"Refusing to Handle You"

[Mike Granby]

So, an interesting thing happened today. I am at a fly-in at Hagerstown
and about to head back to my home-base at York (THV). I can see from
the PC they had there that there is a line of heavy rain and possibly
thunderstorms blocking my route back. There is no way around it to the
north, but there is a way to the south. So, instead of the usual
KHGR->SCAPE->THV to take me north of Camp David, I file a route via
HGR->MRB->EMI to so south and get in to York through the back door.
When I pick up my clearance, I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
"unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
least, some nasty weather. I ask for a hold at HGR to consider my
options, and luckily, by now the StormScope is showing the line has
dissipated. Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells
appearing along that route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take
the SCAPE route. All ends well, and we have an almost smooth ride, but
I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
wouldn't honor it! Comments???

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> So, an interesting thing happened today. I am at a fly-in at Hagerstown
> and about to head back to my home-base at York (THV). I can see from
> the PC they had there that there is a line of heavy rain and possibly
> thunderstorms blocking my route back. There is no way around it to the
> north, but there is a way to the south. So, instead of the usual
> KHGR->SCAPE->THV to take me north of Camp David, I file a route via
> HGR->MRB->EMI to so south and get in to York through the back door.
> When I pick up my clearance, I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
> "unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
> clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
> southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
> on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
> least, some nasty weather. I ask for a hold at HGR to consider my
> options, and luckily, by now the StormScope is showing the line has
> dissipated. Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells
> appearing along that route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take
> the SCAPE route. All ends well, and we have an almost smooth ride, but
> I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
> wouldn't honor it! Comments???
>

Some TRACONs simply do not handle thruflights, that may be the case here.
One way around that is to make a stop at a field within that TRACON's
airspace. Then you're not a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure.

[Mike Granby]

> One way around that is to make a stop
> at a field within that TRACON's airspace.

I know someone who pulled this trick on NYC TRACON once, but he even
had the nerve to call them as he neared the airport he'd file to, and
ask to change his destination to where he really want to go!
Apparently, there was much sighing from the controller, but in the end,
the pilot got what he wanted.

[Michelle P]

Mike,
A phone call to their QA/QC dept. in order.
540-349-7500 main number
540-349-7548 QC dept. if no answer in a couple of days call the number
below.
540-349-7505 for the QC Manager.
Have the time, frequency and tail number ready. You will likely need to
leave a phone message.
Let them know they refused the hand off from Washington.
Michelle

Mike Granby wrote:

>So, an interesting thing happened today. I am at a fly-in at Hagerstown
>and about to head back to my home-base at York (THV). I can see from
>the PC they had there that there is a line of heavy rain and possibly
>thunderstorms blocking my route back. There is no way around it to the
>north, but there is a way to the south. So, instead of the usual
>KHGR->SCAPE->THV to take me north of Camp David, I file a route via
>HGR->MRB->EMI to so south and get in to York through the back door.
>When I pick up my clearance, I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
>"unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
>clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
>southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
>calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
>you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
>on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
>least, some nasty weather. I ask for a hold at HGR to consider my
>options, and luckily, by now the StormScope is showing the line has
>dissipated. Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells
>appearing along that route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take
>the SCAPE route. All ends well, and we have an almost smooth ride, but
>I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
>wouldn't honor it! Comments???
>
>
>

[A Lieberman]

On 16 Jul 2005 15:08:22 -0700, Mike Granby wrote:

> southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions."

Mike,

You are PIC. I would have declared an emergency and squawked 7700.

Go to http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets_nf.htm and download the .pdf
file weather encounters. Happens more frequently then I ever expected.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> You are PIC. I would have declared an emergency and squawked 7700.
>

What would the emergency be?

[Warren Jones]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Mike,
> A phone call to their QA/QC dept. in order.
> 540-349-7500 main number
> 540-349-7548 QC dept. if no answer in a couple of days call the number
> below.
> 540-349-7505 for the QC Manager.
> Have the time, frequency and tail number ready. You will likely need to
> leave a phone message.
> Let them know they refused the hand off from Washington.
> Michelle
>

Michelle, what good would come of such a phone call? QA will give you lip
service, but you'd be wasting your time calling about this IMO.

Chip, ZTL

[Mike Granby]

Well, I can just about understand if Potomac doesn't want to handle
routes like that, but they ought to find a way of making sure that
clearances don't get issued that contain those routes. I would have
liked to have been able to plan my other options on the ground with a
PC in front of me, instead of in the air relying on the variable
accuracy of 'spherics.

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Granby wrote:
> So, an interesting thing happened today. I am at a fly-in at Hagerstown
> and about to head back to my home-base at York (THV). I can see from
> the PC they had there that there is a line of heavy rain and possibly
> thunderstorms blocking my route back. There is no way around it to the
> north, but there is a way to the south. So, instead of the usual
> KHGR->SCAPE->THV to take me north of Camp David, I file a route via
> HGR->MRB->EMI to so south and get in to York through the back door.
> When I pick up my clearance, I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
> "unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
> clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
> southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
> on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
> least, some nasty weather. I ask for a hold at HGR to consider my
> options, and luckily, by now the StormScope is showing the line has
> dissipated. Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells
> appearing along that route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take
> the SCAPE route. All ends well, and we have an almost smooth ride, but
> I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
> wouldn't honor it! Comments???
>

That's a new one for me. I've not had that happen in 10+ years of
flying IFR.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>So, an interesting thing happened today. I am at a fly-in at Hagerstown
>>and about to head back to my home-base at York (THV). I can see from
>>the PC they had there that there is a line of heavy rain and possibly
>>thunderstorms blocking my route back. There is no way around it to the
>>north, but there is a way to the south. So, instead of the usual
>>KHGR->SCAPE->THV to take me north of Camp David, I file a route via
>>HGR->MRB->EMI to so south and get in to York through the back door.
>>When I pick up my clearance, I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
>>"unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
>>clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
>>southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
>>calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
>>you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
>>on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
>>least, some nasty weather. I ask for a hold at HGR to consider my
>>options, and luckily, by now the StormScope is showing the line has
>>dissipated. Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells
>>appearing along that route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take
>>the SCAPE route. All ends well, and we have an almost smooth ride, but
>>I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
>>wouldn't honor it! Comments???
>>
>
>
> Some TRACONs simply do not handle thruflights, that may be the case here.
> One way around that is to make a stop at a field within that TRACON's
> airspace. Then you're not a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure.
>
>

Shouldn't that be taken into consideration by ATC prior to issuance of
the clearance?


Matt

[Michelle P]

You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have
to look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have
seen improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and
I have seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for
being rude and just plain wrong.
Michelle


Warren Jones wrote:

>"Michelle P" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
>>Mike,
>>A phone call to their QA/QC dept. in order.
>>540-349-7500 main number
>>540-349-7548 QC dept. if no answer in a couple of days call the number
>>below.
>>540-349-7505 for the QC Manager.
>>Have the time, frequency and tail number ready. You will likely need to
>>leave a phone message.
>>Let them know they refused the hand off from Washington.
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>>
>
>Michelle, what good would come of such a phone call? QA will give you lip
>service, but you'd be wasting your time calling about this IMO.
>
>Chip, ZTL
>
>
>
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:28:20 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> You are PIC. I would have declared an emergency and squawked 7700.
>>
>
> What would the emergency be?

Putting me into a heading that weather may compromise my safety. I am
basing this on Mikes original post.

He had a storm scope in which he was able to somewhat verify the weather
improved. I don't have this.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Shouldn't that be taken into consideration by ATC prior to issuance of the
> clearance?
>

They probably did. Remember, they initially issued a different route which
was declined due to weather. Perhaps they then issued the route through the
TRACON hoping they could sell it to approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Putting me into a heading that weather may compromise my safety. I am
> basing this on Mikes original post.
>

Denying you your desired route does not require you to fly into any weather.

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:59:10 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Putting me into a heading that weather may compromise my safety. I am
>> basing this on Mikes original post.
>>
>
> Denying you your desired route does not require you to fly into any weather.

If the weather was behind you like Mike described, and you can't proceed
forward, that in my opinion would be an emergency. He couldn't go further
on, and had to retrace his steps which would put have put him into bad
weather. His words were:

>>>So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
>>>on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
>>>least, some nasty weather.

I am making a lot of assumptions, since Mike was the one there and I was
not, so I don't know any other alternatives he had.

Again, if the weather was behind him and he couldn't proceed further on,
being turned back into nasty weather (his words, not mine) can be
considered an emergency.

Allen

[Mike Granby]

Well, to be fair, my "outs" would have been to either hold at HGR until
the storms fizzled out, or to land back at KHGR and wait it out on the
ground. So, no, I wasn't really in an emergency, just in an awkward
position, especially without access to real-time weather in the
cockpit. Plan B would have been to call flight service from the hold
and see what their radar was showing. What puzzled me was why I got the
clearance in the first place if it wasn't going to be honored. Of
course, in a few weeks, when the GPSMAP-396 arrives, none of this will
be an issue anymore...

