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
  #21  
Old July 17th 05, 01:40 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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???


Ads
  #22  
Old July 17th 05, 03:14 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.
  #23  
Old July 17th 05, 03:19 PM
A Lieberman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #24  
Old July 17th 05, 04:05 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #25  
Old July 17th 05, 04:29 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .

If the weather was behind you like Mike described, and you can't proceed
forward, that in my opinion would be an emergency. He couldn't go further
on, and had to retrace his steps which would put have put him into bad
weather.


After being told he couldn't go through Potomac approach he asked for a hold
at HGR VOR to consider hip options. If holding at HGR keeps him clear of
the nasty weather then a landing at Hagerstown Regional should also keep him
clear of it.



Again, if the weather was behind him and he couldn't proceed further on,
being turned back into nasty weather (his words, not mine) can be
considered an emergency.


Why would those be the only options?


  #26  
Old July 17th 05, 04:40 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
...

"I intend to fly my clearance. What are yours?" Hmmph.


An odd thing to say after you've been told that's not an option.



Ok, might not put it quite that way, but I have a clearance and the
alternative of flying through thunderstorms is not acceptable.


I'm sure the controller understands that. That's why he asked you for your
intentions after informing you that your previous clearance was not
acceptable.



I would refuse to fly through thunderstorms to make them happy.


Why would they find happiness in your flight through a thunderstorm?



If I had
spherics I would have more options, but blind and knowing what's probably
out there, I would have solid grounds for saying "unable" and letting them
sort it out later.


You'd be unable to do anything other than your previous clearance? How
could that be?


  #27  
Old July 17th 05, 04:53 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open this
sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.


"Pre-selling" your clearance end-to-end before issuing it would create a
pretty inflexible system, one that could handle only a fraction of the
traffic it does now. What if a thunderstorm cell popped up on your route.
You'd probably like to deviate around it. So you ask ATC to deviate 20
degrees left of course and the response is, "Unable, that will put you into
airspace that has been pre-sold to another IFR flight." I don't think you'd
be happy with that response.


  #28  
Old July 17th 05, 04:59 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #29  
Old July 17th 05, 05:15 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #30  
Old July 17th 05, 05:16 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


 




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 04:54 AM
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead ArtKramr Military Aviation 0 March 2nd 04 08:48 PM
G103 Acro airbrake handle Andy Durbin Soaring 12 January 18th 04 11:51 PM
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? greg Instrument Flight Rules 5 November 17th 03 03:47 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 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.