Recently while returning from a trip I was heading to my home base, which is
a class D airport. I was handed off to the local tracon, which has a class C
airport, and was issued a clearance to follow a star that led to a navaid
near my destination. However, the star was for the class C airport, not my
destination. The class D airport is well outside of the class C airspace but
inside the area covered by the tracon.

I happened to know the star was for the class C airport, and followed it
appropriately. However, in the Jepps it is listed under the class C, and not
my destination.

I have never encountered this before even in a busy radar environment- is
this a common controller technique for arrivals?

If I had been unfamiliar with the area and approaches, this could have
caused a few moments of frantic chart flipping. Besides, the star did not
list my destination airport as one of the transitions, although a nearby
navaid is the IAP for several approaches.

Since my last clearance was the star into the class c airport, if I had gone
nordo, would I have been expected to fly to the class C airport listed in
the star and do an approach , or should I do an approach to my destination,
even if not listed in the star?

"Viperdoc" wrote:
[snip]
> I have never encountered this before even in a busy radar
> environment- is this a common controller technique for arrivals?

Well, it's common at least in the Houston terminal area.

> Besides, the star did not list my destination airport as one of
> the transitions, although a nearby navaid is the IAP for several
> approaches.

When I used to land at EYQ in Houston, I'd get the Trinity 1 arrival
every time, even though EYQ is not depicted on the STAR plate.

>
> Since my last clearance was the star into the class c airport, if I
had gone
> nordo, would I have been expected to fly to the class C airport listed
in
> the star and do an approach , or should I do an approach to my
destination,
> even if not listed in the star?

If you were cleared to the destination airport via the STAR, you should
fly the STAR, shoot an approach (if in IMC) and land. Don't do this if
you're a hundred miles out, though. The consensus of controllers and
instructors I have talked to is that a NORDO IFR aircraft is a major
pain in the airspace: ATC wants you to land as expeditiously as
possible.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>
> Recently while returning from a trip I was heading to my home
> base, which is a class D airport. I was handed off to the local
> tracon, which has a class C airport, and was issued a clearance
> to follow a star that led to a navaid near my destination. However,
> the star was for the class C airport, not my destination. The class
> D airport is well outside of the class C airspace but inside the area
> covered by the tracon.
>

What's your home base?

Viperdoc wrote:
> Recently while returning from a trip I was heading to my home base, which is
> a class D airport. I was handed off to the local tracon, which has a class C
> airport, and was issued a clearance to follow a star that led to a navaid
> near my destination. However, the star was for the class C airport, not my
> destination. The class D airport is well outside of the class C airspace but
> inside the area covered by the tracon.
>
> I happened to know the star was for the class C airport, and followed it
> appropriately. However, in the Jepps it is listed under the class C, and not
> my destination.
>
> I have never encountered this before even in a busy radar environment- is
> this a common controller technique for arrivals?

When I used to frequently fly to GAI in the Washington area, I would often get
the COATTx arrival for Dulles, then vectors to GAI, so I'd say it's fairly common.

Apparently there is some kind of list of "eligible airports" for a STAR. These
NOTAMs have been showing up lately for TTA, which is near Raleigh-Durham's class
C. ARGAL5 and BRADE5 are arrivals for RDU. DUAT plain-language translation:

Sanford NC (Sanford-Lee County Rgnl) [TTA]: January NOTAM #13 issued by UAR
ARGAL five arrival (ARGAL. ARGAL5) add TTA as an ELIGIBLE airport effective
from January 30th, 2004 at 11:24 AM EDT (0401301524)

Sanford NC (Sanford-Lee County Rgnl) [TTA]: January NOTAM #12 issued by UAR
BRADE five arrival (BRADE. BRADE5) add TTA as an ELIGIBLE airport effective
from January 30th, 2004 at 11:20 AM EDT (0401301520)

>
> If I had been unfamiliar with the area and approaches, this could have
> caused a few moments of frantic chart flipping. Besides, the star did not
> list my destination airport as one of the transitions, although a nearby
> navaid is the IAP for several approaches.
>
> Since my last clearance was the star into the class c airport, if I had gone
> nordo, would I have been expected to fly to the class C airport listed in
> the star and do an approach , or should I do an approach to my destination,
> even if not listed in the star?

What was your clearance limit?