[Lynne]

Back before I retired from Tower Air, we used to do something similar
quite frequently. I was on the B747-200 and a route which I did quite
frequently was JFK to LLBG (Ben Gurion; Tel Aviv, Israel). Due to range
constraints on the -200, we would not be able to legally file LLBG as
our destination, due to inadequate fuel reserves. Due to this, we would
file for LGAV (Athens, Greece) out of JFK, and approximately 500 NM
from LGAV, if the weather was good at LLBG, and we had the fuel to do
it, we would refile for LLBG. If the weather or fuel situation was not
good, we would land at LGAV, and fuel up then continue on to LLBG.

In the many years that I did this, Eurocontrol never once gave me any
trouble about it. It's a perfectly legitimate way to go about your
business while in the IFR system.

Lynne

[Jose]

> I am given the route via SCAPE, but I
> "unable" that for weather, and they go away for a few minutes, and then
> clear me as filed. I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
> southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions."

"I intend to fly my clearance. What are yours?" Hmmph.

Ok, might not put it quite that way, but I have a clearance and the
alternative of flying through thunderstorms is not acceptable. I think
I might ask what they mean "refused to handle me", but in any case a
NASA report is in order.

I would refuse to fly through thunderstorms to make them happy. If I
had spherics I would have more options, but blind and knowing what's
probably out there, I would have solid grounds for saying "unable" and
letting them sort it out later.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Shouldn't that be taken into consideration by ATC prior to issuance of the
>>clearance?
>>
>
>
> They probably did. Remember, they initially issued a different route which
> was declined due to weather. Perhaps they then issued the route through the
> TRACON hoping they could sell it to approach.
>
>

OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open
this sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
> being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
> that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
> I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open
> this sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.

Are you saying you've never gotten a reroute in flight?

[Rich]

It does happen. Usually a factor of traffic congestion with really bad
weather. If they accept you, they've GOT to handle you... but they're
off the hook if they don't accept the hand-off from the previous
facility. It's a real-time, dynamic situation... ten minutes later they
might have been able to work you in.

Happened to me once, flying to Oshkosh from SE Michigan. Chicago Center
refused to take the hand-off from Muskegon approach. Muskegeon held
onto me as long as they could, and finally gave me a heading of 180 to
keep me in their airspace. I told them in no uncertain terms that I
didn't want to fly Lake Michigan lengthwise. Fortunately, it was VMC so
I cancelled IFR and went on my merry way.

Rich

Mike Granby wrote:
> I take off, and everything is fine, until I'm headed
> southbound from the HGR VOR, when the Washington Center controller
> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions." So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
> on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
> least, some nasty weather. I was amazed that they gave me a clearance for that route, and then
> wouldn't honor it! Comments???
>

[john smith]

Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:14:06 GMT, john smith wrote:

> Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
> flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

It will be interesting to see other peoples responses on this bizarre
suggestion *smile*.

Why bother with 7700 when you are already declaring yourself NORDO with
7600?

I would suspect with you on 7600, that ATC will keep your airspace clear,
and no emergency would exist, thus no need for 7700.

Allen

[Roy Smith]

john smith > wrote:
> Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
> flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.

Ignoring for the moment that switching from 7600 to 7700 is the incorrect
procedure for comm failure, it sounds like you're advocating deliberately
pretending to have comm failure so you can fly the route you want.

I assume you understand 14 CFR 91.3:

-----
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.
-----

Let's see how this plays out. After you land, you call up FSS to cancel
your IFR flight plan, and the guy asks you what your emergency was. You
say, "I didn't like the route they gave me, so I turned off my radios and
continued NORDO". I can only imagine how the conversation would go after
that, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a very happy experience for you.

If they want to turn you back, and you truly believe that heading in the
direction they want to send you would be unsafe due to weather, say,
"unable" and stick to it. You may get to hold until they can accomodate
you, and that may be a long time. Deciding to land at the nearest usable
airport may be your best choice if the hold time is extensive.

Did ATC do you a dis-service by giving you the clearance you wanted and
then refusing to allow you to fly it once you were in the air? Probably,
but that's life.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If the weather was behind you like Mike described, and you can't proceed
> forward, that in my opinion would be an emergency. He couldn't go further
> on, and had to retrace his steps which would put have put him into bad
> weather.
>

After being told he couldn't go through Potomac approach he asked for a hold
at HGR VOR to consider hip options. If holding at HGR keeps him clear of
the nasty weather then a landing at Hagerstown Regional should also keep him
clear of it.


>
> Again, if the weather was behind him and he couldn't proceed further on,
> being turned back into nasty weather (his words, not mine) can be
> considered an emergency.
>

Why would those be the only options?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> "I intend to fly my clearance. What are yours?" Hmmph.
>

An odd thing to say after you've been told that's not an option.


>
> Ok, might not put it quite that way, but I have a clearance and the
> alternative of flying through thunderstorms is not acceptable.
>

I'm sure the controller understands that. That's why he asked you for your
intentions after informing you that your previous clearance was not
acceptable.


>
> I would refuse to fly through thunderstorms to make them happy.
>

Why would they find happiness in your flight through a thunderstorm?


>
> If I had
> spherics I would have more options, but blind and knowing what's probably
> out there, I would have solid grounds for saying "unable" and letting them
> sort it out later.
>

You'd be unable to do anything other than your previous clearance? How
could that be?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
> being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
> that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
> I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open this
> sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.
>

"Pre-selling" your clearance end-to-end before issuing it would create a
pretty inflexible system, one that could handle only a fraction of the
traffic it does now. What if a thunderstorm cell popped up on your route.
You'd probably like to deviate around it. So you ask ATC to deviate 20
degrees left of course and the response is, "Unable, that will put you into
airspace that has been pre-sold to another IFR flight." I don't think you'd
be happy with that response.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
>
> It does happen. Usually a factor of traffic congestion with really bad
> weather. If they accept you, they've GOT to handle you... but they're off
> the hook if they don't accept the hand-off from the previous facility.
> It's a real-time, dynamic situation... ten minutes later they might have
> been able to work you in.
>
> Happened to me once, flying to Oshkosh from SE Michigan. Chicago Center
> refused to take the hand-off from Muskegon approach. Muskegeon held onto
> me as long as they could, and finally gave me a heading of 180 to keep me
> in their airspace. I told them in no uncertain terms that I didn't want
> to fly Lake Michigan lengthwise. Fortunately, it was VMC so I cancelled
> IFR and went on my merry way.
>

Was that during the EAA convention? If it was, did you have a reservation?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Squawk 7600 for one minute, then switch to 7700 for the remainder of the
> flight. Fly the route as NORDO to your clearance limit.
>

That might work if the weather was bad where you were at the time of the
"radio failure" and all the way to your destination. If the failure
occurred in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions were encountered after the
failure, you'd have to continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as
practicable.

What if the weather was IMC and others tried that dodge as well? What if
some of those other flights conflicted with yours? ATC can't provide
separation, you're all NORDO.

Squawking 7700 hasn't been part of the NORDO procedure for some years now,
by the way.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why bother with 7700 when you are already declaring yourself NORDO with
> 7600?
>

That used to be the NORDO procedure, but the 7700 squawk was dropped some
fifteen years or so ago.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ignoring for the moment that switching from 7600 to 7700 is the incorrect
> procedure for comm failure, it sounds like you're advocating deliberately
> pretending to have comm failure so you can fly the route you want.
>
> I assume you understand 14 CFR 91.3:
>
> -----
> Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
>
> (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
> is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
>
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
> command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
> meet that emergency.
>
> (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
> this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
> report of that deviation to the Administrator.
> -----
>
> Let's see how this plays out. After you land, you call up FSS to cancel
> your IFR flight plan, and the guy asks you what your emergency was. You
> say, "I didn't like the route they gave me, so I turned off my radios and
> continued NORDO". I can only imagine how the conversation would go after
> that, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a very happy experience for you.
>

No doubt. Making that statement is an admission that he violated FAR
91.183. "The pilot in command of each aircraft operated under IFR in
controlled airspace shall have a continuous watch maintained on the
appropriate frequency....."

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
>>being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
>>that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
>> I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open
>>this sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.
>
>
> Are you saying you've never gotten a reroute in flight?

No, didn't say that at all. I've never been given a NON-route in
mid-flight though, which is the topic at hand.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>OK. I always figured that the route was "pre sold" end to end before
>>being issued. I've gotten partial route clearances before and assumed
>>that was what happened when they couldn't get the entire route approved.
>>I'd have never guessed that getting a full route clearance left open this
>>sort of possibility. That seems bizarre to me.
>>
>
>
> "Pre-selling" your clearance end-to-end before issuing it would create a
> pretty inflexible system, one that could handle only a fraction of the
> traffic it does now. What if a thunderstorm cell popped up on your route.
> You'd probably like to deviate around it. So you ask ATC to deviate 20
> degrees left of course and the response is, "Unable, that will put you into
> airspace that has been pre-sold to another IFR flight." I don't think you'd
> be happy with that response.

