"Refusing to Handle You"

"Mike Granby" wrote in message

calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
you, say intentions."

The response to that is just what you gave in your original description:
"Unable Reroute due to weather"

The ball is then in their court.

You would be quite justified given the weather you described.

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.

This is a good one to file a NASA ASRS form on to prevent similar situations
in the future.


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

www.flyimc.com

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.

That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing
at Hagarstown was a possibility.

Quite. I said as much in a post above.

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.

Not at all. I would rather have landed than taken a route into weather,
but it was odd that I'd been given the clearance not ten minutes ago,
and then told that it couldn't be implemented. It puzzled me, as it
seems to have puzzled others. Get-home-itis has nothing to do with it.

When the originating controller puts your flight plan into the HOST
computer, I think that the computer checks it against stuff that is in its
memory to insure that the proposed flight is doable and meets regulatory
requirements. I do not believe that the HOST computer polls facilities along
the route to ask if they can handle the flight.

Bob Gardner

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing
at Hagarstown was a possibility.

Quite. I said as much in a post above.

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.

Not at all. I would rather have landed than taken a route into weather,
but it was odd that I'd been given the clearance not ten minutes ago,
and then told that it couldn't be implemented. It puzzled me, as it
seems to have puzzled others. Get-home-itis has nothing to do with it.

"Dave S" wrote in message

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.

An ATC instruction is not the same as an amended clearance. I agree if ATC
said "Turn right immediately for converging traffic" then emergency
authority would be required to not comply with that. But this is different
than the situation of negotiating an amended clearance, where I must accept
the new clearance before I am required to comply with it.

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.

In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with ATC
for a better/safer new clearance.


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 agree completely... no argument here at all.


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.

Agreed.


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

www.flyimc.com

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been said
.

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message

I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.

Exactly... I agree 100%.

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been
said
.

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or
offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is
OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.


Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment. There's weather to the
north and Potomac approach to the south. The pilot can't get to his
destination via routing through Potomac approach as he planned. So if he
wants to continue to his destination under IFR he'll have to go around the
weather or around Potomac approach. What's wrong with asking the pilot what
he'd like to do? You make it sound like the pilot is expected to
immediately spit back a letter-perfect alternate weather. All the
controller wants is the general plan of action. Around approach? Around
the cells? Land at an alternate airport? Return to departure airport?
Cancel IFR? This question is just not that hard!

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121693330.1421eb37072ff4e740540656b09cef22@t eranews...

In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with
ATC for a better/safer new clearance.


You advocated a response of "Unable", that suggests you're unwilling to
negotiate.