Clearance with an Odd Intersection

[Marco Leon]

Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that was
only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was in
my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
(albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI is
only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was the
active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.

Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?

Regards,
Marco Leon

[Stan Gosnell]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in
:

> Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection
> that was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?

Sure. The ATC specialist who figures out the clearance may not even know
what charts it's on. You have to be flexible.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Marco Leon]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. The ATC specialist who figures out the clearance may not even know
> what charts it's on. You have to be flexible.

So if I had queried the controller, then we'd have both been in the dark?
Sounds like we would have spent quite a bit of time looking. Well, if I have
to spread out my IAP charts, then I will. *sigh*

Thanks,

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:39:25 -0500, "Marco Leon"
<mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:

>So if I had queried the controller, then we'd have both been in the dark?
>Sounds like we would have spent quite a bit of time looking. Well, if I have
>to spread out my IAP charts, then I will. *sigh*


Something everyone should do before every instrument flight.

Here's some advice. Never launch on a clearance you have not
thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, fix by fix, right to the ground.

That way, you won't find yourself airborne reworking your clearance to
nowhere out with a controller (assuming your radio is working at the
time).

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:39:25 -0500, "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net>
wrote:

>So if I had queried the controller, then we'd have both been in the dark?

Had you queried the controller about the location of the intersection, he
would be able to give you coordinates.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Marco Leon]

I did review them but I concentrated on the GPS 33 considering the winds
were 310. To be honest, I didn't think I needed to scour the approach charts
to verify my enroute clearance. Besides, the routing as mapped out on the
GPS verified that it was not a "route-to-nowhere" which is why I took off. I
also had another intersection in mind right next to it (BOROS) that was on
the enroute charts that I can follow if there was a mistake.

Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire route
clearance before departure.

Marco

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:39:25 -0500, "Marco Leon"
> <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >So if I had queried the controller, then we'd have both been in the dark?
> >Sounds like we would have spent quite a bit of time looking. Well, if I
have
> >to spread out my IAP charts, then I will. *sigh*
>
>
> Something everyone should do before every instrument flight.
>
> Here's some advice. Never launch on a clearance you have not
> thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, fix by fix, right to the ground.
>
> That way, you won't find yourself airborne reworking your clearance to
> nowhere out with a controller (assuming your radio is working at the
> time).

[Marco Leon]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Had you queried the controller about the location of the intersection, he
> would be able to give you coordinates.

As in LAT/LONG coordinates or radial fixes? Hadn't thought of that. I'll try
next time.

Marco

[Michelle P]

Marco,
If you filed /G then the controller will not even ask. They know it is
in the Nav Database.
Michelle

Marco Leon wrote:

>Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that was
>only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
>Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
>radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
>For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was in
>my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
>(albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI is
>only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was the
>active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
>
>Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
>IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
>fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
>
>Regards,
>Marco Leon
>
>
>
>

[Stan Prevost]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Had you queried the controller about the location of the intersection, he
>> would be able to give you coordinates.
>
> As in LAT/LONG coordinates or radial fixes? Hadn't thought of that. I'll
> try
> next time.
>

The Garmin should also be able to give you that info, although knowing
lat/long won't help you find it on any chart, assuming that it is not on the
enroute as you said.

[Marco Leon]

Now THAT makes sense. Is that a common thing with the air carriers?

Thanks,

Marco


"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Marco,
> If you filed /G then the controller will not even ask. They know it is
> in the Nav Database.
> Michelle
>
> Marco Leon wrote:
>
> >Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
was
> >only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
> >Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
> >radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
> >For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
in
> >my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
> >(albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
is
> >only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was
the
> >active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
> >
> >Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
> >IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
> >fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Marco Leon
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Bob Gardner]

Not at all unusual. You have to keep both the approach plate and low
altitude chart (or area chart) close at hand for reference.

Bob Gardner

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
> was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
> Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
> radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
> For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
> in my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
> (albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
> is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was
> the active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
>
> Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
> IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
> fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
>
> Regards,
> Marco Leon
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
> was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
> Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
> radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
> For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
> in my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
> (albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
> is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was
> the active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
>
> Is this commom anywhere else?
>

It's not unusual to use an approach fix at the destination airport.