This really isn't any worse than what happened to the flight in question.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, didn't say that at all. I've never been given a NON-route in
> mid-flight though, which is the topic at hand.
>

No it isn't. All that happened here is the route that he had been cleared
on was not available to him and he had to select an alternative.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> This really isn't any worse than what happened to the flight in question.
>

It isn't? Being required to fly through a cell is no worse than not being
required to fly through one?

[john smith]

Oops!
I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of
the flight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Oops!
> I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
> Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of the
> flight.
>

That's still wrong.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> Oops!
> I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
> Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of
> the flight.

If you want to squawk "Lost Comm", just set 7600 and leave it there.

The "7700 for one minute, then 7600" procedure predates me, but I
understand that a long time ago (like 15 or 20 years), that was how it was
done. No longer the case.

[Mike Granby]

Thanks to all who replied. At Bob Gardner's suggestion, I emailed a
gentleman at Potomac who took the time to look into what happened and
to let me know the full story. It all makes sense, even if it was
puzzling at the time. As an asside, it's great that people in ATC take
trouble like this to let us pilots know what's going on under the hood.
It's part of what makes the US ATC system such a pleasure.

===BEGIN QUOTED TEXT===

Mike,

I think I have an answer for you. I talked to someone who specifically
remembers the incident. At the time the Center called, the controller
at Potomac was very busy accepting deviations that were landing at
Dulles. There was weather that was affecting the main arrival route
into Dulles (the one that comes over V143 and then over FDK). Aircraft
were deviating in that area. Additionally, another aircraft which was
pretty much flying the route that you wanted was deviating about 20
miles south of EMI for weather and could not get back to the north
trying to get to HAR. I think he departed JYO. The controller just
could not handle your flight at the time. I am glad it worked out for
you, getting to THV by way of Scape. Sorry we couldn't have been more
accomodating. If you have any other questions in the future, please
don't hesitate to ask. Thanks.

Scott Proudfoot
NATCA Eastern Regional Safety Rep
PCT TRACON

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message

> calls me and says "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
> you, say intentions."

The response to that is just what you gave in your original description:
"Unable Reroute due to weather"

The ball is then in their court.

You would be quite justified given the weather you described.

You already had an IFR clearance... period. Yes, you are required to accept
ATC clearance amendments that are reasonable but you are not required to
accept such a clearance if it will in your reasonable judgment endanger the
safety of your flight.

This is a good one to file a NASA ASRS form on to prevent similar situations
in the future.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message

> Are you saying you've never gotten a reroute in flight?

Sure you get re-routes all the time. However, you are under no obligation
to accept them if you have good reason.

In this case I would have declined the re-route and stood my ground --- end
of story.

I have encountered similar situations flying to Long Island where I have
been assigned overwater re-routes -- no matter how unhappy or insistent ATC
may be I will not accept an overwate route nor am I required to do so. The
same logic applies here. There can be nor would there be any adverse
consequences for the pilot to exert PIC authority in the interest of flight
safety.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message

> You are PIC. I would have declared an emergency and squawked 7700.

No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> An odd thing to say after you've been told that's not an option.

Sure it was an option. That was his clearance and the clearance remains
valid until he accepts a new one.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Dave S]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> Sure you get re-routes all the time. However, you are under no obligation
> to accept them if you have good reason.
>
> In this case I would have declined the re-route and stood my ground --- end
> of story.
> (SNIP)
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan

And if "standing your ground" results in a hold in current position
until you choose to land, reverse course, or accept the offered routing,
then what? If you declare an "emergency" then the expectation is that
you will land at the nearest suitable airport.

There is no reason the posting pilot couldn't have landed and waited the
weather out.

What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted
area? I've been rerouted enroute because of an area going hot after i
was previously cleared through (but before I penetrated it). If the
offered routing is not available, my choices are accept a reroute (of
whats available), turn back or land. The controller cant offer what he
doesnt have available.

Dave

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:03:24 -0400, Richard Kaplan wrote:

> No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.

Richard,

See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets_nf.htm and download the .pdf file
for weather encounters.

If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
position.

I don't think unable is enough to keep you out of hot water or puts the
ball in ATC's court. If ATC cannot accommodate an "unable", then you need
to declare an emergency. This is well documented in the .pdf file I am
pointing you to. Once you declare an emergency, ATC has to comply with
your requests.

To override an ATC directive (or in this case "non directive"), I'd suspect
a plan of action would be needed and rather quickly if ATC has not offered
a second option (which sounds like what happened in Mikes case).

From Mikes original post, it did not appear he had too many options.

He has since then clarified he had a couple of "outs" to sort this out (I.E
go hold at HGR or land at HGR).

If Mikes situation happened to me, and I do have storm scope in my plane,
and I knew there was bad weather behind me, I will not hesitate to declare
an emergency IF I THINK THE SAFETY OF MY FLIGHT is compromised.

Allen

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave S" > wrote in message > And if "standing your
ground" results in a hold in current position
> until you choose to land, reverse course, or accept the offered routing,
> then what?

I suppose anything is possible but that is highly unlikely. In any event,
the proper response is to state "Unable" and then wait to see what the
controller says. Most likely the controller will then offer to work with
you with a hold and/or vectors around traffic that will more or less be
equivalent to the route you need. Now I agree the controller might instead
come back not with a terse "Potomac will not accept you" but rather "There
has been a major incident and BWI is closed" or something catastrophic like
that, in which case yes, landing might be your only option. But 99% of the
time "Unable" will indeed prompt ATC to come up with another plan.

> If you declare an "emergency" then the expectation is that you will land
> at the nearest suitable airport.

I am not at all proposing to declare an emergency. I am proposing the pilot
fly his clearance and not accept any alternate clearance which he feels is
unsafe. There is nothing of an emergency nature here.

> There is no reason the posting pilot couldn't have landed and waited the
> weather out.

ATC would have to give me a good reason for me to do that -- the reason
would have to be more than "Potomac is not accepting traffic."


> What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted area?

Then ATC would have to contact the relevant military aircraft and make the
airspace cold if weather requires their airspace to be used for traffic
already on an IFR clearance.

>I've been rerouted enroute because of an area going hot after i

No problem if there are no weather or other reasons to preclude your
reroute. I am not saying to decline the new clearance arbitrarily -- only
to decline it if there are weather concerns.

> whats available), turn back or land. The controller cant offer what he
> doesnt have available.

If you tell the controller you are "Unable" to accept an alternate route, he
may well be able to negotiate for more airspace to become available.

Bottom line: A clearance is a clearance. You must accept an assigned
revised clearance if it is within your capability, but if you judge the
revised clearance to be unsafe there is no reason why you need to accept it
and instead ATC will work with you to find a solution.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message

> If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
> emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
> position.

Note that in the report you mention it is ATC that mentioned pilot emergency
authority. That sounds to me as if the controller did it to cover himself
when he realized he should not have given the pilot the clearance through
the restricted area. Note that the airline pilot did precisely what I have
suggested -- he told ATC he was "Unable" to accept the new clearance.


> To override an ATC directive (or in this case "non directive"), I'd
> suspect
> a plan of action would be needed and rather quickly if ATC has not offered
> a second option (which sounds like what happened in Mikes case).

The biggest problem I see here is the implication of the urgency with which
the controller wanted the pilot to accept the reroute or propose an
alternate plan.... no dice. That is the controller's problem unless he
provided a very good reason for the urgent change, i.e. some major radar
outage or national security event or something similar. In a situation as
described, the pilot has every right to think through his options and get a
new weather briefing and whatever other information is necessary to decide
if a re-route is safe before accepting a new clearance -- indeed, the FARs
REQUIRE the pilot to be aware of "all available information" for the planned
route of flight. Absent some national security emergency, there is no
reason to rush into accepting a revised clearance through weather -- and
"Potomac will not accept you" is NOT a national security emergency.

> If Mikes situation happened to me, and I do have storm scope in my plane,
> and I knew there was bad weather behind me, I will not hesitate to declare
> an emergency

Again... no emergency declaration is necesary on the pilot's part... just
the magic word "Unable" or perhaps "Unable reroute into convective weather."

[Dave S]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
>
>>What if the area of unavailable airspace was a hot MOA or Restricted area?
>
>
> Then ATC would have to contact the relevant military aircraft and make the
> airspace cold if weather requires their airspace to be used for traffic
> already on an IFR clearance.
>
>

Oh? I've read quite a bit of stuff, and I've yet to come across
something that lets ATC take a MOA or Restricted area back at their
choosing.

Tell me where that procedure is found.

Back to the original point... You dont have to accept what they are
offering. But they dont have to offer you what you want (or NEED). They
also cant offer what the "system" wont provide.

Your options can be as harsh as "cancel IFR" and scud run, or land at
the nearest field and sort it out on the ground. The phrase " XXX
approach is refusing to handle you" tells me that they are not going to
play ball. No telling what the reason is, from the original post.
Perhaps the airspace was busy, perhaps there was a "push" going on in
the middle of the desired sectors, perhaps what you wanted was contrary
to an exiting LOA between center and approach, and approach was within
their right to say "preferred routing or go all the way around".

