Jump to content
Sebastian Wheeler

atc-discussion New VFR Clearance Phraseology

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Sebastian Wheeler
Grammar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick Marinov
1 hour ago, Sebastian Wheeler said:

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.

The last publication of CAP413 is from 2016 and even in it there is not a trace of "at or below".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Pike

Does make sense. I can see the risk of the word "not" being garbled. Negative instructions are never a good thing, but I never thought of it that way before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trevor Hannant

The "at or below" is already in use for IFR traffic (section 6.9):

Quote

BIGJET 347, cleared from 10 miles southeast of Kennington to KTN at FL60. Enter controlled airspace at FL85 or below

Probably standardisation going on.

Edited by Trevor Hannant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick Marinov
2 hours ago, Trevor Hannant said:

The "at or below" is already in use for IFR traffic (section 6.9):

Probably standardisation going on.

I must say, I didn't look at the IFR section for this 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Hodgkinson

Quite a good idea tbh, removes the ambiguity in my opinion. But then, real world RT is always a bit more 'loose' to accomodate a wide variety of scenarios.

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

    • Kieran Samuel Cross
      By Kieran Samuel Cross
      --PLS DELETE--
    • James Taylor
      By James Taylor
      Hi,
      Does anyone know where I can get the actual client for Audio For Vatsim that runs alongside Euroscope?
      Thanks in advance,
      Regards
      James
    • Edward Berkley
      By Edward Berkley
      Hello all,
      I was finding a more realistic way to give out PDC's via text. I thought of using these two messages:
      .pdc1 .msg $aircraft $dep PDC: $aircraft CLRD TO $arr $deprwy via $sid INIT ALT: $alt squawk $asquawk ATIS $atiscode NO READBACK REQUIRED. If you're happy with this PDC, please verify by replying to this message, saying: "ACCEPT".
       
      If they reply with 'accept' then I send out this second message.

      .pdc2 .msg $aircraft Thank you, $aircraft. Contact $callsign on frequency $com when FULLY ready to push and start with stand number, ATIS info, aircraft type AND current QNH
      I preferably wanted all of the important information from the second message into the first message. However, I discover that euroscope has a word limit as to how long your messages can be.
      I'm wondering what you guys think of this procedure. Are vatsim pilots very responsive? As well, is there a way to automatically send out the second message by a somewhat means of detection from the pilot when he/she says 'accept'?
      I hope what I just said makes sense. 
       
      Many thanks!
       
       
    • Paul Dean
      By Paul Dean
      Can anyone suggest an atis frequency for Marham?
      Cheers
    • Trevor Gibson
      By Trevor Gibson
      Just wondering now that I have my S1 at some point after I operated at EGCC GND would it be possible to control EGAA. How would I go about getting that sector or is Belfast not available 
×
×
  • Create New...