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

    • Harry Sugden
      By Harry Sugden
      Oooo, "cleared RNP approach runway 26L" soon come! 😎
      rnav to rnp.pdf
    • 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.
       
       
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      The Letter of Agreement between London and Amsterdam (Dutch vACC) is revised to take into account changes in AD3 at the end of 2018. It's available here.
       
      Chris.
×
×
  • Create New...