I normally fly out of Rochester NY, which is towered and class C. And 99%
of the time my clearance route is "Vectors as filed". But yesterday I had
to stop off at Batavia to pick up something, and then continue on to
Goderich Ontario. Since it's just easier to be on an IFR flight plan when
crossing the border, I filed from Batavia (Genesee County). When I called
on the RCO to pick up my clearance, instead of what I expected, I got
"Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero
minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my
filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording. The controller
helpfully explained later that they do it that way to head you back
towards their airspace so they can get you radar identified before sending
you towards Buffalo, since Batavia is almost right on the border between
Rochester and Buffalo's airspace. And sure enough, as soon as I got to
pattern altitude and called Rochester, he asked me to ident, and when I
did he gave me the clearance to Goderich "As filed", so it's not like I
went well out of my way.

I think if I ever do that again, and it's good VFR conditions, I'll file
from Buffalo VOR and pick up my clearance in the air on the way there.

But I'm curious about what would have happened if I'd lost contact on the
way to GEE and it had been real IFR. Geneseo VOR was my clearance limit,
so what would I do if I couldn't go back to Rochester VFR? Assume I would
have got my further clearance at GEE, so after I got there squawk 7600 and
head off to Goderich? Hope that my transponder was still working and head
back to Rochester to do the ILS?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I love the smell of burning components in the morning.
Smells like victory." (The ******* Operator From Hell)

I teach to do what is expected if you can. Either do what they tell you to
expect, ie, leave your clearance fix at the expect further clearance time,
or do what you've told them to expect ( your flight plan route) If you'd
have lost radio com once reaching your clearence limit (the VOR), squawk
7600 and then begin the rest of your route. You mentioned that he said
something about getting your filed route later. That's what I'd do while
taking into account all of the altitude requirements.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> I normally fly out of Rochester NY, which is towered and class C. And 99%
> of the time my clearance route is "Vectors as filed". But yesterday I had
> to stop off at Batavia to pick up something, and then continue on to
> Goderich Ontario. Since it's just easier to be on an IFR flight plan when
> crossing the border, I filed from Batavia (Genesee County). When I called
> on the RCO to pick up my clearance, instead of what I expected, I got
> "Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero
> minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my
> filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording. The controller
> helpfully explained later that they do it that way to head you back
> towards their airspace so they can get you radar identified before sending
> you towards Buffalo, since Batavia is almost right on the border between
> Rochester and Buffalo's airspace. And sure enough, as soon as I got to
> pattern altitude and called Rochester, he asked me to ident, and when I
> did he gave me the clearance to Goderich "As filed", so it's not like I
> went well out of my way.
>
> I think if I ever do that again, and it's good VFR conditions, I'll file
> from Buffalo VOR and pick up my clearance in the air on the way there.
>
> But I'm curious about what would have happened if I'd lost contact on the
> way to GEE and it had been real IFR. Geneseo VOR was my clearance limit,
> so what would I do if I couldn't go back to Rochester VFR? Assume I would
> have got my further clearance at GEE, so after I got there squawk 7600 and
> head off to Goderich? Hope that my transponder was still working and head
> back to Rochester to do the ILS?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "I love the smell of burning components in the morning.
> Smells like victory." (The ******* Operator From Hell)

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> "Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero
> minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my
> filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording.

I'm guessing he said something to the effect of "expect filed route".
Another possibility is "expect further clearance at XXXX". Given the
information you supplied, it's a coin toss which :-)

> But I'm curious about what would have happened if I'd lost contact on the
> way to GEE and it had been real IFR.

You would have whipped out your laptop, fired up a web browser, and gone
to

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr91_00.html,

where you would have read:

> 91.185 *IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.
> [...]
> (c)(3) Leave clearance limit.
> [...]
> (ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave
> the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been
> received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance
> limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence
> descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of
> arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en
> route.

Next, you would have slapped yourself for not paying more attention to
your original clearance and take a guess at whether you had a EFC time
or not, and if you did, what it was. For the moment, let's assume what
the controller said was "Expect filed route after GEE". If so, assuming
your filed route included GEE, you would have flown your cleared route,
climbing to 6000 10 minutes after you took off.

The interesting question is what you do when you get to your
destination. Do you hold until your ETA, or do you just go ahead and
fly the aporoach and land ASAP, as has been espoused so often on this
newsgroup.

