IFR: Balance Unchanged

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Page 26 in the VFR phraseology guide lists it as an example: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/vfr-phraseology.pdf

Thank you for quoting the phraseology guide. In the IFR guide, it states that "If you are unsure, if something is unclear, or not what you expected, it is important that you ask for clarification."

As well, it states that "A pilot may, at any time, read back a clearance in full to seek clarification."

In the TC AIM, it states "If there is any doubt as to what is required, clarification should be obtained from air traffic control (ATC)."

So, those statements indicate that if there is any confusion, the pilot is to seek clarification from ATC. As numerous controllers have said to you, in 99.99% of the cases that "balance unchanged" was used, there was no issue. In the other 0.01%, the pilot asked for clarification, which is the expected (and required) process, same as any other confusion or misunderstanding.

I have some trouble understanding why the ATC folk here seem to be defending the statement so much. There's a report that at least 2 pilots (OP and me) did not understand what the phrase meant when we first heard it and a 3rd was looking for a reference. And the reply is 'it's clear language!'. Well ok then...

The fact that the OP was confused with what it meant, and then sought clarification seems to be exactly what was supposed to happen. Keep in mind that OP stated that they were not IFR rated, so they had no context for what the controller was instructing IFR aircraft to do. They were just curious what it meant. No different than a VFR pilot being curious about what a SID or STAR is. As a non-IFR pilot, they have no need to know what "balance unchanged" means when they hear someone being issued an IFR clearance. (As per MATS, "Balance unchanged" is only used with IFR clearances by the way).

I'm not sure how you think this is such a big issue. Transport Canada has delegated NavCanada to write MATS (which in itself is based on the CARS and AIM), and felt confident enough to approve the use of "balance unchanged." So, if you have a complaint, take it up with Transport. They seem happy enough with the way we're doing things.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

digits_ I apologize. I thought I recognized your handle from somewhere. We had the discussion pretty much a year ago about someone shooting an IFR approach that was NOTAM'd unauthorized and then did a touch-and-go on a runway that was NOTAM'd closed.

You argued up and down that it was somehow ATC's fault, or the NOTAM office's fault, the airport operator's fault and that it's perfectly find to shoot unauthorized approaches and/or land and takeoff on NOTAM-closed runways.

I can see that you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of people, so I'll leave with this: You're confused about what "balance unchanged" means. Great. As per the phraseology guide you yourself provided as evidence, it's up to you to "ask for clarification." We'll be more than happy to help you out.

[digits_]

I get your point and would usually err on the side of using standardized phraseology but in this case I do not recall ever hearing or hearing of the usage of ''balance unchanged'' leading to confusion or any sort of nav error.

It's unlikely it will lead to errors because it's meaningless. I find it a bad precedence to start bloating the frequency with meaningless phrases.

It could be distracting and indirectly lead to other mistakes but I admit that chance is likely rather small. Just a bad direction to go in I think.

[16SidedOffice]

Simply put, it is mandated phraseology in our MATS and that is what goes until we are told otherwise. It has been like this for a few decades at least.

[Braun]

I get your point and would usually err on the side of using standardized phraseology but in this case I do not recall ever hearing or hearing of the usage of ''balance unchanged'' leading to confusion or any sort of nav error.

It's unlikely it will lead to errors because it's meaningless. I find it a bad precedence to start bloating the frequency with meaningless phrases.

It could be distracting and indirectly lead to other mistakes but I admit that chance is likely rather small. Just a bad direction to go in I think.

I don’t see it as meaningless. I see it as a very clear indication that no part of the remainder of the clearance is modified. What clutters the frequency is questions and this makes sure there aren’t any.

[digits_]

I get your point and would usually err on the side of using standardized phraseology but in this case I do not recall ever hearing or hearing of the usage of ''balance unchanged'' leading to confusion or any sort of nav error.

It's unlikely it will lead to errors because it's meaningless. I find it a bad precedence to start bloating the frequency with meaningless phrases.

It could be distracting and indirectly lead to other mistakes but I admit that chance is likely rather small. Just a bad direction to go in I think.

I don’t see it as meaningless. I see it as a very clear indication that no part of the remainder of the clearance is modified. What clutters the frequency is questions and this makes sure there aren’t any.

But the balance will awlays be unchanged. Otherwise the changes would have been part of the amendment

[Braun]

It's unlikely it will lead to errors because it's meaningless. I find it a bad precedence to start bloating the frequency with meaningless phrases.

It could be distracting and indirectly lead to other mistakes but I admit that chance is likely rather small. Just a bad direction to go in I think.

I don’t see it as meaningless. I see it as a very clear indication that no part of the remainder of the clearance is modified. What clutters the frequency is questions and this makes sure there aren’t any.

But the balance will awlays be unchanged. Otherwise the changes would have been part of the amendment

In a perfect world you’re right, but the reality there are so many times when assuming that the pilots would apply any sort of amendment this way has led to situations happening that could’ve been avoided with just restating that the rest of the clearance is still valid and applies.

But yea your logic is correct, issue is it doesn’t always work out that way.