Jump to content
Sebastian Rekdal

atc-discussion Shanwick/Gander Phraseology

Recommended Posts

Sebastian Rekdal

Hello all,

after reading some of the relevant sections in the newest version of ICAO's NAT MNPS doc 007, I found some new changes in terms of phraseology.

The changes are described in ICAO NAT MNPS doc 007 Attachment 7 "Oceanic Clearances Delivery/Format/Content"

Format of Oceanic Clearance messages delivered via voice
Oceanic clearances delivered via voice in the NAT Region will normally have the following format:

"Oceanic clearance with a (list of ATC info), (ATC unit) clears (callsign) to (clearance limit/destination)  via Track (route), from (Entry point) maintain (level), (speed/Mach), (Free text)."

The following (list of ATC info) will advise a difference in the clearance from the filed or requested details. It will normally be in accordance with the table below: 

  • Reroute: The controller changes, deletes or adds a waypoint other than the entry point.
  • Level Change: Flight level in the clearance message is not the same as the flight level in the RCL.
  • Speed Change: Speed in the clearance message is not the same as the speed in the RCL.
  • Entry Point Change: The first waypoint in the clearance message is not the same as in the RCL. 
  • Clearance Limit Change: The controller changes the clearance limit.

Example exchange:
“Oceanic clearance with a re-route. Shanwick clears Air Canada 865 to Kennedy via Track B. From MALOT maintain Flight level 350, Mach .82"

 

Format of an Oceanic Clearance Revision delivered via voice
"Amended (change) clearance. (ATC unit) clears (callsign) to (clearance limit/destination)  via Track (route), from (Entry point) maintain (level), (speed/Mach), (Free text)."

Note: Multiple (Change) elements will normally be separated with the word “and" (e.g. "Amended Route and Level clearance").

Example exchange:
This can be done in two ways:

  1. Inform the pilot in command about the relevant amendment in his clearance (e.g. "route", "level" and/or "speed" amendment).

ATC: Air Canada 865 amended level and speed clearance.
PILOT: Go ahead.
ATC: Shanwick clears Air Canada 8665 climb to and maintain Flight level 350 maintain Mach 81, report leaving, report reaching.

  1. Inform the pilot in command about the relevant amendments in his clearance, and give the new clearance in the same transmission:

ATC: Air Canada 865 amended level and speed clearance. Shanwick clears Air Canada 8665 climb to and maintain Flight level 350 maintain Mach 81, report leaving, report reaching.


Reference:
T
he content on this website is gathered from official NAT documents from ICAO.

Edited by Sebastian Rekdal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Kelsey

“Oceanic clearance with a re-route. Shanwick Radio clears Air Canada 865 to Kennedy via Track B. From MALOT maintain Flight level 350, Mach .82"

To be terribly picky (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) -- I was always under the impression that Shanwick Radio (the HF radio operators at Ballygireen) is merely a relayer of messages from Shanwick ATC at Prestwick and therefore cannot clear anybody to do anything.

Therefore, although the message may come via Ballygireen, the phraseology should be "Shanwick ATC clears..." to make it clear that the clearance is being issued by the controllers at Prestwick and not from the radio operator.

However, if I'm wrong I apologise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sebastian Rekdal

I'm not entirely sure about that, to be honest. However, I believe you're right that it shouldn't be "radio". Whether it should be "ATC" or just "Shanwick" I do not know. I shall have a look at it and give you all an update when/if I find an appropriate answer. :) 

An oceanic clearance is usually issued by Shanwick CDOs (Clearance Delivery Officers) at Prestwick. Only during special circumstances (which I believe would be coordinated beforehand), is Shanwick HF to issue such clearance. 

The question then is, should it be "Shanwick Radio" when clearances such as climb/descend and increase/reduce Mach? I believe this should be "Shanwick Radio as it's a request made by the pilot, or by the ATC unit for separation purpose, enroute (i.e. after its original oceanic clearance). This is something that's not highlighted in the ICAO NAT MNPS doc 007 so it'll be difficult to provide a correct answer from me, right now.

At the end of the day, I think it all falls down to "Shanwick" only (not "ATC" or "Radio").

 

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, @Simon Kelsey!

Edited by Sebastian Rekdal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Hunwicks

I'm not entirely sure about that, to be honest. However, I believe you're right that it shouldn't be "radio". Whether it should be "ATC" or just "Shanwick" I do not know. I shall have a look at it and give you all an update when/if I find an appropriate answer. :) 

An oceanic clearance is usually issued by Shanwick CDOs (Clearance Delivery Officers) at Prestwick. Only during special circumstances (which I believe would be coordinated beforehand), is Shanwick HF to issue such clearance. 

The question then is, should it be "Shanwick Radio" when clearances such as climb/descend and increase/reduce Mach? I believe this should be "Shanwick Radio as it's a request made by the pilot, or by the ATC unit for separation purpose, enroute (i.e. after its original oceanic clearance). This is something that's not highlighted in the ICAO NAT MNPS doc 007 so it'll be difficult to provide a correct answer from me, right now.

At the end of the day, I think it all falls down to "Shanwick" only (not "ATC" or "Radio").