>
> Should they have told me it was only on an IAP chart?
>

Since you were landing there they probably assumed you were familiar with
the approaches.


>
> Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
> fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
>

If you're landing at that airport, yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Had you queried the controller about the location of the intersection, he
> would be able to give you coordinates.
>

Possibly, but not necessarily.

[Stan Gosnell]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in :

> Now THAT makes sense. Is that a common thing with the air carriers?

Air carriers almost always use canned flight plans that never vary, and
they seldom file /G.

I file /G every time as a Part 135 pilot, and seldom to the same place, so
every flight plan is different, and the routes can be really weird,
especially the ones going offshore. If you have a GPS, then all you need
to do is pull the intersections up on it. The GPS doesn't care where the
waypoint is charted, it just knows where it is, and will take you there.
Another place to look for intersections, especially at or near your
destination, is on the STARs.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Dane Spearing]

Good advice. However, it's not always practical. As I learned early on in my
first few flights as a newly-minted IFR pilot, you ain't always going to get
what you file. Further more, you ain't always going to fly what you're
initially cleared for.

I've had plently of flights where my initial clearance didn't even remotely
resemble what I filed, and what I actually ended up flying didn't exactly
match the initial clearance. ATC has a interesting habit of dynamically
re-routing you based on traffic, weather, and how nice they're feeling that
day. Flexibility is certainly a key element of IFR flight (as is not
accepting a clearance that you're not comfortable with).

Being able to "re-route" in flight with the low-altitude chart in your lap
(or high-altitude, if you're lucky enough to fly such a beast) is a
necessary skill in IFR flying.

-- Dane

In article >,
> wrote:
>Here's some advice. Never launch on a clearance you have not
>thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, fix by fix, right to the ground.
>
>That way, you won't find yourself airborne reworking your clearance to
>nowhere out with a controller (assuming your radio is working at the
>time).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've had plently of flights where my initial clearance didn't even
> remotely
> resemble what I filed, and what I actually ended up flying didn't exactly
> match the initial clearance. ATC has a interesting habit of dynamically
> re-routing you based on traffic, weather, and how nice they're feeling
> that
> day.
>

Traffic and weather are pretty good reasons for rerouting, moods are not.


>
> Flexibility is certainly a key element of IFR flight (as is not
> accepting a clearance that you're not comfortable with).
>

Sometimes you have to choose between being a bit uncomfortable and not
making the flight.

[[email protected]]

is MONDI on a SID ?
Information on fix MONDI
Name: MONDI
Identifier: MONDI
Location: 41-09-17.220N / 072-11-58.770W (NEW YORK)
ARTCC: ZBW
Fix to be published? yes
Navaid radial/DME: MAD </cgi-bin/navaid-info?a=MAD>r126.00
GON </cgi-bin/navaid-info?a=GON>r226.45
HTO </cgi-bin/navaid-info?a=HTO>r033.56
I-GON SW CRS/13.23
Charts: IAP
Fix use: Reporting point

if you don't under stand the clearance ask ? for clarification
try not to accept any clearance you don't understand
jon

[Marco Leon]

At an airport with multiple approaches, it still seems cumbersome spread out
all the approach plates to understand an enroute clearance. One or two would
be fine but airports like KFRG with 5 or 6 doesn't strike me as logical
since the winds aren't (and can't be) taken into account.

Well, now I know and I appreciate the new knowledge.

Thanks Bob,

Marco


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Not at all unusual. You have to keep both the approach plate and low
> altitude chart (or area chart) close at hand for reference.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
>> was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
>> Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
>> radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
>> For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
>> in my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
>> (albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
>> is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33
>> was the active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
>>
>> Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
>> IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
>> fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marco Leon
>>
>>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good advice. However, it's not always practical. As I learned early on in
my
>
> I've had plently of flights where my initial clearance didn't even
remotely
> resemble what I filed, and what I actually ended up flying didn't exactly
> match the initial clearance.

If I made it from Boston to White Plains without getting re-routed at least
once I'd expect to see locusts, four horsemen, and dogs and cats living
together when I landed. You file the preferred routes, they clear you
somewhere else, and up in the air they change their minds again often more
than once in the flight.