No matter how you cut it, unless you are excercising emergency
authority, you have to go where they tell you. Usually this isnt a prob,
and most of the times they can work with you. But.. push comes to shove,
you have to fly your clearance. If you dont accept it, you are the one
who has to deal with it if no other alternatives are forthcoming.

Dave

[Dave S]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
> You already had an IFR clearance... period. Yes, you are required to accept
> ATC clearance amendments that are reasonable but you are not required to
> accept such a clearance if it will in your reasonable judgment endanger the
> safety of your flight.

> Richard Kaplan

Pertinent rule for pilots:
91.123 (b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control
is exercised.

Pertinent rule for controllers:
Order 7110.65P
5-4-7. POINT OUT

a. The transferring controller shall:

1. Obtain verbal approval before permitting an aircraft to enter
the receiving controller's delegated airspace. TERMINAL. Automated
approval may be utilized in lieu of verbal, provided the appropriate
automation software is operational (automated point out function), and
the procedures are specified in a facility directive/LOA.

Its that simple. The center controller MUST issue instructions to
prevent the aircraft (and pilot) in question from entering the approach
control's airspace (or the recieving sector's controller, regardless of
center/tower/approach). As pilot, you must obey those instructions.
Active ATC instructions overrule your full route clearance.

Your options are to 1) accept the new instructions 2) cancel IFR 3)
declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about
everything but the laws of physics.

Yes, you can refuse an amended clearance, but if the controller gives
you instructions to double back and hold in the clear air you just
passed through, you would be hard pressed not to comply. The hold may be
just for a moment until a solution is found, or as long as you are
willing to hold before changing your mind as to what is acceptable.

I absolutely agree that it is unacceptable to accept a route clearance
that places one in peril (weather, or whatever the reason), but I just
want to make my opinion known that "sticking to your guns" may have a
limit and when its time to "blink", likely its the pilot who is at a
disadvantage, NOT ATC. "Working with each other" is a two way street.

Dave

[Roy Smith]

Dave S > wrote:
> 3) declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about
> everything but the laws of physics.

Not quite. The rule says:

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
[...]
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

There's a big difference between "disregard just about everything" and "to
the extent required".

In this case, the OP wasn't forced to do anything, he was just prevented
from doing one specific thing (entering Potomac Approach airspace). He had
choices short of declaring an emergency, and the controller was asking him
which of those he was going to pick. He could have asked to hold until the
weather got better (which is what he did) or until Potomac was able to work
him. Or he could have landed back at Hagarstown. Or perhaps Potomac would
have been willing to work him as far as Fredrick, which at least would have
gotten him a little closer to his destination.

You get to declare an emergency when the safety of the flight is at risk.
Being inconvenienced and ****ed off at ATC for giving you a bum clearance
isn't an emergency.

There's one thing that bothers me about the original posting.

"Mike Granby" > wrote:
> Now, I'm not happy, 'cos I know there's been cells appearing along that
> route all PM, but I have little choice, so I take the SCAPE route.

That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing at Hagarstown was a possibility.
Sure, it would have sucked to go right back to where you took off from 10
minutes ago, but it was a possibility. If you're not happy with the
weather, don't go there. You make it sound like it was a choice between
heading to SCAPE and running out of fuel.

[Roy Smith]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:
> I suppose anything is possible but that is highly unlikely. In any event,
> the proper response is to state "Unable" and then wait to see what the
> controller says.

This started out with

Wash Center: "Err, 8096J, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle
you, say intentions."

I don't think "unable" is a useful response to "say intentions".

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave S" > wrote

> Oh? I've read quite a bit of stuff, and I've yet to come across something
> that lets ATC take a MOA or Restricted area back at their choosing.

ATC often is in communication with aircraft in the MOA or Restricted area.
I have had times when I have been vectored through an MOA or Restricted area
which is officially hot but the controller advises me he has coordinated
with the aircraft in that area.


> Back to the original point... You dont have to accept what they are
> offering. But they dont have to offer you what you want (or NEED). They
> also cant offer what the "system" wont provide.

I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be
negotiation both ways. You are correct that sometimes ATC cannot give you
what you want. It is also equally correct that a pilot does not need to
accept whatever re-route is given to him if there is a potential safety of
flight issue. Certainly "Unable re-route into convective weather" or
"Unable re-route to SCAPE due to convective wather" should be accepted by
ATC. Considering in this case the re-route is at their request (not for
example a pilot request to deviate around weather), it seems to me incumbent
upon ATC to propose a solution... the solution may be a different altitude
or vectors for spacing or a brief hold but certainly it is not reasonable
for ATC to expect a re-route to an area of active or even potentially active
thunderstorms and I do not think ATC requiring someone to land short of
their destination is appropriate either absent some critical infrastructure
failure or national security event.


> the nearest field and sort it out on the ground. The phrase " XXX approach
> is refusing to handle you" tells me that they are not going to play ball.

Actually the phrase "Approach is refusing to handle you" tells me this is
ATC's problem, not mine, and they need to come up with the solution, not me.
I would tend to be much more flexible if ATC told me about some specific
reason why airspace I was already cleared into is all of a sudden not
available. Just telling me some ATC facility "is refusing to handle you"
seems bizarre to me if I have already been cleared through that airspace.

> Perhaps the airspace was busy, perhaps there was a "push" going on in the
> middle of the desired sectors, perhaps what you wanted was contrary to an
> exiting LOA between center and approach, and approach was within their
> right to say "preferred routing or go all the way around".

All of which are contrary to my existing clearance in this case and thus
suggest to me that ATC ought to be a bit more helpful in proposing a
solution that does not involve thunderstorms.


> No matter how you cut it, unless you are excercising emergency authority,
> you have to go where they tell you.

No, there is no emergency authority needed here. Saying "Unable Re-Route
through convective weather" is no different than when ATC misunderstands the
performance of my piston plane and requests an expedited climb in hot
weather at a rate of climb my plane is unable to deliver. "Unable" means
just what is says --- my plane is unable to fly through convective weather
and it is unable to maintain an 800FPM climb in the flight levels. I need
no emergency authority to advise ATC of this.

> and most of the times they can work with you. But.. push comes to shove,
> you have to fly your clearance.

Correct... you have to fly the clearance that you accepted. You do NOT need
to accept a new clearance if your airplane is unable for performance or
safety reasons to fly that new clearance.

>If you dont accept it, you are the one who has to deal with it if no other
>alternatives are forthcoming.

In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate
clearance within my airpane's abilities.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message

> I don't think "unable" is a useful response to "say intentions".

I think "Unable routing through SCAPE or other convective weather; please
propose alternative re-route" would be fine.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave S" > wrote in message

> Pertinent rule for pilots:
> 91.123 (b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
> contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is
> exercised.

An ATC instruction is not the same as an amended clearance. I agree if ATC
said "Turn right immediately for converging traffic" then emergency
authority would be required to not comply with that. But this is different
than the situation of negotiating an amended clearance, where I must accept
the new clearance before I am required to comply with it.

> Your options are to 1) accept the new instructions 2) cancel IFR 3)
> declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about everything
> but the laws of physics.

In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with ATC
for a better/safer new clearance.


> Yes, you can refuse an amended clearance, but if the controller gives you
> instructions to double back and hold in the clear air you just passed
> through, you would be hard pressed not to comply. The hold may be just for
> a moment until a solution is found, or as long as you are willing to hold
> before changing your mind as to what is acceptable.

I agree completely... no argument here at all.


> I absolutely agree that it is unacceptable to accept a route clearance
> that places one in peril (weather, or whatever the reason), but I just
> want to make my opinion known that "sticking to your guns" may have a
> limit and when its time to "blink", likely its the pilot who is at a
> disadvantage, NOT ATC. "Working with each other" is a two way street.

Agreed.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Howard Nelson]

I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been said
:).

What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or offer
a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is OK.
I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
alternative route.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message

> I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
> asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
> pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
> alternative route.

Exactly... I agree 100%.

[Mike Granby]

> That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing
> at Hagarstown was a possibility.

Quite. I said as much in a post above.

> Sure, it would have sucked to go right back to where you
> took off from 10 minutes ago, but it was a possibility. If
> you're not happy with the weather, don't go there. You
> make it sound like it was a choice between heading
> to SCAPE and running out of fuel.

Not at all. I would rather have landed than taken a route into weather,
but it was odd that I'd been given the clearance not ten minutes ago,
and then told that it couldn't be implemented. It puzzled me, as it
seems to have puzzled others. Get-home-itis has nothing to do with it.

[Jose]

>>"I intend to fly my clearance. What are yours?" Hmmph.
>
> An odd thing to say after you've been told that's not an option.

Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
also an odd thing to say. It's the equivalent of "get lost kid, you
bother me", which is exactly what Potomac is saying to the controller
who is (presumably) just relaying the message to the pilot. It makes
ATC's coordination problem into the pilot's problem to solve.

>>I would refuse to fly through thunderstorms to make them happy.
>
> Why would they find happiness in your flight through a thunderstorm?

