Rant

[Richman]

I used to work for a large charter operator with a very wide variety of aircraft, we still had a couple of Lear 25s on the cert, we also had a couple of G550s that still smelled new. New private jet smell is like new car smell multiplied by 1000, I can recall once walking into a hangar with a brand new G450 and an almost brand new G150 that were opened up and stopping as I walked in to just absorb that smell, my coworker asked me what the hold up was and I explained I was just appreciating the moment.

To your point though regarding Wyvern/Argus, we had some VHNWI as customers and their life insurance carriers would send out their own auditors to have a look at our operations and those folks wouldn't even look at an airplane that was over a decade old, they had self installed blinders on. They'd sign us off as a trusted partner and then their client would charter whatever airplane they wanted to. I've actually inquired with both Wyvern and Argus regarding employment as one of their inspectors, that job would be wonderful, everyone's always friendly and putting on a happy face when they meet you and they'll give you the run of the place. I'd imagine it'd be like being the weather guy on the local morning news, the people can just look out the window and figure it out. But I have a face for radio and a bit of a cantankerous streak so neither opportunity ever panned out.

Don’t feel bad. I’ve run into that a couple of times. One place was super annoyed that I read the opening, met the technical requirements, answered correctly on the application and actually had no issue with the location of the job.

Apparently that made more work for them because now they had to explain to whoever was watching that hiring the under/nonqualified nephew of the VP instead of an actual qualified person was the way to go.

 

[ERfly]

Not anymore

Next thing you'll tell me is that you no longer need a separate division, two days of ground school and a line check to go to Cancun!

 

[Kingairer]

Next thing you'll tell me is that you no longer need a separate division, two days of ground school and a line check to go to Cancun!

All changing.

 

[Kingairer]

Well I’ve been burned too many times by just saying “c/m 6000” and they proceed to climb on the 040 heading without taking the turn.

I dont want to belabor this, but I think its an interesting conversation on my pilots are screwing this up. Obviously a climb clearance either via or climb and maintain would not change their lateral navigation clearance so they are just Fin that up. The climb via but maintaining 2000 is more interesting. Do you know if on their PDC they are cleared to Climb via or just climb and maintain?

 

[NovemberEcho]

Do you know if on their PDC they are cleared to Climb via or just climb and maintain?

They’re cleared via the TEB4/MMU7 departure in their initial clearance.

 

[Kingairer]

They’re cleared via the TEB4/MMU7 departure in their initial clearance.

But in the vertical portion it should say either "Climb and maintain 2000" or "Climb via sid" or "Climb via sid except maintain xxx"

For example, all the regular jet departures for Charlotte are cleared via PDC to "Climb and maintain 8000". So a pilot checking in with "Departure Lear 123 twelve hundred climbing via sid" would be incorrect since their clearance was climb and maintain and not climb via to 8000 and since there is no top altitude window charted the controller cant verify that the lear knows where they are stopping. Climb via is never issued as there are no crossing restrictions to make, only a "fly to this altitude then turn to this heading".

Another example would be the Terpz out of BWI where we are routinely cleared to "Climb via except maintain 5000" and then on intial check in or maybe further down the road we are cleared to simply "Climb via sid".

My point is if they didnt have climb via in their pDC, a sudden "climb via" clearance would throw someone off it is out of the ordinary. If that happened to me the first thing Id probably do is look down and wonder what crossing I didnt see on the SID or if I didnt update my chart and after that then id climb to the altitude. I would wonder why I was issued a climb via when there is no crossing restriction and after confirming I didnt overlook something I would climb.

 

[JordanD]

I’ve noticed controllers screwing up climb and descend via a lot more too. I’ve gotten “climb and maintain 230 via the SID” numerous times. Or completely ambiguous clearances where it’s unclear if they want it via or unrestricted. And then time and frequency gets wasted trying to clarify or you get attitude like they think you’re the one who is dumb.
On a separate note, did “use caution, similar sounding callsign on frequency” just not a thing anymore. Had a guy behind us take at least two of our radio calls the other night because his was essentially the same with a duplicate letter added. Took two sectors before a controller finally warned us. Which goes to my next pet peeve of guys who accept ambiguous call signs after only hearing half the letters. “Umm, verify that’s for us and not a United with the same call sign, please.”

 

[pwttogfk]

But in the vertical portion it should say either "Climb and maintain 2000" or "Climb via sid" or "Climb via sid except maintain xxx"

For example, all the regular jet departures for Charlotte are cleared via PDC to "Climb and maintain 8000". So a pilot checking in with "Departure Lear 123 twelve hundred climbing via sid" would be incorrect since their clearance was climb and maintain and not climb via to 8000 and since there is no top altitude window charted the controller cant verify that the lear knows where they are stopping. Climb via is never issued as there are no crossing restrictions to make, only a "fly to this altitude then turn to this heading".

Another example would be the Terpz out of BWI where we are routinely cleared to "Climb via except maintain 5000" and then on intial check in or maybe further down the road we are cleared to simply "Climb via sid".

My point is if they didnt have climb via in their pDC, a sudden "climb via" clearance would throw someone off it is out of the ordinary. If that happened to me the first thing Id probably do is look down and wonder what crossing I didnt see on the SID or if I didnt update my chart and after that then id climb to the altitude. I would wonder why I was issued a climb via when there is no crossing restriction and after confirming I didnt overlook something I would climb.

Yup. I've observed controllers not seeming to know that vectoring off a SID/STAR or giving a "descend and maintain" negates crossing restrictions. Bluntly, I've noticed a lower level of competence across the board (yes, including ATC). I think a lot of good folks retired or quit after 2020 and they've been replaced with people who don't have the level of experience, talent, or even more bluntly, work ethic.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Yup. I've observed controllers not seeming to know that vectoring off a SID/STAR or giving a "descend and maintain" negates crossing restrictions. Bluntly, I've noticed a lower level of competence across the board (yes, including ATC). I think a lot of good folks retired or quit after 2020 and they've been replaced with people who don't have the level of experience, talent, or even more bluntly, work ethic.

