Descend Via Clearance at KIAD

[ghogue]

I am hoping a controller can answer a question about the BARIN1 Arrival to KIAD. (Washington Dulles Int'l)

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0701/05100BARIN.PDF

There is a note that says:

NOTE: Maintain last ATC assigned altitude until cleared to "Descend via the Barin One Arrival."

However at FALKO intersection it states "Turbojets expect to cross at 10,000 and 250 KIAS."

From my reading of FAA Order 7110.65R, under para 4-5-7 h. 2. it states:
"A descend via clearance shall not be used where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions."

Is this a mistake on the part of the chart designers or perhaps a change to the 7110.65R I'm unaware of? Or am missing something else in the manual? I'm just wondering what take the controllers here might have.

Thanks

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

"Descend via the BARIN1 arrival, cross FALKO at 10,000, 250 knots, Dulles altimeter 30.21."

Although you were only told to cross FALKO at 10,000, you continue to descend as published to 5,000 and 4,000 respectively until instructed otherwise.

 

[ghogue]

"Descend via the BARIN1 arrival, cross FALKO at 10,000, 250 knots, Dulles altimeter 30.21."

Although you were only told to cross FALKO at 10,000, you continue to descend as published to 5,000 and 4,000 respectively until instructed otherwise.

Actually, I was never instructed to cross FALKO at 10,000, and I wouldn't continue to descend as published because I never was cleared to "Descend via the Barin 1 arrival". I was not assigned any of the restrictions on the chart, but was assigned different altitudes per instructions from the controller.

My question is about the apparent discrepancy between what is printed on the chart (i.e. contains an "expect to cross") and the 7110.65R stating that "A descend via clearance shall not be used where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions."

 

[SteveC]

It will be interesting to see how the ATC guys answer this.

My guess would be that you would not recieve a "descend via..." clearance unless it included the crossing at FALKO, or took place after crossing it. "Citation 1234, cross FALKO at 10,000 feet, speed 250 knots, descend via the Barin One arrival".


.

 

[surreal1221]

For this arrival, it should never be stated Descend via BARIN1...since it says expect. Unless the instruction is Cross FALCO at 10k, Descend via BARN1 arrival (meet the cross at... restrictions on the chart hence forth), IAD alt XXXX.

And now that I see steve's reply, that's it.

No discrepancy of the chart and the 7110.65.

 

[ghogue]

For this arrival, it should never be stated Descend via BARIN1...since it says expect. Unless the instruction is Cross FALCO at 10k, Descend via BARN1 arrival (meet the cross at... restrictions on the chart hence forth), IAD alt XXXX.

And now that I see steve's reply, that's it.

No discrepancy of the chart and the 7110.65.

surreal1221,
There is a discrepancy with the chart and the 7110.65 (see my original post).

The chart states:
NOTE: Maintain last ATC assigned altitude until cleared to "Descend via the Barin One Arrival."

The 7110.65 para 4-5-7 h. 2. states:

"A descend via clearance shall not be used where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions."

 

[surreal1221]

Well, I've said my 2 cents worth on this one already, not going to repeat it. You seem to be well versed in the 7110.65, so I will allow you to find the text that states that an instruction from a controller supercedes any written text.

Still, further clarification (albeit the same as already written) may be needed. . .

The FALKO intersection has the "expect" coding for a very specific reason, aircraft type seperation (turbo-prop / jet). A cross FALKO @ 10k, then shortly before or after passing FALKO the instruction to descend via the BARIN1 will be given. Hence, you maintain the last assigned by ATC (10k? or whatever) until given the descend via BARIN1 arrival. Pretty simple stuff to me. It's not being used in the same transmission or instruction, at least (after reviewing the 7110.65 and notes) it shouldn't be. If it is, I would highly suggest not causing a wording war on frequency.

You can get caught up in the wording of the chart as much as you wish, write the chart makers, cause hell . . . please do. . . because confusion like this is what causes accidents / operational errors, etc.

 

[Fox Xray]

I guess I'll take a shot at this...

I looked over the chart and considering the way we work similar approaches I have to side with SteveC and surreal. Here's why:

Looking at SteveC's clearance...

