"Refusing to Handle You"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
You can't always get what you want, you get what you need.

But only if you try, and then only sometimes.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Okay. Fine. The center controller was wrong to issue the requested
routing.

Thank you.. we agree.

Damn him for trying to do the pilot a favor!

Favor or not, changing a clearance in this type of weather is serious
business. The controller ought to fix the problem by being more proactive
in proposing solutions to the pilot.


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.

Or by convincing Potomac to work harder to fix their error.

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 pilot did not need the extra workload; it would have been better for ATC
to work harder with Potomac or else for ATC to propose a routing to the
pilot.


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

That is obvious. The pilot wants to efficiently get to his destination. If
ATC cannot honor their initial clearance then they should propose workable
alternatives. It is obvious this is what the pilot wants.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Because ATC is supposed to be helpful, and this is not.


Why isn't it helpful for ATC to ask the pilot's intentions? Do you think
it'd be better if ATC decided on a remedial course of action without input
from the pilot?



The pilot has no
idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)


The controller does. Ask him.



or for how long they
will be refusing to honor the clearance the pilot =already= has.


Until about 2 AM.



Therefore
the pilot has no basis from which to plan a new routing, or to consider
the altenratives.


He knows he can't go through Potomac approach and he doesn't want to go
through the weather, he needs to select an alternative to those. That
shouldn't be too hard for any experienced pilot.



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.


No they're not.



Empirically, it's an odd thing to say because it is rarely said. That by
itself makes it odd.


That you haven't experienced it doesn't make it rare, it just means you're
inexperienced. Many high density TRACONs simply do not work thruflights.



The pilot certainly can fly that route. ATC doesn't want him to.
Specifically Potomac doesn't want him to.


The pilot can't fly that route because Potomac approach says he can't.



Meaningful input requires information that ATC has, that the pilot
doesn't, and that ATC is pointedly not giving the pilot.


The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.



Perhaps we have different definitions of "accomodating".


Perhaps. I use Webster's. What do you use?



Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.


Oooh, something new!



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?


I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Okay. Then say that when the controller asks your intentions.

Again... "Intentions" are obvious. ATC should offer specific options.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121823357.bf2888d2a56b794c5f24b222c96ebfe3@t eranews...

Again... "Intentions" are obvious. ATC should offer specific options.


Again. The options are obvious, or they should be to any experienced pilot.
Tell ATC which of the obvious options you'd like. ATC is there to help you,
try working with them instead of against them.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

I need to fly around or over Potomac's airspace. So, I might start by
asking some questions:

"If I climbed up to 9000, would that help?"

Center comes back with, "Sorry, you'd need to get up to 13,000 to stay in
Center airspace on that route, can you make that?" (I'm making that up,
but
it sounds plausable).


As I recall from a conversation with a Washington ARTCC controller some
years ago, the forerunner of Potomac approach went up to either FL180 or
FL240.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

"Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."

(I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you
as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact,
Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at
5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was
originally).

Now what?


Let me add a touch of realism. Instead of, "Unable 13,000. Tell you what,
can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for now, and let me go off frequency
for a while to talk to Flight Service?" You say, "Unable 13,000. Tell you
what, can you give me a hold somewhere and let me go off frequency for a
while to talk to Flight Service?" The controller responds with a hold clear
of approach and the weather so you can chat with FSS. Controllers are eager
to help, but you have to tell them what you want. They can't read your
mind.

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.

No, one property of the route WANTED by Potomac approach is that it not
go through there. Who's wagging the what?

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

Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to
the pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that
are not fixed). And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries
are in order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around
it or do something else.

I wonder how many airline pilots have heard "XYZ approach is refusing to
handle you".
Conduct a survey.


OK. For all airline pilots on this newsgroup who are willing to
participate, please post here whether or not you have ever heard in
flight a controller say that "XYZ approach is refusing to handle you,
say intentions" (for the pedants, replace XYZ by any approach). "NO"
answers are just as important as "YES" answers.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Well, he's at this point offering something.


Yup. All he needed was some idea of your intentions.



He could have been offering
something from the start, since he knows where I am and where I'm heading.


But not what you want.



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?"


Well, those are obvious and not the only options. Stating the obvious just
wastes time.



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.


That's the way it seems to you. It's not that way.



It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.


That wasn't said.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

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 not that way at all.