-cwk.

[Michelle P]

Stan,
They may not file /G but all of our planes are equipped with GPS and use
it all the time. They are offered direct to a fix outside the rage of a
VOR and take it all the time.
Michelle (veteran of many jumpseat rides)

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in :
>
>
>
>>Now THAT makes sense. Is that a common thing with the air carriers?
>>
>>
>
>Air carriers almost always use canned flight plans that never vary, and
>they seldom file /G.
>
>I file /G every time as a Part 135 pilot, and seldom to the same place, so
>every flight plan is different, and the routes can be really weird,
>especially the ones going offshore. If you have a GPS, then all you need
>to do is pull the intersections up on it. The GPS doesn't care where the
>waypoint is charted, it just knows where it is, and will take you there.
>Another place to look for intersections, especially at or near your
>destination, is on the STARs.
>
>
>

[Newps]

>>
>> Air carriers almost always use canned flight plans that never vary,

Most air carrier flight plans are not canned in the sense that the same
flight plan is prefiled and does not ever change. Air carrier flight
plans are typically filed the same day as the flight and do vary
according to weather or flow restrictions.


>> and they seldom file /G.

If the aircraft is capable of /G then that is what they would file.
Nowadays with the jets pretty much all you see is /Q and /W.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:41:34 -0600, Journeyman
> wrote:

>In article >, Marco Leon wrote:
>>
>> Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire route
>> clearance before departure.
>
>Flying in the NYC area (FRG) and you've never had an airborne reroute?
>
>
>Morris


Reroutes aren't the issue.

If you get a reroute, you need to re-understand your (newly) planned
route, right to the ground.

[Marco Leon]

What does that have to do with what I wrote? You should understand your
clearance regardless if it's a reroute or not.

Marco

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Marco Leon wrote:
> >
> > Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire
route
> > clearance before departure.
>
> Flying in the NYC area (FRG) and you've never had an airborne reroute?
>
>
> Morris



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
> > was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
> > Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
> > radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
> > For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
> > in my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
> > (albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
> > is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was
> > the active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
> >
> > Is this commom anywhere else?
> >
>
> It's not unusual to use an approach fix at the destination airport.
>
> >
> > Should they have told me it was only on an IAP chart?
> >
>
> Since you were landing there they probably assumed you were familiar with
> the approaches.
>
> >
> > Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
> > fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
> >
>
> If you're landing at that airport, yes.

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to accept a
clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an uncomfortable
position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if
there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists,
radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance
with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:

>> FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three, radar
>> vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct. [...] Turns
>> out MONDI is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF.

> If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
> accept a clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to
> an IAF or vectors.

Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
get vectored onto the ILS. So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
> accept a
> clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
> vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an
> uncomfortable
> position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach
> Procedures
> shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix
> if
> there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage
> exists,
> radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in
> accordance
> with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."
>

A clearance direct to an intermediate fix was not issued in this case, the
clearance was the MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The
controller did not violate FAAO 7110.65 para 5-9-1, this routing was issued
with the departure clearance from FRG.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
> environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
> seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
> get vectored onto the ILS.
>

The clearance issued in this case does not require going direct to an
intermediate fix. The portion of the clearance were concerned with is the
MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The radial to MONDI is
specified and both segments are within usable navaid distances. This
clearance is good even in a nonradar environment.


>
> So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
> ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?
>

Approach instructions are generally not included in the departure clearance.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> >> FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three, radar
> >> vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct. [...] Turns
> >> out MONDI is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF.
>
> > If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
> > accept a clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to
> > an IAF or vectors.
>
> Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
> environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
> seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
> get vectored onto the ILS. So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
> ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?

I wish I could be sent direct to MONDI, provided it is at a angle and altitude
similar to a vector provided in accordance with 7110.65, 5-9-1.

And, the mighty chiefs at Air Traffic headquarters have been working on such a
handbook provision, which may come out this year, but only for RNAV
approaches. Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
decision of one of the senior AT managers.