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave Butler > writes:

> Apparently there is some kind of list of "eligible airports" for a STAR. These
> NOTAMs have been showing up lately for TTA, which is near Raleigh-Durham's class
> C. ARGAL5 and BRADE5 are arrivals for RDU. DUAT plain-language translation:
>
> Sanford NC (Sanford-Lee County Rgnl) [TTA]: January NOTAM #13 issued by UAR
> ARGAL five arrival (ARGAL. ARGAL5) add TTA as an ELIGIBLE airport effective
> from January 30th, 2004 at 11:24 AM EDT (0401301524)
>
> Sanford NC (Sanford-Lee County Rgnl) [TTA]: January NOTAM #12 issued by UAR
> BRADE five arrival (BRADE. BRADE5) add TTA as an ELIGIBLE airport effective
> from January 30th, 2004 at 11:20 AM EDT (0401301520)

Idle curiosity: I wonder why the oddball effective times.
If you were approaching at 15:22, you could be issued
BRADE5 but not ARGAL5. Two minutes earlier and you can
get neither and two minutes later you can get either.

Take a look at KCVG (Greater Cincinnati International). This is CBAS
and all the airports with instrument approaches within the Mode C veil
use the SIDs and STARs.
I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> Take a look at KCVG (Greater Cincinnati International). This is CBAS
> and all the airports with instrument approaches within the Mode C veil
> use the SIDs and STARs.
> I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.
>

Why do you do that?

EDR wrote:
> Take a look at KCVG (Greater Cincinnati International).

I don't understand. What do you mean "take a look at..."? Is there some document
you want me to see?

> This is CBAS
> and all the airports with instrument approaches within the Mode C veil
> use the SIDs and STARs.

Where does it say that? In the document you want me to take a look at?

> I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.

Why do you do that?

Not intentionally dense, I'm just not getting your meaning, somehow.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

In article >, Dave Butler
> wrote:

> EDR wrote:
> > Take a look at KCVG (Greater Cincinnati International).
>
> I don't understand. What do you mean "take a look at..."? Is there some
> document
> you want me to see?

> > This is CBAS
> > and all the airports with instrument approaches within the Mode C veil
> > use the SIDs and STARs.

> Where does it say that? In the document you want me to take a look at?

NOTAMs and Approach Plates

> > I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.
>
> Why do you do that?
> Not intentionally dense, I'm just not getting your meaning, somehow.

I am not a jet jockey. I fly a slow spam can. If I am given a SID or
STAR I am going to be flying miles out of my way, well below traffic
that the procedures are designed to separate.

> > I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.

Don't they just give you the SID or STAR anyway, just spell it out for you?
They want to vector you far away, they vector you far away./

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> > > I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.
>
> Don't they just give you the SID or STAR anyway, just spell it out for you?
> They want to vector you far away, they vector you far away./

You do not have to accept the clearance.

In article >, jsmith > wrote:

> Teacherjh wrote:
> >
> > > > I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.
> >
> > Don't they just give you the SID or STAR anyway, just spell it out for you?
> > They want to vector you far away, they vector you far away./
>
> You do not have to accept the clearance.

It's true that you don't have to accept a clearance, but that doesn't
give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. You should decline a
clearance if you're unable to comply due to operational limitations
(can't climb that high, don't have enough fuel, don't have the required
navigational equipment, etc) or there's a safety issue (oxygen, ice,
over-water, etc). You can keep saying "unable" and the controller will
keep trying to come up with alternatives, but eventually you may be
called upon to defend your actions, and "because I didn't want to take a
detour" won't impress people very much as a defense.

Weather permitting, you could always cancel IFR and take whatever route
you want.

>> You do not have to accept the clearance.

.... and you could be sitting on the ground forever waiting for a better one.
This is actually quite common in the NY/CT area. Freezing level at 4000,
overcast at 2000, I filed for 3000, and got 7000 despite comments to the effect
that I can't accept routings into icing conditions and need to stay below the
freezing level.

We negotiated on the ground for an hour. Their alternative was either 7000 and
their routing, or come back tomorrow. They were not going to give me anything
else for any reason.

So, I accepted the clearance and negotiated in the air. Picking up ice at
7000, I was able to get 8000 and break out on top.

With this in mind, to reject the clearance because it happens to be the same as
a SID won't get you far. At least not in this town. You fly what they want,
or you don't fly.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

>>
We negotiated on the ground for an hour. Their alternative was either 7000 and
their routing, or come back tomorrow. They were not going to give me anything
else for any reason.
<<

I'll add to this... that I brought this up at a WINGS safety meeting (meet with
the controllers) and they confirmed that that is the way they do business in
the NY area.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am not a jet jockey. I fly a slow spam can. If I am given a SID or
> STAR I am going to be flying miles out of my way, well below traffic
> that the procedures are designed to separate.
>

Arrival/departure routes often vary with altitude. If a route applies to
your slow spam can it's going to be issued without regard to what you've put
in remarks. Putting "NO SIDS OR STARS" in remarks means you won't be issued
a SID or STAR by name, it'll just be issued in full. All you've done is
crowd the frequency.