 

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, @Simon Kelsey!

The reason the "(unit) clears.." bit is in there at all is because the person giving the message is not the controlling authority, and therefore as Simon says it is not "Shanwick Radio Clears..." because they are just relaying the clearance.

As for the change of level/speed bit, of course it's not "Shanwick Radio" giving the clearance, they still don't give any clearances, they just relay messages! The clearance to change level/speed still comes from the controlling unit, whether it is Shanwick/Gander etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sebastian Rekdal

I'm not entirely sure about that, to be honest. However, I believe you're right that it shouldn't be "radio". Whether it should be "ATC" or just "Shanwick" I do not know. I shall have a look at it and give you all an update when/if I find an appropriate answer. :) 

An oceanic clearance is usually issued by Shanwick CDOs (Clearance Delivery Officers) at Prestwick. Only during special circumstances (which I believe would be coordinated beforehand), is Shanwick HF to issue such clearance. 

The question then is, should it be "Shanwick Radio" when clearances such as climb/descend and increase/reduce Mach? I believe this should be "Shanwick Radio as it's a request made by the pilot, or by the ATC unit for separation purpose, enroute (i.e. after its original oceanic clearance). This is something that's not highlighted in the ICAO NAT MNPS doc 007 so it'll be difficult to provide a correct answer from me, right now.

At the end of the day, I think it all falls down to "Shanwick" only (not "ATC" or "Radio").

 

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, @Simon Kelsey!

 

The reason the "(unit) clears.." bit is in there at all is because the person giving the message is not the controlling authority, and therefore as Simon says it is not "Shanwick Radio Clears..." because they are just relaying the clearance.

As for the change of level/speed bit, of course it's not "Shanwick Radio" giving the clearance, they still don't give any clearances, they just relay messages! The clearance to change level/speed still comes from the controlling unit, whether it is Shanwick/Gander etc.

Makes sense to me. Thanks Ben and Simon. So in conclusion (as stated in the ICAO NAT MNPS doc 007), it should only be "Air Canada 865, Amended level clearance. Shanwick clears..." ? 

Edited by Sebastian Rekdal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Bergin

Just one thing - On VATSIM 99% of the time the controller giving the radio operator and clearance controller are one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Harry Sugden
      By Harry Sugden
      Oooo, "cleared RNP approach runway 26L" soon come! 😎
      rnav to rnp.pdf
    • Sebastian Wheeler
      By Sebastian Wheeler
      Just a slight query related to the above:
      I was fortunate enough to partake in a weeks worth of work experience with NATS recently, and while at whitely on the ADC sims, I heard the following phraseology being used "G-ABCD, Cleared to enter controlled airspace via Route A, at or below altitude 2000 feet, QNH 1014."
      Upon asking one of the pseudo-pilots about the change, I was told it is "new phraseology" can anyone else confirm whether this is the case? Apparently, it was put in place after some confusion from pilots after receiving a "not above" clearance.
    • Steve Riley
      By Steve Riley
      Just reading the new sid charts , am I right in saying hand offs are going to LONDON or SCOTTISH  and not radar as no mention of Radar on the charts.
      2. After departure, aircraft shall remain on the Tower frequency until instructed. 3. En-route cruising levels will be issued after take-off by 'London Control'. 4. Report callsign, SID designator, current altitude and cleared level on first contact with 'London Control'.
      I have not got the old charts to confirm this as I take them straight from NATS web site. 
      Also frequencies have changed are we changing them within ES ?
        123.980, 131.005  BIRMINGHAM APPROACH/RADAR
        118.305  BIRMINGHAM TOWER
      121.805  BIRMINGHAM GROUND 
       

       
       
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      As above, how do you guys assess the runway surface condition on VATSIM? Do you make a visual assessment from the visual control room in correlation to the current/prevailing weather conditions or do you assess this purely off the METAR/TAF?
       
      The only reason i ask it that the surface condition of a runway really affects our landing performance (each operators SOP's may be different for the same aircraft type) Specifically if the runway is declared as DRY full length our crosswind limitations may be increased, whereas if the runway is declared WET full length, crosswind limitations are decreased. If i also needed to return after departure due to an emergency and perform an overweight landing, a DRY/WET surface also makes quite a difference for our overall LDA requirements. 
       
      Cheers
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      Hi all,
       
      For the ones who enjoy carrying out IFR circuits in large aircraft, Doncaster Sheffield (EGCN) accepts visual circuits for aircraft above 5,700kg - B737/B757/B767/B747 etc. 
       
      The circuit profile & procedure can be found in the textual data in the AIP for EGCN. Primarily speaking only one aircraft can be in the circuit at a time. Be nice to get TWR on at EGCN from time to time to accept more training traffic within the network.
       
      The circuit profile briefly summarised as below:
       
      Visual circuits by aircraft above 5700 kg must comply with the following noise abatement procedures.
       
      i. Runway 02 After departure turn right crosswind at no greater than 2.5 DME, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH, report final south of Bawtry (3 DME) and not below 1500 FT QNH.
      ii. Runway 20 After departure climb on track 190°, at 1.5 DME turn left crosswind, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH and report final not below 1500 FT QNH
       
      Cheers.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...