Is this a proper climb clearance?

smig

Well-Known Member
"Oil Can 123, cross XYZ at 9,000 climb and maintain 12,000". Years ago controllers used to issue this and it created a lot of confusion and my understanding was that they were going stop wording the climb clearance this way. A few days ago I heard it again worded like that.

Many pilots were thinking it meant cross XYZ at or above 9,000 and climb and maintain 12,000. In fact the controller wanted the pilot to stop at 9,000 until XYZ, then climb to 12,000.
 

Hacker15e

Dunning–Kruger Observer
"Oil Can 123, cross XYZ at 9,000 climb and maintain 12,000". Years ago controllers used to issue this and it created a lot of confusion and my understanding was that they were going stop wording the climb clearance this way. A few days ago I heard it again worded like that.

Many pilots were thinking it meant cross XYZ at or above 9,000 and climb and maintain 12,000. In fact the controller wanted the pilot to stop at 9,000 until XYZ, then climb to 12,000.
Seems pretty clear to me that they want me to cross XYZ at 9K.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
"Oil Can 123, cross XYZ at 9,000 climb and maintain 12,000". Years ago controllers used to issue this and it created a lot of confusion and my understanding was that they were going stop wording the climb clearance this way. A few days ago I heard it again worded like that.

Many pilots were thinking it meant cross XYZ at or above 9,000 and climb and maintain 12,000. In fact the controller wanted the pilot to stop at 9,000 until XYZ, then climb to 12,000.
They give descents like that all the time, climbs, not so often, but probably not because it's hard to figure out (it isn't). If they wanted you to cross XYZ at or above, they would say *gasp* "at or above."
 

Nick6485

Well-Known Member
I hear climb/decent clearances like that all the time out here in So Cal. I've even received them going into Vegas VFR. I've always understood them clearly.
 

Vector4Food

This job would be easier without all the airplanes
It shouldn't be that un-clear, it is clear to me what the controller wanted.

HOWEVER,

As always, never accept an ATC instruction you're not 100% sure of... just ask... an irritated controller is better than a near-hit or worse.
 

Juliet Lima

New Member
as already stated by others...this is a legal clearance.

pilots discretion climb in order to cross XYZ AT 9000. after XYZ climb to and maintain 12,000.
 

D100108

New Member
......and at many airports, this is the way a jet will fly an RNAV departure. For example, the LOWGN TWO departure at DFW, requires a 500' per nm climb rate to get at or above YAMEL at 5000 (not to exceed 230K until YAMEL), climbing to 10,000 off the ground.
 

flyboywbl

3rd regional in 1 year
I got one of these flying with a wet IFR rating ( 160 hours TT or so). I'm sure i gave the controller a few gray hairs asking to clarify so i understood. It's better than the alliterative if you "Thought" wrong. Fortunately the controller was not busy. When it's busy it's tough to ask to verify or ask a question. Flying into Provo Utah once for my long IFR x-country the controller was really busy and got confused with another diamond on the frequency with a similar call sign. We never got handed off to tower on a approach during VFR conditions. Heck in Oshkosh, they were so busy you just rocked your wings to comply. I've found it never hurts to ask. Maybe you pride but that can be fixed, a midair usually can't.

-Matt
 

smig

Well-Known Member
The instance I was refering to was reviewed by the FAA and ATC since so many guys were misinterpreting the clearance. If I remember right, they came to the conclusion that the clearance was not issued correctly. I believe they said that the clearance should always contain "at or above" or "at or below". I have just never found anything in writing to back it up.
 

Juliet Lima

New Member
The instance I was refering to was reviewed by the FAA and ATC since so many guys were misinterpreting the clearance. If I remember right, they came to the conclusion that the clearance was not issued correctly. I believe they said that the clearance should always contain "at or above" or "at or below". I have just never found anything in writing to back it up.
what? this seems way incorrect. let me do some looking real quick. you can always tell someone to cross a fix at an altitude. nothing says it has to be "at or below" or "at or above". sometimes u need an AT clearance. brb...reg searching.
 

Juliet Lima

New Member
alright here's the reg in black and white. 7110.65 4-5-7c

c. Specified altitude over a specified fix, waypoint.
PHRASEOLOGY-
CROSS (fix, waypoint) AT (altitude).
CROSS (fix, waypoint) AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude).



so a correct clearance here would be:
CROSS XYZ AT NINER THOUSAND, CLIMB AND MAINTAIN ONE TWO THOUSAND
 

Baronpilot244

Killick Stoker
A clearance I usually get on my BNA trips are:

"Cross 45 miles South East of the Nashville International Airport at or maintain 4000."

On the return trip for the Bunni2 arrival:

"Cross Bunni at or maintain 5000."

However it seems to depend on the controller - some will merely ask me to "descend and maintain" etc.

In the first instance it puts the ball in my court as far as planning the descent. I've had to be watching, though, as sometimes our speed is such that we'll be on top of the fix before we're given clearance to descend and 1500fpm down doesn't go well with the pax! I must admit to using the GPS for these descents - has a neat function where I can dial in the altitude I want to be at for a certain fix and it comes up with a pitch angle in degrees. Very cool, but I guess I'm becoming a bit lazy!

Just my two cents!

BP244
 
Top