"Refusing to Handle You"

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.

It does happen. Usually a factor of traffic congestion with really bad
weather. If they accept you, they've GOT to handle you... but they're
off the hook if they don't accept the hand-off from the previous
facility. It's a real-time, dynamic situation... ten minutes later they
might have been able to work you in.

Happened to me once, flying to Oshkosh from SE Michigan. Chicago Center
refused to take the hand-off from Muskegon approach. Muskegeon held
onto me as long as they could, and finally gave me a heading of 180 to
keep me in their airspace. I told them in no uncertain terms that I
didn't want to fly Lake Michigan lengthwise. Fortunately, it was VMC so
I cancelled IFR and went on my merry way.

Rich

Mike Granby wrote:
I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
least, some nasty weather. I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
wouldn't honor it! Comments???

"Rich" wrote in message
...

It does happen. Usually a factor of traffic congestion with really bad
weather. If they accept you, they've GOT to handle you... but they're off
the hook if they don't accept the hand-off from the previous facility.
It's a real-time, dynamic situation... ten minutes later they might have
been able to work you in.

Happened to me once, flying to Oshkosh from SE Michigan. Chicago Center
refused to take the hand-off from Muskegon approach. Muskegeon held onto
me as long as they could, and finally gave me a heading of 180 to keep me
in their airspace. I told them in no uncertain terms that I didn't want
to fly Lake Michigan lengthwise. Fortunately, it was VMC so I cancelled
IFR and went on my merry way.


Was that during the EAA convention? If it was, did you have a reservation?

Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:14:06 GMT, john smith wrote:

Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

It will be interesting to see other peoples responses on this bizarre
suggestion *smile*.

Why bother with 7700 when you are already declaring yourself NORDO with
7600?

I would suspect with you on 7600, that ATC will keep your airspace clear,
and no emergency would exist, thus no need for 7700.

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

Why bother with 7700 when you are already declaring yourself NORDO with
7600?


That used to be the NORDO procedure, but the 7700 squawk was dropped some
fifteen years or so ago.

john smith wrote:
Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

Ignoring for the moment that switching from 7600 to 7700 is the incorrect
procedure for comm failure, it sounds like you're advocating deliberately
pretending to have comm failure so you can fly the route you want.

I assume you understand 14 CFR 91.3:

-----
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.
-----

Let's see how this plays out. After you land, you call up FSS to cancel
your IFR flight plan, and the guy asks you what your emergency was. You
say, "I didn't like the route they gave me, so I turned off my radios and
continued NORDO". I can only imagine how the conversation would go after
that, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a very happy experience for you.

If they want to turn you back, and you truly believe that heading in the
direction they want to send you would be unsafe due to weather, say,
"unable" and stick to it. You may get to hold until they can accomodate
you, and that may be a long time. Deciding to land at the nearest usable
airport may be your best choice if the hold time is extensive.

Did ATC do you a dis-service by giving you the clearance you wanted and
then refusing to allow you to fly it once you were in the air? Probably,
but that's life.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Ignoring for the moment that switching from 7600 to 7700 is the incorrect
procedure for comm failure, it sounds like you're advocating deliberately
pretending to have comm failure so you can fly the route you want.

I assume you understand 14 CFR 91.3:

-----
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.
-----

Let's see how this plays out. After you land, you call up FSS to cancel
your IFR flight plan, and the guy asks you what your emergency was. You
say, "I didn't like the route they gave me, so I turned off my radios and
continued NORDO". I can only imagine how the conversation would go after
that, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a very happy experience for you.


No doubt. Making that statement is an admission that he violated FAR
91.183. "The pilot in command of each aircraft operated under IFR in
controlled airspace shall have a continuous watch maintained on the
appropriate frequency....."

"john smith" wrote in message
.. .

Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.


That might work if the weather was bad where you were at the time of the
"radio failure" and all the way to your destination. If the failure
occurred in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions were encountered after the
failure, you'd have to continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as
practicable.

What if the weather was IMC and others tried that dodge as well? What if
some of those other flights conflicted with yours? ATC can't provide
separation, you're all NORDO.

Squawking 7700 hasn't been part of the NORDO procedure for some years now,
by the way.

Thanks to all who replied. At Bob Gardner's suggestion, I emailed a
gentleman at Potomac who took the time to look into what happened and
to let me know the full story. It all makes sense, even if it was
puzzling at the time. As an asside, it's great that people in ATC take
trouble like this to let us pilots know what's going on under the hood.
It's part of what makes the US ATC system such a pleasure.

===BEGIN QUOTED TEXT===

Mike,

I think I have an answer for you. I talked to someone who specifically
remembers the incident. At the time the Center called, the controller
at Potomac was very busy accepting deviations that were landing at
Dulles. There was weather that was affecting the main arrival route
into Dulles (the one that comes over V143 and then over FDK). Aircraft
were deviating in that area. Additionally, another aircraft which was
pretty much flying the route that you wanted was deviating about 20
miles south of EMI for weather and could not get back to the north
trying to get to HAR. I think he departed JYO. The controller just
could not handle your flight at the time. I am glad it worked out for
you, getting to THV by way of Scape. Sorry we couldn't have been more
accomodating. If you have any other questions in the future, please
don't hesitate to ask. Thanks.

Scott Proudfoot
NATCA Eastern Regional Safety Rep
PCT TRACON