"Climb Via SID" On non-altitude restricted SIDs?

January 4, 2015 at 09:18 PM

Helps if I reread the definition.

TOP ALTITUDE- In reference to SID published altitude restrictions the charted "maintain" altitude contained in the procedure description or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC.

Emphasis Mine, a Top altitude is a restriction.

Combine this with.

h. Instructions to vertically navigate on a STAR/SID with published restrictions.

PHRASEOLOGY-

<./..>

CLIMB VIA (SID name and number).

Yes a Sid with only a Top Altitude ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming one can be found and or one were to argue that Takeoff Minimums are not a restriction) can be used stating "Climb via SID".

Edited January 4, 2015 at 09:23 PM by Guest

January 4, 2015 at 09:19 PM

I am playing Devils advocate of my own devils advocate.

That's productive. Thanks for the help.

January 4, 2015 at 09:36 PM

So clearly I'm the ONLY one who thinks that EVERY departure with a TOP ALTITUDE ONLY does NOT get a CLIMB VIA. I'm not going to waste anymore time with devils advocate takeoff minimums. I'm going to teach my students what my ATM who is a REAL air traffic controller was told. Just figured I would share the wealth and shed some light on something VATUSA3 should be figuring out on a division level.

January 4, 2015 at 09:42 PM

So clearly I'm the ONLY one who thinks that EVERY departure with a TOP ALTITUDE ONLY does NOT get a CLIMB VIA. I'm not going to waste anymore time with devils advocate takeoff minimums. I'm going to teach my students what my ATM who is a REAL air traffic controller was told. Just figured I would share the wealth and shed some light on something VATUSA3 should be figuring out on a division level.

That's fine; as long as you meet GRP, teach your student what you feel is correct.

January 4, 2015 at 09:43 PM

Wait......with the information that I found above that by definition that a Top Altitude is a restriction and that 4-5-7 says "SIDs with published restrictions", how are you still under that impression?

I'm going to teach my students what my ATM who is a REAL air traffic controller was told.

Remember just because they are real world controllers does not mean they are correct.

Chris you are starting to contradict yourself. No disrespect Wes, but I am sure that he would agree that there are many different interpretations of the 7110.65.

January 5, 2015 at 01:21 AM

Well that escalated quickly!

Suffice it to say there's some disagreement and that the thread has highlighted this.

This thread isn't going to solve the issue, since no one is going to read every word written through 4 pages and counting. And no one is gaining any credibility with all the back and forth either. What is that saying about arguing on the internet?

I suggest a meeting of persons selected by VATUSA leadership to hash this out elsewhere and report back to a new, concise communication stating VATUSA's official position for all VATUSA training departments and controllers to reference.

I don't care if my take in the original post is right or wrong, I just request consistency across VATUSA.

January 5, 2015 at 03:52 AM

Well that escalated quickly!

Don't read to much into it. The majority of the people posting here have been around for years and all know or know of each other pretty well. Obviously, I cannot speak for everyone here but I have respect for and have know McGee, Kalra, Geckler, Desfosse and others for many years now. I know (or at least hope they know) that although at times we have different opinions we don't generate harsh feelings over them but instead appreciate them.

Difference of opinion is even health. I am glad to have the different view points on this particular topic as I learned more about and the thread itself gave me a reason to do some research on the issue.

January 5, 2015 at 04:17 AM

Well that escalated quickly!
*SNIP*

I don't care if my take in the original post is right or wrong, I just request consistency across VATUSA.

The FAA can't even get it consistent. You're asking for too much .

January 5, 2015 at 04:31 AM

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.

Well you mean "maintain", not "climb and maintain", right? Climb and maintain is not proper IFR clearance phraseology anyway.

Also note that with previous practice, you could completely omit the "maintain" part if the SID had a published altitude.

January 5, 2015 at 04:40 AM

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)

Well if you look at http://nyartcc.org/wiki/index.php?title=Published_Crossing_Restrictions which is linked form there, you'll see that top altitudes are also marked.

January 5, 2015 at 04:43 AM

Well you mean "maintain", not "climb and maintain", right? Climb and maintain is not proper IFR clearance phraseology anyway.

Haha yes ... old habits die hard.

January 5, 2015 at 05:30 AM

Well you mean "maintain", not "climb and maintain", right? Climb and maintain is not proper IFR clearance phraseology anyway.