Because if the thunderstorm is outside of Potomac's airspace, Potomac
doesn't have to deal with you. "It's not my watch". Of course I don't
really believe airborne shredded aluminum makes anybody involved here
happy, my phrasing "make them happy" is metaphorical.

> You'd be unable to do anything other than your previous clearance? How
> could that be?

The only thing I have is my previous clearance.

I would expect the controllers to work with me to get an acceptable
reroute, not to dump the thing in my lap saying "you can't go here any
more". That is getting close to the controller saying "IFR cancelled,
squawk 1200" while I'm in the soup.

I have my previous clearance. I would fly that unless (and until) I got
something acceptable to both me and the controller. But the controller
saying "Potomac won't handle you, what are your intentions" is
inappropriately confrontational. If Potomac won't accept the clearance
that ATC has already given me, that's ATC's problem to solve, and they
should offer (or at least appear to be prepared to offer) some solutions.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

When the originating controller puts your flight plan into the HOST
computer, I think that the computer checks it against stuff that is in its
memory to insure that the proposed flight is doable and meets regulatory
requirements. I do not believe that the HOST computer polls facilities along
the route to ask if they can handle the flight.

Bob Gardner

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> That sounds like get-home-itis. Landing
>> at Hagarstown was a possibility.
>
> Quite. I said as much in a post above.
>
>> Sure, it would have sucked to go right back to where you
>> took off from 10 minutes ago, but it was a possibility. If
>> you're not happy with the weather, don't go there. You
>> make it sound like it was a choice between heading
>> to SCAPE and running out of fuel.
>
> Not at all. I would rather have landed than taken a route into weather,
> but it was odd that I'd been given the clearance not ten minutes ago,
> and then told that it couldn't be implemented. It puzzled me, as it
> seems to have puzzled others. Get-home-itis has nothing to do with it.
>

[Howard Nelson]

> wrote in message
...
> When the originating controller puts your flight plan into the HOST
> computer, I think that the computer checks it against stuff that is in its
> memory to insure that the proposed flight is doable and meets regulatory
> requirements. I do not believe that the HOST computer polls facilities
along
> the route to ask if they can handle the flight.
>
> Bob Gardner

This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where the
following was said:

"JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"

I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR flight
plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the NE?
Does it just happen to GA aircraft? Amended clearance happens regularly but
sector refusal (at least relayed to the pilot) is a new one to me.

Howard

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jose" > wrote in message

> inappropriately confrontational. If Potomac won't accept the clearance
> that ATC has already given me, that's ATC's problem to solve, and they
> should offer (or at least appear to be prepared to offer) some solutions.

Exactly correct.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message

> I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR
> flight
> plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the NE?

In 10 years of IFR flying in the Northeast I have never heard of it
before -- that is why this seems so odd to me and a situation where I would
query the controller back.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Dave Butler]

Howard Nelson wrote:

> I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR flight
> plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the NE?
> Does it just happen to GA aircraft? Amended clearance happens regularly but
> sector refusal (at least relayed to the pilot) is a new one to me.

I've never had it happen to me, either, but I have had several conversations
along the lines of:

"expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff".

Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" <x@yy> wrote in message

> "expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff".
> Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted.

Now that sounds a lot more reasonable for ATC service.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Howard Nelson]

"Dave Butler" <x@yy> wrote in message
...
> Howard Nelson wrote:
>
> > I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR
flight
> > plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the
NE?
> > Does it just happen to GA aircraft? Amended clearance happens regularly
but
> > sector refusal (at least relayed to the pilot) is a new one to me.
>
> I've never had it happen to me, either, but I have had several
conversations
> along the lines of:
>
> "expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff".
>
> Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted.

This seems reasonable to me and understandable even if one had to hold. At
least as PIC all I have to do is identify the fix, go there and hold at the
appropriate altitude. It's just for this reason we are required to practice
one hold every 6 months :).

Howard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121648175.acd3b6ead8dfe42fe8c79e5a6ebcabde@t eranews...
>
> The response to that is just what you gave in your original description:
> "Unable Reroute due to weather"
>
> The ball is then in their court.
>
> You would be quite justified given the weather you described.
>

Does your response mean that you'd like to hold at a fix along your present
route until such time that Potomac approach can allow you to continue on it?
Do you understand that you cannot simply continue as previously cleared?
Why would you refuse any reroute due to weather?


>
> You already had an IFR clearance... period. Yes, you are required to
> accept ATC clearance amendments that are reasonable but you are not
> required to accept such a clearance if it will in your reasonable judgment
> endanger the safety of your flight.
>

The controller didn't issue a clearance amendment, he informed him that
Potomac approach wouldn't accept him and asked him for his intentions. This
is his opportunity to come up with an alternative acceptable to him.

[John Clonts]

>> "expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff".
>> Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted.
>
>Now that sounds a lot more reasonable for ATC service.

Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a
good tack might be along these lines:

ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say
intentions.

N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or
holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over.

Note the trailing "over" which in this context means "the ball's back
in your court"... :)

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121648410.b2786fdd685115fb6a5d55851079def3@t eranews...
>
> Sure you get re-routes all the time. However, you are under no obligation
> to accept them if you have good reason.
>
> In this case I would have declined the re-route and stood my ground ---
> end of story.
>

Based on what "good reason"?


>
> I have encountered similar situations flying to Long Island where I have
> been assigned overwater re-routes -- no matter how unhappy or insistent
> ATC may be I will not accept an overwate route nor am I required to do so.
> The same logic applies here. There can be nor would there be any adverse
> consequences for the pilot to exert PIC authority in the interest of
> flight safety.
>

Whose flight safety? Do you think Potomac approach is denying the
thruflight on a whim? Odds are it's because there's a significant amount of
arrival or departure traffic going through that area. What do you expect
ATC to do with them?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121648744.326f39a050170b4a3dc316b048821a11@t eranews...
>
> Sure it was an option. That was his clearance and the clearance remains
> valid until he accepts a new one.
>

So a pilot is under no obligation to accept any change to his clearance?
What do you base that on? What about the traffic that's creating the need
for the amended clearance? They're also operating on a clearance that
remains valid until acceptance of a new one, are they not?

At the recent NATCA conference, a controller from Potomac Approach spent all
of his allotted time complaining (justifiably, as far as I know) about
operational restrictions that were being forced on the TRACON by higher
levels of bureaucracy. This may be a reflection of that pressure.

Bob Gardner

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121713800.47a553973db569e0ceec3e25ba14442c@t eranews...
> "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
>
>> I am on the west coast and have never heard of an aircraft on an IFR
>> flight
>> plan being refused by the next sector. Is that something common in the
>> NE?
>
> In 10 years of IFR flying in the Northeast I have never heard of it
> before -- that is why this seems so odd to me and a situation where I
> would query the controller back.
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Roy Smith]

John Clonts > wrote:
>>> "expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff".
>>> Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted.
>>
>>Now that sounds a lot more reasonable for ATC service.
>
>Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a
>good tack might be along these lines:
>
>ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say
>intentions.
>
>N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or
>holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over.

What possible good comes from this? He's asked you what you would
like to do, within the constraints of what he's already told you he's
unable to give you. How could the controller possibly know what makes
sense for you to do at that point? Are you the PIC, or are you just
along for the ride?

Something like, "I need to stay south of Camp David to avoid
convective activity north of there. If Potomac won't take me, can you
work me on vectors around the south edge of P-whatever-it-is?". At
least that gives the controller something to decide if he can approve
or not.

Another constructive alternative, "If I hold at Hagarstown, how long
would I expect until Potomac can work me?"

Or, "Would it help if I climbed to xxx?"

Or, here's another one, that's perhaps a little more devious. "If I
changed my destination to Fredrick, could Potomac at least take me
that far?" If the controller says "yes", once you get handed off to
Potomac, you can try wheedling *that* guy for a clearance to York. It
may be gaming the system a bit, but sometimes it works. Sometimes it
doesn't and you might end up having to land at Fredrick, but that's
probably no worse than landing back at Hagarstown.

Any of these alternatives seem better than asking the controller to
try and read your mind.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> Based on what "good reason"?

Convective activity

> thruflight on a whim? Odds are it's because there's a significant amount
> of arrival or departure traffic going through that area. What do you
> expect ATC to do with them?

Vector planes around. Put some planes in a holding pattern. Vector me
around. Put me in a holding pattern until room becomes available. Take you
pick.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote


> So a pilot is under no obligation to accept any change to his clearance?

I never said that. I said a pilot is under no obligation to accept any
change to his clearance which the pilot feels is unsafe.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message

> operational restrictions that were being forced on the TRACON by higher
> levels of bureaucracy. This may be a reflection of that pressure.

That could well be the case... in which case pilots starting to say "Unable"
and causing controllers to go to their supervisors seeking solutions may
well be the solution to this issue. Certainly "The next sector will not
accept you -- state intention" is blatantly unacceptable ATC service. Let
ATC propose the solution to me. Let the controller sit on the ground with
his supervisor and figure out the solution -- don't leave it up to me while
I am flying with a valid clearance on a route I planned around
thunderstorms.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message

> N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or
> holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over.

