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
  #91  
Old July 19th 05, 02:04 AM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

There was no specific suggestion.


The suggestion "What are your intenstions" meant that the pilot should
propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic
enough fashion to understand it. "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable
statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more
info.




--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com


  #92  
Old July 19th 05, 02:16 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1121692673.581a839e2ccbc36555a8723f0d1f42f7@t eranews...

ATC often is in communication with aircraft in the MOA or Restricted area.
I have had times when I have been vectored through an MOA or Restricted
area which is officially hot but the controller advises me he has
coordinated with the aircraft in that area.


ATC is sometimes in communication with aircraft in a MOA or Restricted
Area, but usually not.



I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be
negotiation both ways.


Yes, exactly, that's the point that a few of us have been trying to get
across to you.



You are correct that sometimes ATC cannot give you
what you want. It is also equally correct that a pilot does not need to
accept whatever re-route is given to him if there is a potential safety of
flight issue. Certainly "Unable re-route into convective weather" or
"Unable re-route to SCAPE due to convective wather" should be accepted by
ATC.


Yes, but you didn't suggest either of those responses, you advocated
responding with, "Unable reroute due to weather".



Considering in this case the re-route is at their request (not for
example a pilot request to deviate around weather), it seems to me
incumbent upon ATC to propose a solution...


That's easy to do. "Cleared to Hagerstown Regional Airport via direct
Hagerstown VOR direct." How's that?



the solution may be a
different altitude or vectors for spacing or a brief hold but certainly it
is not reasonable for ATC to expect a re-route to an area of active or
even potentially active thunderstorms


There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.



and I do not think ATC requiring
someone to land short of their destination is appropriate either absent
some critical infrastructure failure or national security event.


There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.



Actually the phrase "Approach is refusing to handle you" tells me this is
ATC's problem, not mine, and they need to come up with the solution, not
me.


And they will, you can be sure of that, even if you refuse to provide any
input towards it. But why wouldn't you want to provide any input?



I would tend to be much more flexible if ATC told me about some
specific reason why airspace I was already cleared into is all of a sudden
not available. Just telling me some ATC facility "is refusing to handle
you" seems bizarre to me if I have already been cleared through that
airspace.


It appears the controller that issued the departure clearance was a bit too
accommodating. When the pilot declined the original clearance he probably
should have replied, "Unable, that'll take you into Potomac approach."
Instead, he tried to help him on his way, probably hoping that he could
convince Potomac to accept him. That didn't work. Potomac approach says he
can't go through their airspace and that settles that issue. The pilot
cannot simply refuse all amendments to his clearance without reason. If he
had gone through Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions you can be
sure he'd have spent some time as a non-pilot.



All of which are contrary to my existing clearance in this case and thus
suggest to me that ATC ought to be a bit more helpful in proposing a
solution that does not involve thunderstorms.


What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows
you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that
you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want to
do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may
suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if you
don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot.



No, there is no emergency authority needed here. Saying "Unable Re-Route
through convective weather" is no different than when ATC misunderstands
the performance of my piston plane and requests an expedited climb in hot
weather at a rate of climb my plane is unable to deliver. "Unable"
means just what is says --- my plane is unable to fly through convective
weather and it is unable to maintain an 800FPM climb in the flight levels.
I need no emergency authority to advise ATC of this.


What reroute through convective weather are you referring to?



Correct... you have to fly the clearance that you accepted. You do NOT
need to accept a new clearance if your airplane is unable for performance
or safety reasons to fly that new clearance.


But that's not the situation we're discussing.



In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate
clearance within my airpane's abilities.


Then when asked for your intentions don't respond with "Unable reroute due
to weather", respond with "I'll accept any alternate clearance within my
airpane's abilities."


  #93  
Old July 19th 05, 02:45 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
...

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been
said
.

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or
offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is
OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.


Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment. There's weather to the
north and Potomac approach to the south. The pilot can't get to his
destination via routing through Potomac approach as he planned. So if he
wants to continue to his destination under IFR he'll have to go around the
weather or around Potomac approach. What's wrong with asking the pilot what
he'd like to do? You make it sound like the pilot is expected to
immediately spit back a letter-perfect alternate weather. All the
controller wants is the general plan of action. Around approach? Around
the cells? Land at an alternate airport? Return to departure airport?
Cancel IFR? This question is just not that hard!


  #94  
Old July 19th 05, 02:57 AM
Howard Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows
you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that
you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want

to
do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may
suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if

you
don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot.


Steven, I don't know if you are a pilot who flies solo IFR. But in the
cockpit of most singles or light twins on an IFR flight plan the "big
picture" of nearby convective activity is usually not available in real
time. The pilot perhaps spent 15-30 minutes studying the airspace and
weather, filed an IFR flight plan, had the clearance issued and launched. He
understood that he might be issued an amended clearance (most of us are
prepared for that), a hold or be given a vector for deviation but it is
difficult to expect him to in essence file a new "flight plan" in the air
without "all the information" necessary for the flight (as the FARs state).
The ATC at that point in time knows the "big picture" much better than the
pilot (closed airspace, severe weather, etc.) and it would be helpful if
they could present him with a workable alternate plan which he could then
analyze and either accept or reject. Within the previous hour the pilot had
analyzed many factors, planned a flight and submitted it. It was accepted.
Now he might repeat that process with less information available, propose
it, and then have it rejected again. Perhaps repeat the cycle several times
not really knowing what ATC wants. All this while flying the airplane in
less than optimal weather. There are still planes out there flying IFR below
the flight levels, using VHF radios and sporting numbers that begin with N.
It's a messy system but we have to work together. As I said earlier I have
never run across this scenario before. Usually the controller will issue an
amended clearance or propose a couple of alternatives which will work for
both of us.

Howard
C182P


  #95  
Old July 19th 05, 03:20 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
also an odd thing to say.


Why's that?



It's the equivalent of "get lost kid, you
bother me", which is exactly what Potomac is saying to the controller who
is (presumably) just relaying the message to the pilot. It makes ATC's
coordination problem into the pilot's problem to solve.


There's no coordination problem. The problem is the pilot has a route he
can't fly. ATC is going to change his route, the problem will be solved at
that time. ATC is just asking the pilot for his input. Isn't that better
than deciding for him?



The only thing I have is my previous clearance.


But you're going to get a new one. That's why the controller is asking for
your intentions. So that your new clearance can be as close as possible to
what you'd like to do. Would you want it any other way?



I would expect the controllers to work with me to get an acceptable
reroute, not to dump the thing in my lap saying "you can't go here any
more".


He's trying to do exactly that. That's why he said "say intentions."



I have my previous clearance. I would fly that unless (and until) I got
something acceptable to both me and the controller. 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.



If Potomac won't accept the clearance
that ATC has already given me, that's ATC's problem to solve, and they
should offer (or at least appear to be prepared to offer) some solutions.


They're going to solve that problem by directing you away from Potomac
approach. Your choices are to either follow ATC instructions or continue
into Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions and face the
consequences.


  #96  
Old July 19th 05, 03:29 AM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment.


I think what we are suggesting here but you are not considering is that
maybe ATC just is not trying as hard as they could. Or perhaps they are
inappropriately giving preference to airliners on the ground waiting to
depart rather than GA aircraft in the air.

If ATC gave a clearance and then 10 minutes later that is a totally
unworkable clearance, then ATC did something wrong and they should fix it.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com


  #97  
Old July 19th 05, 03:32 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...

When the originating controller puts your flight plan into the HOST
computer, I think that the computer checks it against stuff that is in its
memory to insure that the proposed flight is doable and meets regulatory
requirements. I do not believe that the HOST computer polls facilities
along the route to ask if they can handle the flight.


The computer isn't that fussy. Each host computer processes only to the
first fix outside it's ARTCC. As long as it's a good route up to that point
the computer is happy. You can file below the MEA or even below the ground
and the computer won't care.


  #98  
Old July 19th 05, 03:35 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #99  
Old July 19th 05, 03:39 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Clonts" wrote in message
ps.com...

Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a
good tack might be along these lines:

ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say
intentions.

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.

Note the trailing "over" which in this context means "the ball's back
in your court"...


ZXX Center: N1234, I'd be happy to do that sir. I need to know if you'd
like routing around Potomac approach, around the weather, or where you'd
like to hold. Or in other words, say intentions, over.


  #100  
Old July 19th 05, 05:42 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 




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 05:56 AM.


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