"Refusing to Handle You"

"Dave S" wrote in message

Pertinent rule for pilots:
91.123 (b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is
exercised.

An ATC instruction is not the same as an amended clearance. I agree if ATC
said "Turn right immediately for converging traffic" then emergency
authority would be required to not comply with that. But this is different
than the situation of negotiating an amended clearance, where I must accept
the new clearance before I am required to comply with it.

Your options are to 1) accept the new instructions 2) cancel IFR 3)
declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about everything
but the laws of physics.

In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with ATC
for a better/safer new clearance.


Yes, you can refuse an amended clearance, but if the controller gives you
instructions to double back and hold in the clear air you just passed
through, you would be hard pressed not to comply. The hold may be just for
a moment until a solution is found, or as long as you are willing to hold
before changing your mind as to what is acceptable.

I agree completely... no argument here at all.


I absolutely agree that it is unacceptable to accept a route clearance
that places one in peril (weather, or whatever the reason), but I just
want to make my opinion known that "sticking to your guns" may have a
limit and when its time to "blink", likely its the pilot who is at a
disadvantage, NOT ATC. "Working with each other" is a two way street.

Agreed.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been said
.

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message

I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.

Exactly... I agree 100%.

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been
said
.

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or
offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is
OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.


Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment. There's weather to the
north and Potomac approach to the south. The pilot can't get to his
destination via routing through Potomac approach as he planned. So if he
wants to continue to his destination under IFR he'll have to go around the
weather or around Potomac approach. What's wrong with asking the pilot what
he'd like to do? You make it sound like the pilot is expected to
immediately spit back a letter-perfect alternate weather. All the
controller wants is the general plan of action. Around approach? Around
the cells? Land at an alternate airport? Return to departure airport?
Cancel IFR? This question is just not that hard!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment.

I think what we are suggesting here but you are not considering is that
maybe ATC just is not trying as hard as they could. Or perhaps they are
inappropriately giving preference to airliners on the ground waiting to
depart rather than GA aircraft in the air.

If ATC gave a clearance and then 10 minutes later that is a totally
unworkable clearance, then ATC did something wrong and they should fix it.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121740153.ecd596a6a23c3493152de5dd2f9529e3@t eranews...

I think what we are suggesting here but you are not considering is that
maybe ATC just is not trying as hard as they could. Or perhaps they are
inappropriately giving preference to airliners on the ground waiting to
depart rather than GA aircraft in the air.


ATC isn't doing that.



If ATC gave a clearance and then 10 minutes later that is a totally
unworkable clearance, then ATC did something wrong and they should fix it.


They're going to fix it with a reroute.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121693330.1421eb37072ff4e740540656b09cef22@t eranews...

In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with
ATC for a better/safer new clearance.


You advocated a response of "Unable", that suggests you're unwilling to
negotiate.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

You advocated a response of "Unable", that suggests you're unwilling to
negotiate.

No, it only means that a specific suggestion is unacceptable.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121727774.db97764e7b5e49a58dffe5071c6bcc1e@t eranews...

No, it only means that a specific suggestion is unacceptable.


There was no specific suggestion.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

There was no specific suggestion.

The suggestion "What are your intenstions" meant that the pilot should
propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic
enough fashion to understand it. "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable
statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more
info.




--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com