"Refusing to Handle You"

If an old man can make another comment that may not be current in todays
situations. When the original clearance was issued it conformed with
"standardized" departure procedures from the departing airport/terminal
facility. Even though a rereoute either major or minor will be required in
the future the clearance is issued. The first time the controller would be
aware of it would be in the center sector/terminal facility immediately
prior to the required change. This may or may not be compatible with
traffic flows in effect. ie departure procedures, arrivals procedures, etc.
Maybe on of the current controllers could be so kind to explain the
tailoring symbols on a flight progress strip. If they still use them.

I find it exceptionally hard to beleive any controller would use the phrase
"refused". I can beleive they told you you would have to be rerouted.

Nuff for now thanks for letting me vent.
Al

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:

"What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
of Potomac's airspace?"


Good enough.


...Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
that?"


Well, he's at this point offering something. He could have been
offering something from the start, since he knows where I am and where
I'm heading. A more helpful original call would have been: "Potomac
can't take you right now. I can take you around twenty miles to the
East if you like, or to the northwest direct XXX. Which would you
prefer?"


You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
try again". It doesn't work like that.


No, it doesn't usually work like that. However, "you can't do that,
what are you going to do about it?" sure makes it seem like the
controller is playing that game.


"Say intentions" should
not be something pilots fear hearing.


It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.

Jose

Exactly. They tear up my clearance constantly and issue new ones.
The best I can think of is that since the entire plan basically got
canceled, they were letting the OP rethink it all.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

"Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."

(I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you
as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact,
Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at
5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was
originally).

Now what?


Let me add a touch of realism. Instead of, "Unable 13,000. Tell you what,
can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for now, and let me go off frequency
for a while to talk to Flight Service?" You say, "Unable 13,000. Tell you
what, can you give me a hold somewhere and let me go off frequency for a
while to talk to Flight Service?" The controller responds with a hold clear
of approach and the weather so you can chat with FSS. Controllers are eager
to help, but you have to tell them what you want. They can't read your
mind.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
"Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for
now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?"

"Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."

(I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you
as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact,
Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at
5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was
originally).

Now what?

Jose

How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?

Chip, ZTL

How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?

Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of
the midwest.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?

Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the
midwest.

Jose
--

Hey, I thought *I* got to be the pilot here!?! :-)

Chip, ZTL

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the
midwest.


Potomac is in the east.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

I need to fly around or over Potomac's airspace. So, I might start by
asking some questions:

"If I climbed up to 9000, would that help?"

Center comes back with, "Sorry, you'd need to get up to 13,000 to stay in
Center airspace on that route, can you make that?" (I'm making that up,
but
it sounds plausable).


As I recall from a conversation with a Washington ARTCC controller some
years ago, the forerunner of Potomac approach went up to either FL180 or
FL240.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Because ATC is supposed to be helpful, and this is not.


Why isn't it helpful for ATC to ask the pilot's intentions? Do you think
it'd be better if ATC decided on a remedial course of action without input
from the pilot?



The pilot has no
idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)


The controller does. Ask him.



or for how long they
will be refusing to honor the clearance the pilot =already= has.


Until about 2 AM.



Therefore
the pilot has no basis from which to plan a new routing, or to consider
the altenratives.


He knows he can't go through Potomac approach and he doesn't want to go
through the weather, he needs to select an alternative to those. That
shouldn't be too hard for any experienced pilot.



ATC however does know the pilot's destination and equipment, and probably
has a pretty good idea of what the weather and traffic ahead is.
Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They
are refusing to do so.


No they're not.



Empirically, it's an odd thing to say because it is rarely said. That by
itself makes it odd.


That you haven't experienced it doesn't make it rare, it just means you're
inexperienced. Many high density TRACONs simply do not work thruflights.



The pilot certainly can fly that route. ATC doesn't want him to.
Specifically Potomac doesn't want him to.


The pilot can't fly that route because Potomac approach says he can't.



Meaningful input requires information that ATC has, that the pilot
doesn't, and that ATC is pointedly not giving the pilot.


The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.



Perhaps we have different definitions of "accomodating".


Perhaps. I use Webster's. What do you use?



Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.


Oooh, something new!



It's =you=
flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other side
of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be at that
time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental 172RG with a
moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather imagery available to
you (except via descriptions on the radio). You have three and a half
hours of gas, and have a clearance through to your destination, which
takes you in between building TCU. There are cells to your west and
northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your route. You're IMC.

"N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"

How do you respond?


I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."

The pilot has no
idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)
The controller does. Ask him.

Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in
how long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
information).

Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They
are refusing to do so.
No they're not.

Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python. The pilot wants to get to
his destination efficiently. The controller knows what's 'open' and
what's not, or is at least in a much better position to ascertain this.

The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.

ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't
know what the pilot would want. Otherwise, it pretty much goes without
saying that the pilot wants to get to his destination, and that makes it
reasonable for ATC to offer reasonable alternatives.

Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.
Oooh, something new!

Actually, I learned something once before.

"N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"

How do you respond?

I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."

"Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
intentions?"

I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might
not reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the
closed approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and
are now faced with my reply.

At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
where I think the controller should have started.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in how
long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
information).


Probably the airways or VORs that define the route around it.



Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python.


No, you're just being Jose. You say ATC is refusing to offer helpful
alternatives, but ATC wasn't asked for any alternatives, therefore it cannot
be said that ATC is refusing to offer helpful alternatives. Well, I guess
it can if you want to appear stupid.



The pilot wants to get to his destination efficiently.

How do you know he doesn't want to divert and wait out the weather?



The controller knows what's 'open' and what's not, or is at least in a
much better position to ascertain this.


But not in a position to know what the pilot wants.



ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't know
what the pilot would want.


Now you're catchin' on!



"Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
intentions?"


No, it takes me into Potomac approach. I'm no longer a thruflight, I'm now
an arrival. Potomac approach may not do thruflights, but they definitely do
arrivals.



I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might not
reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the closed
approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and are now
faced with my reply.


As I explainedabove, it's not a closed approach anymore.



At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
where I think the controller should have started.


Why would I need a route suggestion? My diversion takes care of the weather
problem, I don't need any help navigating.