Cleared Bridge 9 Arrival?

G

Garavar

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 16, 2021
Messages
87
Display Name
Display name:
Garavar
Probably a dumb question considering I've been Instrument Rated for over a year but it's a first for me....

If ATC says "Cleared via Bridge 9 Arrival" do I fly the altitudes on the chart? Or just fly the fixes and wait for ATC altitude changes? I know if ATC says "Descent via Bridge 9 Arrival" I do, but what about just "Cleared via?"

Thanks.
 
Well without a “maintain (altitude)” on the end of that, I’d comply with the altitudes on the STAR. They should’ve said “descend via the Bridge Nine Arrival” though.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well without a maintain altitude on the end of that, I’d comply with the altitudes on the STAR. They should’ve said “descend via the Bridge Nine Arrival” though.
Click to expand...

That's what confused me. But within a minute they gave me a cleared direct and new altitude. But for that one minute I was torn looking at my MFD. So I want to know for future reference
 
Are you are asking about BRDGE9 at KTPA? It is not a descend via arrival. The altitudes at BRDGE say EXPECT.
 
Cleared via is to follow the lateral portion only. Descend via means to do both altitude and lateral. He should have said cleared via maintain xxx altitude. But if you ever have a doubt, it's best to ask then and there.
 
Mikey52 said:
Cleared via is to follow the lateral portion only. Descend via means to do both altitude and lateral. He should have said cleared via maintain xxx altitude. But if you ever have a doubt, it's best to ask then and there.
Click to expand...
Yeah he didn't say either. I was expecting descend via Bridge 9 Arrival or just an attitude but all he said was cleared Bridge 9 Arrival.
 
Yeah now that I see the actual STAR, it’s expected altitudes so you won’t get “descend via…” Still poor phraseology. Should’ve gotten “cleared to Clearwater via the Bridge Nine Arrival, maintain (altitude).”
 
Garavar said:
Bridge 9 KCLW
Click to expand...
Same arrival according to NOS. Strangely Jepp does not include KCLW on their charts. If I do not hear descend via I stay at my current altitude or whatever new one ATC assigns. If I am on a descend via arrival and have not gotten a descend via clearance, by when I need to descend to make a crossing restriction, I will verify with ATC.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah now that I see the actual STAR, it’s expected altitudes so you won’t get “descend via…” Still poor phraseology. Should’ve gotten “cleared to Clearwater via the Bridge Nine Arrival, maintain (altitude).”
Click to expand...

Plano Pilot said:
Same arrival according to NOS. Strangely Jepp does not include KCLW on their charts. If I do not hear descend via I stay at my current altitude or whatever new one ATC assigns. If I am on a descend via arrival and have not gotten a descend via clearance, by when I need to descend to make a crossing restriction, I will verify with ATC.
Click to expand...

So it was poorly worded but I acted correctly, stayed at my altitude until he amended it about 1 minute later. They sounded very busy.
 
Garavar said:
Probably a dumb question considering I've been Instrument Rated for over a year but it's a first for me....

If ATC says "Cleared via Bridge 9 Arrival" do I fly the altitudes on the chart? Or just fly the fixes and wait for ATC altitude changes? I know if ATC says "Descent via Bridge 9 Arrival" I do, but what about just "Cleared via?"

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Depends on if you're in the U.S. or Canada.

In the U.S., you don't descend unless you are asked to "descend via". Cleared X arrival is route only, not altitude.
 
dmspilot said:
Depends on if you're in the U.S. or Canada.

In the U.S., you don't descend unless you are asked to "descend via". Cleared X arrival is route only, not altitude.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t there been enough trouble with these types of approaches without there being exactly opposite rules instead of a single international standard?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Hasn’t there been enough trouble with these types of approaches without there being exactly opposite rules instead of a single international standard?
Click to expand...

Depends on the airspace and LOA's between facilities.
 
Mikey52 said:
Depends on the airspace and LOA's between facilities.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm referring to. I was responding to
dmspilot said:
Depends on if you're in the U.S. or Canada.

In the U.S., you don't descend unless you are asked to "descend via". Cleared X arrival is route only, not altitude.
Click to expand...
The opposite rules I was referring to are:

As @dmspilot said, in the US, you don't follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to descend or climb "via."
In Canada (and I understand most ICAO countries) you do follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to "cancel altitude restrictions."

