*If there's any Australian pilot or ATC here, I'd like you to comment what you think about this new phraseology. Do you find it useful or just a frequency time eater? I guess it's all about getting used to it ;)* www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a17-h21.pdf

@chesleyhu624

6 жыл бұрын

VASAviation - It was last year’s ICAO doc.4444, but it was originals from U.S.. The use of PBN caused some confusion between pilot and ATC, so FAA had their order 7110.65w updated, then last year ICAO did so. I think I used to see a video about it at FAA’s KZread Channel.

@chesleyhu624

6 жыл бұрын

VASAviation - m.kzread.info/dash/bejne/foeZzrSMptDegaw.html, The link of that FAA video explained why they use this new phraseology.

@goodshipkaraboudjan

6 жыл бұрын

CASA have pushed it pretty heavily but you still hear the "old" phraseology used and responded to normally. Pointless initiatives are CASAs SOP.

i always descend via Stars :DD

@imjustsomeguy72

6 жыл бұрын

It was too perfect. :D You know that' the same discussion ATC and pilots have had about this for months. "What pilot is just going to assume by default they don't need to obey the STAR they've been cleared for already?"

@mkvector9539

2 жыл бұрын

I always descend via muff and slag.

They tried the Descend Via/Climb Via the STAR phraseology in Canada and about a week later a Nation Wide NOTAM was issued to cease using the phraseology

That China Southern just pretty much says what every non-Australian pilot would think in their head: "What the hell are you talking about?"

@chesleyhu624

6 жыл бұрын

Max Cheng ICAO did publish the new Doc.4444 last year which has that. People should know it already!

@fsxprofis6867

6 жыл бұрын

xing hu doesnt change the fact that the change is stupid

China Southern pilot very clear English. Must be experienced.

@skygiu

4 жыл бұрын

Or British

Canada tried to implement the "Descend via" terminology a few months ago, later retracted it because it was confusing to foreign carriers.

@EGarafraxa

6 жыл бұрын

Andy Plater Not only foreign carriers. Plenty of confusion to go around!

@BollocksUtwat

6 жыл бұрын

That's interesting. What was the specific phraseology used, in what context, and how does it vary from what was used before?

@arturdlucas

5 жыл бұрын

We use it here in Brazil

Thats why vatsim becomes handy you can familiarize your self with every procedure on the planet😂

China's pilot realy smart guy ! Briliant explanation for atc !) Lol

After reading everything on this, I feel like they just implemented it because they had nothing better to do 😂. It doesn’t add any efficiency or value to traffic management that didn’t already exist

@BollocksUtwat

6 жыл бұрын

Apparently ICAO wants the FAA to follow their standards for everything, including the extraneous and totally useless DCT between everything not on a published procedure or on an airway. Makes absolutely no sense and is totally useless.

@alexh9401

6 жыл бұрын

In USA "descend " means disregard the star restrictions. But in Australia, it means follow the restrictions. In London, they say "descend/ descend now" have different meanings. In turkey they say "descend on profile / open descent". Different phraseology is all over the place right now.

@emilyc8958

6 жыл бұрын

Apollo Actual welcome to every government decision ever made in Australia

Second STAR to the right and straight on 'til morning. ” ― J.M. Barrie was a pilot? :-D

What's really funny is that China Southern wasn't trying to be funny lol!

2:40 onwards

What's the Discord icon for? do you have a server or is it just to add you? kinda need an invite link if you got a server or your whole username to add you(including your #).

@VASAviation

6 жыл бұрын

discord.gg/ap5reFs

@mattisony

6 жыл бұрын

nice, should put it in your description if you want to advertise it :)

Seems a bit redundant, they're *standard* procedures after all meaning that if ATC had a non-standard instruction they'd make sure the pilots understood it.

So what does it mean? Descent via described path at STAR but not below 8000 for example? Or is it just an assignment of lateral star track, descent NOW 8000?

@dannnnn496

6 жыл бұрын

The STAR has a route which follows waypoints, the aircraft tracks between those waypoints as directed in the Chart. In many cases, waypoints along the STAR have altitude restrictions, most of the time for traffic separation or terrain, these restrictions can be labelled, e.g. Cross AT 9000ft (pass the waypoint AT 9000ft), cross AT or BELOW 9000ft (pass the waypoint at 9000ft OR below), cross AT or ABOVE 9000ft (the opposite of the previous). When ATC gives a descent instruction via the STAR, it is an altitude that the aircraft is cleared to descend to, however, the aircraft must still abide by the restrictions of the STAR, for example, the aircraft is cleared to descend via the STAR to 8000ft, but there is a waypoint with an altitude restriction for 9000ft or above, they ensure that they do not descend below 9000ft before this waypoint even though they have been "cleared" to 8000ft. Quite rough explanation but thought it may help :)

@sh1904

6 жыл бұрын

Daniel Glover OMG thanks so much for the explanation! I was scratching my head as to what "descend via" actually meant

@MillionFoul

6 жыл бұрын

Oh my god that's the most annoying thing I've ever heard of.