When traffic was dead after Covid the FAA told us we will train and certify on the traffic we have, not the traffic we had. So a lot of people got certified working 50% or less of what traffic is normally and it shows.

 

[Toobdrvr]

I’m pretty familiar with the “Pilot-Controller Glossary”, or whatever they call it these days.

If I get “climb via”, and I don’t see any altitude constraints, I’m going to feel uncertain. When I feel uncertain, I ask questions. Part of my certificate retention program…

I appreciate it when controllers say “thanks for checking”. Controllers that get huffy when I ask for clarification? Not so much.

I’m not a huge fan of “climb via, EXCEPT…”. I’d prefer “Climb via TO XXX”, or “Climb to XXX, Comply with restrictions”, but it is what it is. I can deal.

 

[NovemberEcho]

I’m not a huge fan of “climb via, EXCEPT…”. I’d prefer “Climb via TO XXX”, or “Climb to XXX, Comply with restrictions”, but it is what it is. I can deal.

In this case there are no restrictions. There’s lateral guidance and a single altitude to maintain on the SID as published. All I’m doing is changing the altitude. And I’m not ever going to say “to” for an altitude cause next thing someone going to hear that as a “two” and climb to 26,000

 

[Toobdrvr]

In this case there are no restrictions. There’s lateral guidance and a single altitude to maintain on the SID as published. All I’m doing is changing the altitude. And I’m not ever going to say “to” for an altitude cause next thing someone going to hear that as a “two” and climb to 26,000

Fair enough on the “TO” part, but as far as I know “Climb via” has nothing to do with lateral guidance, and I’d just continue on my clearance lateral path until given something else. Standby. I’ll look it up.

 

[Kingairer]

Climb via has nothing to do with lateral guidance. (ill save you the time)

 

[Kingairer]

In this case there are no restrictions. There’s lateral guidance and a single altitude to maintain on the SID as published. All I’m doing is changing the altitude. And I’m not ever going to say “to” for an altitude cause next thing someone going to hear that as a “two” and climb to 26,000

IMO, the proper and expected call would be to "Climb and maintain 6000".
"When a SID does not contain published crossing restrictions and/or is a SID with a Radar Vector segment or a Radar Vector SID; or a SID is constructed with a Radar Vector segment and contains published crossing restrictions after the vector segment, instruct aircraft to “MAINTAIN (altitude).”"
I aint trying to re-write the manual or whatever yall do there, I am just putting this forth as a likely reason people are stopping at 2000 intially. High work load and an unexpected clearance.

 

[Toobdrvr]

“CLIMB VIA. An abbreviated ATC clearance that requires compliance with the procedure LATERAL PATH, associated speed restrictions, and altitude restrictions along the cleared route or procedure” - P-C Glossary (emphasis mine).

Learning has occurred (for me, at least).

That being said, I’ll probably still pay close attention to the presence of altitude constraints when given a “climb via” clearance.

 

[NovemberEcho]

IMO, the proper and expected call would be to "Climb and maintain 6000".

Well that gets messed up even more often if I just “climb and maintain” with people staying on the initial 040 heading and not turning per the SID because they believe I have now taken them off the SID.

 

[NovemberEcho]

“CLIMB VIA. An abbreviated ATC clearance that requires compliance with the procedure LATERAL PATH, associated speed restrictions, and altitude restrictions along the cleared route or procedure” - P-C Glossary (emphasis mine).

Learning has occurred (for me, at least).

That being said, I’ll probably still pay close attention to the presence of altitude constraints when given a “climb via” clearance.

Hence the “except maintain” because all I am changing is the altitude portion of the SID.

 

[MikeD]

Hence the “except maintain” because all I am changing is the altitude portion of the SID.

Originally how i interpret it. Fly the SID, climb the SID, except that any altitude restrictions are now replaced with an instruction to go directly to 6000’

 

[Kingairer]

I’m pretty familiar with the “Pilot-Controller Glossary”, or whatever they call it these days.

If I get “climb via”, and I don’t see any altitude constraints, I’m going to feel uncertain. When I feel uncertain, I ask questions. Part of my certificate retention program…

I appreciate it when controllers say “thanks for checking”. Controllers that get huffy when I ask for clarification? Not so much.

I’m not a huge fan of “climb via, EXCEPT…”. I’d prefer “Climb via TO XXX”, or “Climb to XXX, Comply with restrictions”, but it is what it is. I can deal.

I am similiar, if I got a climb via without any constraints Im going to a do a double take.

I am a fan of standardization and not regional differences. What you are describing is more ICAO style. Climb via "except" type clearances make perfect sense honestly (like BWI). Just wait until you have "descend via the Egul6 except maintain 120 seconds behind BudgetAir234" . I also do not know what the FAA decided to go a different way on Climbvia's that than ICAO.

 

[KLB]

Easy enough. How long does one typically remain at 1500 before clearance for further climb, notes aside?

It depends on if traffic is above going to EWR. We leveled at 1500 just barely and was given a "climb and maintain 6000" the other day.

If we are level at 1500ft or 2000ft....just give us a "climb and maintain" and just be done with it. Enough pilots have busted the SID to where many are skiddish and a "climb via the SID" just adds another level of insecurity to the whole ordeal.

I'll say it again...the SID has gotten better, but it is more complicated than it seems at face value. The quick level off, being below the class bravo, and noise abatement procedure, getting a TA from traffic going into is also normal. Plus TEB just being TEB and everything that goes along with TEB.