This is another area where the .65 contradicts itself. 4-3-2 lists "climb and maintain" as phraseology where as 4-3-3 simply has "maintain"

4-3-2. DEPARTURE CLEARANCES
2. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign the altitude requested by the pilot.

3. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign an altitude, as near as possible to the altitude requested by the pilot, and

(a) Inform the pilot when to expect clearance to the requested altitude unless instructions are contained in the specified SID, or

(b) If the requested altitude is not expected to be available, inform the pilot what altitude can be expected and when/where to expect it.

NOTE- [removed]

PHRASEOLOGY-

CLIMB AND MAINTAIN (the altitude as near as possible to the pilot's requested altitude). EXPECT (the requested altitude or an altitude different from the requested altitude) AT (time or fix),

and if applicable,

(pilot's requested altitude) IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Funny enough there should probably be an "or" between 2 and 3 and an if able on 2 as you cannot [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign both the requested altitude and an altitude closest to the requested altitude at the same time.

4-3-3. ABBREVIATED DEPARTURE CLEARANCE

2. When the SID has published altitude restrictions but the top altitude is not published or must be changed, state the phrase “climb via SID except maintain” to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign the top altitude. If required, add any additional instructions or information, including final requested altitude if different than [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned except if Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) is utilized.

PHRASEOLOGY-

.....

MAINTAIN (altitude); (additional instructions or information).

Or as appropriate,

CLIMB VIA SID.

CLIMB VIA SID except maintain (altitude); (additional instructions or information).

If a SID is not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned,

CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT AS FILED.

MAINTAIN (altitude);

[removed information]

5. If a SID is not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, state: “Cleared to (destination) airport or cleared to NAVAID, intersection, or waypoint (type if known) as filed, except ...” Specify the necessary revision, the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude; and if required, add any additional instructions or information.

PHRASEOLOGY-

.....

MAINTAIN (altitude);

Or as appropriate,

CLIMB VIA SID

CLIMB VIA SID except maintain (altitude); (additional instructions or information);

and if required,

....

If a SID is not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned,

........

MAINTAIN (altitude);

and if required,

(additional instructions or information).

January 5, 2015 at 08:15 PM

So clearly I'm the ONLY one who thinks that EVERY departure with a TOP ALTITUDE ONLY does NOT get a CLIMB VIA. I'm not going to waste anymore time with devils advocate takeoff minimums. I'm going to teach my students what my ATM who is a REAL air traffic controller was told. Just figured I would share the wealth and shed some light on something VATUSA3 should be figuring out on a division level.

First, let's slow down, take a short walk outside, and enjoy the climate.

Now that that is done, it should be noted that your ATM isn't the only one that is a real world ATC on this network. In fact, for every time I've heard a statement like yours posted, there has been another that has contradicted it, from another real world controller. In fact, the ones who taught me work at ZLA, SoCal Approach, and LAX Tower (The one at LAX may be nominated for a Bravo Zulu award from his work preventing a rather nasty runway incursion).

In short, just because one may be a real world ATC, doesn't mean that that one single RW ATC is always right or the be all/end all of an argument.

Now, back to the argument. If anything, this entire thread has shown just how confusing the .65 has become in relation to Climb Via, and its various implementations of it. We all know that this was primarily used to ease confusion of what pilots should be doing on RNAV SIDs; you don't know how many times real world pilots would not look at something like the SHEAD8, STAAV5, or COWBY5 departures out of LAX and ask if they should either climb higher, or if verbally given a climb, ask if it is via the SID or an unrestricted climb, knowing that the verbal call to climb cancels the altitude restrictions on the SID.

So right now, everyone in this thread has posted the reasons why there is the confusion, and to be honest, only one person has posted the exact solution of what we need to do: Ryan Geckler.

Everyone wants VATUSA to bring us to something that is consistent, and he being part of VATUSA (in this sense with being the Director of Training, he IS VATUSA), his advice is to wait until the FAA clears it up, either with a separate note regarding this, or an update to the .65 altogether. That is the route we should take.

