Cleared for SID ending up at another wpt

[Lisa Steenberg 1391443]

Hello! I'm kind-of an experienced pilot and flying on VATSIM for about 1,5 year now.

Today I ran into a problem at EDDF. I wanted to fly from EDDF to LOWS. My first wpt was RATIM. I checked the charts (2 months old) and there was indeed a RATIM7S/N departure for rwy18 (the rwy in use). I asked for clearance, everything was ok, however I got cleared via the NOMBO8S departure?!! This one ended up at wpt NOMBO. I asked the controller for clarification, however he just said 'cleared via NOMBO8S departure.' He also didn't say what I had to when I reached NOMBO. Then, I send him a private message, in order not to occupy the frequency, but the didn't react in 5 min. and it wasn't that busy. I just cancelled the flight. My questions:

 

1. Should I've been cleared via a RATIM departure? Was it a mistake of the controller?

2. If it was correct, what should I've done after reaching NOMBO?

[Johan Grauers]

Hello! I'm kind-of an experienced pilot and flying on VATSIM for about 1,5 year now.

Today I ran into a problem at EDDF. I wanted to fly from EDDF to LOWS. My first wpt was RATIM. I checked the charts (2 months old) and there was indeed a RATIM7S/N departure for rwy18 (the rwy in use). I asked for clearance, everything was ok, however I got cleared via the NOMBO8S departure?!! This one ended up at wpt NOMBO. I asked the controller for clarification, however he just said 'cleared via NOMBO8S departure.' He also didn't say what I had to when I reached NOMBO. Then, I send him a private message, in order not to occupy the frequency, but the didn't react in 5 min. and it wasn't that busy. I just cancelled the flight. My questions:

 

1. Should I've been cleared via a RATIM departure? Was it a mistake of the controller?

2. If it was correct, what should I've done after reaching NOMBO?

 

This is fairly common, there isn't really a standardised answer. Based of the stats page you filed:

RATIM L603 EBEDA UL173 AMDID L173 TITIG

In a B738 at FL230.

 

1. Yes he was right to not use the RATIM SID. On the charts for the RATIM departure there are restrictions (you do use charts right? If not, get charts, ask if you want more help with that).

RATIM5S "Only prop acft with max fl230 requested instead of NOMBO SIDs. Not for flights terminating within EDDN area or EDMM FIR.

 

So you're (I think, I haven't double checked) not going to the EDDN area, and not to the EDMM FIR. So in that sense you can fly the RATIM5S, how ever you were in a jet aircraft . Therefore you should indeed be cleared on the NOMBO SID as you were.

 

2. In a very very generic sense, join your flight planned route via the most logical option. Exactly what that means I have no great answer to. If unsure do what you did and ask, I would just ask on the frequency if needed (happens for real as well from time to time).

 

I would probably have flown something like NOMBO DCT LUPOX L603, but that's me looking at a map and guessing something sensible. You did nothing wrong in asking for clarification. Although in some cases it can actually be easier to get airborne and ask the radar controller, who will have a much better idea. It's not technically what you should be doing but it can be a lot easier.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Thanks Johan, for pointing out this.

 

On top of it I suspect that the ATCO in question may not have understood what your issue was. Strictly speaking it is non of his business, as he only checks for valid/invalid SID exit-points (RATIM for props vs. NOMBO for jets) and then issues the clearance accordingly. The person in charge of providing pilots with guidance after the end of the SID would have been EDGG_E_CTR, I am not sure if that station was available at the time of your flight.

 

So, just as Johan wrote, go and fly, join the route at the next most logical point if you do not get any further information from ATC or in the absence of them.

[Dhruv Kalra]

The person in charge of providing pilots with guidance after the end of the SID would have been EDGG_E_CTR, I am not sure if that station was available at the time of your flight.

Surely this isn’t correct. The responsibility for an IFR routing having no points of ambiguity falls upon the clearance delivery controller, does it not? In the US, at least, you would never be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned an amended route without the amendment being tied back into the original route or clearance limit. What happens if an aircraft departs on the NOMBO SID and then loses two-way comms? How do you ensure that the ATC anticipated course of action in a lost comms situation matches what the pilot actually thinks that he/she is supposed to do?

Edited August 12, 2018 at 05:34 AM by Guest

[Lisa Steenberg 1391443]

As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all .

 

When I read all the replies through, I see that RATIM is for props only and NOMBO for jets.

Question 1 is clearified

 

However, there is some segregation about the second answer, so I still don't know that

[Lisa Steenberg 1391443]

As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all .

 

When I read all the replies through, I see that RATIM is for props only and NOMBO for jets.

Question 1 is clearified

 

However, there is some segregation about the second answer, so I still don't know that

 

PS: my charts are from the German vacc, and on the chart there's no box with RATIM props only.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Dhruv,

The person in charge of providing pilots with guidance after the end of the SID would have been EDGG_E_CTR, I am not sure if that station was available at the time of your flight.

