"Refusing to Handle You"

"A Lieberman" wrote in message

You are PIC. I would have declared an emergency and squawked 7700.

No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.



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

www.flyimc.com

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:03:24 -0400, Richard Kaplan wrote:

No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.

Richard,

See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets_nf.htm and download the .pdf file
for weather encounters.

If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
position.

I don't think unable is enough to keep you out of hot water or puts the
ball in ATC's court. If ATC cannot accommodate an "unable", then you need
to declare an emergency. This is well documented in the .pdf file I am
pointing you to. Once you declare an emergency, ATC has to comply with
your requests.

To override an ATC directive (or in this case "non directive"), I'd suspect
a plan of action would be needed and rather quickly if ATC has not offered
a second option (which sounds like what happened in Mikes case).

From Mikes original post, it did not appear he had too many options.

He has since then clarified he had a couple of "outs" to sort this out (I.E
go hold at HGR or land at HGR).

If Mikes situation happened to me, and I do have storm scope in my plane,
and I knew there was bad weather behind me, I will not hesitate to declare
an emergency IF I THINK THE SAFETY OF MY FLIGHT is compromised.

Allen

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

www.flyimc.com

"A Lieberman" wrote in message

If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
position.

Note that in the report you mention it is ATC that mentioned pilot emergency
authority. That sounds to me as if the controller did it to cover himself
when he realized he should not have given the pilot the clearance through
the restricted area. Note that the airline pilot did precisely what I have
suggested -- he told ATC he was "Unable" to accept the new clearance.


To override an ATC directive (or in this case "non directive"), I'd
suspect
a plan of action would be needed and rather quickly if ATC has not offered
a second option (which sounds like what happened in Mikes case).

The biggest problem I see here is the implication of the urgency with which
the controller wanted the pilot to accept the reroute or propose an
alternate plan.... no dice. That is the controller's problem unless he
provided a very good reason for the urgent change, i.e. some major radar
outage or national security event or something similar. In a situation as
described, the pilot has every right to think through his options and get a
new weather briefing and whatever other information is necessary to decide
if a re-route is safe before accepting a new clearance -- indeed, the FARs
REQUIRE the pilot to be aware of "all available information" for the planned
route of flight. Absent some national security emergency, there is no
reason to rush into accepting a revised clearance through weather -- and
"Potomac will not accept you" is NOT a national security emergency.

If Mikes situation happened to me, and I do have storm scope in my plane,
and I knew there was bad weather behind me, I will not hesitate to declare
an emergency

Again... no emergency declaration is necesary on the pilot's part... just
the magic word "Unable" or perhaps "Unable reroute into convective weather."

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121656021.b4838ad7ee7d5a53cc4632516df5ffcc@t eranews...

Note that in the report you mention it is ATC that mentioned pilot
emergency authority. That sounds to me as if the controller did it to
cover himself when he realized he should not have given the pilot the
clearance through the restricted area. Note that the airline pilot did
precisely what I have suggested -- he told ATC he was "Unable" to accept
the new clearance.


But he did it to avoid an area of weather.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets_nf.htm and download the .pdf file
for weather encounters.

If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
position.


But he's saying it because the ATC instruction would have put him in bad
weather, that's not the situation we're discussing here.



I don't think unable is enough to keep you out of hot water or puts the
ball in ATC's court. If ATC cannot accommodate an "unable", then you need
to declare an emergency. This is well documented in the .pdf file I am
pointing you to. Once you declare an emergency, ATC has to comply with
your requests.


Sure, but what's your emergency in the case we're discussing? Declaring an
emergency when none exists won't keep you out of hot water.

Changing squawk code seems like a bad idea (as well as totally
unnecessary). You are already radar identified, changing squawk code
would just "un identify" you. Seems bad.
As far as declaring an emergency goes, I would only do that if there
was no other route that would not endanger me. Perhaps if TS were
closing around me that would be an emergency. Being irritated that you
must turn back and go back to the airport you took off from doesn't
sound like a reason to roll fire trucks.

-Robert, CFI

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121648616.ba937d939e05237b4228738fe266ced1@t eranews...

No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.


That's not a particularly useful answer to the controller's request for your
intentions. If you're on a route that takes you through Potomac approach
and you're informed that Potomac approach won't accept your flight it
follows that you will be rerouted in some manner.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

intentions. If you're on a route that takes you through Potomac approach
and you're informed that Potomac approach won't accept your flight it
follows that you will be rerouted in some manner.

But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121727705.48e6aca971a848425a3fb7d89eeb231a@t eranews...

But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.


He wants to know if the pilot wants to be rerouted around approach, or
around the weather, or divert to another airport, etc., etc., etc.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121727705.48e6aca971a848425a3fb7d89eeb231a@t eranews...

But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.


He wants to know if the pilot wants to be rerouted around approach, or
around the weather, or divert to another airport, etc., etc., etc.

If this had happened to me I at first would have been somewhat dumbstruck.
Would a reasonable response to what happened be "I would like to proceed to
xyz (the airport initially filed to), I have x hours of fuel before reserve,
can you give me a routing to xyz that avoids significant weather and closed
airspace?". If that were given as my intentions would the controller have
enough information to issue an amended clearance?

Howard