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
  #131  
Old July 20th 05, 03:11 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
...

If this had happened to me I at first would have been somewhat dumbstruck.
Would a reasonable response to what happened be "I would like to proceed
to xyz (the airport initially filed to), I have x hours of fuel before
reserve,
can you give me a routing to xyz that avoids significant weather and
closed airspace?".


Certainly.



If that were given as my intentions would the controller have
enough information to issue an amended clearance?


Yes.


  #132  
Old July 20th 05, 03:23 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The pilot has no
idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)

The controller does. Ask him.


Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in
how long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
information).

Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They
are refusing to do so.

No they're not.


Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python. The pilot wants to get to
his destination efficiently. The controller knows what's 'open' and
what's not, or is at least in a much better position to ascertain this.

The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.


ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't
know what the pilot would want. Otherwise, it pretty much goes without
saying that the pilot wants to get to his destination, and that makes it
reasonable for ATC to offer reasonable alternatives.

Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.

Oooh, something new!


Actually, I learned something once before.

"N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"

How do you respond?

I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."


"Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
intentions?"

I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might
not reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the
closed approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and
are now faced with my reply.

At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
where I think the controller should have started.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #133  
Old July 20th 05, 03:27 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121823244.3f20b0e8e6c677a1a5f1609735509f17@t eranews...

Favor or not, changing a clearance in this type of weather is serious
business. The controller ought to fix the problem by being more proactive
in proposing solutions to the pilot.


In what type of weather? Nothing in the OP indicated the pilot was in any
significant weather at that point. The pilot wanted to fly from HGR to THV.
Normally such flights are taken north over SCAPE to avoid Camp David but
there was weather affecting that route. So he filed a route to the south to
avoid the weather, HGR..MRB..EMI..THV. The problem with that route is it
goes through Potomac approach.

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



Or by convincing Potomac to work harder to fix their error.


He tried as hard as he could, Potomac approach made no error.



The pilot did not need the extra workload;


There is no extra workload on the pilot.



it would have been better for
ATC to work harder with Potomac


He made a maximum effort.



or else for ATC to propose a routing to
the pilot.


ATC will do that as soon as the pilot decides where he wants to go.



That is obvious.


Then why did I have to explain it?



The pilot wants to efficiently get to his destination.
If ATC cannot honor their initial clearance then they should propose
workable alternatives. It is obvious this is what the pilot wants.


That is not obvious. The pilot may want to divert to another airport. The
pilot has to tell the controller what he wants.

I've explained this many times. Are you even trying to understand it, or
are you just being argumentative?


  #134  
Old July 20th 05, 03:32 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
...

No, one property of the route WANTED by Potomac approach is that it not go
through there. Who's wagging the what?


Well, since Potomac approach IS going to get what they WANT, it follows that
what is NEEDED is a route that does not go through Potomac approach.



Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to the
pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that are not
fixed).


Cite them.



And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries are in
order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around it or do
something else.


Why doesn't he ask?


  #135  
Old July 20th 05, 03:41 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to the
pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that are not
fixed).

Cite them.


The boundaries between what controllers handle what flight on what
frequencies for example, which depends on LOA and the winds. The
internal boundaries of airspace that is sometimes approach and sometiems
center. And if I'm citing them incorrectly, I know some stuff like that
has been discussed here, and I bet you remember what it really is and
could fill me in. It's one of the reasons that these boundaries are not
shown on charts - they keep changing, even as to altitudes.

If I were a controller, I'd know what they are. I'm just a pilot, so I
dial the frequencies I'm handed off to, and everyone's happy.

And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries are in
order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around it or do
something else.

Why doesn't he ask?


I suppose if it were me, I would ask. But it would take me a moment or
two to realize that this is what they are expecting.

I guess I'm just too used to getting reroutes I can accept or reject,
rather than "can't go there, try again".

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #136  
Old July 20th 05, 03:44 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, since Potomac approach IS going to get what they WANT, it follows that
what is NEEDED is a route that does not go through Potomac approach.


.... and Potomac should not get what they WANT... it's the pilot that
should get what they want. That's what approach is for. Approach
should get what they NEED in order to give the pilot what he WANTS.

"Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you.
And that is where my dander got caught.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #137  
Old July 20th 05, 03:48 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
...

Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in how
long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
information).


Probably the airways or VORs that define the route around it.



Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python.


No, you're just being Jose. You say ATC is refusing to offer helpful
alternatives, but ATC wasn't asked for any alternatives, therefore it cannot
be said that ATC is refusing to offer helpful alternatives. Well, I guess
it can if you want to appear stupid.



The pilot wants to get to his destination efficiently.


How do you know he doesn't want to divert and wait out the weather?



The controller knows what's 'open' and what's not, or is at least in a
much better position to ascertain this.


But not in a position to know what the pilot wants.



ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't know
what the pilot would want.


Now you're catchin' on!



"Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
intentions?"


No, it takes me into Potomac approach. I'm no longer a thruflight, I'm now
an arrival. Potomac approach may not do thruflights, but they definitely do
arrivals.



I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might not
reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the closed
approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and are now
faced with my reply.


As I explainedabove, it's not a closed approach anymore.



At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
where I think the controller should have started.


Why would I need a route suggestion? My diversion takes care of the weather
problem, I don't need any help navigating.


  #138  
Old July 20th 05, 03:54 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
...

... and Potomac should not get what they WANT... it's the pilot that
should get what they want. That's what approach is for. Approach should
get what they NEED in order to give the pilot what he WANTS.


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.



"Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you.


Not in this case.



And that is where my dander got caught.


Get over it.


  #139  
Old July 20th 05, 03:58 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
m...

The boundaries between what controllers handle what flight on what
frequencies for example, which depends on LOA and the winds.


That doesn't change facility boundaries.



The internal boundaries of airspace that is sometimes approach and
sometiems center.


You mean TRACONs that close at night? Their boundaries don't change.



And if I'm citing them incorrectly, I know some stuff like that has been
discussed here, and I bet you remember what it really is and could fill me
in. It's one of the reasons that these boundaries are not shown on
charts - they keep changing, even as to altitudes.


ARTCC boundaries sometimes change, but they're on the charts.



I guess I'm just too used to getting reroutes I can accept or reject,
rather than "can't go there, try again".


Then you haven't flown enough.


  #140  
Old July 20th 05, 04:22 AM
Hamish Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
 




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 10:29 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.