In the meantime, Ross has a good idea as well. The LOGAN8, and for all intents and purposes, the BLUFS1 and CATTL1 out of KOMA and the ORD8 out of KORD are examples of SIDs without a major altitude restriction, because those restrictions are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC. We should listen in to those Clearance Delivery feeds (if available) to see how they do it. Then, ask any othe rRW ATC we have access to on if that is correct or not. If it is, we use that until the FAA clears this mess up. If it isn't, we find out why.

Like I said before: one sector's RW ATC isn't the be all/end all. If one RW ATC is doing it one way, and another is doing it another way, we need to question them on why they are doing it that way; "because that is how I was taught" isn't a valid response. We truly need to find out why and do what we can until it is officially resolved. Here is where we leverage RW ATC, not just take their word as gospel.

BL.

January 6, 2015 at 12:35 AM

In the meantime, Ross has a good idea as well. The LOGAN8, and for all intents and purposes, the BLUFS1 and CATTL1 out of KOMA and the ORD8 out of KORD are examples of SIDs without a major altitude restriction, because those restrictions are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC. We should listen in to those Clearance Delivery feeds (if available) to see how they do it. Then, ask any othe rRW ATC we have access to on if that is correct or not. If it is, we use that until the FAA clears this mess up. If it isn't, we find out why.

The ORD8 is being [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned as "Climb via SID, except maintain 5000", but if you look at the chart, it also has restrictions on headings to the north (ORD 5DME AOA 3000, ORD 8DME AOA 4000).

January 6, 2015 at 12:49 AM

So right now, everyone in this thread has posted the reasons why there is the confusion, and to be honest, only one person has posted the exact solution of what we need to do: Ryan Geckler.

Everyone wants VATUSA to bring us to something that is consistent, and he being part of VATUSA (in this sense with being the Director of Training, he IS VATUSA), his advice is to wait until the FAA clears it up, either with a separate note regarding this, or an update to the .65 altogether. That is the route we should take.

And here's what I'll do: go to my controller buddies, see what they've been told, and I'd like anyone else that has friends that work in towers to do the same and let me know what they've been told (drop me an email, [email protected]). I'll publish an official VATUSA stance on the matter within 10 days.

January 6, 2015 at 01:11 AM

The LOGAN7 is simply "Climb via SID."

January 6, 2015 at 02:02 AM

If a SID has no published crossing altitudes but has a top altitude, it's "climb via SID".

According to 7110.65V 4-3-2(e)(4), "climb via" is only used when "when the SID contains published crossing restrictions." Why did you use "climb via" in this example?

Source: http://www.faa.gov/docomeentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.113D_Procedures_for_Issuing_Automated_Clearances.pdf

This is the order talking about PDC but it does talks about Climb Via... Here are the fine points (Option Field 3 is the portion of the PDC that contains Climb Via or maintain part of the clearance FYI):

If NO SID is [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned or the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned DP/SID does not contain an initial altitude or vertical guidance then Option Field 3 must contain the instruction “MAINTAIN ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude)”.

If the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned DP/SID contains vertical guidance from take-off to climb-to an altitude to maintain, or contains a top altitude, and it is intended that an aircraft vertically navigate in accordance with the DP/SID [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned or entered in Option Field 1, then Option Field 3 must contain the instruction “CLIMB VIA SID”.

If the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned DP/SID does not have an initial altitude to maintain or a top altitude, but contains vertical guidance, and it is intended that an aircraft vertically navigate in accordance with the DP/SID [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned or entered in Option Field 1, then Option Field 3 must contain the instruction “CLIMB VIA SID EXCEPT MAINTAIN (ALT)”.

If the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude is different from the published altitude in the DP/SID, the altitude may be amended via PDC using, CLIMB VIA SID, EXCEPT MAINTAIN (ALTITUDE).

Number 2 is the key one that seems to be causing the most issues. In this one, it clearly states that a DP with ONLY a top altitude and the intention that the aircraft vertically navigates on it (doesn't go into details on what that entails) then you use "Climb Via SID"

I'm a center guy but the guys I know at MIA, FLL, PBI, TPA, MCO and SYR all use "Climb Via SID" almost exclusively.

January 7, 2015 at 01:44 AM

If the chart says "Maintain 10,000. Expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure", use "Climb via SID." It comes down to "Does the chart tell the pilot what to do?"

If a pilot was to ask, "What altitude do I maintain?" I'd tell them to read the chart. It's all there.

