A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Refusing to Handle You"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old July 20th 05, 11:37 AM
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:45:23 GMT, Jose
wrote:

That is what's happening. The pilots of all those air carrier jets
streaming through the airspace you want to use are getting what they want.
Traffic flows are dictated by air carrier needs because they're the biggest
users.


Some time back, in a different thread (about angelflight) you stated
that angelflight did not get any priority, and continued to say that
aircraft are handled on a first-come first-served basis. Your statement
above seems to contradict that (otherwise I could just be scooted in
front of the next jet that's not there yet).


Well, how often is an air carrier flying low enough to be in approach
airspace for an airport they're not landing at? Gets back to "they
have to deal with arrivals, not throughflights".

  #152  
Old July 20th 05, 12:51 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?


Could be. The rest of us look at charts :-)
  #153  
Old July 20th 05, 01:54 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Smith wrote:
someone else wrote
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.



What possible good comes from this? He's asked you what you would
like to do, within the constraints of what he's already told you he's
unable to give you. How could the controller possibly know what makes
sense for you to do at that point? Are you the PIC, or are you just
along for the ride?


Roy's excellent suggestions snipped.

As usual, an excellent answer, Roy.

Dave
  #154  
Old July 20th 05, 02:01 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Natalie wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
john smith wrote:


Oops!
I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of
the flight.




If you want to squawk "Lost Comm", just set 7600 and leave it there.

The "7700 for one minute, then 7600" procedure predates me, but I
understand that a long time ago (like 15 or 20 years), that was how it
was done. No longer the case.



...and I suppose I should stop flying triangular patterns as well. Never
could remember if it was clockwise for no receiver or the ohter
way..


Heh heh.
  #155  
Old July 20th 05, 02:11 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Smith wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?



Could be. The rest of us look at charts :-)


Whew. This has been some discussion. If only Roy, Steven, Richard, Jose, Warren
were all inside the same room talking this out, it would make some fascinating
listening. As it is, man, I'm tired of reading. :-)

DGB
  #156  
Old July 20th 05, 05:34 PM
Everett M. Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Richard Kaplan" wrote

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.


It's my understanding that the usual procedure in a case
such as this is for the controller to issue a reroute based
on the pilot's destintation, present location, and traffic
and weather conditions. Giving the pilot a "say intentions"
sounds a lot like "you're on your own buddy!". That doesn't
sound at all helpful.

Something I haven't seen discussed is how long the
pilot has to give ATC some suggestions in this case.
While contemplating alternative plans and awaiting a
revised clearance, the pilot is to continue on his
existing clearance. What happens if that takes him
into the control area that doesn't want him?
  #157  
Old July 20th 05, 07:52 PM
Scott Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose wrote:
I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:

"What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
of Potomac's airspace?"



Good enough.


...Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
that?"



Well, he's at this point offering something. He could have been
offering something from the start, since he knows where I am and where
I'm heading. 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?"


You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
try again". It doesn't work like that.



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.


"Say intentions" should
not be something pilots fear hearing.



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

Jose


Exactly. They tear up my clearance constantly and issue new ones.
The best I can think of is that since the entire plan basically got
canceled, they were letting the OP rethink it all.

  #158  
Old July 20th 05, 10:21 PM
Hamish Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Howard Nelson" wrote:

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
news

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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?

Erm, 1999? :-)

Hamish


Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a
couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach,
followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding

like
Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your
intentions?".

My bad

The sequence was Bay to Sierra to NorCal. I can't wait to see what the next
consolidation is. Luckily I haven't said Bay Approach (or TCA) in years
probably because the correct answer is printed on my charts.


Just don't call them "Oakland" like I do every now and then...

I'm betting on "Left Coast Approach" by 2020 :-).

Hamish
  #159  
Old July 28th 05, 07:37 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Changing squawk code seems like a bad idea (as well as totally
unnecessary). You are already radar identified, changing squawk code
would just "un identify" you. Seems bad.
As far as declaring an emergency goes, I would only do that if there
was no other route that would not endanger me. Perhaps if TS were
closing around me that would be an emergency. Being irritated that you
must turn back and go back to the airport you took off from doesn't
sound like a reason to roll fire trucks.

-Robert, CFI

  #160  
Old July 31st 05, 05:42 AM
Allan9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve do they still use PDR, PDAR, and PARs?.
Al

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Shouldn't that be taken into consideration by ATC prior to issuance of
the clearance?


They probably did. Remember, they initially issued a different route
which was declined due to weather. Perhaps they then issued the route
through the TRACON hoping they could sell it to approach.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flap handle activated Climb/Cruise switching Andy Smielkiewicz Soaring 5 March 14th 05 05:54 AM
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead ArtKramr Military Aviation 0 March 2nd 04 09:48 PM
G103 Acro airbrake handle Andy Durbin Soaring 12 January 19th 04 12:51 AM
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? greg Instrument Flight Rules 5 November 17th 03 04:47 AM
Need door handle for 1959 Cessna 175 Paul Millner Owning 0 July 4th 03 07:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.