I agree... except in this case I might well also advise ATC that the current
routing was selected to avoid convective weather.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> The controller didn't issue a clearance amendment, he informed him that
> Potomac approach wouldn't accept him and asked him for his intentions.
> This is his opportunity to come up with an alternative acceptable to him.

I guess what I am most saying here is that "Potomac will not accept you"
just does not make sense and therefore I would have little basis upon which
to propose some alternative plan.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121648616.ba937d939e05237b4228738fe266ced1@t eranews...
>
> No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary.
>

That's not a particularly useful answer to the controller's request for your
intentions. If you're on a route that takes you through Potomac approach
and you're informed that Potomac approach won't accept your flight it
follows that you will be rerouted in some manner.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121655367.94780c5d45d39e3a9574ee99bb5f5c1b@t eranews...
>
> I suppose anything is possible but that is highly unlikely. In any event,
> the proper response is to state "Unable" and then wait to see what the
> controller says. Most likely the controller will then offer to work with
> you with a hold and/or vectors around traffic that will more or less be
> equivalent to the route you need.
>

One property of the route needed in this case is that it not go through
Potomac approach. The controller demonstrated he was willing to work with
the pilot when he informed him of that requirement and asked him his
intentions. Your suggested response of "unable" isn't helpful at all and
suggests an unwillingness to work with ATC.


>
> Now I agree the controller might
> instead come back not with a terse "Potomac will not accept you" but
> rather "There has been a major incident and BWI is closed" or something
> catastrophic like that, in which case yes, landing might be your only
> option.
>

It doesn't have to be anything catastrophic, it could just be normal
traffic. As I said in an earlier message, there are TRACONs that simply do
not allow thruflights. It's not because they're too good to work
thruflights, it's because they're up to their armpits with arrival and
departure traffic.


>
> I am not at all proposing to declare an emergency. I am proposing the
> pilot fly his clearance and not accept any alternate clearance which he
> feels is unsafe. There is nothing of an emergency nature here.
>

The pilot wasn't asked to fly a clearance he felt was unsafe. He was aware
of an area of weather that he wouldn't fly through and he was informed that
he couldn't fly through Potomac approach. He needs an alternative that
avoids both of those, that's why the controller asked him his intentions.


>
> ATC would have to give me a good reason for me to do that -- the reason
> would have to be more than "Potomac is not accepting traffic."
>

Why isn't that good enough? Once the center controller is informed that
Potomac approach won't accept you he has to revise your clearance in some
manner so that you do not enter Potomac approach.


>
> Then ATC would have to contact the relevant military aircraft and make the
> airspace cold if weather requires their airspace to be used for traffic
> already on an IFR clearance.
>

No, ATC would have to amend your clearance to avoid SUA.


>
> If you tell the controller you are "Unable" to accept an alternate route,
> he may well be able to negotiate for more airspace to become available.
>

But probably not.


>
> Bottom line: A clearance is a clearance. You must accept an assigned
> revised clearance if it is within your capability, but if you judge the
> revised clearance to be unsafe there is no reason why you need to accept
> it and instead ATC will work with you to find a solution.
>

Now you're whistling a different tune.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Back to the original point... You dont have to accept what they are
> offering. But they dont have to offer you what you want (or NEED). They
> also cant offer what the "system" wont provide.
>

In this case ATC wasn't offering anything, the controller just informed the
pilot that he couldn't go through Potomac approach and asked him for his
intentions. A few somehow got the idea that ATC was requiring the pilot to
fly through nasty weather. The pilot needs to decide on an alternative that
avoids the weather and Potomac approach. His options are diverting to
another airport, flying around the other side of Potomac approach, or cancel
IFR and go VFR clear of Class B airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> Your options are to 1) accept the new instructions 2) cancel IFR 3)
> declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about everything
> but the laws of physics.
>

Well, not quite everything, and declaring an emergency isn't quite enough,
you have to actually have one!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121692774.c01dc1e7a3768ab5fcc211551cdda8b3@t eranews...
>
> I think "Unable routing through SCAPE or other convective weather; please
> propose alternative re-route" would be fine.
>

That's certainly better than "Unable." Note that the controller did not
attempt to issue routing through SCAPE or other convective weather.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121693330.1421eb37072ff4e740540656b09cef22@t eranews...
>
> In the case of an amended clearance, my 4th option is to negotiate with
> ATC for a better/safer new clearance.
>

You advocated a response of "Unable", that suggests you're unwilling to
negotiate.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Now you're whistling a different tune.

Overall I think I agree with the points you are making except I just do not
think it is reasonable for ATC to say "Potomac refuses to work you" when
they just issued a clearance through that airspace 10 minutes ago. If
Potomac never works through flights then do not issue clearances -- it is
one thing if the clearance were issued 500 miles away but a flight
departing HGR ought to be processed in a way that knows if Potomac will
accept through clearances.

And therein lies the issue here... legal or not, safe or not, is just seems
absolutely poor service for a sector to flat-out "refuse" an airplane with
no explanation right after takeoff. I think at the minimum some better
explanation should be given to the pilot to understand what his happening
and let him propose an alternate plan to ATC.

The fact that ATC said "State intentions" rather than offer a re-route
suggests ATC was surprised by this as well.

And most important of all, I suspect this may have been a subtle suggestion
to the IFR pilot to cancel and go VFR and I think that is particularly
disappointing and frankly unacceptable.

"State Intentions" usually occurs only when ATC has no clue what you want to
do or wants to give you some hint as to what they want you to do... neither
seems appropriate here.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> intentions. If you're on a route that takes you through Potomac approach
> and you're informed that Potomac approach won't accept your flight it
> follows that you will be rerouted in some manner.

But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> You advocated a response of "Unable", that suggests you're unwilling to
> negotiate.

No, it only means that a specific suggestion is unacceptable.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Jose]

> One property of the route needed in this case is that it not go through
> Potomac approach.

No. One property of the route =wanted= in this case is that it not go
through Potomac approach. It appears from what the controller said that
he didn't much care one way or the other. Now, maybe this controller
tried everything he could and in frustration passed it on to the pilot.
But it seems equally likely that Potomac just didn't want to handle
him, and my response would be "try harder".

I know - not very constructive, but I'm not in the air right now, I'm on
Usenet.

> Your suggested response of "unable" isn't helpful at all and
> suggests an unwillingness to work with ATC.

Their approach suggests an unwillingness to work with the pilot.

> As I said in an earlier message, there are TRACONs that simply do
> not allow thruflights.

IFR? At any altitude?

> Why isn't that good enough? Once the center controller is informed that
> Potomac approach won't accept you he has to revise your clearance in some
> manner so that you do not enter Potomac approach.

Because the pilot has no reasonable way of knowing where "Potomac
Approach" is, especially since it changes with the whim and the weather.

What is getting my dander up isn't the situation of an approach not
being able to handle an aircraft at the moment. I'm sure it happens
many times. Rather, the phrase "what are your intentions?" in this
context (right after "we're not going to do this") hints at an
unwillingness of ATC to work with the pilot(*). ATC is there =for= the
pilots, not the other way around.

I wonder how many airline pilots have heard "XYZ approach is refusing to
handle you".

(*) I will note that that same phrase is very empowering to the pilot in
other situations.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Granby]

Well, one up side of this, apart from the wonderful discussion it's
produced, was that I did get to log a hold........

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets_nf.htm and download the .pdf file
> for weather encounters.
>
> If the heavy iron pilots says unable and follows up by declaring an
> emergency and squawking 7700, then there must be some substance to my
> position.
>

But he's saying it because the ATC instruction would have put him in bad
weather, that's not the situation we're discussing here.


>
> I don't think unable is enough to keep you out of hot water or puts the
> ball in ATC's court. If ATC cannot accommodate an "unable", then you need
> to declare an emergency. This is well documented in the .pdf file I am
> pointing you to. Once you declare an emergency, ATC has to comply with
> your requests.
>

Sure, but what's your emergency in the case we're discussing? Declaring an
emergency when none exists won't keep you out of hot water.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121727774.db97764e7b5e49a58dffe5071c6bcc1e@t eranews...
>
> No, it only means that a specific suggestion is unacceptable.
>

There was no specific suggestion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121656021.b4838ad7ee7d5a53cc4632516df5ffcc@t eranews...
>
> Note that in the report you mention it is ATC that mentioned pilot
> emergency authority. That sounds to me as if the controller did it to
> cover himself when he realized he should not have given the pilot the
> clearance through the restricted area. Note that the airline pilot did
> precisely what I have suggested -- he told ATC he was "Unable" to accept
> the new clearance.
>

But he did it to avoid an area of weather.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> There was no specific suggestion.

The suggestion "What are your intenstions" meant that the pilot should
propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic
enough fashion to understand it. "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable
statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more
info.




--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121692673.581a839e2ccbc36555a8723f0d1f42f7@t eranews...
>
> ATC often is in communication with aircraft in the MOA or Restricted area.
> I have had times when I have been vectored through an MOA or Restricted
> area which is officially hot but the controller advises me he has
> coordinated with the aircraft in that area.
>

ATC is sometimes in communication with aircraft in a MOA or Restricted
Area, but usually not.