Surely this isn’t correct. The responsibility for an IFR routing having no points of ambiguity falls upon the clearance delivery controller, does it not? In the US, at least, you would never be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned an amended route without the amendment being tied back into the original route or clearance limit. What happens if an aircraft departs on the NOMBO SID and then loses two-way comms? How do you ensure that the ATC anticipated course of action in a lost comms situation matches what the pilot actually thinks that he/she is supposed to do?

practically it is the job of the enroute controller to take care of this, not delivery. It's like this in the real world, at least here in Europe. This happens to me at times when I fly around for real. Recently we departed out of LIEE and the SID that was [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC did not match with the SID exit-point on our flightplan. We just took off with the SID [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by GND/TWR and when airborne were soon sent to another point somewhere down the route. Problem solved. Otherwise we would have requested a clarification from APP (who handled our departure section) about the route after the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned SID, hadn't they given us this short-cut.

 

Should we have lost COMMS, we would have used what we get paid for the big bucks: common sense. Yes, it is unbelievable, but it still exists despite all the computers and colorful screens in our flightdecks, we are not yet children of the magenta

Oh, in this case "common sense" would have told us to fly the SID to the end and then connect to the nearest point of our original flightplan that is downroute, without too much of a detour.

 

So, Lisa, I do this flying-stuff for a living. At least here in Europe you can just connect your last SID-point with the next feasible point on your original flightplan. If you have active ATC, ask them before, if possible. I know that you tried to do exactly this with GND-control in Frankfurt and he did not respond well. Next time insist just a bit more. If you cannot get a reasonable answer from GND-control, ask the next controller, maybe he will understand what you want from him. I am not trying to say that you were not able to articulate yourself good enough, but maybe that GND-controller was simply new on the job and did not get it. We all need to start somewhere and learn.

 

I will surely address this on our local ATC forum of Frankfurt, hopefully it won't happen again. Come and fly again with us!

 

EDIT: looking at your filed routing, it is also invalid. A more correct routing via RATIM would have been RATIM L603 OLETU Z106 MANAL M736 TULSI . You can find valid routings through the freeware service http://vroute.net

As a demonstration effect, currently I am not able to insert that route, because vroute insists on using a turbo-prop type

 

Anyway, a valid routing for jets is this one: NOMBO Y161 MAH Y162 MANAL MANAL M736 TULSI

Maximum FL230.

 

 

 

EDIT2: Argh, I just noticed that you were flying to LOWS, not LOWI. The correct route would be N0450FL230 NOMBO Y161 RIDAR/N0450FL270 UZ98 WLD T702 OLETU T702 BADIT

For you this means to initially climb to FL230, at RIDAR climb FL270.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[Dhruv Kalra]

Trust me I'm all for common sense and decision-making, but I guess they treat IFR routings with a bit more specificity in the US. One of the biggest things that gets drummed in during IFR training as well as to all ATCS is that there should be zero ambiguity in IFR clearances and routings so that lost comms is handled in a very specific and predictable sequence. 14 CFR 91.185 outlines a very logical process by which IFR lost comms is to be conducted over here, hence my surprise that ATC would allow you to depart while cleared over a fix that you didn't file without giving you some instructions to rejoin your filed route upon completion of the amended procedure.

[Magnus Meese]

Yeah, US does have more fidelity in their IFR clearances. The end result is the same though, just less clearly stated. With an EUR IFR cleranace, where no modifications to FP RTE (this normally excludes SID/STAR, as they mostly are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, not filed), you are cleared "as filed" to the destination even though "as filed" isn't stated. That is also what is expected in the case of an RTF. If you are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a SID that does not connect to your route, in the case of an RTF, you fly the SID to its end point, then resume own navigation according to filed RTE. If this means doubling back, typically you skip the first (few) waypoints and route direct the first relevant on-course waypoint.

[Andreas Fuchs]

...although I wouldn't be doubling back in such a case. But then again, try to fail 3 VHF radios, 2 HF radios and SATCOM. Pretty hard to achieve.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Lisa,

 

I got some feedback for you from the ATCO in question. Yes, he did understand your request, but by the time that was trying to respond to your private chat message, you had already logged out. He was kind of busy and did not have time to do that any earlier. Just because a frequency is not busy, does not mean that the ATCO is not busy with other things in the background (e.g. searching correct flightplan routes for pilots).

[Johan Grauers]

As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all .

 

When I read all the replies through, I see that RATIM is for props only and NOMBO for jets.

Question 1 is clearified

 

However, there is some segregation about the second answer, so I still don't know that

 

PS: my charts are from the German vacc, and on the chart there's no box with RATIM props only.

 

The German VACC chart hasn't made it very easy, but if you look in the pilot briefing there is a note there to say it's prop only.

 

A lot of the time a SID comes with a charted part and a text description and a lot of these things are found in the notes by the text, so it's sometimes more obvious than others what's going on with the SID etc.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Actually this thread has made us include the note about props/jets on those charts. They were not included so far to keep them less cluttered.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Updated charts are now available: https://www.vacc-sag.org/airport/EDDF

 

Lisa, are you still following this thread? Is everything clear now? We will always welcome you (and everyone else) back to Frankfurt airport.

[Ben Stevenson]

Strictly speaking it is non of his business, as he only checks for valid/invalid SID exit-points (RATIM for props vs. NOMBO for jets) and then issues the clearance accordingly.

