RNAV Departure Phraseology

[BobDDuck]

Holy crap! I just saw the new (effective 3 Apr) changes/phraseology for RNAV departures. "Top altitude" is an interesting concept; especially when the published altitudes may conflict with the cleared altitudes.

How do these issues get past the pilot group(s) that help approve these?

Out here we are now getting a "climb via the SID" clearance even when it's not an RNAV departure. I asked C/D about it and he said they were equally surprised that they had to give us the clearance that way too. Also, they are having to say "except change altitude to <final cruise altitude>", even when there is no altitude on the SID. So messed up.

 

[dustoff17]

Out here we are now getting a "climb via the SID" clearance even when it's not an RNAV departure. I asked C/D about it and he said they were equally surprised that they had to give us the clearance that way too. Also, they are having to say "except change altitude to <final cruise altitude>", even when there is no altitude on the SID. So messed up.

Some of the new SID charts don't show the altitudes in the "plan view"; you have to look at each individual procedure to keep out of trouble. Also, some of the charts show hard altitudes in the "plan view" but I different altitude in the text that is contrary to the "plan view".....
Who puts these things together?

 

[cime_sp]

It's always been remarkable to me that local ATC develops their own "procedures/phraseology" for their own locations, yet we as pilots who fly to 150+ cities on any given day are somehow supposed to keep them all straight and not mix them up. No way I could ever keep track of every airport that wants a call for push vs those that don't..... some expect calls x minutes prior, some don't.... some say "RNAV to Fix Y", some don't (CVG, SLC, etc...). Some say join the XYZ departure and want you to RNAV direct to the nearest fix while others want you to turn to intercept the radial (LGA, Canada, etc...). Maybe I'm just "that guy" and I'm sure ATC hates me, but I always ask for clarification. I'm sure it annoys them, but I deal with more than just the 1 little piece of sky/pavement that they control all day every day. Standardization is a bit of a myth...

 

[genot]

It's always been remarkable to me that local ATC develops their own "procedures/phraseology" for their own locations, yet we as pilots who fly to 150+ cities on any given day are somehow supposed to keep them all straight and not mix them up. No way I could ever keep track of every airport that wants a call for push vs those that don't..... some expect calls x minutes prior, some don't.... some say "RNAV to Fix Y", some don't (CVG, SLC, etc...). Some say join the XYZ departure and want you to RNAV direct to the nearest fix while others want you to turn to intercept the radial (LGA, Canada, etc...). Maybe I'm just "that guy" and I'm sure ATC hates me, but I always ask for clarification. I'm sure it annoys them, but I deal with more than just the 1 little piece of sky/pavement that they control all day every day. Standardization is a bit of a myth...

I've been known to thank pilots for asking for clarification. On the other hand I've dealt with pilots that have a accepted RNAV STARS who had no idea how to fly them.

Ask if there is confusion and say unable if your concern isn't addressed. If the question or unable puts you at the back of the line, take a deep breath, understand the controller is (hopefully) busy. Ask for a number and discuss the question on the ground as one person to another.

If I'm busy, I don't have time to spite you. Simple unfamiliarity with a local procedure can make you go from first to last. Call and ask and I'll be glad to explain kindly what the hang up was.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

In CVGs case, the controllers are not doing their job. It states clearly in the Jepps that they use RNAV OTG phraseology.

 

[FM_Weasel]

Yeah, it's not optional for them:

7110.65

5−8−2. INITIAL HEADING

b. When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF.

EXAMPLE−
“RNAV to MPASS, Runway Two−Six Left, cleared for takeoff.”

Unless they're not departing people simultaneously off the parallels.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Yeah, it's not optional for them:



Unless they're not departing people simultaneously off the parallels.

In the Jepps it doesn't state otherwise. It says essentially (and I don't have them in front of me), that if they are doing RNAV departures they will provide that phraseology. I think it's particularly important there regardless of simultaneous parallel ops because for years, they have been providing a clearance with an RNAV first fix only to change it, upon issuing a takeoff clearance, to a heading.

I highly dislike last second changes.

 

[RobertB]

In CVGs case, the controllers are not doing their job. It states clearly in the Jepps that they use RNAV OTG phraseology.

Maybe they are completely overwhelmed by the massive workload at CVG to not be able to say, "RNAV to so and so, runway so and so cleared for takeoff." Seems kind of difficult to remember and say..