What makes it interesting in my mind is twofold: 1) I have no idea if
Goderich is in an area of radar coverage, and 2) I have little
experience flying in Canada. I think I've got a good feel for how ATC
works in the US, and feel comfortable exercising my PIC authority to
play fast and loose with the last sentence of 91.185(c)(3)(ii). I can
only assume that 91.185 is basicly an echo of ICAO procedures and the
rules in Canada are the essentially the same, but I'd personally be more
inclined to play a literal interpretation in Canadian airspace.





Geneseo VOR was my clearance limit,
> so what would I do if I couldn't go back to Rochester VFR? Assume I would
> have got my further clearance at GEE, so after I got there squawk 7600 and
> head off to Goderich? Hope that my transponder was still working and head
> back to Rochester to do the ILS?

In a previous article, Roy Smith > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> "Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero
>> minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my
>> filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording.
>
>I'm guessing he said something to the effect of "expect filed route".
>Another possibility is "expect further clearance at XXXX". Given the
>information you supplied, it's a coin toss which :-)

No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't an EFC.

>or not, and if you did, what it was. For the moment, let's assume what
>the controller said was "Expect filed route after GEE". If so, assuming
>your filed route included GEE, you would have flown your cleared route,
>climbing to 6000 10 minutes after you took off.

My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...",
so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF.

>What makes it interesting in my mind is twofold: 1) I have no idea if
>Goderich is in an area of radar coverage, and 2) I have little

It wasn't. As a matter of fact, the controller turned me loose about 20
minutes before I got to Goderich because his radio repeater near there
wasn't working. Which is about where I entered IMC - kind of strange to
be out of contact with radar, radio and the horizon all at once.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Heaven has all the lusers, a generous supply of larts -
and no PHBs anywhere in sight.
-- The BOFH Heaven, according to Suresh

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...",
> so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF.

Seems like a reasonable plan. Going direct BUF would be more in tune
with the letter of how the rule is written, though, since that's what
you filed and were told to expect. On the other hand, in a lost comm
situation, there's a good argument to be made for staying on airways,
since they guarantee nav signal reception and terrain clearance. On the
third hand, if you've got GPS, and are above the OROCA, going direct
seems like the right thing to do.

> kind of strange to be out of contact with radar, radio and the
> horizon all at once.

Why? Radar and radio contact with ATC are just conveniences. Neither
is necessary to fly the airplane.

In a previous article, Roy Smith > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...",
>> so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF.
>
>Seems like a reasonable plan. Going direct BUF would be more in tune

If I'm at GEE, "direct BUF" and "follow the airway between them" is the
same thing.

>> kind of strange to be out of contact with radar, radio and the
>> horizon all at once.
>
>Why? Radar and radio contact with ATC are just conveniences. Neither
>is necessary to fly the airplane.

Hey, I said it was strange (as in "unfamiliar"), not stressful or scary.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to
take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't an EFC.

So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for
one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR
pilot <G>)

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for
> one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR
> pilot <G>)
>

An EFC does not have to be issued if no delay is expected.

When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if
not provided.
I doubt this would only be a Canadian procedure.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for
> > one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR
> > pilot <G>)
> >
>
> An EFC does not have to be issued if no delay is expected.
>
>

"Ross" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
>
> When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
> should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one
> if not provided.
> I doubt this would only be a Canadian procedure.
>

FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 6. Holding Aircraft

4-6-1. CLEARANCE TO HOLDING FIX

Consider operational factors such as length of delay, holding airspace
limitations, navigational aids, altitude, meteorological conditions when
necessary to clear an aircraft to a fix other than the destination airport.
Issue the following:

a. Clearance limit (if any part of the route beyond a clearance
limit differs from the last routing cleared, issue the route the pilot can
expect beyond the clearance limit).

PHRASEOLOGY-
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).

EXAMPLE-
"Expect further clearance via direct Stillwater V-O-R, Victor Two
Twenty-Six Snapy intersection, direct Newark."

b. Holding instructions.

1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the
pilot that no delay is expected.

2. When the pattern is charted, you may omit all holding
instructions except the charted holding direction and the statement "as
published." Always issue complete holding instructions when the pilot
requests them.

NOTE-
The most generally used holding patterns are depicted on U.S.
Government or commercially produced low/high altitude en route, area, and
STAR Charts.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,

or

CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

c. EFC. Do not specify this item if no delay is expected.