 

I disagree here, as a controller if i'm providing a clearance and the SID the pilot should be flying differs from the one they filed, i'm not going to just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign them the proper SID and then go "not my problem". I'd check with the pilot that they are indeed able to accept the new SID before [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning it and either they will accept it or i give them a vector SID.

[Joshua Jenkins]

I disagree here, as a controller if i'm providing a clearance and the SID the pilot should be flying differs from the one they filed, i'm not going to just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign them the proper SID and then go "not my problem". I'd check with the pilot that they are indeed able to accept the new SID before [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning it and either they will accept it or i give them a vector SI

 

Europe is quite different from the US/Canada in various procedures. Although, I do have to say it shocks me how little responsibility DEL takes for ensuring a complete routing when the route is modified.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Why does it shock you? DEL is only responsible for the departure clearance, the rest he/she would have to coordinate with an enroute controller. During the absence of such a controller you can enquire with DEL what you are supposed to do after the end of the cleared SID, if it does not connect directly with your filed (=merely requested!) route. If the controller is experienced enough and has enough time on his/her hands, this service will be provided. Otherwise you can make some quick research yourself, there are sooooo many sources of good information available for free to us: SkyVector, vroute, FlightAware to name just a few.

 

And why should a controller ask a pilot whether he can follow another SID instead of the filed/requested one? If you can follow SID A, why shouldn't you be able to follow SID B? If not, the pilot in question can still enquire with ATC and report that he is unable.

[Joshua Jenkins]

Ok let me just clarify something real quick: I'm not a real world pilot or controller right now so anything I say is purely from my own research over the last 4.5 years I've been on flight sims. Alright now to answer your question:

 

Why does it shock you?

I primarily fly in North America (and control at CZVR) so it has been reinforced numerous times that the delivery controller (or whoever is giving the intial clearance) will always, always make sure an amended route connects back to either the filed route OR the clearance limit (the destination). As others have stated already this removes any ambiguity in the event of a loss in communications between the controller and the pilot. Now earlier you did say:

Should we have lost COMMS, we would have used what we get paid for the big bucks: common sense.

However, on VATSIM we all know not everyone has that common sense. So although I do understand the way Europe handles the departure clearances, it still makes more sense to me to have it done the North American way. It just prevents that one "oops" from ever happening. Both IRL and on VATSIM.

 

DEL is only responsible for the departure clearance, the rest he/she would have to coordinate with an enroute controller.

Again going back to my S1 training at ZVR, one of DEL responsibilities is to make sure the aircraft have the correct routing to safely depart said airport. With that being said it makes sense to me (and it's what we do at Vancouver) that the correct departure routings for aircraft are either defined in an SOP or coordinated between controllers when they first log-on and/or at a runway change. This would make it a lot easier for DEL controllers as they don't have to talk to the enroute controllers nearly as much (thereby reducing workload). Just a thought

 

During the absence of such a controller you can enquire with DEL what you are supposed to do after the end of the cleared SID

In that case, would it not save time to take 5 extra seconds to connect the amended route back to the filed route?

 

And why should a controller ask a pilot whether he can follow another SID instead of the filed/requested one? If you can follow SID A, why shouldn't you be able to follow SID B? If not, the pilot in question can still enquire with ATC and report that he is unable.

Not everyone is flying the most advanced aircraft addon with the most current AIRAC cycle. A pilot could have SID A but maybe SID B came out in the most recent cycle which he doesn't have yet. Also if you were loading a SID into the default FSX GPS for example you may have all the waypoints for SID A in FSX's database but a couple waypoints from SID B may not be in FSX's database because it is too new.

 

Cheers,

[Alasdair Whyborn 1341821]

This is a common issue in a lot of European airports due to there being somewhat ambiguous restrictions in what SIDs and other routes can be used by what aircraft flying where.

 

In Zürich the DEL controller on an average VATSIM night will spend a substantial amount of time reclearing aircraft via correct routings, my training there has been to give the pilots one of the valid routings whenever possible. IF the pilot happens to be unable to fly the correct routing it is the job of the controller issuing the clearance to ensure that ALL the relevant stations are knowledgeable of the aircraft flying on a non-standard routing.

 

An example:

1. SWR123 files ZUE T164 PSA to EDDF, FL240. (Not valid routing because of altitude restriction in ZUE SIDs)

2. DEL controller reclears SWR123 via DEGES Z1 LOKTA T164 TEDGO T163 PSA, FL220.

3. If SWR123 unable, request from LSZH_APP a ZUE departure (above the normal level restriction) and advise LSAS_CTR of traffic departing LSZH on T163.

4. Clear SWR123 via ZUE or other departure negotiated with LSZH_APP

 

Never is it ok to clear SWR123 a DEGES departure in front of ZUE T164 PSA routing, and any deviation from the standard DEGES Z1 LOKTA T164 TEDGO T163 PSA for FL160-220 must be negotiated with the relevant controllers.

 

If the controller workload dictates that the aircraft must fly the standard routing and the aircraft is unable to accept said departure, the aircraft will not be allowed to fly the route.