"Citation 1234, cross FALKO at 10,000 feet, speed 250 knots, descend via the Barin One arrival".

It seems like it conforms to the .65, here's why. You are expecting to cross FALKO @ 10K, 250 The controller's clearance is not changing that... you get cleared on what you are expecting... THEN, past FALKO, you are cleared to descend via the BARIN1. The descent clearance is not being used where the published expect altitude restrictions are ...

Would you consider it legal via the .65 if the controller cleared you to cross FALKO @ 10K, 250. THEN ... upon crossing FALKO you were cleared to descend via the BARIN1 ? Why I ask is that is the same clearance, the descend takes place after FALKO, hence it conforms to the .65

Did you fly this approach and encounter a strange clearance ??? If you would like an official ruling I can put you in touch with the ZDC plans and procedures office. PM me if you are interested.

 

[ghogue]

I guess I'll take a shot at this...

I looked over the chart and considering the way we work similar approaches I have to side with SteveC and surreal. Here's why:

Looking at SteveC's clearance...

"Citation 1234, cross FALKO at 10,000 feet, speed 250 knots, descend via the Barin One arrival".

It seems like it conforms to the .65, here's why. You are expecting to cross FALKO @ 10K, 250 The controller's clearance is not changing that... you get cleared on what you are expecting... THEN, past FALKO, you are cleared to descend via the BARIN1. The descent clearance is not being used where the published expect altitude restrictions are ...

Would you consider it legal via the .65 if the controller cleared you to cross FALKO @ 10K, 250. THEN ... upon crossing FALKO you were cleared to descend via the BARIN1 ? Why I ask is that is the same clearance, the descend takes place after FALKO, hence it conforms to the .65

Did you fly this approach and encounter a strange clearance ??? If you would like an official ruling I can put you in touch with the ZDC plans and procedures office. PM me if you are interested.

For Fox Xray and surreal 1221,
Thanks for your input. I agree with the examples you both (and SteveC, too) provided and believe it would work that way. I'm certainly not trying to make a big deal over this, but I'm simply curious about what I (just me) find to be somewhat contradictory. What I'm getting at is that the 7110.65 says "where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions" which I interpret as the entire procedure, and not some part beyond the "expect " fix.

I did recently fly the procedure and there were no problems encountered. I wasn't cleared to "descend via" and the only crossing restriction I received was different than those on the chart itself. I'm just a curious guy trying to work out the details.

Thanks

 

[Fox Xray]

I hear what you're saying ... the 7110.65 has a lot of very ambiguous rules. You have to remember that the .65 is written by work groups of individuals who while may be classified as controllers, really have no real time in front of the scopes. Your point about the wording in the .65 and the approach plate is a very good one... the fact that you found those details is impressive.

I agree with you ... it is not clear. What is even more strange is when you flew it the approach wasn't even close to what is published !

I printed out your original post and printed out the plate... I'm gonna have some people look at it and get their $.02 and I'll get back to this. I'm a bit curious myself now.

Good Post

 

[ghogue]

I hear what you're saying ... the 7110.65 has a lot of very ambiguous rules. You have to remember that the .65 is written by work groups of individuals who while may be classified as controllers, really have no real time in front of the scopes. Your point about the wording in the .65 and the approach plate is a very good one... the fact that you found those details is impressive.

I agree with you ... it is not clear. What is even more strange is when you flew it the approach wasn't even close to what is published !

I printed out your original post and printed out the plate... I'm gonna have some people look at it and get their $.02 and I'll get back to this. I'm a bit curious myself now.

Good Post

Thanks. I'll be watching to see what you find out. Just had a thought. Would the fact that it' an RNAV STAR be of significance? I know many are just now being published.

