SID's in the 80's....

[pstan]

Just wondering if it was always this way...

I've read the AIM, but say you've been cleared a departure, to expect FL 200 10 minutes after departure. The departure has you maintain 3000 til the XYZ vor, then maintain 4000. Now on contacting atc after take off, you're give maintain 6000 feet. I understand you are expected to climb to 6000 immediately, even though you have not past XYZ vor.

Has it always been this way? In the back of my head I thought in the 80's or so, you were expected to comply with the SID altitude first, then maintain the altitude given by atc.

Any grey beards with comments? thanks, Stan

 

[bobmrg]

I've got the grey beard, for sure, and as far back as I can remember (as a pilot...1962) a new heading/altitude assignment cancelled the old one.

Bob Gardner

 

[BillTIZ]

Unless the new ATC clearance restates the SID altitude restrictions, then just giving you a new altitude to maintain cancels the printed instructions. I would climb to 6000 and expect FL200 in 10 minutes from departure time.

Now if ATC said, "Maintain 3000 until XYZ, (then) climb and maintain 6000" would you stop at 4000? No, so the same thing applies.. if ATC just said "climb and maintain 6000, then the 3000 and 4000 restrictions no longer apply.

It's always been that way.. (ATC in the Late 70s).

 

[midlifeflyer]

All a SID is is a departure clearance that has been written out and charted as a way of reducing controller and pilot workload.

Why would an ATC instruction to do something different than what your were previously cleared for be any different in the SID context than in any other context?

 

[Everskyward]

The departure has you maintain 3000 til the XYZ vor, then maintain 4000. Now on contacting atc after take off, you're give maintain 6000 feet. I understand you are expected to climb to 6000 immediately, even though you have not past XYZ vor.

Just don't confuse it with the following situation. If in your original clearance you are given the Oakland 5 departure, climb and maintain 5000 feet, you still need to comply with the crossing restriction and cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet. If you are in a fast climbing airplane you will probably need to level off at 2000 until 4nm before continuing your climb to 5000.

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0906/00294OAKLAND.PDF

 

[pstan]

Thanks all for the replies. Must have always been this way then. Stan

 

[BillTIZ]

Just don't confuse it with the following situation. If in your original clearance you are given the Oakland 5 departure, climb and maintain 5000 feet, you still need to comply with the crossing restriction and cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet. If you are in a fast climbing airplane you will probably need to level off at 2000 until 4nm before continuing your climb to 5000.

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0906/00294OAKLAND.PDF

Ahh.. but the OP stated that the original SID had restrictions.. and after departure the next ATC said.. Maintain an altitude higher than the restrictions... that cancels the printed restrictions.

 

[pstan]

I think that was Inverted's point. This Oakland dept (which I haven't seen) and the cleared altitude, still require the altitudes in the dept to be followed.

 

[TMetzinger]

I disagree - unless ATC tells you to follow the procedure, the minute they give you a new instruction it cancels the old one. If I took off from KOAK and at 1000 feet contacted departure and they said "climb and maintain 6000" I'd continue the climb to 6000, even if I was above 2000 before 4 NW OAK.

 

[Everskyward]

I disagree - unless ATC tells you to follow the procedure, the minute they give you a new instruction it cancels the old one.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was talking about a situation in which your initial altitude is given to you in your clearance on the ground.

 

[gprellwitz]

I think you misunderstood my post. I was talking about a situation in which your initial altitude is given to you in your clearance on the ground.

Why would it matter whether you were given the clearance on the ground or in the air? The subsequent clearance should still cancel any previous restrictions (though you would still be expected to adhere to any obstacle clearance procedures, since ain't nothing going to change the presence of those obstacles!) If they still wanted you to maintain the previous restriction, I would expect something like "climb and maintain 6000 feet, cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet." or better, cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet, then climb and maintain 6000 feet."

 

[Everskyward]

Why would it matter whether you were given the clearance on the ground or in the air?

I don't have the answer to "why" but it know that it is true.

The subsequent clearance should still cancel any previous restrictions (though you would still be expected to adhere to any obstacle clearance procedures, since ain't nothing going to change the presence of those obstacles!)

Note that in this case the want you below 2,000 feet at 4 miles. It doesn't have anything to do with an obstacle. I think it's so that you don't climb into the path of airplanes departing KSFO. Teterboro also has a similar, but more complicated, restriction on their departure. That one gets busted frequently.

