published crossing restriction = altitude. The PDC is not correct. Remember just because they are real world controllers does not mean they are correct. You are saying a legal FAA clearance from last night is illegal? My question is why is no one reading and applying what the 7110.65 says? Everyone keeps referencing 3rd party cheat sheets and such. They aren't really third-party sheets since they were part of the workgroup that created the "climb via" phraseology... so I'd consider them accurate. Let's go the AIM, since that is also an FAA legal docomeent that controllers must abide by: SIDs will have a “top altitude;” the “top altitude” is the charted “maintain” altitude contained in the procedure description or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC. Since there is a top altitude on the chart, then "climb via SID" applies. Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:16 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:16 PM Alright. All good points. So we are sticking with: 1. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and an altitude to maintain per the chart, it's "climb via SID". 2. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and no altitude to maintain per the chart, it's "climb via SID except maintain". 3. If a SID has published crossing altitudes and you want the aircraft to maintain a different altitude instead of what is published per the chart, it's "climb via SID except maintain". 4. If a SID has no published crossing altitudes but has a top altitude, it's "climb via SID". 5. If a SID has no published crossing altitudes and has no top altitude, it's "climb and maintain". Personally, as a controller, I would still use "climb and maintain" for any SID that has no crossing altitudes, whether it has a top altitude or not, since that's consistent with how we've always done it in the past, and I see no reason to change it. (Absent a directive from the training folks at my facility.) However, as a pilot, I will happily accept a "climb via SID" clearance when the SID has only a top altitude and no crossing restrictions. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:18 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:18 PM Another thing to consider is that the .65 does not even define "crossing restriction". This is the closest you get and they refer back to "Altitude Restriction" CROSS (FIX) AT (ALTITUDE)- Used by ATC when a specific altitude restriction at a specified fix is required. CROSS (FIX) AT OR ABOVE (ALTITUDE)- Used by ATC when an altitude restriction at a specified fix is required. It does not prohibit the aircraft from crossing the fix at a higher altitude than specified; however, the higher altitude may not be one that will violate a succeeding altitude restriction or altitude [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment. (See ALTITUDE RESTRICTION.) (Refer to AIM.) CROSS (FIX) AT OR BELOW (ALTITUDE)- Used by ATC when a maximum crossing altitude at a specific fix is required. It does not prohibit the aircraft from crossing the fix at a lower altitude; however, it must be at or above the minimum IFR altitude. (See ALTITUDE RESTRICTION.) (See MINIMUM IFR ALTITUDES.) (Refer to 14 CFR Part 91.) Does anyone even have an example without some type of altitude restriction in it? The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:26 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:26 PM But are they? Published altitude = altitude. Published crossing restriction = altitude. Yes. How can an initial altitude (aka top altitude) be a published crossing restriction. What, where and when are you crossing the restriction? There is nothing to cross. You are saying a legal FAA clearance from last night is illegal? Illegal, No. Not accurate per the 7110.65 Yes. The PDC contradicts the 7110.65 and the "Official" word from the FAA. Since there is a top altitude on the chart, then "climb via SID" applies. Back to the original point. How is the "Top Altitude" a "Published Crossing Restriction". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhruv Kalra Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:31 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:31 PM Climb via says nothing about CROSSING restrictions. It says everything about ALTITUDE restrictions. Also: PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it. Emphasis mine. Furthermore: d. When no changes are required in the filed route, state the phrase: “Cleared to (destination) airport, ([sID name and number] and SID transition, as appropriate); then, as filed.” If a SID is not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, follow with “As filed.” 1. Specify the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude. The altitude may be omitted and pilots instructed to “climb via SID” when a top altitude is published in the SID route description. Dhruv Kalra VATUSA ZMP ATM | Instructor | VATSIM Network Supervisor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:41 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:41 PM Climb via says nothing about CROSSING restrictions. It says everything about ALTITUDE restrictions. Not sure what you mean? It says "Use one of the following when the SID contains published crossing restrictions" d. When no changes are required in the filed route, state the phrase: “Cleared to (destination) airport, ([sID name and number] and SID transition, as appropriate); then, as filed.” If a SID is not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, follow with “As filed.” 1. Specify the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude. The altitude may be omitted and pilots instructed to “climb via SID” when a top altitude is published in the SID route description. We have already covered this in the prior post. That last section you quoted. "The [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude, according to the provisions in para 4-3-2, Departure Clearances, subparagraph e, is stated in the clearance. Where a top altitude is published in the SID route description it may be omitted." it all comes back to "Use one of the following when the SID contains published crossing restrictions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:46 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 07:46 PM Chris, you have blinders on. You are only looking at 4-3-2. 4-3 is departure clearances yes, but 4-5 is altitude information. 