Presently in UK airspace when a controller issues a level clearance to an aircraft executing a SID, the vertical profile of the SID is automatically cancelled. This fact is clearly stated in CAP 493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services - Part 1) in Section 1, Chapter 4, Paragraph 7 which reads in full as:
The recent PANS-ATM amendment recommends a contradictory rule under §6.3.2 ("Standard clearances for departing aircraft"):7 Amendments to Clearances [22-NOV-2007]7.1 When an amendment is made to a clearance the new clearance shall be read in full to the pilot and shall automatically cancel any previous clearance. Controllers must be aware, therefore, that if the original clearance included a restriction, e.g. “cross ABC FL150 or below” then the issue of a revised clearance automatically cancels the earlier restriction, unless it is reiterated with the revised clearance.7.2 Similar care must be exercised when a controller issues a clearance, which amends the vertical profile of an aircraft on an SID. For example, “climb FL120” automatically cancels the vertical profile of the SID. If the profile contains a restriction that provides vertical separation from conflicting traffic on another SID, the restriction must be reiterated, e.g. “climb FL120 cross XYZ 5000 feet or above”, unless separation is ensured by other means.7.3 Similarly, when controllers issue instructions which amend the SID route, they are to confirm the level profile to be followed, e.g. “fly heading 095, climb FL80” or “route direct EFG, stop climb at altitude 5000 feet”.
6.3.2.4 CLIMB CLEARANCE ABOVE LEVELS SPECIFIED IN A SID [22-NOV-2007]
Note.— See also 11.4.2.6.2.5.
When a departing aircraft on a SID is cleared to climb to a level higher than the initial cleared level or the level(s) specified in a SID, the aircraft shall follow the published vertical profile of a SID, unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled by ATC.
The postponement of aligning UK airspace policy with the recommendations approved in PANS-ATM do not however eliminate the problem of identifying precisely which rule is in effect in other Contracting States. It is worth emphasising the fact that the Procedures for Air Navigation Services do not have the same status as the Standards and Recommended Practices. As such they do not come within the obligation imposed by Article 38 of the 'Chicago Convention' for Contracting States to notify differences in the event of non-implementation.
Annex 15, §4.1.2 [AIP GEN inclusions] states:
4.1.2 AeroAeronautical Information Publications shall include in Part 1 — General (GEN): [25-NOV-2004]
[...](c) a list of significant differences between the national regulations and practices of the State and the related ICAO Standards, Recommended Practices and Procedures, given in a form that would enable a user to differentiate readily between the requirements of the State and the related ICAO provisions;
[...]
As such it would be expected that a significant difference such as the one described here is listed in States' AIPs however the matter is far from certain. By way of example, the UK AIP GEN 1.7 (Differences from ICAO) at page 1-7-48, while listing various differences from PANS-ATM, fails to include reference to PANS-ATM 6.3.2.4. Although this fact is clearly an oversight on the part of the UK AIS, it betrays the strong possibility that other Contracting States may have overlooked including the difference. How therefore is a flightcrew member to be certain which rules are in force in each State, save by carrying out a time-consuming State-by-State inquiry, trawling through air navigation regulations which might not be published in English (or any of the other major ICAO languages)?
UK CAA
- ATSIN 119 (10-DEC-2008): Climb Above Notified Standard Instrument Departure Altitudes
- FODCOM 01/09 (06-JAN-2009): Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Arrival (STAR) Climb and Descent Procedures and Phraseology
- Safety Warning Message 07-NOV-2007 [pdf]: Level Restrictions – Amendments to ICAO PANS-ATM
No comments:
Post a Comment