It makes sense. Secretly the FAA has a reason for everything. The purpose of this is to make more instructions published, shortening required transmissions.

Cheers

ZY

January 9, 2015 at 01:50 AM

If the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned DP/SID contains vertical guidance from take-off to climb-to an altitude to maintain, or contains a top altitude, and it is intended that an aircraft vertically navigate in accordance with the DP/SID [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned or entered in Option Field 1, then Option Field 3 must contain the instruction “CLIMB VIA SID”.

This did it for me. Counter to what I originally thought, but Benton's quote puts it clear enough for me. Thank you, sir!

So I think every SID I've seen would be a "climb via SID" since they contain at least some altitude information. Some may also get an "except maintain..."

And departures with no SID would not get any permutation of "climb via SID".

January 9, 2015 at 01:59 AM

So I think every SID I've seen would be a "climb via SID" since they contain at least some altitude information. Some may also get an "except maintain..."

In this thread, or do you mean in existence? There are still plenty of SIDs out there that wouldn't fit the bill for "climb via" even with this expanded interpretation.

In general, yes, this opens it up to a lot of SIDs in existence. And as Mr. Beard pointed out, that was probably intentional in that it paves the way for more emphasis to be placed on published rather than spoken guidance. Looking at it this way, I agree that the above interpretation makes sense. I just wish they hadn't worded 7110.65V such that it contradicts that interpretation in one spot while endorsing it in another.

But then again, it wouldn't truly be the FAA without some contradiction, right?

January 9, 2015 at 03:09 AM

In this thread, or do you mean in existence? There are still plenty of SIDs out there that wouldn't fit the bill for "climb via" even with this expanded interpretation.

Most in the USA. All the SIDs I can remember flying have had a top altitude and so qualifies for your second quote from 113D "... or contains a top altitude ... must contain the instruction "CLIMB VIA SID." But I've only covered a tiny fraction of the USA in my flying.

(I'm excluding ODPs... they aren't SIDs at least according to today's AIM.)

January 9, 2015 at 04:15 AM

In this thread, or do you mean in existence? There are still plenty of SIDs out there that wouldn't fit the bill for "climb via" even with this expanded interpretation.

Most in the USA. All the SIDs I can remember flying have had a top altitude and so qualifies for your second quote from 113D "... or contains a top altitude ... must contain the instruction "CLIMB VIA SID." But I've only covered a tiny fraction of the USA in my flying.

(I'm excluding ODPs... they aren't SIDs at least according to today's AIM.)

A few were posted in this thread that didn't.

January 9, 2015 at 05:10 AM

A few were posted in this thread that didn't.

And there are many more just in the SoCal area.

Makes me wonder if it's an item on someone's checklist for whenever they have to rev a SID; "#) Ensure 'climb via' phraseology will be applicable."

January 13, 2015 at 07:11 PM

Not to beat a potentially dead horse, and not to support the notion of "If you hear one controller do it one time in one region, it must be true", but...

In listening to a LiveATC.net clip regarding a recent KIAD tower evacuation, I did hear someone cleared via the CPTAL8 departure (links: page 1 and page 2) with an initial altitude instruction of "climb via SID". This SID has no intermediate altitude or speed restrictions depicted, only a top altitude in the textual description.

January 15, 2015 at 08:17 PM

VATUSA Notice 7110.601 - Climb Via SID is now posted in the VATUSA forums.

http://forum.vatusa.net/index.php?showtopic=4561

Edited January 15, 2015 at 10:40 PM by Guest

"Climb Via SID" On non-altitude restricted SIDs?

Recommended Posts

William Lewis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Chris McGee

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Chris McGee

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ryan Geckler

Link to comment

Share on other sites

William Lewis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Steven Perry

Link to comment

Share on other sites

William Lewis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhruv Kalra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Merik Nanish 1184142

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Merik Nanish 1184142

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ross Carlson

Link to comment

Share on other sites

William Lewis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brad Littlejohn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhruv Kalra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ryan Geckler

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Don Desfosse

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Benton Wilmes

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Zachary Beard

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Steven Perry

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bradley Grafelman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Steven Perry

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Daniel Hawton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bradley Grafelman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bradley Grafelman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ryan Geckler

Link to comment