 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A B737 crew did not comply with the waterloo three rokto 16;000 ft to 14;000 ft crossing constraint after being cleared to 11;000 ft because it was not clear to them that they were flying the waterloo arrival and the clearance phraseology did not make it clear that there were descent constraints in their clearance routing.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 994027 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201202 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | CYYZ.Airport |
| State Reference | ON |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Route In Use | STAR WATERLOO 4 |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met Deviation - Procedural Clearance |
Narrative:
We were on the waterloo 03 arrival about 30 miles out. ATC vectored us off the arrival onto a heading. ATC then gave us three descents: first; FL390-360; second; from FL360-310; then from FL310-290. We were then cleared back direct to ywt. Then; we were cleared to descend to 11;000 ft. We set the MCP to 11;000 and used flight lvl change and started down. There was a crossing restriction at rokto between 16;000-14;000 ft which we went below. The [descent clearance] phrase was not made clear that we were re-cleared on the arrival and the terminology was to descend to 11;000 ft. ATC was fine with it and asked us what arrival we were given. We told them. The rest of the approach and landing were fine. I did read the recent alert addressing this and got caught in the same trap. However; for years we have used the term 'comply with the restriction' when given an attitude that is not on the arrival. This is confusing. I have flown into cyyz many times in the past few months with no issues over this in the past. It seems an easy fix however. They are asking us to make effort when terminology is being used that we are not clear with. We should have verified that ourselves and from now on I will.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B737 crew did not comply with the WATERLOO THREE ROKTO 16;000 FT to 14;000 FT crossing constraint after being cleared to 11;000 FT because it was not clear to them that they were flying the WATERLOO Arrival and the clearance phraseology did not make it clear that there were descent constraints in their clearance routing.
Narrative: We were on the Waterloo 03 arrival about 30 miles out. ATC vectored us off the arrival onto a heading. ATC then gave us three descents: First; FL390-360; second; from FL360-310; then from FL310-290. We were then cleared back direct to YWT. Then; we were cleared to descend to 11;000 FT. We set the MCP to 11;000 and used FLT LVL change and started down. There was a crossing restriction at ROKTO between 16;000-14;000 FT which we went below. The [descent clearance] phrase was not made clear that we were re-cleared on the arrival and the terminology was to descend to 11;000 FT. ATC was fine with it and asked us what arrival we were given. We told them. The rest of the approach and landing were fine. I did read the recent alert addressing this and got caught in the same trap. However; for years we have used the term 'comply with the restriction' when given an attitude that is not on the Arrival. This is confusing. I have flown into CYYZ many times in the past few months with no issues over this in the past. It seems an easy fix however. They are asking us to make effort when terminology is being used that we are not clear with. We should have verified that ourselves and from now on I will.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.