By Lisa Steenberg 1391443
#526265 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?
By Johan Grauers 1113891
#526267
Lisa Steenberg 1391443 wrote: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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526271 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.
By Dhruv Kalra 878508
#526281
Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote: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 assigned 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?
Last edited by Dhruv Kalra 878508 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
By Lisa Steenberg 1391443
#526284 As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all :D .

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
By Lisa Steenberg 1391443
#526285
Lisa Steenberg 1391443 wrote:As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all :D .

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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526291 Hi Dhruv,
Dhruv Kalra 878508 wrote:
Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote: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 assigned 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 assigned by ATC did not match with the SID exit-point on our flightplan. We just took off with the SID assigned 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 assigned 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 :twisted:
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.
By Dhruv Kalra 878508
#526296 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.
By Magnus Meese 997444
#526298 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 assigned, 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 assigned 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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526304 ...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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526314 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).
By Johan Grauers 1113891
#526376
Lisa Steenberg 1391443 wrote:
Lisa Steenberg 1391443 wrote:As I see, I missed a lot of replies, so thank you all :D .

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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526389 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.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#526497 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.