>
> I think we probably agree here. The point is that there needs to be
> negotiation both ways.
>

Yes, exactly, that's the point that a few of us have been trying to get
across to you.


>
> You are correct that sometimes ATC cannot give you
> what you want. It is also equally correct that a pilot does not need to
> accept whatever re-route is given to him if there is a potential safety of
> flight issue. Certainly "Unable re-route into convective weather" or
> "Unable re-route to SCAPE due to convective wather" should be accepted by
> ATC.
>

Yes, but you didn't suggest either of those responses, you advocated
responding with, "Unable reroute due to weather".


>
> Considering in this case the re-route is at their request (not for
> example a pilot request to deviate around weather), it seems to me
> incumbent upon ATC to propose a solution...
>

That's easy to do. "Cleared to Hagerstown Regional Airport via direct
Hagerstown VOR direct." How's that?


>
> the solution may be a
> different altitude or vectors for spacing or a brief hold but certainly it
> is not reasonable for ATC to expect a re-route to an area of active or
> even potentially active thunderstorms
>

There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.


>
> and I do not think ATC requiring
> someone to land short of their destination is appropriate either absent
> some critical infrastructure failure or national security event.
>

There is nothing in the OP that suggested that.


>
> Actually the phrase "Approach is refusing to handle you" tells me this is
> ATC's problem, not mine, and they need to come up with the solution, not
> me.
>

And they will, you can be sure of that, even if you refuse to provide any
input towards it. But why wouldn't you want to provide any input?


>
> I would tend to be much more flexible if ATC told me about some
> specific reason why airspace I was already cleared into is all of a sudden
> not available. Just telling me some ATC facility "is refusing to handle
> you" seems bizarre to me if I have already been cleared through that
> airspace.
>

It appears the controller that issued the departure clearance was a bit too
accommodating. When the pilot declined the original clearance he probably
should have replied, "Unable, that'll take you into Potomac approach."
Instead, he tried to help him on his way, probably hoping that he could
convince Potomac to accept him. That didn't work. Potomac approach says he
can't go through their airspace and that settles that issue. The pilot
cannot simply refuse all amendments to his clearance without reason. If he
had gone through Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions you can be
sure he'd have spent some time as a non-pilot.


>
> All of which are contrary to my existing clearance in this case and thus
> suggest to me that ATC ought to be a bit more helpful in proposing a
> solution that does not involve thunderstorms.
>

What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows
you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that
you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want to
do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may
suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if you
don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot.


>
> No, there is no emergency authority needed here. Saying "Unable Re-Route
> through convective weather" is no different than when ATC misunderstands
> the performance of my piston plane and requests an expedited climb in hot
> weather at a rate of climb my plane is unable to deliver. "Unable"
> means just what is says --- my plane is unable to fly through convective
> weather and it is unable to maintain an 800FPM climb in the flight levels.
> I need no emergency authority to advise ATC of this.
>

What reroute through convective weather are you referring to?


>
> Correct... you have to fly the clearance that you accepted. You do NOT
> need to accept a new clearance if your airplane is unable for performance
> or safety reasons to fly that new clearance.
>

But that's not the situation we're discussing.


>
> In the case described here, it is incumbent on ATC to propose an alternate
> clearance within my airpane's abilities.
>

Then when asked for your intentions don't respond with "Unable reroute due
to weather", respond with "I'll accept any alternate clearance within my
airpane's abilities."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have been following this thread and agree with most of what has been
> said
> :).
>
> What I find strange is that ATC did not issue an amended clearance or
> offer
> a limited range of options. The last thing I would need if IFR amidst
> convective cells would be to research a new route, propose it to ATC and
> then hold somewhere while they decide if my new proposed flight plan is
> OK.
> I find it rather bizarre that a pilot tooling along at 3 miles a minute is
> asked to play "what am I thinking" with ATC who presumably knows where the
> pilot wants to go and is in at least as good position to reccommend an
> alternative route.
>

Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment. There's weather to the
north and Potomac approach to the south. The pilot can't get to his
destination via routing through Potomac approach as he planned. So if he
wants to continue to his destination under IFR he'll have to go around the
weather or around Potomac approach. What's wrong with asking the pilot what
he'd like to do? You make it sound like the pilot is expected to
immediately spit back a letter-perfect alternate weather. All the
controller wants is the general plan of action. Around approach? Around
the cells? Land at an alternate airport? Return to departure airport?
Cancel IFR? This question is just not that hard!

[Howard Nelson]

> What part of "Say intentions" do you not understand? The controller knows
> you don't want to go through the weather and he's just informed you that
> you're not going through Potomac approach. So tell him what you do want
to
> do! If he can accommodate you you'll be cleared that way, if not he may
> suggest an alternative. How do you expect him to know what you want if
you
> don't tell him? Stop being an asshole and start being a pilot.

Steven, I don't know if you are a pilot who flies solo IFR. But in the
cockpit of most singles or light twins on an IFR flight plan the "big
picture" of nearby convective activity is usually not available in real
time. The pilot perhaps spent 15-30 minutes studying the airspace and
weather, filed an IFR flight plan, had the clearance issued and launched. He
understood that he might be issued an amended clearance (most of us are
prepared for that), a hold or be given a vector for deviation but it is
difficult to expect him to in essence file a new "flight plan" in the air
without "all the information" necessary for the flight (as the FARs state).
The ATC at that point in time knows the "big picture" much better than the
pilot (closed airspace, severe weather, etc.) and it would be helpful if
they could present him with a workable alternate plan which he could then
analyze and either accept or reject. Within the previous hour the pilot had
analyzed many factors, planned a flight and submitted it. It was accepted.
Now he might repeat that process with less information available, propose
it, and then have it rejected again. Perhaps repeat the cycle several times
not really knowing what ATC wants. All this while flying the airplane in
less than optimal weather. There are still planes out there flying IFR below
the flight levels, using VHF radios and sporting numbers that begin with N.
It's a messy system but we have to work together. As I said earlier I have
never run across this scenario before. Usually the controller will issue an
amended clearance or propose a couple of alternatives which will work for
both of us.

Howard
C182P

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
> also an odd thing to say.
>

Why's that?


>
> It's the equivalent of "get lost kid, you
> bother me", which is exactly what Potomac is saying to the controller who
> is (presumably) just relaying the message to the pilot. It makes ATC's
> coordination problem into the pilot's problem to solve.
>

There's no coordination problem. The problem is the pilot has a route he
can't fly. ATC is going to change his route, the problem will be solved at
that time. ATC is just asking the pilot for his input. Isn't that better
than deciding for him?


>
> The only thing I have is my previous clearance.
>

But you're going to get a new one. That's why the controller is asking for
your intentions. So that your new clearance can be as close as possible to
what you'd like to do. Would you want it any other way?


>
> I would expect the controllers to work with me to get an acceptable
> reroute, not to dump the thing in my lap saying "you can't go here any
> more".
>

He's trying to do exactly that. That's why he said "say intentions."


>
> I have my previous clearance. I would fly that unless (and until) I got
> something acceptable to both me and the controller. But the controller
> saying "Potomac won't handle you, what are your intentions" is
> inappropriately confrontational.
>

Bull****. The guy seems to have been overly accommodating.


>
> If Potomac won't accept the clearance
> that ATC has already given me, that's ATC's problem to solve, and they
> should offer (or at least appear to be prepared to offer) some solutions.
>

They're going to solve that problem by directing you away from Potomac
approach. Your choices are to either follow ATC instructions or continue
into Potomac approach contrary to ATC instructions and face the
consequences.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> Look at it from ATC's perspective for a moment.

I think what we are suggesting here but you are not considering is that
maybe ATC just is not trying as hard as they could. Or perhaps they are
inappropriately giving preference to airliners on the ground waiting to
depart rather than GA aircraft in the air.

If ATC gave a clearance and then 10 minutes later that is a totally
unworkable clearance, then ATC did something wrong and they should fix it.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> When the originating controller puts your flight plan into the HOST
> computer, I think that the computer checks it against stuff that is in its
> memory to insure that the proposed flight is doable and meets regulatory
> requirements. I do not believe that the HOST computer polls facilities
> along the route to ask if they can handle the flight.
>

The computer isn't that fussy. Each host computer processes only to the
first fix outside it's ARTCC. As long as it's a good route up to that point
the computer is happy. You can file below the MEA or even below the ground
and the computer won't care.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
m...
>
> This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where
> the following was said:
>
> "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"
>

To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay Approach?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a
> good tack might be along these lines:
>
> ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say
> intentions.
>
> N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or
> holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over.
>
> Note the trailing "over" which in this context means "the ball's back
> in your court"... :)
>

ZXX Center: N1234, I'd be happy to do that sir. I need to know if you'd
like routing around Potomac approach, around the weather, or where you'd
like to hold. Or in other words, say intentions, over.

[Jose]

>> Well, "Potomac is refusing to accept you, what are your intentions" is
>> also an odd thing to say.
> Why's that?