If they still wanted you to maintain the previous restriction, I would expect something like "climb and maintain 6000 feet, cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet." or better, cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet, then climb and maintain 6000 feet."

That might be what you expect but not what you will hear. They expect you to follow the SID. That's why they've published it. I know someone who has busted the 2000 foot restriction before 4 nm and he was lucky enough to get off with a stern warning from the controller.

 

[gprellwitz]

Note that in this case the want you below 2,000 feet at 4 miles. It doesn't have anything to do with an obstacle. I think it's so that you don't climb into the path of airplanes departing KSFO. Teterboro also has a similar, but more complicated, restriction on their departure. That one gets busted frequently.

Yeah, I figured that the crossing restriction was for a nearby airport, which is one of the reasons I called out an obstacle departure as a specific case.

Oh, here's some language from AIM 5-2-8(e)which seems to indicate that the restrictions no longer apply if they aren't reiterated:

5. After an aircraft is established on an ODP/SID and subsequently vectored or cleared off of the ODP or SID transition, pilots shall consider the ODP/SID canceled, unless the controller adds "expect to resume ODP/SID."
6. Aircraft instructed to resume a procedure which contains restrictions, such as a DP, shall be issued/reissued all applicable restrictions or shall be advised to comply with those restrictions.
7. If an altitude to "maintain" is restated, whether prior to or after departure, previously issued "ATC" altitude restrictions are cancelled. All minimum crossing altitudes which are not identified on the chart as ATC restrictions are still mandatory for obstacle clearance. If an assigned altitude will not allow the aircraft to cross a fix at the minimum crossing altitude, the pilot should request a higher altitude in time to climb to the crossing restriction or request an alternate routing. ATC altitude restrictions are only published on SIDs and are identified on the chart with "(ATC)" following the altitude. When an obstruction clearance minimum crossing altitude is also to be published at the same fix, it is identified by the term "(MCA)."

At first I thought that paragraph 7 might support what you're saying ATC is expecting, but then saw that it refers only to minimum altitudes.

 

[Everskyward]

At first I thought that paragraph 7 might support what you're saying ATC is expecting, but then saw that it refers only to minimum altitudes.

This excerpt is from 5-2-8 (b) paragraph 1.

Fixes may have minimum and/or maximum crossing altitudes that must be adhered to prior to passing the fix.

Think about it this way. If the controller was going to read the crossing restriction to every pilot when giving the initial clearance why would they have even published the restriction in a SID?

 

[gprellwitz]

This excerpt is from 5-2-8 (b) paragraph 1.
Think about it this way. If the controller was going to read the crossing restriction to every pilot when giving the initial clearance why would they have even published the restriction in a SID?

I may be wrong, but I don't think that there's been any question that the clearance given must be adhered to, including crossing restrictions. The disagreement comes on whether a subsequent altitude clearance removes the prior restriction. I think the previously posted 5-2-8(e)(7) answers that:

7. If an altitude to "maintain" is restated, whether prior to or after departure, previously issued "ATC" altitude restrictions are cancelled. All minimum crossing altitudes which are not identified on the chart as ATC restrictions are still mandatory for obstacle clearance.

Had they said "all crossing altitude restrictions which are not identified on the chart as ATC restrictions are still mandatory for obstacle clearance" then I would agree that 5-2-8(b)(1)'s assertion that a maximum crossing altitude could be for obstacle clearance plays a role here and didn't need to be restated. Also note that they specify prior to of after departure, so this clearly includes clearances received on the ground too.

In any case, if you have a doubt, query the controller!

 

[Everskyward]

I may be wrong, but I don't think that there's been any question that the clearance given must be adhered to, including crossing restrictions. The disagreement comes on whether a subsequent altitude clearance removes the prior restriction.

I never said a subsequent altitude clearance doesn't remove the restriction. What I said in my original post was:

Just don't confuse it with the following situation. If in your original clearance you are given the Oakland 5 departure, climb and maintain 5000 feet, you still need to comply with the crossing restriction and cross 4 miles northwest of the OAK VORTAC at or below 2000 feet. If you are in a fast climbing airplane you will probably need to level off at 2000 until 4nm before continuing your climb to 5000.

 

[gprellwitz]

I never said a subsequent altitude clearance doesn't remove the restriction. What I said in my original post was:

Ah, then I misunderstood and think we're in agreement! I thought you were saying that you were given the DP and then later were given "climb and maintain 5000 feet".

Thanks!