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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message There was no specific suggestion. The suggestion "What are your intenstions" meant that the pilot should propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic enough fashion to understand it. "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more info. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:1121692673.581a839e2ccbc36555a8723f0d1f42f7@t eranews... 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. ATC is sometimes in communication with aircraft in a MOA or Restricted Area, but usually not. I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be negotiation both ways. Yes, exactly, that's the point that a few of us have been trying to get across to you. 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. Yes, but you didn't suggest either of those responses, you advocated responding with, "Unable reroute due to weather". 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... That's easy to do. "Cleared to Hagerstown Regional Airport via direct Hagerstown VOR direct." How's that? 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 There is nothing in the OP that suggested that. 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. There is nothing in the OP that suggested that. 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. And they will, you can be sure of that, even if you refuse to provide any input towards it. But why wouldn't you want to provide any input? 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. It appears the controller that issued the departure clearance was a bit too accommodating. When the pilot declined the original clearance he probably should have replied, "Unable, that'll take you into Potomac approach." Instead, he tried to help him on his way, probably hoping that he could convince Potomac to accept him. That didn't work. Potomac approach says he can't go through their airspace and that settles that issue. The pilot cannot simply refuse all amendments to his clearance without reason. If he had gone through Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions you can be sure he'd have spent some time as a non-pilot. 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. What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want to do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if you don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot. 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. What reroute through convective weather are you referring to? 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. But that's not the situation we're discussing. In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate clearance within my airpane's abilities. Then when asked for your intentions don't respond with "Unable reroute due to weather", respond with "I'll accept any alternate clearance within my airpane's abilities." |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want to do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if you don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot. Steven, I don't know if you are a pilot who flies solo IFR. 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. He understood 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). 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. 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. Howard C182P |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message m... Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is also an odd thing to say. Why's that? 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. There's no coordination problem. The problem is the pilot has a route he can't fly. ATC is going to change his route, the problem will be solved at that time. ATC is just asking the pilot for his input. Isn't that better than deciding for him? The only thing I have is my previous clearance. But you're going to get a new one. That's why the controller is asking for your intentions. So that your new clearance can be as close as possible to what you'd like to do. Would you want it any other way? 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". He's trying to do exactly that. That's why he said "say intentions." 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. Bull****. The guy seems to have been overly accommodating. 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. They're going to solve that problem by directing you away from Potomac approach. Your choices are to either follow ATC instructions or continue into Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions and face the consequences. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment. 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. 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. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
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. The computer isn't that fussy. Each host computer processes only to the first fix outside it's ARTCC. As long as it's a good route up to that point the computer is happy. You can file below the MEA or even below the ground and the computer won't care. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Nelson" wrote in message m... 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" To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay Approach? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in message ps.com... Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a good tack might be along these lines: ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say intentions. N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over. Note the trailing "over" which in this context means "the ball's back in your court"... ZXX Center: N1234, I'd be happy to do that sir. I need to know if you'd like routing around Potomac approach, around the weather, or where you'd like to hold. Or in other words, say intentions, over. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
also an odd thing to say. Why's that? Because ATC is supposed to be helpful, and this is not. The pilot has no idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint) or for how long they will be refusing to honor the clearance the pilot =already= has. Therefore the pilot has no basis from which to plan a new routing, or to consider the altenratives. The only alternatives that are clear are to turn around, hold, or land, but those are likely not the only alternatives avaliable. ATC however does know the pilot's destination and equipment, and probably has a pretty good idea of what the weather and traffic ahead is. Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They are refusing to do so. Empirically, it's an odd thing to say because it is rarely said. That by itself makes it odd. The problem is the pilot has a route he can't fly. The pilot certainly can fly that route. ATC doesn't want him to. Specifically Potomac doesn't want him to. ATC is just asking the pilot for his input. Meaningful input requires information that ATC has, that the pilot doesn't, and that ATC is pointedly not giving the pilot. But the controller saying "Potomac won't handle you, what are your intentions" is inappropriately confrontational. Bull****. The guy seems to have been overly accommodating. Perhaps we have different definitions of "accomodating". Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around. It's =you= flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other side of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be at that time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental 172RG with a moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather imagery available to you (except via descriptions on the radio). You have three and a half hours of gas, and have a clearance through to your destination, which takes you in between building TCU. There are cells to your west and northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your route. You're IMC. "N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?" How do you respond? Jose -- Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
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 |