1. When additional holding is expected at any other fix in your
facility's area, state the fix and your best estimate of the additional
delay. When more than one fix is involved, state the total additional en
route delay (omit specific fixes).

NOTE-
Additional delay information is not used to determine pilot action
in the event of two-way communications failure. Pilots are expected to
predicate their actions solely on the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.185.

PHRASEOLOGY-
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE (time),

and if required,

ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL (time in minutes/hours) MINUTE/HOUR DELAY AT
(fix),

or

ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL (time in minutes/hours) MINUTE/HOUR EN ROUTE
DELAY.

EXAMPLE-
1. "Expect further clearance one niner two zero, anticipate
additional three zero minute delay at Sweet."

2. "Expect further clearance one five one zero, anticipate
additional three zero minute en route delay."

2. When additional holding is expected in an approach control
area, state the total additional terminal delay.

PHRASEOLOGY-
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE (time),

and if required,

ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL (time in minutes/hours) MINUTE/HOUR TERMINAL
DELAY.

3. TERMINAL. When terminal delays exist or are expected, inform
the appropriate center or approach control facility so that the information
can be forwarded to arrival aircraft.

4. When delay is expected, issue items in subparas a and b at
least 5 minutes before the aircraft is estimated to reach the clearance
limit. If the traffic situation requires holding an aircraft that is less
than 5 minutes from the holding fix, issue these items immediately.

NOTE-
1. The AIM indicates that pilots should start speed reduction when
3 minutes or less from the holding fix. The additional 2 minutes contained
in the 5-minute requirement are necessary to compensate for different
pilot/controller ETAS at the holding fix, minor differences in clock times,
and provision for sufficient planning and reaction times.

2. When holding is necessary, the phrase "delay indefinite" should
be used when an accurate estimate of the delay time and the reason for the
delay cannot immediately be determined; i.e., disabled aircraft on the
runway, terminal or center sector saturation, weather below landing
minimums, etc. In any event, every attempt should be made to provide the
pilot with the best possible estimate of his/her delay time and the reason
for the delay. Controllers/supervisors should consult, as appropriate, with
personnel (other sectors, weather forecasters, the airport management, other
facilities, etc.) who can best provide this information.

PHRASEOLOGY-
DELAY INDEFINITE, (reason if known), EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE
(time). (After determining the reason for the delay, advise the pilot as
soon as possible.)

EXAMPLE-
"Cleared to Drewe, hold west, as published, expect further
clearance via direct Sidney V-O-R one three one five, anticipate additional
two zero minute delay at Woody."

"Cleared to Aston, hold west on Victor two twenty-five, seven mile
leg, left turns, expect further clearance one niner two zero, anticipate
additional one five minute terminal delay."

"Cleared to Wayne, no delay expected."

"Cleared to Wally, hold north, as published, delay indefinite,
snow removal in progress, expect further clearance one one three zero."

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> PHRASEOLOGY-
> EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).

Thinking it through, I think what I got was something like "cleared to
GEE, expect further clearance as filed, no delay expected". That seems to
fit the phraseology in your post.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Hogshead now has a stated policy of Not Doing Business With ****wits, which
has saved me enormous amounts of heartache over the last few months.
I recommend it. -- James Wallis, Hogshead Publishing

In article
ogers.com>,
"Ross" > wrote:

> When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
> should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if
> not provided.

I believe Paul got what's known as a "paper hold". Since he was not in
radar contact, non-radar separation procedures needed to be used, which
means reserving airspace based on the pilot reporting various fixes
along the route. But, the controller anticipated establishing radar
contact before Paul reached the clearance limit and would then be able
to issue a clearance to the destination based on the less onerous radar
separation rules.

There was no need to issue an EFC time, because the expectation was that
there would be no delay. I'm not sure what the correct phrasology is,
but it's effectively, "Expect further clearance upon reaching the fix".

That being said, Ross is correct about asking for clarification. If you
think you should have gotten an EFC and you didn't (or there's anything
else about your clearance that doesn't make sense to you), ask the
controller.

Ross wrote:
> When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
> should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if
> not provided.

You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.

Roy Smith wrote:


> There was no need to issue an EFC time, because the expectation was that
> there would be no delay. I'm not sure what the correct phrasology is,
> but it's effectively, "Expect further clearance upon reaching the fix".