Here's an FAA InFO alerting pilots to the difference.
 
midlifeflyer said:
As @dmspilot said, in the US, you don't follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to descend or climb "via."
In Canada (and I understand most ICAO countries) you do follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to disregard them
Click to expand...

The way we do it doesn't make any sense to me - the Canadian/other countries' way makes much more sense.

On an approach, we comply with the altitudes unless otherwise directed/authorized. Why not on SIDs and STARs? The altitudes are "part" of the procedure, a clearance to fly the procedure should by default require following the altitudes. Any other interpretation just doesn't make sense to me, but that's how we do it.

If there are published speeds, that's also "part" of the procedure.
 
midlifeflyer said:
As @dmspilot said, in the US, you don't follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to descend or climb "via."
In Canada (and I understand most ICAO countries) you do follow the altitude restrictions unless instructed to "cancel altitude restrictions."
Click to expand...
I think there is the potential for misunderstanding. I think it should be emphasized that you still need a clearance to descend (or climb) on Canadian STARs (and SIDs). A clearance for the procedure alone does not include clearance to descend (or climb).
 
RussR said:
The way we do it doesn't make any sense to me - the Canadian/other countries' way makes much more sense.

On an approach, we comply with the altitudes unless otherwise directed/authorized. Why not on SIDs and STARs? The altitudes are "part" of the procedure, a clearance to fly the procedure should by default require following the altitudes. Any other interpretation just doesn't make sense to me, but that's how we do it.

If there are published speeds, that's also "part" of the procedure.
Click to expand...
I agree. It might also have avoided many of the problems which came up during early implementation where nuances in instructions were misunderstood. And, as you know, it's not just the initial clearance. "Descend to" in the US cancels altitude restrictions; in Canada it doesn't. "Follow the procedures unless specifically told otherwise" seems to be clearer than the hodgepodge we have come up with. But that's kind of how we do things.
 
RussR said:
The way we do it doesn't make any sense to me - the Canadian/other countries' way makes much more sense.

On an approach, we comply with the altitudes unless otherwise directed/authorized. Why not on SIDs and STARs? The altitudes are "part" of the procedure, a clearance to fly the procedure should by default require following the altitudes. Any other interpretation just doesn't make sense to me, but that's how we do it.

If there are published speeds, that's also "part" of the procedure.
Click to expand...
On an Approach you are close to the end of the flight. You’ve been given your final descent clearance all the way to the ground. STARS go way out there. There may be many Sectors you’ll be going through until you get down to where you start the Approach. You could be above 240 in the high altitude Sector when the STAR is given. There will be a handoff and Controller change to the low altitude Sector to get below 240. You could cross a Center boundary also. Then there is the handoff to Approach and maybe a few more Sectors there. In busy airspace to busy airports I see that it would be a coordination nightmare if you could just descend to the altitudes on the Chart all the time.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
In busy airspace to busy airports I see that it would be a coordination nightmare if you could just descend to the altitudes on the Chart all the time.
Click to expand...
Yes it would. But why would assume that's the case?

As @Larry in TN noted, the Canadian/ICAO version requires a descent clearance before any descent on the procedure. And they can cancel any and all attitude restrictions along the way down.

FWIW, I think different phraseology depending on which side of a border you are on is a bigger problem than either type of wording, although I have to wonder whether Canada had as much difficulty as we did understanding STAR clearances. Seemed like we had to change the wording every few months for a while with volumes of articles and videos on what a "maintain" instruction meant in the middle of the procedure.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Yes it would. But why would assume that's the case?

As @Larry in TN noted, the Canadian/ICAO version requires a descent clearance before any descent on the procedure. And they can cancel any and all attitude restrictions along the way down.

FWIW, I think different phraseology depending on which side of a border you are on is a bigger problem than either type of wording, although I have to wonder whether Canada had as much difficulty as we did understanding STAR clearances. Seemed like we had to change the wording every few months for a while with volumes of articles and videos on what a "maintain" instruction meant in the middle of the procedure.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought somebody had said in Canada that you could just do it. Yeah, that was fiasco when they started the descend via thang here. Took awhile to get ATC up to speed on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top