@chesleyhu624

6 жыл бұрын

means ATC could Give u altitude that is over the restrictions of the procedure. But the restrictions have to be followed.

@imjustsomeguy72

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, as others have said, it's basically making it crystal clear that you have to follow all published restrictions on the chart (which usually provide built in seperation assurance from departures/arrivals and/or terrain) while descending to whatever altitude you have been cleared to. Theoretically, depending on the arrival or departure and whether or not it keeps planes in controlled airspace, you could just clear a plane all the way down to the altitude for the approach without having to step climb, seperation from other traffic on the same arrival/departure notwithstanding. In Australia, I believe the way you override restrictions is either cancelling the SID/STAR and "expect to resume STAR at POINT", or you would say "descend via star to 8000, cancel altitude and speed restrictions at POINT"

FYI, 1:00 should be track BEKID, I think, not track back into the STAR. Track back into the STAR is obviously a completely useless instruction! :D

@VASAviation

6 жыл бұрын

It means rejoin the STAR.

@imjustsomeguy72

6 жыл бұрын

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I hear (I'm Australian) is "Track direct BEKID to rejoin the STAR", and the pilot reads back "track BEKID to the STAR", not "track back into the STAR". BEKID is a waypoint on the SMOKA5V STAR into YBBN. They would generally need to be told where they rejoin the STAR in order to know what restrictions they need to obey (hence the initial convo re DAYBO and BEKID). This is actually made explicit in the circular, to the point that they tell you if you take an aircraft off a SID but plan to put them back on at any point, you need to actually give them that expectation including waypoint as early as when you take them off in the first place. The correct phraseology would be, if you were vectoring someone off as it sounds like happened here, "Turn left heading xxx, maintain 220 KTs, expect to rejoin SID at BEKID". Then when you want them to rejoin, you would say "Rejoin SID at WAYPOINT" or as happened here, "track direct BEKID to rejoin the STAR". This implies that the only published restrictions you need to comply with are the ones from WAYPOINT onwards. IF you don't tell them which waypoint, it's not necessarily understood between ATC and the pilot which waypoint (and hence set of restrictions) they are expected to track to and obey.

If it ain't broken don't fix it

This is the same in France, we have a new phraseology (hich is quite the same as in Australia)... "AFR343 left heading 320, expect to rejoin SID"... Why do you have to tell this ?!

@imjustsomeguy72

6 жыл бұрын

Cause if they're giving you a vector, you're off the SID. They tell you when to expect to rejoin so you can make sure you meet any altitude or speed requirements from that point onwards, and also not burn the rest of the SID from your FMC.

@bronxabordhel1981

6 жыл бұрын

But the pilot can't know when he will have to be back on the SID, so he can't manage to respect altitude/speed restrictions ! And is it different for a pilot to make a direct to a waypoint on the SID or out of the SID ? There is no difference at all... This just takes more time to say it...

@imjustsomeguy72

6 жыл бұрын

I don't know what the situation is in France, but in Australia, if you are given vector while under a SID but ATC plans to put you back on, they have to tell you to expect to rejoin with the waypoint, when they first vector you off. They do this precisely to deal with the problem you raise - this way, they know when they will rejoin the SID, and so they know which set of restrictions they will be expected to obey.They also have to tell you to rejoin the SID when they give you own nav after vectors, if they expect you to continue to obey the SID at that point. So, "AFR343, turn left heading 040, expect to rejoin SID at DOSEL." AFR343, resume own navigation, track and rejoin the SID at DOSEL." And there is a difference. You just said it - waypoints on a SID may have altitude or speed restrictions on them that don't exist on regular tracks unless ATC explicitly gives you such restrictions. The whole point of a standard published procedure is so ATC don't have to give you sets of restrictions at a succession of waypoints. Havind said all that, I do agree with you at one level. Normally most pilots, if put back onto a SID waypoint after being vectored off, would adhere to any subsequent SID restrictions by default, so the new phraseology is a bit redundant. Still, there is actually a logic to the new phraseology, and it is clearer, the issue most ATC have with it is they feel its mostly redundant. Pilots generally don't just ignore SID restrictions they've already been cleared on unless explicitly told to ignore them.

