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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
-------------------- 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." |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |