Clearance with an Odd Intersection

On 9 Mar 2005 21:25:1 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

What is needed is something like a readback that means "do I have the new
clearance correct" followed by "give me a chance to see if I can accept it".
It seems that currently that a readback means you have accepted the new
clearance. Which is a problem.


Where is it written that "a readbck means you have accepted the new
clearance"?

Quite the contrary. The excerpt below is from the AIM.

Notice that the pilot's responsibility to "accept or refuse" the
clearance issued comes AFTER the readback instructions.

Also note that the readmack is described only as " a means of mutual
verification".

This idea of a "readback as acceptance" is just one more item of
aviabaloney.



b. ATC Clearance/Instruction Readback. Pilots of airborne aircraft
should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions
containing altitude assignments or vectors as a means of mutual
verification. The readback of the "numbers" serves as a double check
between pilots and controllers and reduces the kinds of communications
errors that occur when a number is either "misheard" or is incorrect.

1. Include the aircraft identification in all readbacks and
acknowledgments. This aids controllers in determining that the correct
aircraft received the clearance or instruction. The requirement to
include aircraft identification in all readbacks and acknowledgements
becomes more important as frequency congestion increases and when
aircraft with similar call signs are on the same frequency.

EXAMPLE-
"Climbing to Flight Level three three zero, United Twelve" or
"November Five Charlie Tango, roger, cleared to land."

2. Read back altitudes, altitude restrictions, and vectors in
the same sequence as they are given in the clearance or instruction.

3. Altitudes contained in charted procedures, such as DPs,
instrument approaches, etc., should not be read back unless they are
specifically stated by the controller.

c. It is the responsibility of the pilot to accept or refuse the
clearance issued.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:28:27 GMT, jsmith wrote:

Yes it does... STANDBY means exactly that, STANDBY.
When you have something pertinent to respond with, you will respond.
Until that time, he/she will have to wait.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:28:53 GMT, jsmith wrote:
The correct response is: "Standby."

wrote:
He said he wanted to " acknowledge that I have heard and undestood
(correctly) the clearance"
"Standby" doesn't do it.


Where is the "understanding" part in the term "standby"?

Unless my memory fails me "roger" is the accepted term to mean "I
understand".

"Standby" means "cool it for a bit". No implication of understanding.

cfeyeeye opined

On 9 Mar 2005 21:25:1 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

What is needed is something like a readback that means "do I have the new
clearance correct" followed by "give me a chance to see if I can accept it".
It seems that currently that a readback means you have accepted the new
clearance. Which is a problem.


Where is it written that "a readbck means you have accepted the new
clearance"?

From Newps
--
Jose wrote:

Which is you do not blindly accept a clearance without first studying
the reroute.



No argument there.

I've never had an "impossible" reroute, but the scenario goes,
ATC: "Amended clearance, advise ready to copy."
Me: "Ready"
ATC: "blahblahVictorThisblahIntersectionThat..."
Me: "blahblahSayAgainRest"
Them: "blahblah"
Me: "blabla"
Them: "No, Blah, then Blah"
Me: "okay, got it."

Then, I have to find it on the charts and quickly figure out whether
it makes any sense at all, while still maintaining the oily side down
and more or less on course to the next waypoint. This takes a couple
of minutes.


After which you lose comms. Does ATC think you've already accepted the
clearance?

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

From Steve McNicoll
--
"Jose" wrote in message
...

After which you lose comms. Does ATC think you've already accepted the
clearance?


He accepted it when he said "okay, got it."
--


Quite the contrary. The excerpt below is from the AIM.

Notice that the pilot's responsibility to "accept or refuse" the
clearance issued comes AFTER the readback instructions.

Also note that the readmack is described only as " a means of mutual
verification".

This idea of a "readback as acceptance" is just one more item of
aviabaloney.



b. ATC Clearance/Instruction Readback. Pilots of airborne aircraft
should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions
containing altitude assignments or vectors as a means of mutual
verification. The readback of the "numbers" serves as a double check
between pilots and controllers and reduces the kinds of communications
errors that occur when a number is either "misheard" or is incorrect.

1. Include the aircraft identification in all readbacks and
acknowledgments. This aids controllers in determining that the correct
aircraft received the clearance or instruction. The requirement to
include aircraft identification in all readbacks and acknowledgements
becomes more important as frequency congestion increases and when
aircraft with similar call signs are on the same frequency.

EXAMPLE-
"Climbing to Flight Level three three zero, United Twelve" or
"November Five Charlie Tango, roger, cleared to land."

2. Read back altitudes, altitude restrictions, and vectors in
the same sequence as they are given in the clearance or instruction.

3. Altitudes contained in charted procedures, such as DPs,
instrument approaches, etc., should not be read back unless they are
specifically stated by the controller.

c. It is the responsibility of the pilot to accept or refuse the
clearance issued.

But your cite says nothing about a change in routing.

I agree that equating a readback with an acceptance of a new clearance is
idiocy. First pilot and controller have to agree with what the new clearance
*is* , then they must agree that the pilot can accept the clearance. Only then
can it be said that the pilot has accepted the clearance. Any other course
invites disaster.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...

What is needed is something like a readback that means "do I have the new
clearance correct" followed by "give me a chance to see if I can accept
it".
It seems that currently that a readback means you have accepted the new
clearance. Which is a problem.


Pilots should understand that the alternatives to accepting the new
clearance are probably a very lengthy reroute, diversion to another airport,
or IFR cancellation.

Pilots should understand that the alternatives to accepting the new
clearance are probably a very lengthy reroute, diversion to another airport,
or IFR cancellation.

....which may be better than flying into ice over the ocean. And it is
not the perogative of ATC to cancel IFR on an airplane that =already=
has a clearance, which ATC decides has become inconvenient.

The alternative to accepting the new clearance is flying the old
clearance, and ATC puts up with the consequences (which may mean that
another aircraft has a delay or a reroute). IFR is a joint endeavor,
not an ATC "take it or leave it" thing. However, if there is one who
has the "take it or leave it" perogative, it is the pilot whose ass is
in the system and already has a clearance.

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

And it is not the perogative of ATC to cancel IFR on an airplane that
=already= has a clearance, which ATC decides has become inconvenient.


Correct, but if you cannot accept any revised clearance your only
alternative is to cancel IFR.



The alternative to accepting the new clearance is flying the old
clearance, and ATC puts up with the consequences (which may mean that
another aircraft has a delay or a reroute). IFR is a joint endeavor, not
an ATC "take it or leave it" thing. However, if there is one who has the
"take it or leave it" perogative, it is the pilot whose ass is in the
system and already has a clearance.


Nope. If the original clearance was an option there never would have been a
reroute.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:12:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...

What is needed is something like a readback that means "do I have the new
clearance correct" followed by "give me a chance to see if I can accept
it".
It seems that currently that a readback means you have accepted the new
clearance. Which is a problem.


Pilots should understand that the alternatives to accepting the new
clearance are probably a very lengthy reroute, diversion to another airport,
or IFR cancellation.



Which is, of course, the point. There ARE alternatives, even after
reading back the clearance. They might not be anybody's first choice,
but they are there,

Not that any controller I ever worked with had any problem with that.
In my experience, a polite but firm refusal, with an explanation of
why the clearance was unacceptable, always resulted in a compromise
that worked reasonably well for both of us.

Of course, every system has its gamers...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:27:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Nope. If the original clearance was an option there never would have been a
reroute.



The original clearance HAS to be an option. A radio failure before
the amendment would require it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Pilots should understand that the alternatives to accepting the new
clearance are probably a very lengthy reroute, diversion to another
airport, or IFR cancellation.

Those are certainly possibilities, but they're not the only ones. It
seems like I have the following conversation with NY Departure about
once a year:

"Proceed direct Sparta, climb and maintain 8000"

"Unable 8000 due to icing"

"Why didn't you tell the tower this?"

"I did. I filed for 6000, JFK, V1, but this is what I got. I told
clearance delivery that I'd be unable to get that high. They told me
to work it out with you after I took off".

"OK, tell you what, maintain 6000 for now, fly heading 180, direct JFK
when able, I'll have the rest of the route for you shortly"

The point here is not that I was able to force ATC to give me what I
wanted (I can't "force", only negotiate), but that I stood my ground
and refused to accept what was unsafe for me.

And yes, I understand that the possibility exists that there will be
nowhere for me to go except back on the ground. That doesn't mean I
can't explore other options with the controller. And if I ever paint
myself into such a corner such that I need to declare an emergency to
get a clearance I can accept, then I've done something wrong long
before it got to that point.

Steven P. McNicoll opined

"Jose" wrote in message
...

And it is not the perogative of ATC to cancel IFR on an airplane that
=already= has a clearance, which ATC decides has become inconvenient.


Correct, but if you cannot accept any revised clearance your only
alternative is to cancel IFR.

While in the clouds?


The alternative to accepting the new clearance is flying the old
clearance, and ATC puts up with the consequences (which may mean that
another aircraft has a delay or a reroute). IFR is a joint endeavor, not
an ATC "take it or leave it" thing. However, if there is one who has the
"take it or leave it" perogative, it is the pilot whose ass is in the
system and already has a clearance.


Nope. If the original clearance was an option there never would have been a
reroute.

Or is it convienece?



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?