4-5-7. ALTITUDE INFORMATION Issue altitude instructions as follows: REFERENCE- FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-2-1, Clearance Items. h. Instructions to vertically navigate on a STAR/SID with published restrictions. PHRASEOLOGY- DESCEND VIA (STAR name and number). TERMINAL: DESCEND VIA (STAR name and number and runway number). CLIMB VIA (SID name and number). EXAMPLE- “Descend via the Eagul Five arrival.” “Cross Gramm at or above flight level one eight zero, then descend via the Riivr Two arrival.” TERMINAL: “Descend via the Lendy One Arrival, Runway 22 left.” “Climb via the Dawgs Four Departure.” The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:01 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:01 PM William. A departure with only a "Top Altitude" would be "Climb Via" correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:10 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:10 PM I would not say Yes. Although Top Altitude has its own definition, it still fits the definition of altitude restriction. ALTITUDE RESTRICTION- An altitude or altitudes, stated in the order flown, which are to be maintained until reaching a specific point or time. Altitude restrictions may be issued by ATC due to traffic, terrain, or other airspace considerations. Even if one were to make the argument that a top altitude is not a restriction, Does anyone even have an example of a SID with only a top altitude and no other restrictions? The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:19 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:19 PM http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1413/pdf/00239APALO.PDF This one is a good example. Let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:23 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:23 PM Without even looking at page 2 there are Takeoff minimums and a cross at or above 1020 before direct for the eastern runway. The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Geckler Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:23 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:23 PM The textual portion gives a top altitude, so I would say "climb via". Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:28 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:28 PM (edited) Yes, we are seeking a SID with only a Top altitude and no other restrictions. Even if one were to be found I would say that it is still climb via, but like we said it could be an argument that a Top Altitude is not a restriction because it does not say it in the definition. Edited January 4, 2015 at 08:30 PM by Guest The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:28 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:28 PM Does anyone even have an example of a SID with only a top altitude and no other restrictions? If I understand your question, I think the LOGAN7 at KBOS is an example: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1413/00058logan.pdf http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1413/00058logan_c.pdf http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1413/00058logan_c2.pdf Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:37 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:37 PM Takeoff Minimums are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC by saying "climb via SID" for terrain. I am guessing that BOS does not depart 15L, 32, or 33R? Those runways have NA in the takeoff minimums. The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:49 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 08:49 PM The textual portion gives a top altitude, so I would say "climb via". So with this in mind, the "Official" ZNY version is not correct? (http://nyartcc.org/wiki/index.php?title=MBI/Impact_of_7110.65V_on_Operations) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:03 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:03 PM Takeoff Minimums are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC by saying "climb via SID" for terrain. I am guessing that BOS does not depart 15L, 32, or 33R? Those runways have NA in the takeoff minimums. But this is an example of a SID with a top altitude but no other altitude restrictions, right? Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Geckler Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:04 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:04 PM The textual portion gives a top altitude, so I would say "climb via". So with this in mind, the "Official" ZNY version is not correct? (http://nyartcc.org/wiki/index.php?title=MBI/Impact_of_7110.65V_on_Operations) Now we want to use non-7110.65 information? Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:05 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:05 PM Both departures are examples of a SID without altitude restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McGee Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:06 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:06 PM The textual portion gives a top altitude, so I would say "climb via". So with this in mind, the "Official" ZNY version is not correct? (http://nyartcc.org/wiki/index.php?title=MBI/Impact_of_7110.65V_on_Operations) Now we want to use non-7110.65 information? So now that you can't figure it out you want to try and turn the table on me? No one knows it all, it's okay to admit you're not sure and VATUSA is not aligned on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Lewis Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:13 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:13 PM I was arguing that Takeoff Minimums are a restriction. So it does have restrictions unless you were to depart 15L, 32R or 33 which was why I was asking if BOS departs those runways. I know that quoting the takeoff minimums as restrictions may be a stretch, but I would only use that argument if someone were to stretch and say that a Top Altitude is not a restriction. Basically I am playing Devils advocate of my own devils advocate. The above pertains to United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Geckler Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:14 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:14 PM So now that you can't figure it out you want to try and turn the table on me? No one knows it all, it's okay to admit you're not sure and VATUSA is not aligned on the matter. On the flip side, it's ok to admit that you might be reaching for something. It's both sides, man. Yes, VATUSA isn't aligned on everything. That's a common fact. Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhruv Kalra Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:18 PM Posted January 4, 2015 at 09:18 PM Chris, at this point I'm really having a hard time figuring out what your rationale or goal is. It has been stated on several occasions that the FAA can't even get their own Air Traffic Organization on the same page regarding "Climb via". I'm failing to see how you expect a group of hobbyists working off loose interpretations of the same docomeents to be any better. The 7110, while a controlling docomeent, does NOT cover every possible piece of phraseology or application scenario, and explicitly states as such right in Paragraph 1-1. What exactly is the harm if a delivery controller right now says "Climb via SID, except maintain ####" to cover his own bases without the SID containing a crossing restriction? Dhruv Kalra VATUSA ZMP ATM | Instructor | VATSIM Network Supervisor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts