Clearance with an Odd Intersection

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:27:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If ATC gives me a new routing to copy, and I copy it and then a few
minutes later (after I check the charts) find it takes me sixty miles out
over the ocean, and then I lose comms making me unable to =negotiate= a
new clearance, I am =not= flying the one ATC attempted to con me into.
The same is true if I can't get a word in edgewise. Both circumstances
are common in the Northeast. Been there, done that, I'm not getting the
T-shirt soaking wet.


Perhaps it would be best if you stayed out of the IFR system.


And perhaps it would be best if you took some sensitivity training or
maybe get an instrument rating and do a little IFR flying yourself,
and you might have a better appreciation for what it is he is talking
about.

We all realize how warm and comfortable those radar rooms are, and how
easy it is for some controllers (a minority, in my experience) to
ignore the legitimate concerns of pilots and reroute them 30 miles
over 35 degree water in order to make life easier for themselves.

I'm with Jose. I'm not accepting that clearance either, readback or
no readback.

In article ,
Jose wrote:


ATC gives you a clearance and you read it back. You have accepted it.

OK, so how do I acknowledge that I have heard and understood (correctly)
the clearance you have given me, but am NOT accepting it until I can
verify that it won't take me sixty miles out over the ocean?

Jose

I find "standby for readback" works.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:20:45 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Jose wrote:


ATC gives you a clearance and you read it back. You have accepted it.

OK, so how do I acknowledge that I have heard and understood (correctly)
the clearance you have given me, but am NOT accepting it until I can
verify that it won't take me sixty miles out over the ocean?

Jose

I find "standby for readback" works.


Doesn't solve the problem.

The readback is necessary to insure you have heard it correctly (AND
the controller hasn't erred, which has happened more than once).

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:27:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If ATC gives me a new routing to copy, and I copy it and then a few
minutes later (after I check the charts) find it takes me sixty miles
out
over the ocean, and then I lose comms making me unable to =negotiate= a
new clearance, I am =not= flying the one ATC attempted to con me into.
The same is true if I can't get a word in edgewise. Both circumstances
are common in the Northeast. Been there, done that, I'm not getting
the
T-shirt soaking wet.


Perhaps it would be best if you stayed out of the IFR system.


And perhaps it would be best if you took some sensitivity training or
maybe get an instrument rating and do a little IFR flying yourself,
and you might have a better appreciation for what it is he is talking
about.

Regarding McNicoll, and the old cliché about "Am I up here so you can be
down there, or are you down there so I can be up here?", McNicoll thinks
it's the former.

Matt
--
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...

Your previous comments were bad enough, but that is the stupidist comment
I
have seen in a long time.


How so?



Given your attitude, the best answer to "ready to copy new clearence" is
"cannot comply".


If you can't stay in step you can't be in the parade.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Regarding McNicoll, and the old cliché about "Am I up here so you can be
down there, or are you down there so I can be up here?", McNicoll thinks
it's the former.


Actually, he knows it's the latter, but he also sees the big picture.

Actually, he knows it's the latter, but he also sees the big picture.

And the big picture is that if you give me (and I read back) a clearance
with which I cannot comply, we will negotiate a better clearance and
we'll both end up happy. But if I go NORDO at that moment, I will not
place myself in danger by flying a clearance I've discovered (after the
fact - it cannot be discovered before the fact) that would interrupt the
rescue squad's bridge game.

You've said many times that for a NORDO you clear the airspace. Well,
I'll take advantage of that.

I suppose it works out most of the time, since most aircraft do not go
NORDO at that moment, but I've been given bum routings many times in the
Northeast. I do not fly a Lear and cannot do all the tricks that other
aircraft can do. There are some circumstances that would put me in
danger, and I won't know you just gave me one until after I've looked at
the charts. Unlike a London cabbie, I do not have the airspace memorized.

I understand the need for expedience. But I'm surprised that there's no
provision for "can't accept until I find it all on the charts."

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:24:56 -0600, Journeyman
wrote:

In article , Jose wrote:

So, you can't turn down a clearance until you know what it is, but you
can't know what it is until you know you've understood correctly, and
you can't know you've understood correctly until you've accepted the
clearance.

Joseph Heller would be proud.


Morris





McNicoll was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this
clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Newps agreed.

(My apologies to the late Mr Heller)

"Roy Smith" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
Jose wrote:
=20
=20
ATC gives you a clearance and you read it back. You have accepted =
it.=20
=20
OK, so how do I acknowledge that I have heard and understood =
(correctly)=20
the clearance you have given me, but am NOT accepting it until I can=20
verify that it won't take me sixty miles out over the ocean?
=20
Jose
=20
I find "standby for readback" works.

Yes, it works extremely well, Roy.
A Clearance-Delivery facility once gave me a modestly complicated =
departure,
ending in a cryptic Lat/Lon point, followed by "...then as filed".
I gave the usual, "Standby for readback" as I started unfolding charts,
trying to guess where that Lat/Lon point was.
After a few seconds, the Clearance-Delivery person wondered when I'd be
ready for the readback, and I replied "As soon as I locate that =
Lat/Lon".
At that point, he/she said it was a distant VOR I had originally filed =
to,
whereupon I requested and received a re-read of the clearance,
"...in a form that I could acknowledge more easily".

I certainly would be uncomfortable reading back a clearance
before understanding it.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:18:41 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
wrote:

Yes, it works extremely well, Roy.
A Clearance-Delivery facility once gave me a modestly complicated departure,
ending in a cryptic Lat/Lon point, followed by "...then as filed".
I gave the usual, "Standby for readback" as I started unfolding charts,
trying to guess where that Lat/Lon point was.
After a few seconds, the Clearance-Delivery person wondered when I'd be
ready for the readback, and I replied "As soon as I locate that Lat/Lon".
At that point, he/she said it was a distant VOR I had originally filed to,
whereupon I requested and received a re-read of the clearance,
"...in a form that I could acknowledge more easily".

I certainly would be uncomfortable reading back a clearance
before understanding it.


Reading back a clearance means getting the words right.

Nothing more.