It is not a question of me being happy, it is a question of procedural limits
that are established by FAA management (usually, but not always, with good
reason).

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
> > accept a
> > clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
> > vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an
> > uncomfortable
> > position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach
> > Procedures
> > shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix
> > if
> > there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage
> > exists,
> > radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in
> > accordance
> > with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."
> >
>
> A clearance direct to an intermediate fix was not issued in this case, the
> clearance was the MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The
> controller did not violate FAAO 7110.65 para 5-9-1, this routing was issued
> with the departure clearance from FRG.

Agreed. I missed the MONDI-GON part.

[[email protected]]

>
> Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
> decision of one of the senior AT managers.
>

Should read "not be" rather than "be be"

[[email protected]]

>
> Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
> decision of one of the senior AT managers.

Should read "not be" rather than "be be"

[[email protected]]

>
> Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
> decision of one of the senior AT managers.

Should read "not be" rather than "be be"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> I wish I could be sent direct to MONDI, provided it is at a angle and
> altitude
> similar to a vector provided in accordance with 7110.65, 5-9-1.
>
> And, the mighty chiefs at Air Traffic headquarters have been working on
> such a
> handbook provision, which may come out this year, but only for RNAV
> approaches. Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per
> the
> decision of one of the senior AT managers.
>
> It is not a question of me being happy, it is a question of procedural
> limits
> that are established by FAA management (usually, but not always, with good
> reason).
>

FAAO 7110.65 para 5-9-1. is not applicable to the situation under
discussion.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Marco Leon wrote:
> What does that have to do with what I wrote? You should understand your
> clearance regardless if it's a reroute or not.
>
>> > Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire
> route
>> > clearance before departure.
>>
>> Flying in the NYC area (FRG) and you've never had an airborne reroute?

It's pretty hard to know your entire route before departure if they
bloody change it in the middle of your flight. Yeah, once you get
it, you should understand it. I'm just pointing out the impracticality
of always knowing it before departure.

First time that happened, I was coming from KORF (Norfolk, VA) and was
cleared as filed, V1 to JFK then direct KHPN. Halfway through the
flight, they rerouted me with a bunch of fixes and Victor airways in
a bunch of segments forming an arc around the The City.

Figuring this out on the fly is not optimal, but it happens.

I now make sure I have a highliter in easy reach, and discovered the
hard way, blue highlighters don't work at night (but that was another
trip).


Morris

[Ash Wyllie]

Steven P. McNicoll opined

>"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Hmmph.
>>
>> 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.

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

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


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Eric Rood]

Which is you do not blindly accept a clearance without first studying
the reroute.
After studying the reroute, you must determine if it will adversely
affect your planning.(fuel, terrain, weather, safety, etc)
If you need more information, request it, but do not accept the
clearance until you have all the information you require.
I have gotten reroutes that would have taken me over a hundred miles off
my route. That would have added significant fuel consumption and
required a additional fuel stop.

Journeyman wrote:
> It's pretty hard to know your entire route before departure if they
> bloody change it in the middle of your flight. Yeah, once you get
> it, you should understand it. I'm just pointing out the impracticality
> of always knowing it before departure.
> First time that happened, I was coming from KORF (Norfolk, VA) and was
> cleared as filed, V1 to JFK then direct KHPN. Halfway through the
> flight, they rerouted me with a bunch of fixes and Victor airways in
> a bunch of segments forming an arc around the The City.
> Figuring this out on the fly is not optimal, but it happens.
> I now make sure I have a highliter in easy reach, and discovered the
> hard way, blue highlighters don't work at night (but that was another
> trip).

[Journeyman]

In article >, Eric Rood 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.

Much as we'd all prefer to figure out my route on the ground, this
happens occasionally while airborne. My only $0.02 to add to the
conversation.


Morris

[Jose]

>>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?

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.

[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.

[Jose]

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

[Steven P. 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."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> 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?
>

You can't. You can request a further revision, but you "accept" a clearance
when you acknowledge it.

[Jose]

>> 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?
>
> You can't. You can request a further revision, but you "accept" a clearance
> when you acknowledge it.
>

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.

Hmmph.

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.