Funny stuff starts at 2:00

I live in Brisbane and this just eats up the frequency with unnecessary ad ons to already effective commands

@AmyAnnLand

4 жыл бұрын

I'm curious if now that it's 2 years later, is this phraseology still in use or has it been changed?

@lubtp7133

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmyAnnLand Still in use.

😂

I didn't read the circular. What did I miss?

@VASAviation

6 жыл бұрын

Read it.

@SupaEMT134

6 жыл бұрын

VASAviation - - but...

@emilyc8958

6 жыл бұрын

SupaEMT134 you have to say STAR and SID now instead of treating it as assumed knowledge

@JohnDoe-zw6to

3 жыл бұрын

"read this, then you'll get it." *doesn't read this* "i don't get it" thonk.jpg

I just noticed that the Australian controllers speak so slow compare to the US controllers 🤓

@chesleyhu624

6 жыл бұрын

Just for the new phraseologies.

@emilyc8958

6 жыл бұрын

VMC Aviation Videos everything that every one does in Australia is slow if they're paid by the government

@BA589

6 жыл бұрын

And how much more effective is slower communication when they don’t have to repeat themselves because pilots can still understand them from all parts of the world.

@DaveWhoa

5 жыл бұрын

slower, clearer

@edanalytics9336

3 жыл бұрын

LAX: cleerdalanunitedsixsevty'four

It seems kind of clumsy, but then again, American ATC has always been pretty lax compared to the rest of the world with phraseology.

Interesting phraseology. In the US they use "Descend via the Arrival" but they only say that to tell you to follow the altitude restrictions in the STAR. That clearance phraseology is also awkward. In the US its simply "Cleared to airport, whatever Departure something Transition, then as filed. Climb via SID. Expect [filed altitude] 10 minutes after departure, departure freq, sqawk code." There is a certain brevity to FAA stuff compared to a lot of that shitty overly complicated European crap.

@haxsuk

6 жыл бұрын

This isn't in Europe though... Its about as far from Europe as you can get

@BollocksUtwat

6 жыл бұрын

Yea but outside of the US the international system is more heavily influenced by European standards. America always goes its own way because that's just 'murica. A lot of phraseology used in Europe is common in Australia but not in America.

@Lex_chats

2 жыл бұрын

I mean it is ICAO correct recommended procedure

Just get with it, I mean really.

Not that star

Was it really that funny lol

@maxcavill4762

6 жыл бұрын

yes..

@HMSDaring1

6 жыл бұрын

I’m just lost.... I don’t get where the joke was

Why is this funny? What does it even mean?

@UhOhUmm

6 жыл бұрын

STAR is Standard Arrival Route, so basically they repeat every time that they have to use the STAR, it's a completely redundant instruction because that's what pilots always do. The Chinese pilot was annoyed because he didn't know or forgot the regulation changes in Australia and though ATC was lecturing him or something.

You're supposed to say the name of the STAR, not "STAR" itself lol.

@christopherjesse2976

6 жыл бұрын

Nope, just "descend/climb via STAR/SID.

@deltafox52

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah but they experienced phraseology, imposing to tell STAR + the name ; before coming back to only telling the name ! Source : other comment

6 жыл бұрын

They already know the SID or STAR name and are following it. "climb/descend via SID/STAR" just means to comply with the published charts.

@bronxabordhel1981

6 жыл бұрын

Congratulations ! You've found one of the several ridiculous points of this new phraseology !

The fact that "subtitles" are neccessary only illustrates what useless the speech-quality is. This is absurdly LOW FIDELITY if there ever was one and a perfect recipy for disaster.

@PilotPlater

6 жыл бұрын

I can normally understand what is said in each transmission, it takes practice with the standard phraseology

@PilotPlater

6 жыл бұрын

also: the quality of a ground based cheap handheld radio like the ones LiveATC pick up from is much worse than airborne transceivers or the high quality equipment ATC has

@imbalos

6 жыл бұрын

yep, this is a recording by a hobbyist. The real crew receives better quality transmissions.

@iatsd

6 жыл бұрын

Bywyd Cyntefig the fact you thought you had to put quotation marks around the word subtitles shows that you're an illiterate muppet. And a yank.

@prkrparkerprkr

6 жыл бұрын

Perfect recipe for illiteracy.