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't they just give you the SID or STAR anyway, just spell it out
> for you?
>

Yup.

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
>
> You do not have to accept the clearance.
>

That's true. But the alternative may be staying on the ground in the case
of a SID or diverting to another airport in the case of a STAR.

In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:

> >>
> We negotiated on the ground for an hour. Their alternative was either 7000
> and
> their routing, or come back tomorrow. They were not going to give me
> anything
> else for any reason.
> <<
>
> I'll add to this... that I brought this up at a WINGS safety meeting (meet
> with
> the controllers) and they confirmed that that is the way they do business in
> the NY area.
>
> Jose

I've had similar conversations with CD at White Plains. The gist of
them is usually something like, "unable 8000 due to icing", "OK, you
need to work it out with the departure controller once you're in the
air".

It's stupid, but at least you need to stick to your guns. I've done it
a few times. You take off, and check in with departure:

"New York, Arrow 3875T, 1200 climbing 3000".

"Radar contact, climb maintain 8000".

"Unable 8000 due to icing"

"Nobody told me that, weren't you cleared to 8000 on the ground?"

"Yup, and I said unable, and the ground controller told me to work it
out with you"

eventually, they find something to do with you, but it sure doesn't seem
like the right way to run things.

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Teacherjh wrote:
> >
> > > > I always file "NO SIDS OR STARS" in the Remarks.
> >
> > Don't they just give you the SID or STAR anyway, just spell it out for
you?
> > They want to vector you far away, they vector you far away./
>
> You do not have to accept the clearance.

You can try going that route. If you get into busy airspace you will fly
the most efficient route for ATC. If you choose not to accept that then you
can wait until the traffic flow slows down. Might be hours.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

>
> eventually, they find something to do with you, but it sure doesn't seem
> like the right way to run things.

But be careful because ATC may have to have you at 8000. So if you are
unable you may be parked for a long while.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Teacherjh) wrote:
>
> > >>
> > We negotiated on the ground for an hour. Their alternative was either
7000
> > and
> > their routing, or come back tomorrow. They were not going to give me
> > anything
> > else for any reason.
> > <<
> >
> > I'll add to this... that I brought this up at a WINGS safety meeting
(meet
> > with
> > the controllers) and they confirmed that that is the way they do
business in
> > the NY area.
> >
> > Jose
>
> I've had similar conversations with CD at White Plains. The gist of
> them is usually something like, "unable 8000 due to icing", "OK, you
> need to work it out with the departure controller once you're in the
> air".
>
> It's stupid, but at least you need to stick to your guns. I've done it
> a few times. You take off, and check in with departure:
>
> "New York, Arrow 3875T, 1200 climbing 3000".
>
> "Radar contact, climb maintain 8000".
>
> "Unable 8000 due to icing"
>
> "Nobody told me that, weren't you cleared to 8000 on the ground?"
>
> "Yup, and I said unable, and the ground controller told me to work it
> out with you"
>
> eventually, they find something to do with you, but it sure doesn't seem
> like the right way to run things.

Hm, I think I'd assume that it's not safe or legal for me to take off on a
clearance that I know I can't safely or legally fly (even if that's what the
ground controller suggests). It's a shame if the system expects us to do
that.

--Gary

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've had similar conversations with CD at White Plains. The gist of
> them is usually something like, "unable 8000 due to icing", "OK, you
> need to work it out with the departure controller once you're in the
> air".
>
> It's stupid, but at least you need to stick to your guns. I've done it
> a few times. You take off, and check in with departure:
>
> "New York, Arrow 3875T, 1200 climbing 3000".
>
> "Radar contact, climb maintain 8000".
>
> "Unable 8000 due to icing"
>
> "Nobody told me that, weren't you cleared to 8000 on the ground?"
>
> "Yup, and I said unable, and the ground controller told me to work it
> out with you"
>
> eventually, they find something to do with you, but it sure doesn't seem
> like the right way to run things.
>

What was your plan if departure couldn't find something to do with you?

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I've had similar conversations with CD at White Plains. The gist of
> > them is usually something like, "unable 8000 due to icing", "OK, you
> > need to work it out with the departure controller once you're in the
> > air".
> >
> > It's stupid, but at least you need to stick to your guns. I've done it
> > a few times. You take off, and check in with departure:
> >
> > "New York, Arrow 3875T, 1200 climbing 3000".
> >
> > "Radar contact, climb maintain 8000".
> >
> > "Unable 8000 due to icing"
> >
> > "Nobody told me that, weren't you cleared to 8000 on the ground?"
> >
> > "Yup, and I said unable, and the ground controller told me to work it
> > out with you"
> >
> > eventually, they find something to do with you, but it sure doesn't seem
> > like the right way to run things.
> >
>
> What was your plan if departure couldn't find something to do with you?