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> 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.
>
> Hmmph.
>
> 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.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:16:20 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>> 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.

This is written where?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:25:38 GMT, 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


He's full of it.

You can certainly read back a clearance and subsequently reject it.

In fact, the regulations require you to.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:49:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>You can't. You can request a further revision, but you "accept" a clearance
>when you acknowledge it.
>

As pilot in command, I cannot accept a clearance that places my
aircraft in danger.

I must read a clearance back to ensure understanding.

Are you suggesting that there is some kind of "conditional" clearance
that I must use if it is possible that I have been issued a clearance
that sends me into ice, over large bodies of water, ouside my fuel
reserve, etc., etc., etc.?

[[email protected]]

Well, you have to remember that a wet t-shirt on your back pales in
comparison to a cold cup of coffee next to the radar screen.

You've got your problems, ATC has theirs.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:10:17 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>> 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?
>>
>> You can't. You can request a further revision, but you "accept" a clearance
>> when you acknowledge it.
>>
>
>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.
>
>Hmmph.
>
>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.
>
>Jose

[Journeyman]

In article >, Jose wrote:
>>
>> 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?

That's my understanding. OTOH, a lot has to go wrong for that to
happen. First they have to give you a bad clearance. Rare but it
happens. Second, your radios have to fail suddenly with no warning.
Rare. Third, they have to fail at the worst possible moment. Unlikely
but not impossible.

Lost comm in IFR conditions is as much an emergency as you care to
call it. I'd probably stick to my original route and let ATC figure
it out. Similarly, what do you do about thunderstorms or icing in
a lost comm situation?

Of course, there are other things in aviation that are much more
likely to kill me, so I'm not going to spend too much time worrying
about this specific scenario.


Morris

[Journeyman]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Roy Smith]

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.

[[email protected]]

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).

[Matt Barrow]

> 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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Jose]

> 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.

[[email protected]]

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)

[John R. Copeland]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Chris]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> 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."

Surely, the answer is to copy the clearance and ask the controller to
standby for the readback. Check the routing and then ask the controller if
he is ready to copy the readback.

who says the read back has to be instantaneous

[jsmith]

The correct response is: "Standby."
This one word connotes that you are evaluating the route and your options.
Your next communication may be to request a clarification, negotiate a
different route that you notice as you look at the reroute, or flat out
refuse the clearance.
Miami Center kept trying to route me out over the ocean numberous times
after I refused a reroute. They tried to get me to fly an assigned
heading which was exactly the heading for the airway reroute. Even after
being advised that there was no floatation gear onboard and the reroute
would put me in violation of the FAR's, the controllers response was,
"Your not going to be out there that long."
When you are used to working multiengine jet transports the times are
minimal, but for a single engine piston, the time would be 30 minutes.

Jose wrote:
> 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?

[Barry]

> ... there was no floatation gear onboard and the reroute would put me in
> violation of the FAR's ...

Was the flight for hire?

[jsmith]

No. Personal flight with my family onboard.
Part 91 requires floatation gear for flight beyond gliding range.

Barry wrote:
>>... there was no floatation gear onboard and the reroute would put me in
>>violation of the FAR's ...

> Was the flight for hire?

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:02:09 GMT, jsmith > wrote:

>No. Personal flight with my family onboard.
>Part 91 requires floatation gear for flight beyond gliding range.
>


I don't think so.




>Barry wrote:
>>>... there was no floatation gear onboard and the reroute would put me in
>>>violation of the FAR's ...
>
>> Was the flight for hire?

..

[Barry]

> No. Personal flight with my family onboard.
> Part 91 requires floatation gear for flight beyond gliding range.

The only Part 91 requirements I'm aware of (except for some helicopter ops)
are 91.205b(12), which applies only when operating for hire, and 91.509, which
applies only to large, turbine-powered, or fractional ownership aircraft. I
would also refuse to fly far off-shore without flotation equipment, but I'm
pretty sure it's not prohibited by the regs. I do occasionally fly beyond
gliding range for short periods.

