"Refusing to Handle You"

"Roy Smith" wrote in message

Are you saying you've never gotten a reroute in flight?

Sure you get re-routes all the time. However, you are under no obligation
to accept them if you have good reason.

In this case I would have declined the re-route and stood my ground --- end
of story.

I have encountered similar situations flying to Long Island where I have
been assigned overwater re-routes -- no matter how unhappy or insistent ATC
may be I will not accept an overwate route nor am I required to do so. The
same logic applies here. There can be nor would there be any adverse
consequences for the pilot to exert PIC authority in the interest of flight
safety.


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

www.flyimc.com

"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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

An odd thing to say after you've been told that's not an option.

Sure it was an option. That was his clearance and the clearance remains
valid until he accepts a new one.

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

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:
Sure you get re-routes all the time. However, you are under no obligation
to accept them if you have good reason.

In this case I would have declined the re-route and stood my ground --- end
of story.
(SNIP)

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

And if "standing your ground" results in a hold in current position
until you choose to land, reverse course, or accept the offered routing,
then what? If you declare an "emergency" then the expectation is that
you will land at the nearest suitable airport.

There is no reason the posting pilot couldn't have landed and waited the
weather out.

What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted
area? I've been rerouted enroute because of an area going hot after i
was previously cleared through (but before I penetrated it). If the
offered routing is not available, my choices are accept a reroute (of
whats available), turn back or land. The controller cant offer what he
doesnt have available.

Dave

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

"Dave S" wrote in message And if "standing your
ground" results in a hold in current position
until you choose to land, reverse course, or accept the offered routing,
then what?

I suppose anything is possible but that is highly unlikely. In any event,
the proper response is to state "Unable" and then wait to see what the
controller says. Most likely the controller will then offer to work with
you with a hold and/or vectors around traffic that will more or less be
equivalent to the route you need. Now I agree the controller might instead
come back not with a terse "Potomac will not accept you" but rather "There
has been a major incident and BWI is closed" or something catastrophic like
that, in which case yes, landing might be your only option. But 99% of the
time "Unable" will indeed prompt ATC to come up with another plan.

If you declare an "emergency" then the expectation is that you will land
at the nearest suitable airport.

I am not at all proposing to declare an emergency. I am proposing the pilot
fly his clearance and not accept any alternate clearance which he feels is
unsafe. There is nothing of an emergency nature here.

There is no reason the posting pilot couldn't have landed and waited the
weather out.

ATC would have to give me a good reason for me to do that -- the reason
would have to be more than "Potomac is not accepting traffic."


What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted area?

Then ATC would have to contact the relevant military aircraft and make the
airspace cold if weather requires their airspace to be used for traffic
already on an IFR clearance.

I've been rerouted enroute because of an area going hot after i

No problem if there are no weather or other reasons to preclude your
reroute. I am not saying to decline the new clearance arbitrarily -- only
to decline it if there are weather concerns.

whats available), turn back or land. The controller cant offer what he
doesnt have available.

If you tell the controller you are "Unable" to accept an alternate route, he
may well be able to negotiate for more airspace to become available.

Bottom line: A clearance is a clearance. You must accept an assigned
revised clearance if it is within your capability, but if you judge the
revised clearance to be unsafe there is no reason why you need to accept it
and instead ATC will work with you to find a solution.

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

www.flyimc.com

--------------------
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:



What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted area?


Then ATC would have to contact the relevant military aircraft and make the
airspace cold if weather requires their airspace to be used for traffic
already on an IFR clearance.



Oh? I've read quite a bit of stuff, and I've yet to come across
something that lets ATC take a MOA or Restricted area back at their
choosing.

Tell me where that procedure is found.

Back to the original point... You dont have to accept what they are
offering. But they dont have to offer you what you want (or NEED). They
also cant offer what the "system" wont provide.

Your options can be as harsh as "cancel IFR" and scud run, or land at
the nearest field and sort it out on the ground. The phrase " XXX
approach is refusing to handle you" tells me that they are not going to
play ball. No telling what the reason is, from the original post.
Perhaps the airspace was busy, perhaps there was a "push" going on in
the middle of the desired sectors, perhaps what you wanted was contrary
to an exiting LOA between center and approach, and approach was within
their right to say "preferred routing or go all the way around".

No matter how you cut it, unless you are excercising emergency
authority, you have to go where they tell you. Usually this isnt a prob,
and most of the times they can work with you. But.. push comes to shove,
you have to fly your clearance. If you dont accept it, you are the one
who has to deal with it if no other alternatives are forthcoming.

Dave

Richard Kaplan wrote:


You already had an IFR clearance... period. Yes, you are required to accept
ATC clearance amendments that are reasonable but you are not required to
accept such a clearance if it will in your reasonable judgment endanger the
safety of your flight.

Richard Kaplan

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.

Pertinent rule for controllers:
Order 7110.65P
5-4-7. POINT OUT

a. The transferring controller shall:

1. Obtain verbal approval before permitting an aircraft to enter
the receiving controller's delegated airspace. TERMINAL. Automated
approval may be utilized in lieu of verbal, provided the appropriate
automation software is operational (automated point out function), and
the procedures are specified in a facility directive/LOA.

Its that simple. The center controller MUST issue instructions to
prevent the aircraft (and pilot) in question from entering the approach
control's airspace (or the recieving sector's controller, regardless of
center/tower/approach). As pilot, you must obey those instructions.
Active ATC instructions overrule your full route clearance.

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.

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 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.

Dave

Dave S wrote:
3) declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about
everything but the laws of physics.

Not quite. The rule says:

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
[...]
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

There's a big difference between "disregard just about everything" and "to
the extent required".

In this case, the OP wasn't forced to do anything, he was just prevented
from doing one specific thing (entering Potomac Approach airspace). He had
choices short of declaring an emergency, and the controller was asking him
which of those he was going to pick. He could have asked to hold until the
weather got better (which is what he did) or until Potomac was able to work
him. Or he could have landed back at Hagarstown. Or perhaps Potomac would
have been willing to work him as far as Fredrick, which at least would have
gotten him a little closer to his destination.

You get to declare an emergency when the safety of the flight is at risk.
Being inconvenienced and ****ed off at ATC for giving you a bum clearance
isn't an emergency.

There's one thing that bothers me about the original posting.

"Mike Granby" wrote:
Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells appearing along that
route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take the SCAPE route.

That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing at Hagarstown was a possibility.
Sure, it would have sucked to go right back to where you took off from 10
minutes ago, but it was a possibility. If you're not happy with the
weather, don't go there. You make it sound like it was a choice between
heading to SCAPE and running out of fuel.