"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121692673.581a839e2ccbc36555a8723f0d1f42f7@t eranews...

ATC often is in communication with aircraft in the MOA or Restricted area.
I have had times when I have been vectored through an MOA or Restricted
area which is officially hot but the controller advises me he has
coordinated with the aircraft in that area.


ATC is sometimes in communication with aircraft in a MOA or Restricted
Area, but usually not.



I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be
negotiation both ways.


Yes, exactly, that's the point that a few of us have been trying to get
across to you.



You are correct that sometimes ATC cannot give you
what you want. It is also equally correct that a pilot does not need to
accept whatever re-route is given to him if there is a potential safety of
flight issue. Certainly "Unable re-route into convective weather" or
"Unable re-route to SCAPE due to convective wather" should be accepted by
ATC.


Yes, but you didn't suggest either of those responses, you advocated
responding with, "Unable reroute due to weather".



Considering in this case the re-route is at their request (not for
example a pilot request to deviate around weather), it seems to me
incumbent upon ATC to propose a solution...


That's easy to do. "Cleared to Hagerstown Regional Airport via direct
Hagerstown VOR direct." How's that?



the solution may be a
different altitude or vectors for spacing or a brief hold but certainly it
is not reasonable for ATC to expect a re-route to an area of active or
even potentially active thunderstorms


There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.



and I do not think ATC requiring
someone to land short of their destination is appropriate either absent
some critical infrastructure failure or national security event.


There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.



Actually the phrase "Approach is refusing to handle you" tells me this is
ATC's problem, not mine, and they need to come up with the solution, not
me.


And they will, you can be sure of that, even if you refuse to provide any
input towards it. But why wouldn't you want to provide any input?



I would tend to be much more flexible if ATC told me about some
specific reason why airspace I was already cleared into is all of a sudden
not available. Just telling me some ATC facility "is refusing to handle
you" seems bizarre to me if I have already been cleared through that
airspace.


It appears the controller that issued the departure clearance was a bit too
accommodating. When the pilot declined the original clearance he probably
should have replied, "Unable, that'll take you into Potomac approach."
Instead, he tried to help him on his way, probably hoping that he could
convince Potomac to accept him. That didn't work. Potomac approach says he
can't go through their airspace and that settles that issue. The pilot
cannot simply refuse all amendments to his clearance without reason. If he
had gone through Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions you can be
sure he'd have spent some time as a non-pilot.



All of which are contrary to my existing clearance in this case and thus
suggest to me that ATC ought to be a bit more helpful in proposing a
solution that does not involve thunderstorms.


What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows
you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that
you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want to
do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may
suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if you
don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot.



No, there is no emergency authority needed here. Saying "Unable Re-Route
through convective weather" is no different than when ATC misunderstands
the performance of my piston plane and requests an expedited climb in hot
weather at a rate of climb my plane is unable to deliver. "Unable"
means just what is says --- my plane is unable to fly through convective
weather and it is unable to maintain an 800FPM climb in the flight levels.
I need no emergency authority to advise ATC of this.


What reroute through convective weather are you referring to?



Correct... you have to fly the clearance that you accepted. You do NOT
need to accept a new clearance if your airplane is unable for performance
or safety reasons to fly that new clearance.


But that's not the situation we're discussing.



In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate
clearance within my airpane's abilities.


Then when asked for your intentions don't respond with "Unable reroute due
to weather", respond with "I'll accept any alternate clearance within my
airpane's abilities."