[Doug Carter]

Barry wrote:
>>No. Personal flight with my family onboard.
>>Part 91 requires floatation gear for flight beyond gliding range.
>
>
> The only Part 91 requirements I'm aware of (except for some helicopter ops)
> are 91.205b(12), which applies only when operating for hire, and 91.509, which
> applies only to large, turbine-powered, or fractional ownership aircraft. I
> would also refuse to fly far off-shore without flotation equipment, but I'm
> pretty sure it's not prohibited by the regs. I do occasionally fly beyond
> gliding range for short periods.
>

I used to fly over Chesapeake Bay in my Pitts a lot. This airplane has
about the same glide angle as a man hole cover so I just made sure there
were plenty of boats around to ask for a lift. I'm a good swimmer and
alone in the airplane.

IMC with other people in the airplane? Errr, No. Don't really care
what the FAA thinks.

[Ash Wyllie]

cfeyeeye opined

>On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:28:53 GMT, jsmith > wrote:

>>The correct response is: "Standby."


>He said he wanted to " acknowledge that I have heard and undestood
>(correctly) the clearance"

>"Standby" doesn't do it.

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.

>>This one word connotes that you are evaluating the route and your options.
>>Your next communication may be to request a clarification, negotiate a
>>different route that you notice as you look at the reroute, or flat out
>>refuse the clearance.
>>Miami Center kept trying to route me out over the ocean numberous times
>>after I refused a reroute. They tried to get me to fly an assigned
>>heading which was exactly the heading for the airway reroute. Even after
>>being advised that there was no floatation gear onboard and the reroute
>>would put me in violation of the FAR's, the controllers response was,
>>"Your not going to be out there that long."
>>When you are used to working multiengine jet transports the times are
>>minimal, but for a single engine piston, the time would be 30 minutes.
>>
>>Jose wrote:
>>> 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?



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[jsmith]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes it does...

No it doesn't, you're confusing STAND BY with ROGER.


>
> 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.
>

STAND BY means the pilot must pause for a few seconds, usually to attend to
other duties of a higher priority.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Ash Wyllie]

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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Jose]

> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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...

[[email protected]]

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.

[Roy Smith]

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.

[Ash Wyllie]

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?

[Jose]

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

No, my other alternative is to fly the clearance I already have.

But the point isn't that I can't accept =any= revised clearance (at
all), but rather, that I can't accept =any= (arbitrary) revised
clearance. You can't create capabilities in my aircraft by talking on
the radio, and you can't assume that any IFR aircraft is capable of
magic either.

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

The original clearance was an option when it was given to me. It
remains an option throughout my flight. It is ATC's job to ensure that
it remains an option. ATC may, with the pilot's cooperation negotiate a
reroute. Usually this is done unilaterally with no problem. But ATC's
failure to ensure that my clearance remains viable does not impose upon
me an obligation to endanger myself (such as by climbing to an icing
altitude and/or flying sixty miles offshore).

ATC: Amend altitude, climb maintain niner thousand

Me: Unable due to ice.

ATC: Ok, I'll cancel IFR for you.

Me: Negative, we're IMC.

ATC: Well, you're no longer IFR, so you're in violation. I'll pull the
tapes and have an inspector waiting when you arrive.

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.

[Roy Smith]

Jose > wrote:
> The original clearance was an option when it was given to me. It
> remains an option throughout my flight. It is ATC's job to ensure that
> it remains an option.

**** happens. Weather changes. Navaids fail. Traffic doesn't flow
as originally expected. Airports or runways close down. You need to
accept the possibility that your original clearance may no longer be
available.

Insisting that you MUST be able to continue as originally cleared is
as silly as insisting that a pilot MUST accept any altered clearance.

[Jose]

> **** happens. [...] You need to accept the possibility
> that your original clearance may no longer be available.
>
> Insisting that you MUST be able to continue as originally cleared is
> as silly as insisting that a pilot MUST accept any altered clearance.

True. My issue is "your only alternative is to accept the new clearance
or cancel IFR", and "You've accepted the clearance just by reading it back."

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.

[jsmith]

No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Correct, but if you cannot accept any revised clearance your only
> alternative is to cancel IFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>
> No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.
>

An alternate routing would require a revised clearance.