 

[surreal1221]

I'm not sure about the east coast, but RNAV STARs have been very popular over the past 5-6 years in the southwest. LAS was one of the first locations to have a standard 4-point RNAV STAR foundation, with the non-RNAV STARs as backup. That was 6 years ago, and things have changed a lot, but they still utlize a basic 4-point arrival gate system, each gate having an RNAV and a NON-RNAV STAR. PHX was also one of the locations that followed in LAS's steps, but I haven't paid much attention lately to STAR implementation of that region for a long time. RNAV stars were instated in ATL only about 2 or 3 years ago. Considering that, it's still a pretty new system on the east coast.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I had the pleasure of officiating a few high school basketball games with a retired controller who was part of the initial (failed) attempt to bring RNAV STARs to LAS. I think he said he made about 40 grand for about 6 months worth of consulting. Sign me up.

 

[surreal1221]

Yeah, it wasn't a pretty affair the first couple of years.

After about 20 revisions to the procedures, additon of RNAV SIDs, L30 can be on hectic chunk of airspace. Through Nellis into the mix, and well. . . makes it double hectic.

It has all seemed to come together though the past few years, it'll take about the same amount of time for the midwest and east to get there. Just takes time.

 

[Fox Xray]

I got an answer a lot faster then expected... I dropped by procedures this A.M. and brought your original post along with a copy of the plate (we do not use Jeps, we have the DOT plates).

Right before I left I was handed a written explanation, here it is verbatim:

ATP 7110.65R states: A descend via clearance shall not be used where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions.

The only published "expect" altitude restriction on the BARIN ONE ARRIVAL is at FALKO.

The crossing restrictions at BARIN (5000), STAYO (4,000), AND MIXNN (4,000) are fixed (not expect). Since they are fixed restrictions and occur after FALKO, a "descend via" clearance may be used beginning at FALKO.

The proper phraseology would be "Cross FALKO at _______, then descend via the BARIN ONE ARRIVAL.

Hope the info helps...

 

[ghogue]

I got an answer a lot faster then expected... I dropped by procedures this A.M. and brought your original post along with a copy of the plate (we do not use Jeps, we have the DOT plates).

Right before I left I was handed a written explanation, here it is verbatim:

ATP 7110.65R states: A descend via clearance shall not be used where procedures contain published "expect" altitude restrictions.

The only published "expect" altitude restriction on the BARIN ONE ARRIVAL is at FALKO.

The crossing restrictions at BARIN (5000), STAYO (4,000), AND MIXNN (4,000) are fixed (not expect). Since they are fixed restrictions and occur after FALKO, a "descend via" clearance may be used beginning at FALKO.

The proper phraseology would be "Cross FALKO at _______, then descend via the BARIN ONE ARRIVAL.

Hope the info helps...

Thanks for the quick response of the info. I wouldn't have any problem with a clearance like that, but just wanted to figure out the pharaseology from the 7110.65.

 

[surreal1221]

That ATC-CTI education is a bit rusty, but it's nice to see I'm still slightly on top of it. . . just incase this whole flying thing doesn't work out the FAA has to resort to off-the-street hiring to meet their yearly hiring goals

 

[franknes]

Quick question. If you had never been given the "descend via" phraseology would you still have to meet the crossing restrictions since they are "restrictions"? I know you don't descend on an arrival until you hear "descend via", however if there are crossing restrictions listed, aren't you to adhere to those unless given other instructions?

 

[FL270]

I've flown this arrival at IAD (and the other RNAV arrivals there which are very similar) on several occasions and can clarify.

The ZDC (Washington Center) controller will issue a crossing restriction at FALKO and hand you off to Potomac approach. The Potomac controllers will welcome you with "Descend via the BARIN1 arrival", or occasionally, "Fly the BARIN1 arrival, I'll call your altitudes," if they need you to deviate from the published altitudes at all.

Fox X Ray handled the legality portion nicely ... this is how it is generally done in actual practice.

 

[surreal1221]

Quick question. If you had never been given the "descend via" phraseology would you still have to meet the crossing restrictions since they are "restrictions"? I know you don't descend on an arrival until you hear "descend via", however if there are crossing restrictions listed, aren't you to adhere to those unless given other instructions?

No, you would maintain the last assigned by ATC.

Of course, if the controllers don't tell you WHY they are keeping you at your last assigned and you realize you are coming up on a fix that has a mandatory crossing restriction you could question ATC about it just to make sure you didn't miss a transmission.