The FAA last week abruptly put on hold its implementation of the new “climb-via” clearances soon before they were set to begin. The decision was based, said the agency in a short release, on the fact that neither pilots nor controllers were prepared for the new phraseology.
Climb-via substitutes the phraseology “climb-via” for specific speed and altitude restrictions in a departure. Whereas on “descend via” arrivals, which have been in use for some time without much trouble, in tests of the new “climb-via” clearances, pilots were busting their speeds and altitudes in large numbers.
The decision by the FAA shines light on the fact that it was prepared to launch on August 15th a new procedure that it had not adequately prepared pilots or controllers, it says, to start using. Until the NBAA, through its member alerts, shined the light of caution on the situation, it was not widely known that the new clearance was going to be implemented or that it was going to be a problem.
Instead, after the NBAA repeatedly warned its member pilots to be on their toes for the climb-via clearances and the possible pilot deviations that would result, the FAA uncharacteristically did an about face.
We’re not sure if the change of heart will result in truly effective education on the new clearance type or, better yet, abandonment of it altogether, but the fact that the FAA was willing at least to take a time out shows that the agency can indeed change its tack when it sees the rocks ahead, something that could not always have been said about it.
It also underscores the great work that NBAA does on bringing important issues to light to pilots, its member flight departments and the flying public in general.
All Comments
The FAA is nothing but a total embarrassment. They have the worst management possible and wast money with half baked ideas like this.
Let's celebrate this flashback to the days when pilots and FAA personnel were almost all goal oriented, cooperating professionals and the FAA was the best and most effective of government agencies.
Prior to Regan firing the controllers, Congress (the true "leaders" and managers of our dysfunctional government) provided funding for the FAA and allowed the professionals to do business, and they did a truly fantastic job.
Now the FAA is just another rules-oriented bureaucracy. If you want another example of a rules oriented bureaucracy, get involved with the Veterans Medical system. In my opinion, it's criminal. Same leadership.
If it ever changes, it will have to start from the bottom, but until the so-called leadership of this country also changes it will never happen.
Mr. Goyer,
Did you perchance, take any English classes at any level of your education?
The FAA " put on hold it's implementation....... SOON before they were set
to begin"
JUST before
IMMEDIATELY before
Perhaps I am being pedantic, but communication usually implies
clarity and accuracy.
My questions is, why does the descent clearance work fine while the climb clearance does not. Is is simply because it was thrown upon us or is it somehow more difficult to comply with. I do remember a great deal of advance notice when "profile descents" were implemented.
That's a great question. My guess is that it's because the first phase of flight things happen so fast that anything out of the ordinary can throw us off. On descent, you've got a lot longer to prepare. Not only that but you know you need to descend to some altitude, and we were already used to crossing restrictions. "Descend-via" clearances seem a natural extension of that. There might be other reasons as well, but those are the ones that spring to mind.
Harahan calls the FAA a total embarrassment, if that was the worst one could say of the Australian (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority, our GA would be flourishing.
Unfortunately, this bloated and dysfunctional bureacracy has severly stunted what should have been a flourishing industry doing great work for our country. Australia would benefit as much or more than any country from a healthy GA industry.
The last flying school in the nation's capital closed two years ago. Fuel companies have de-commisioned numerous re-fuelling points all over the country. Flying organisations and individuals are taken to court for the most dubious infractions, real, or invented by malicious officials. Scandalous conflicts of interest have been ignored or swept under the carpet. Our qualified instructors cannot instruct unless employed by an Air Operator Certificate holder. To become one of these you need very deep pockets, many months or a year or two to spare, and an ability to kow tow to the Almighty Regulator with His variety of interpretations of the thick book of ever changing rules. All at $120 hour of your CASA man's review time, plus travelling expenses are the least of it.
You say you have problems......
Answer to tomusa1: losing altitude/airspeed requires much less thought about energy management than does adding it. To descend, throttle back, pitch for airspeed, add flaps as necessary. To climb, in theory do the reverse. But what settings do you need to climb at that rate on that day? Yes, you can calculate it, but it's kinda obvious that it's a lot thornier problem to solve in realtime.
In my DA 40, a climb might or might not happen at an assigned rate, especially at altitude. Descent? No problem.