Which is the same as an EFC time. So one way or the other you know what
to do if you lose comm.

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51...
>
> You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
> instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.
>

Not in the US it doesn't.

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:KiTSb.148223$Rc4.1190662@attbi_s54...
>
> Which is the same as an EFC time. So one way or the other you know what
> to do if you lose comm.
>

No, an EFC time is the time a pilot can expect to receive clearance beyond a
clearance limit.

I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
he should be able to continue as filed.

Am I missing something?

Newps > wrote in
news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51:

>
>
> Ross wrote:
>> When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination
>> you should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask
>> for one if not provided.
>
> You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
> instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:sgTSb.153540$nt4.710088@attbi_s51...
> >
> > You should refuse holding instructions without an EFC. Holding
> > instructions without an EFC constitutes an incomplete clearance.
> >
>
> Not in the US it doesn't.
>
>

I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance limit
short of the final destination did not have to include holding instructions
(nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Judah > wrote:

> I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
> cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

And what was he supposed to do when he got to that fix? He was told to
EXPECT further clearance, but wasn't yet cleared past the fix. So
lacking a Star Trek transporter device or the ability to hover, he would
have to hold.

> He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
> that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
> he should be able to continue as filed.

In a lost comm situation, yes, because the lost comm rules say (in part)
that you should proceed with the clearance you were told to expect. But
under normal circumstances, if he got to the fix before being issued
another clearance, he's got to hold.

Judah wrote:
> I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
> cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

In a nonradar environment that's how ATC separates airplanes. When you
get to the fix you have to know what to do. Do you then enter holding
or do you just continue on your route. If you receive no further
instructions you must enter holding. But for how long? That's why you
always get an EFC time.


>
> He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
> that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
> he should be able to continue as filed.

Being told there's no delay expected is the same as an EFC time. If you
lose comm you don't hold at that fix you just keep going.

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
> cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.
>
> He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
> that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
> he should be able to continue as filed.
>
> Am I missing something?
>

Continue past the clearance limit? Once he reaches the fix he enters a
standard hold on the inbound course.

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance limit
> short of the final destination did not have to include holding
instructions
> (nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
> instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?
>

If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance
limit
> > short of the final destination did not have to include holding
> instructions
> > (nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
> > instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?
> >
>
> If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.
>

But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?

Thanks,
John

In article >,
"John Clonts" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance
> limit
> > > short of the final destination did not have to include holding
> > instructions
> > > (nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
> > > instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?
> > >
> >
> > If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.
> >
>
> But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>

Because, in a non-radar environment, it may be the only way to achieve
the legally required IFR separation. The controller had a pretty good
idea that by the time the flight reached the fix, he would have the
flight in radar contact and the hold would no longer be required. At
the moment, however, there's no radar contact, so non-radar separation
rules are required, which means holding at fixes until conflicting
traffic has reported reaching the next fix up the line.

A similiar thing happens with altitudes on initial climbout. On
departure, you're often restricted to some fairly low altitude, like
3000. Many times, you're cleared to a higher altitude before you even
reach that initial level-off. But the initial level-off had to be
issued because that was the only way to achieve separation before they
had radar contact.

Judah > wrote in message >...
> I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he wasn't
> cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.

> He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would seem
> that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches the fix,
> he should be able to continue as filed.

I think you've got it. "no delay expected" is the same as "expect
further clearance before you get there" ie, your EFC time is
effectively your flight time to the fix.

The catch in this case, if I remember my WNY geography correctly,
is that Paul filed expecting to head WNW from Batavia to Buffalo.
The clearance he got had him heading SE. His filed route had
no provision for getting him from his new clearance limit, to
his filed route. But I think Paul's interpretation "fly from
GEE to BUF" is perfectly reasonable. The airway *is* direct.
It would be nice to have this confirmed, but I wouldn't bet
a penny that some ATCS who tried a similar procedure said
something like "expect further clearance via direct BUF then
as filed", only to have the pilot mishear, take off, and fly direct
BUF screwing up a bunch of separation in the process. But
Paul could make that query in future if he wants to be certain.

I think Roy Smith is exactly correct about what Paul got and
why he got it -- and it's actually a valuable negotiating technique
to ASK for a clearance limit like that (doesn't have to be a
VOR, can be an intersection or a VOR deg-dist) if you're below
radar coverage and having trouble getting your IFR clearance.

