"Refusing to Handle You"

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
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.

This started out with

Wash Center: "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
you, say intentions."

I don't think "unable" is a useful response to "say intentions".

"Dave S" wrote

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.

ATC often is in communication with aircraft in the MOA or Restricted area.
I have had times when I have been vectored through an MOA or Restricted area
which is officially hot but the controller advises me he has coordinated
with the aircraft in that area.


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.

I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be
negotiation both ways. You are correct that sometimes ATC cannot give you
what you want. It is also equally correct that a pilot does not need to
accept whatever re-route is given to him if there is a potential safety of
flight issue. Certainly "Unable re-route into convective weather" or
"Unable re-route to SCAPE due to convective wather" should be accepted by
ATC. Considering in this case the re-route is at their request (not for
example a pilot request to deviate around weather), it seems to me incumbent
upon ATC to propose a solution... the solution may be a different altitude
or vectors for spacing or a brief hold but certainly it is not reasonable
for ATC to expect a re-route to an area of active or even potentially active
thunderstorms and I do not think ATC requiring someone to land short of
their destination is appropriate either absent some critical infrastructure
failure or national security event.


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.

Actually the phrase "Approach is refusing to handle you" tells me this is
ATC's problem, not mine, and they need to come up with the solution, not me.
I would tend to be much more flexible if ATC told me about some specific
reason why airspace I was already cleared into is all of a sudden not
available. Just telling me some ATC facility "is refusing to handle you"
seems bizarre to me if I have already been cleared through that airspace.

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".

All of which are contrary to my existing clearance in this case and thus
suggest to me that ATC ought to be a bit more helpful in proposing a
solution that does not involve thunderstorms.


No matter how you cut it, unless you are excercising emergency authority,
you have to go where they tell you.

No, there is no emergency authority needed here. Saying "Unable Re-Route
through convective weather" is no different than when ATC misunderstands the
performance of my piston plane and requests an expedited climb in hot
weather at a rate of climb my plane is unable to deliver. "Unable" means
just what is says --- my plane is unable to fly through convective weather
and it is unable to maintain an 800FPM climb in the flight levels. I need
no emergency authority to advise ATC of this.

and most of the times they can work with you. But.. push comes to shove,
you have to fly your clearance.

Correct... you have to fly the clearance that you accepted. You do NOT need
to accept a new clearance if your airplane is unable for performance or
safety reasons to fly that new clearance.

If you dont accept it, you are the one who has to deal with it if no other
alternatives are forthcoming.

In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate
clearance within my airpane's abilities.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Roy Smith" wrote in message

I don't think "unable" is a useful response to "say intentions".

I think "Unable routing through SCAPE or other convective weather; please
propose alternative re-route" would be fine.


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

www.flyimc.com

"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%.

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.

"I intend to fly my clearance. What are yours?" Hmmph.

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

Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
also an odd thing to say. It's the equivalent of "get lost kid, you
bother me", which is exactly what Potomac is saying to the controller
who is (presumably) just relaying the message to the pilot. It makes
ATC's coordination problem into the pilot's problem to solve.

I would refuse to fly through thunderstorms to make them happy.

Why would they find happiness in your flight through a thunderstorm?

Because if the thunderstorm is outside of Potomac's airspace, Potomac
doesn't have to deal with you. "It's not my watch". Of course I don't
really believe airborne shredded aluminum makes anybody involved here
happy, my phrasing "make them happy" is metaphorical.

You'd be unable to do anything other than your previous clearance? How
could that be?

The only thing I have is my previous clearance.

I would expect the controllers to work with me to get an acceptable
reroute, not to dump the thing in my lap saying "you can't go here any
more". That is getting close to the controller saying "IFR cancelled,
squawk 1200" while I'm in the soup.

I have my previous clearance. I would fly that unless (and until) I got
something acceptable to both me and the controller. But the controller
saying "Potomac won't handle you, what are your intentions" is
inappropriately confrontational. If Potomac won't accept the clearance
that ATC has already given me, that's ATC's problem to solve, and they
should offer (or at least appear to be prepared to offer) some solutions.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

wrote in message
...
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

This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where the
following was said:

"JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"

I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR flight
plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the NE?
Does it just happen to GA aircraft? Amended clearance happens regularly but
sector refusal (at least relayed to the pilot) is a new one to me.

Howard