Clearance with an Odd Intersection

...but if you cannot accept any revised clearance your only
alternative is to cancel IFR.

No, my other alternative is to fly the clearance I already have.

But the point isn't that I can't accept =any= revised clearance (at
all), but rather, that I can't accept =any= (arbitrary) revised
clearance. You can't create capabilities in my aircraft by talking on
the radio, and you can't assume that any IFR aircraft is capable of
magic either.

If the original clearance was an option there never would have been a
reroute.

The original clearance was an option when it was given to me. It
remains an option throughout my flight. It is ATC's job to ensure that
it remains an option. ATC may, with the pilot's cooperation negotiate a
reroute. Usually this is done unilaterally with no problem. But ATC's
failure to ensure that my clearance remains viable does not impose upon
me an obligation to endanger myself (such as by climbing to an icing
altitude and/or flying sixty miles offshore).

ATC: Amend altitude, climb maintain niner thousand

Me: Unable due to ice.

ATC: Ok, I'll cancel IFR for you.

Me: Negative, we're IMC.

ATC: Well, you're no longer IFR, so you're in violation. I'll pull the
tapes and have an inspector waiting when you arrive.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The original clearance was an option when it was given to me. It
remains an option throughout my flight. It is ATC's job to ensure that
it remains an option.

**** happens. Weather changes. Navaids fail. Traffic doesn't flow
as originally expected. Airports or runways close down. You need to
accept the possibility that your original clearance may no longer be
available.

Insisting that you MUST be able to continue as originally cleared is
as silly as insisting that a pilot MUST accept any altered clearance.

**** happens. [...] You need to accept the possibility
that your original clearance may no longer be available.

Insisting that you MUST be able to continue as originally cleared is
as silly as insisting that a pilot MUST accept any altered clearance.

True. My issue is "your only alternative is to accept the new clearance
or cancel IFR", and "You've accepted the clearance just by reading it back."

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Correct, but if you cannot accept any revised clearance your only
alternative is to cancel IFR.

"jsmith" wrote in message
...

No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.


An alternate routing would require a revised clearance.

No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.
An alternate routing would require a revised clearance.


You can also negotiate to keep your original clearance (done that too).
But you are in a better position to do so if you have not =accepted= a
clearance merely by confirming that you correctly understand ATC's
request. And you can't do any of that NORDO.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

True. My issue is "your only alternative is to accept the new clearance
or cancel IFR", and "You've accepted the clearance just by reading it
back."

So if you "accept" a clearance and then figure out you don't like it,
what happens when you try and change it? Does, in real life, ATC refuse
your request to change or do they really insist that you, for example,
climb into known icing conditions in your uncertified airplane?

In other words, is ATC really mean and uncaring? Never happened to me,
but my experience is limited; every time I've asked ATC to help me fix
something, regardless of whos screwup, they have been reasonable.

"Jose" wrote in message . com...

ATC gives you a clearance and you read it back. You have accepted it.

OK, so how do I acknowledge that I have heard and understood (correctly) the clearance you have given me, but
am NOT accepting it until I can verify that it won't take me sixty miles out over the ocean?


It seems to me that this would be a perfect place to use the distinction between "Roger" and "Roger, Wilco",
but I lament that it's never used that way!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC assumes
that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
database. I've gotten something like this before, but it was enroute
and ATC asked me if I could identify the intersection. After I
acknowledged that I could, ATC told me "Direct to" that intersection.

Regards,
Charlie

Marco Leon wrote:
Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that was
only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was in
my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
(albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI is
only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was the
active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.

Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?

Regards,
Marco Leon

"Charlie Derk" wrote in message
...

Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC assumes
that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
database.

Why would ATC assume anything else?