Didn't really have one, but so far they've always managed to work
something out. I'm not saying this is a good (or particularly smart)
thing, but I see it more as a problem for ATC than for me (as long as I
don't let them talk me into climbing into the ice).

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Didn't really have one, but so far they've always managed to work
> something out. I'm not saying this is a good (or particularly smart)
> thing, but I see it more as a problem for ATC than for me (as long as I
> don't let them talk me into climbing into the ice).
>

Didn't clearance delivery already talk you into climbing into the ice?
What's your plan if departure doesn't have an alternative for you?

N12345: "White Plains departure, unable 8000 due to icing, request 3000 as
final today"
WPD: "Negative, climb and maintain 8000"
N12345: "N12345 declaring an emergency"....

The Feds would smile all the way to your hearing on this one...it is an
emergency of your own making


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In article >, Ray Andraka
> wrote:

> N12345: "White Plains departure, unable 8000 due to icing, request 3000 as
> final today"
> WPD: "Negative, climb and maintain 8000"
> N12345: "N12345 declaring an emergency"....
>
> The Feds would smile all the way to your hearing on this one...it is an
> emergency of your own making

This was going to be my response.
The FARs prohibit you from flying into icing in an aircraft not
certified for icing. By accepting the clearance, you are violating the
FARs.

Which leads to another question...

If ATC issues a clearance which will cause you to violate the FARs, are
you legally bound to accept it?

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> If ATC issues a clearance which will cause you to violate the FARs, are
> you legally bound to accept it?
>

No, and that is made known to controllers.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-8.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10.
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.

>>
But be careful because ATC may have to have you at 8000. So if you are
unable you may be parked for a long while.
<<

If I'm picking up ice, the laws of physics will take over, and whether or not
they "have to have me" at 8000, I won't be there.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

>>
If ATC issues a clearance which will cause you to violate the FARs, are
you legally bound to accept it?
<<

No.

If you are in the air, you still fly your old clearance while you reject the
new one and you and ATC work it out. If you are on the ground however, ATC has
no incentive to work it out with you. You end up staying on the ground.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

> If you are in the air, you still fly your old clearance while you reject
the
> new one and you and ATC work it out. If you are on the ground however,
ATC has
> no incentive to work it out with you. You end up staying on the ground.

what old clearance? You were told told to expect 8,000 on the ground.
Taking off is by definition acceptance of a clearance.

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> If I'm picking up ice, the laws of physics will take over, and whether
> or not they "have to have me" at 8000, I won't be there.
>

There's little other choice at that point. But there's sure to be
consequences.

>>
what old clearance? You were told told to expect 8,000 on the ground.
Taking off is by definition acceptance of a clearance.
<<

True. But I was expanding the point a bit. You're in the air, cleared at 5000
feet direct to Podunk. Freezing level is 6000 feet. Bigtown approach gives
you a new clearance - 8000 feet and ten miles over the ocean. You reject that
clearance, and still have your old clearance. Ultimately ATC needs to work
this out with you and with other aircraft. You are under no obligation to
accept the new clearance.

You're on the ground, and they offer you a clearance into the ice. You refuse,
you don't go anywhere. You're not in the air yet. You accept it hoping to
negotiate in the air. They won't play ball. You DON'T have an "old clearance"
you can fly - you already accepted the clearance into the ice. If ATC refuses
to play ball because they "need" you somewhere, the laws of physics eventually
take over.

Yes, there will be consequences, and they won't be pretty.

They were two different scenarios, but both involved choosing to refuse (or
not) a clearance.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> If ATC issues a clearance which will cause you to violate the FARs, are
> you legally bound to accept it?
> <<
>
> No.
>
> If you are in the air, you still fly your old clearance while you reject
the
> new one and you and ATC work it out. If you are on the ground however,
ATC has
> no incentive to work it out with you. You end up staying on the ground.

You are the one with the incentive to wotk it out in the air. ATC will give
you what you want if they can. But they may not be able to.

>>
ATC will give
you what you want if they can. But they may not be able to.
<<

That seems to be true in most places. It does not seem to be true in the
metropolitan NY area, and this is confirmed by my inquiries during a safety
seminar. They said flat out that you will get 7000 via Pennsylvania no matter
what.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)