Q about lost comms on weird clearance

"Judah" wrote in message
...

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?


Continue past the clearance limit? Once he reaches the fix he enters a
standard hold on the inbound course.

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

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?


If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.

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

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

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?


If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.


But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?

Thanks,
John

In article ,
"John Clonts" wrote:

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

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

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?


If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.


But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?

Thanks,
John



Because, in a non-radar environment, it may be the only way to achieve
the legally required IFR separation. The controller had a pretty good
idea that by the time the flight reached the fix, he would have the
flight in radar contact and the hold would no longer be required. At
the moment, however, there's no radar contact, so non-radar separation
rules are required, which means holding at fixes until conflicting
traffic has reported reaching the next fix up the line.

A similiar thing happens with altitudes on initial climbout. On
departure, you're often restricted to some fairly low altitude, like
3000. Many times, you're cleared to a higher altitude before you even
reach that initial level-off. But the initial level-off had to be
issued because that was the only way to achieve separation before they
had radar contact.

Judah wrote in message . ..
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.

I think you've got it. "no delay expected" is the same as "expect
further clearance before you get there" ie, your EFC time is
effectively your flight time to the fix.

The catch in this case, if I remember my WNY geography correctly,
is that Paul filed expecting to head WNW from Batavia to Buffalo.
The clearance he got had him heading SE. His filed route had
no provision for getting him from his new clearance limit, to
his filed route. But I think Paul's interpretation "fly from
GEE to BUF" is perfectly reasonable. The airway *is* direct.
It would be nice to have this confirmed, but I wouldn't bet
a penny that some ATCS who tried a similar procedure said
something like "expect further clearance via direct BUF then
as filed", only to have the pilot mishear, take off, and fly direct
BUF screwing up a bunch of separation in the process. But
Paul could make that query in future if he wants to be certain.

I think Roy Smith is exactly correct about what Paul got and
why he got it -- and it's actually a valuable negotiating technique
to ASK for a clearance limit like that (doesn't have to be a
VOR, can be an intersection or a VOR deg-dist) if you're below
radar coverage and having trouble getting your IFR clearance.

Cheers,
Sydney

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?


Damned if I know.

The book says holding instructions may be eliminated when the pilot is
informed that no delay is expected. It also says not to specify an EFC if
no delay is expected. Apparently the book was not written by the sharpest
troops.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Because, in a non-radar environment, it may be the only way to achieve
the legally required IFR separation.


The paper stop achieves the required separation by itself.



The controller had a pretty good
idea that by the time the flight reached the fix, he would have the
flight in radar contact and the hold would no longer be required. At
the moment, however, there's no radar contact, so non-radar separation
rules are required, which means holding at fixes until conflicting
traffic has reported reaching the next fix up the line.


But holding instructions do not have to be issued if no delay is expected,
radar or nonradar.

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


Continue past the clearance limit? Once he reaches the fix he enters a
standard hold on the inbound course.


And holds for how long without an EFC?

Chip, ZTL

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

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

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?


If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.


Neither are holding instructions...

Chip, ZTL

Seems to me the easiest solution in this case is to carry a handheld and
some spare batteries.


(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote in message
. ..
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.

I think you've got it. "no delay expected" is the same as "expect
further clearance before you get there" ie, your EFC time is
effectively your flight time to the fix.

The catch in this case, if I remember my WNY geography correctly,
is that Paul filed expecting to head WNW from Batavia to Buffalo.
The clearance he got had him heading SE. His filed route had
no provision for getting him from his new clearance limit, to
his filed route. But I think Paul's interpretation "fly from
GEE to BUF" is perfectly reasonable. The airway *is* direct.
It would be nice to have this confirmed, but I wouldn't bet
a penny that some ATCS who tried a similar procedure said
something like "expect further clearance via direct BUF then
as filed", only to have the pilot mishear, take off, and fly direct
BUF screwing up a bunch of separation in the process. But
Paul could make that query in future if he wants to be certain.

I think Roy Smith is exactly correct about what Paul got and
why he got it -- and it's actually a valuable negotiating technique
to ASK for a clearance limit like that (doesn't have to be a
VOR, can be an intersection or a VOR deg-dist) if you're below
radar coverage and having trouble getting your IFR clearance.

Cheers,
Sydney