[Jose]

>>No it isn't. You can negotiate an alternate routing.
> An alternate routing would require a revised clearance.
>

You can also negotiate to keep your original clearance (done that too).
But you are in a better position to do so if you have not =accepted= a
clearance merely by confirming that you correctly understand ATC's
request. And you can't do any of that NORDO.

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.

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:

> True. My issue is "your only alternative is to accept the new clearance
> or cancel IFR", and "You've accepted the clearance just by reading it
> back."

So if you "accept" a clearance and then figure out you don't like it,
what happens when you try and change it? Does, in real life, ATC refuse
your request to change or do they really insist that you, for example,
climb into known icing conditions in your uncertified airplane?

In other words, is ATC really mean and uncaring? Never happened to me,
but my experience is limited; every time I've asked ATC to help me fix
something, regardless of whos screwup, they have been reasonable.

[John Clonts]

"Jose" > wrote in message . com...
>>
>> 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?
>

It seems to me that this would be a perfect place to use the distinction between "Roger" and "Roger, Wilco",
but I lament that it's never used that way!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Charlie Derk]

Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC assumes
that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
database. I've gotten something like this before, but it was enroute
and ATC asked me if I could identify the intersection. After I
acknowledged that I could, ATC told me "Direct to" that intersection.

Regards,
Charlie

Marco Leon wrote:
> Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that was
> only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
> Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
> radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
> For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was in
> my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
> (albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI is
> only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was the
> active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.
>
> Is this commom anywhere else? Should they have told me it was only on an
> IAP chart? Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
> fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?
>
> Regards,
> Marco Leon
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Charlie Derk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC assumes
> that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
> database.

Why would ATC assume anything else?

[Jose]

> So if you "accept" a clearance and then figure out you don't like it, what happens when you try and change it? Does, in real life, ATC refuse your request to change or do they really insist that you, for example, climb into known icing conditions in your uncertified airplane?

Sometimes, and sometimes.

In general ATC works with the pilot, especially if the pilot isn't being
a hardnose. I've re-negotiated clearances and gotten what I wanted -
for example not to fly out over the sea. Sometimes I haven't gotten
what I =wanted= (direct JFK direct CMK) but gotten something I could
work with (roundabout via Sparta). And sometimes I've just been stuck
(freezing layer 6000, filed 4000, MEA 3000, but the only clearance we'll
get in the NY area is climb maintain 7000, negotiate in the air. It was
a broken layer and I ended up taking the clearance after an hour of back
and forth on the ground where ATC would not budge. I dodged the ice up
to 7000, then got into cloud and ATC would not give me lower. They were
willing to climb me to 9000 where I was on top.

I guess that counts as ATC helping to fix something (I got 9000 and
clear of clouds) but, while the airspace is crowded in the NYC area, I
should be able to get a 4000 enroute altitude in a non-deiced cherokee.

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.

[jsmith]

Yes, but to enter the intersection into your flight plan on your GPS,
you must first know how it is spelled. If you are not familiar with the
area you are flying in and the controller speaks the name of an
intersection, you may not know where to look on the chart to see how it
is spelled.

Charlie Derk wrote:
> Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC assumes
> that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
> database. I've gotten something like this before, but it was enroute
> and ATC asked me if I could identify the intersection. After I
> acknowledged that I could, ATC told me "Direct to" that intersection.

[[email protected]]

The recommended procedure if you don't know how to spell the identifier
is to respond with "Say Identifier". If it will take awhile to program
the intersection into the GPS, you could also ask for a heading.

jsmith wrote:
> Yes, but to enter the intersection into your flight plan on your GPS,

> you must first know how it is spelled. If you are not familiar with
the
> area you are flying in and the controller speaks the name of an
> intersection, you may not know where to look on the chart to see how
it
> is spelled.
>
> Charlie Derk wrote:
> > Typically, if you file your IFR flight plan with /G, I think ATC
assumes
> > that its an IFR Certified GPS and that the intersection is in the
> > database. I've gotten something like this before, but it was
enroute
> > and ATC asked me if I could identify the intersection. After I
> > acknowledged that I could, ATC told me "Direct to" that
intersection.