Cheers,
Sydney

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> But why would holding instructions be issued if no delay is expected?
>

Damned if I know.

The book says holding instructions may be eliminated when the pilot is
informed that no delay is expected. It also says not to specify an EFC if
no delay is expected. Apparently the book was not written by the sharpest
troops.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because, in a non-radar environment, it may be the only way to achieve
> the legally required IFR separation.
>

The paper stop achieves the required separation by itself.


>
> The controller had a pretty good
> idea that by the time the flight reached the fix, he would have the
> flight in radar contact and the hold would no longer be required. At
> the moment, however, there's no radar contact, so non-radar separation
> rules are required, which means holding at fixes until conflicting
> traffic has reported reaching the next fix up the line.
>

But holding instructions do not have to be issued if no delay is expected,
radar or nonradar.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Continue past the clearance limit? Once he reaches the fix he enters a
> standard hold on the inbound course.
>

And holds for how long without an EFC?

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I understood your citation of 7110.65 which showed that a clearance
limit
> > short of the final destination did not have to include holding
> instructions
> > (nor an EFC), but I don't understand what situation would cause holding
> > instructions to be issued without an EFC. Please elaborate?
> >
>
> If no delay is expected an EFC is not issued.
>

Neither are holding instructions...

Chip, ZTL

Seems to me the easiest solution in this case is to carry a handheld and
some spare batteries. :)


(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>> I'm no expert (still in training, actually) but it seems to me he
>> wasn't cleared to a hold. He was cleared to a fix.
>
>> He was also told to expect to continue as filed afterward. It would
>> seem that he therefore doesn't require an EFC time... Once he reaches
>> the fix, he should be able to continue as filed.
>
> I think you've got it. "no delay expected" is the same as "expect
> further clearance before you get there" ie, your EFC time is
> effectively your flight time to the fix.
>
> The catch in this case, if I remember my WNY geography correctly,
> is that Paul filed expecting to head WNW from Batavia to Buffalo.
> The clearance he got had him heading SE. His filed route had
> no provision for getting him from his new clearance limit, to
> his filed route. But I think Paul's interpretation "fly from
> GEE to BUF" is perfectly reasonable. The airway *is* direct.
> It would be nice to have this confirmed, but I wouldn't bet
> a penny that some ATCS who tried a similar procedure said
> something like "expect further clearance via direct BUF then
> as filed", only to have the pilot mishear, take off, and fly direct
> BUF screwing up a bunch of separation in the process. But
> Paul could make that query in future if he wants to be certain.
>
> I think Roy Smith is exactly correct about what Paul got and
> why he got it -- and it's actually a valuable negotiating technique
> to ASK for a clearance limit like that (doesn't have to be a
> VOR, can be an intersection or a VOR deg-dist) if you're below
> radar coverage and having trouble getting your IFR clearance.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
>

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> And holds for how long without an EFC?
>

As long as he chooses.

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Neither are holding instructions...
>

Well, they can be, although I don't know why anyone would.

Judah > wrote in message >...
> Seems to me the easiest solution in this case is to carry a handheld and
> some spare batteries. :)

Well, maybe. First see a recent post by Roy Smith wrt how useful
he and a friend found a handheld to be when they experienced a
radio failure in busy NYC airspace (an area with generally very
good radio reception, though busy frequencies). At a minimum
for a handheld to be useful, you need a headset adaptor and a
cable so that the duckie antenna can be situated on a window,
preferably a connection to an external antenna.

Even with a headset adaptor and an external antenna connection
and cable, personally if I were flying single-pilot IFR in
rough IMC, digging out the handheld and setting it up would
be pretty low on my list of priorities.

But perhaps that's just me, and other pilots are more capable
of aviating and navigating while digging stuff out and setting
it up.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Neither are holding instructions...
> >
>
> Well, they can be, although I don't know why anyone would.
>

I don't know why either, nor why any pilot would accept an airborne holding
clearance without an EFC.

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > And holds for how long without an EFC?
> >
>
> As long as he chooses.
>

Which begs the question, why hold at all? A supe of mine who has several
thousand hours as a pre-strike freight dog told me he'd make one turn in the
pattern and then continue on (assuming IMC/ lost comm etc), but he couldn't
defend the "why" of it. These non-radar paper-stop rules don't seem to
stand on their own very well, IMO.

Chip, ZTL