If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Jose wrote:
"Say intentions" should not be something pilots fear hearing. It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is. "We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route. Surely you're not saying that you fear getting a re-route? It happens all the time. "We've revoked your clearance, say intentions" is just a re-route plus an offer to let you decide how you would like to be re-routed. Why should that be something to fear? |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
"We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route. No, it boils down to "guess the reroute or go home." It only looks like an offer to let me decide how I would like to be rerouted - to =actually= decide I'd have to know what Potomac's airspace looks like. I don't, and should not be expected to. It's probably just a misunderstanding based on the controllers not being pilots, and the pilots not being controllers (and therefore not knowing what can and cannot be taken for granted), but in this context "say intentions" sounds like "what are you going to do about it?", which makes it seem like the controller is going to be non-helpful when the pilot is depending on the cooperation of the controller. Jose -- Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:1121727600.b3bc3a1423b9b3b0f6d273c7323e0e2a@t eranews... Overall I think I agree with the points you are making except I just do not think it is reasonable for ATC to say "Potomac refuses to work you" when they just issued a clearance through that airspace 10 minutes ago. If Potomac never works through flights then do not issue clearances -- it is one thing if the clearance were issued 500 miles away but a flight departing HGR ought to be processed in a way that knows if Potomac will accept through clearances. Okay. Fine. The center controller was wrong to issue the requested routing. He should have told the pilot the only way he could go IFR was via the preferential routing. Damn him for trying to do the pilot a favor! The point you have to understand is that once Potomac approach says they can't accept your flight the only way you're going through that airspace is contrary to ATC instructions. And therein lies the issue here... legal or not, safe or not, is just seems absolutely poor service for a sector to flat-out "refuse" an airplane with no explanation right after takeoff. I think at the minimum some better explanation should be given to the pilot to understand what his happening and let him propose an alternate plan to ATC. Well, that's essentially what the controller did when he said "state intentions", he invited the pilot to propose an alternate plan to ATC. The fact that ATC said "State intentions" rather than offer a re-route suggests ATC was surprised by this as well. Perhaps, but there's still no excuse for your suggested response. And most important of all, I suspect this may have been a subtle suggestion to the IFR pilot to cancel and go VFR and I think that is particularly disappointing and frankly unacceptable. Canceling IFR and proceeding VFR is one possible solution but is in no way suggested by "state intentions". The controller just wants to know what you want to do given that you're not going to be continuing on your current clearance. So tell him. About half the people participating in this discussion seem to be under the impression that they must immediately respond with a route that avoids the weather and Potomac approach. That's not the case at all. The controller's expecting a response like, "I'd like routing around Potomac approach clear of the weather", or "I'd like routing around the weather", etc., etc., etc. Soliciting your input prior to issuing a new clearance saves time. "State Intentions" usually occurs only when ATC has no clue what you want to do That's exactly how it was used here. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:1121735082.3ba5cd7c3a501c315a8498f64448bc75@t eranews... The suggestion "What are your intenstions" "What are your intentions?" is a question, not a suggestion. meant that the pilot should propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic enough fashion to understand it. I think most pilots would understand it just fine, it's not that complex. Why wouldn't it be proper for the pilot to propose a solution? He's the one directly affected by any solution. "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more info. Then ask for more info. Don't waste time saying "unable reroute" when it's already been decided that you're going to be rerouted. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message . .. No. One property of the route =wanted= in this case is that it not go through Potomac approach. No, one property of the route WANTED in this case is that go through Potomac approach. The route is wanted by the pilot but Potomac approach says he can't go through Potomac approach. So, one property of the route NEEDED in this case is that it NOT go through Potomac approach. You can't always get what you want, you get what you need. It appears from what the controller said that he didn't much care one way or the other. Now, maybe this controller tried everything he could and in frustration passed it on to the pilot. But it seems equally likely that Potomac just didn't want to handle him, and my response would be "try harder". That answer just wastes time. It's already been decided that you're not going through Potomac approach. Their approach suggests an unwillingness to work with the pilot. The controller demonstrated a willingness to work with the pilot when he issued the pilot's requested routing at departure instead of the preferential route. Nothing in the OP's message suggests a change in his attitude. IFR? At any altitude? Yes. Because the pilot has no reasonable way of knowing where "Potomac Approach" is, especially since it changes with the whim and the weather. Potomac approach boundaries are fixed. The pilot doesn't need to know where they are, the controller does. All the pilot has to do is decide if he wants to go around Potomac approach, or go around the weather, or divert to another airport or cancel and go IFR. That's the information the controller's seeking with, "say intentions." What is getting my dander up isn't the situation of an approach not being able to handle an aircraft at the moment. I'm sure it happens many times. Rather, the phrase "what are your intentions?" in this context (right after "we're not going to do this") hints at an unwillingness of ATC to work with the pilot(*). ATC is there =for= the pilots, not the other way around. Okay. You think seeking pilot input prior to deciding on a course of action hints at an unwillingness of ATC to work with the pilot. It's actually the opposite. I wonder how many airline pilots have heard "XYZ approach is refusing to handle you". Conduct a survey. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Nelson" wrote in message m... Steven, I don't know if you are a pilot who flies solo IFR. I have. But in the cockpit of most singles or light twins on an IFR flight plan the "big picture" of nearby convective activity is usually not available in real time. The pilot perhaps spent 15-30 minutes studying the airspace and weather, filed an IFR flight plan, had the clearance issued and launched. Heunderstood that he might be issued an amended clearance (most of us are prepared for that), a hold or be given a vector for deviation but it is difficult to expect him to in essence file a new "flight plan" in the air without "all the information" necessary for the flight (as the FARs state). He's not expected to do that. He's expected to tell the controller what he'd like to do; "I'd like routing around Potomac approach", "I'd like routing around the weather", "I'd like to go back to Hagerstown and wait out the weather", "8096J canceling IFR, have a nice day." The ATC at that point in time knows the "big picture" much better than the pilot (closed airspace, severe weather, etc.) and it would be helpful if they could present him with a workable alternate plan which he could then analyze and either accept or reject. A workable alternate plan will be presented as soon as the pilot decides what he wants to do. Within the previous hour the pilot had analyzed many factors, planned a flight and submitted it. It was accepted. Now he might repeat that process with less information available, propose it, and then have it rejected again. Perhaps repeat the cycle several times not really knowing what ATC wants. All this while flying the airplane in less than optimal weather. There are still planes out there flying IFR below the flight levels, using VHF radios and sporting numbers that begin with N. It's a messy system but we have to work together. As I said earlier I have never run across this scenario before. Usually the controller will issue an amended clearance or propose a couple of alternatives which will work for both of us. That's not the situation at all. You're making this far more complicated than it is! With "say intentions" the controller is just asking what the pilot wants in a very general way. He's expecting a response like, "I'd like routing around Potomac approach." He doesn't expect you to know the approach boundaries. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flap handle activated Climb/Cruise switching | Andy Smielkiewicz | Soaring | 5 | March 14th 05 04:54 AM |
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | March 2nd 04 08:48 PM |
G103 Acro airbrake handle | Andy Durbin | Soaring | 12 | January 18th 04 11:51 PM |
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? | greg | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 17th 03 03:47 AM |
Need door handle for 1959 Cessna 175 | Paul Millner | Owning | 0 | July 4th 03 07:36 PM |