Q about lost comms on weird clearance

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
PHRASEOLOGY-
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).

Thinking it through, I think what I got was something like "cleared to
GEE, expect further clearance as filed, no delay expected". That seems to
fit the phraseology in your post.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Hogshead now has a stated policy of Not Doing Business With ****wits, which
has saved me enormous amounts of heartache over the last few months.
I recommend it. -- James Wallis, Hogshead Publishing

In article
. rogers.com,
"Ross" wrote:

When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if
not provided.

I believe Paul got what's known as a "paper hold". Since he was not in
radar contact, non-radar separation procedures needed to be used, which
means reserving airspace based on the pilot reporting various fixes
along the route. But, the controller anticipated establishing radar
contact before Paul reached the clearance limit and would then be able
to issue a clearance to the destination based on the less onerous radar
separation rules.

There was no need to issue an EFC time, because the expectation was that
there would be no delay. I'm not sure what the correct phrasology is,
but it's effectively, "Expect further clearance upon reaching the fix".

That being said, Ross is correct about asking for clarification. If you
think you should have gotten an EFC and you didn't (or there's anything
else about your clearance that doesn't make sense to you), ask the
controller.

Ross wrote:
When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if
not provided.

You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.

Roy Smith wrote:


There was no need to issue an EFC time, because the expectation was that
there would be no delay. I'm not sure what the correct phrasology is,
but it's effectively, "Expect further clearance upon reaching the fix".

Which is the same as an EFC time. So one way or the other you know what
to do if you lose comm.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51...

You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.


Not in the US it doesn't.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:KiTSb.148223$Rc4.1190662@attbi_s54...

Which is the same as an EFC time. So one way or the other you know what
to do if you lose comm.


No, an EFC time is the time a pilot can expect to receive clearance beyond a
clearance limit.

I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
he should be able to continue as filed.

Am I missing something?

Newps wrote in
news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51:



Ross wrote:
When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination
you should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask
for one if not provided.

You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Newps" wrote in message
news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51...

You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.


Not in the US it doesn't.



I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance limit
short of the final destination did not have to include holding instructions
(nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Judah wrote:

I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

And what was he supposed to do when he got to that fix? He was told to
EXPECT further clearance, but wasn't yet cleared past the fix. So
lacking a Star Trek transporter device or the ability to hover, he would
have to hold.

He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
he should be able to continue as filed.

In a lost comm situation, yes, because the lost comm rules say (in part)
that you should proceed with the clearance you were told to expect. But
under normal circumstances, if he got to the fix before being issued
another clearance, he's got to hold.

Judah wrote:
I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

In a nonradar environment that's how ATC separates airplanes. When you
get to the fix you have to know what to do. Do you then enter holding
or do you just continue on your route. If you receive no further
instructions you must enter holding. But for how long? That's why you
always get an EFC time.



He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
he should be able to continue as filed.

Being told there's no delay expected is the same as an EFC time. If you
lose comm you don't hold at that fix you just keep going.