"Refusing to Handle You"

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.

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?

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

"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.

"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.