Because ATC is supposed to be helpful, and this is not. The pilot has
no idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint) or for how long
they will be refusing to honor the clearance the pilot =already= has.
Therefore the pilot has no basis from which to plan a new routing, or to
consider the altenratives. The only alternatives that are clear are to
turn around, hold, or land, but those are likely not the only
alternatives avaliable.

ATC however does know the pilot's destination and equipment, and
probably has a pretty good idea of what the weather and traffic ahead
is. Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives.
They are refusing to do so.

Empirically, it's an odd thing to say because it is rarely said. That
by itself makes it odd.

> The problem is the pilot has a route he
> can't fly.

The pilot certainly can fly that route. ATC doesn't want him to.
Specifically Potomac doesn't want him to.

> ATC is just asking the pilot for his input.

Meaningful input requires information that ATC has, that the pilot
doesn't, and that ATC is pointedly not giving the pilot.

>>But the controller
>> saying "Potomac won't handle you, what are your intentions" is
>> inappropriately confrontational.
> Bull****. The guy seems to have been overly accommodating.
>

Perhaps we have different definitions of "accomodating".

Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around. It's =you=
flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other
side of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be at
that time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental 172RG
with a moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather imagery
available to you (except via descriptions on the radio). You have three
and a half hours of gas, and have a clearance through to your
destination, which takes you in between building TCU. There are cells
to your west and northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your route.
You're IMC.

"N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"

How do you respond?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>
>>Oops!
>>I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
>>Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of
>>the flight.
>
>
> If you want to squawk "Lost Comm", just set 7600 and leave it there.
>
> The "7700 for one minute, then 7600" procedure predates me, but I
> understand that a long time ago (like 15 or 20 years), that was how it was
> done. No longer the case.

....and I suppose I should stop flying triangular patterns as well.
Never could remember if it was clockwise for no receiver or the ohter
way..

[Dan Luke]

"Jose" wrote:

> Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around. It's =you=
> flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other
> side of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be
> at that time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental
> 172RG with a moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather
> imagery available to you (except via descriptions on the radio). You
> have three and a half hours of gas, and have a clearance through to
> your destination, which takes you in between building TCU. There are
> cells to your west and northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your
> route. You're IMC.
>
> "N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your
> intentions?"
>
> How do you respond?

Good question.

From my relaxed position in this comfy chair, my reply is "Well, I still
need to get to Teterboro and I don't have any weather gear on board,
what do you suggest?" If I was at 5,000, IMC and sweating about
imbedded thunderstorms, I might not be so quick with an apt reply.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121723929.5ddf87f013f013628130b3f220dcc8c5@t eranews...
>
> Convective activity
>

Was there something in the OP that implied convective activity on all but
the HGR..MRB..EMI..THV route?


>
> Vector planes around. Put some planes in a holding pattern.
>

What gives you operational priority over them?


>
> Vector me
> around. Put me in a holding pattern until room becomes available. Take
> you pick.
>

Okay. Then say that when the controller asks your intentions. He can
certainly find a path clear of approach and the weather. Don't waste time
telling him "unable reroute" right after he tells you a reroute is in your
near future.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121724013.a978ad36df82d0f25296e0ee95ad9be6@t eranews...
>
> I never said that. I said a pilot is under no obligation to accept any
> change to his clearance which the pilot feels is unsafe.
>

So "unable reroute due to weather" means "unable any reroute that puts me
into weather"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121724161.992cd53544baad482b9de4d39a1591dc@t eranews...
>
> That could well be the case... in which case pilots starting to say
> "Unable" and causing controllers to go to their supervisors seeking
> solutions may well be the solution to this issue.
>

The "higher levels of bureaucracy" referred to are probably outside the FAA.


>
> Certainly "The next
> sector will not accept you -- state intention" is blatantly unacceptable
> ATC service.
>

It happens. It isn't all that unusual in high density airspace.


>
> Let ATC propose the solution to me.
>

Then when asked for your intentions don't respond with something completely
unworkable.


>
> Let the controller sit
> on the ground with his supervisor and figure out the solution -- don't
> leave it up to me while I am flying with a valid clearance on a route I
> planned around thunderstorms.
>

Right. Put ATC in charge of your flight.

[Roy Smith]

Jose > wrote:
> Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around. It's =you=
> flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other
> side of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be at
> that time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental 172RG
> with a moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather imagery
> available to you (except via descriptions on the radio). You have three
> and a half hours of gas, and have a clearance through to your
> destination, which takes you in between building TCU. There are cells
> to your west and northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your route.
> You're IMC.
>
> "N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"
>
> How do you respond?

I'm not quite sure where you intended that I am in your scenario, but I'll
assume "the other side of Potomac" from Teterboro means I'm somewhere
around Gordonsville VOR.

Well, first I would ask myself what the heck I'm doing flying with no
weather imagery and embedded thunderstorms all around me. That's not my
idea of fun.

Second, I would realize that I no longer have clearance through to my
destination. Sure, we haven't yet dotted the I's and crossed the T's by
agreeing on a new clearance, but it's already been made clear to me that
the original plan just isn't happening any more.

I need to come up with an alternative plan. There's two basic choices;
land, or continue flying. Let's assume I decide I want to try to press on.
I need to fly around or over Potomac's airspace. So, I might start by
asking some questions:

"If I climbed up to 9000, would that help?"

Center comes back with, "Sorry, you'd need to get up to 13,000 to stay in
Center airspace on that route, can you make that?" (I'm making that up, but
it sounds plausable).

"Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for
now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?"

"N423YL, cleared to the Salisbury VOR via direct, maintain 5000, report
back on the frequency within 5 minutes".

At that point, I'd call up Flight Watch, figure out what the weather is
doing over there, and decide if I could continue or not. If things didn't
look good weather-wise in that direction, or I just decided the workload
was getting to high, I'd just pick a reasonable nearby airport and ask for
clearance to it. Once on the ground, I could take my time and make a new
plan.

A couple of weeks ago, I departed BWI for HPN with ****ty weather reported
at my destination, but forecast to clear up about by the time I got there.
Along the way, we got a re-route the long way around (i.e. New York was
refusing to work us). Called FSS, got a weather update, discovered things
still sucked at HPN (1/8 mile in heavy rain), got back to ATC and told them
I wanted to land at Allentown. Landed, bought some more fuel, met another
pilot who was ferrying a Pitts from New Jersey to California and spent an
hour swapping stories with him over lunch. By then, the weather had
cleared up a bit, and off we went.

[Jose]

> "Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for
> now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?"

"Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."

(I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach -
you as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In
fact, Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you
are at 5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now
as he was originally).

Now what?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

Jose > wrote:
>> "Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for
>> now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?"
>
>"Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."
>
>(I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach -
>you as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In
>fact, Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you
>are at 5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now
>as he was originally).
>
>Now what?

I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:

"What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
of Potomac's airspace?"

Maybe he'll say something like, "I need to keep you about 5 miles south of
Salisbury. Can you navigate direct to XXXXX and I'll try and get you
something better after that?"

Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
that?"

You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
try again". It doesn't work like that. It doesn't do either you or
the controller any good to waste time playing 20 questions. He's just
as interested in getting you where you're going as you are.

Why is this such a complicated concept? You know what you want to do
and you ask for it. If ATC is unable to give it to you, you decide
what you want to do instead and ask for that. "Say intentions" should
not be something pilots fear hearing. It's nothing more than a
jargony way of saying, "What can I do for you?" If you can't come up
with a useful answer to "say intentions", you have no business being
PIC.

[Scott Moore]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:59:10 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>
>>"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Putting me into a heading that weather may compromise my safety. I am
>>>basing this on Mikes original post.
>>>
>>
>>Denying you your desired route does not require you to fly into any weather.
>
>
> If the weather was behind you like Mike described, and you can't proceed
> forward, that in my opinion would be an emergency. He couldn't go further
> on, and had to retrace his steps which would put have put him into bad
> weather. His words were:
>
>
>>>>So now, here I am, in the air with two small kids
>>>>on board, and being turned back towards what was, a while back at
>>>>least, some nasty weather.
>
>
> I am making a lot of assumptions, since Mike was the one there and I was
> not, so I don't know any other alternatives he had.
>
> Again, if the weather was behind him and he couldn't proceed further on,
> being turned back into nasty weather (his words, not mine) can be
> considered an emergency.
>
> Allen

I agree. The controller took the chance that he might have to explain his
actions later. The pilot can take the chance that he might have to explain
HIS actions later (declaring the emergency). Both explainations can be
delivered in a nice dry building.

[Roy Smith]

Scott Moore > wrote:
>I agree. The controller took the chance that he might have to explain his
>actions later. The pilot can take the chance that he might have to explain
>HIS actions later (declaring the emergency). Both explainations can be
>delivered in a nice dry building.

The pilot was already holding at the IAF for an approach to an airport
he could have landed at. I would love to hear the explanation of how
that turns into an emergency which forces him to proceed to his
original destination along a route he had been told was no longer
available to him.

Damned inconvenient and annoying, yes. But damned inconvenient and
annoying does not an emergency make.

[Jose]

> I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:
>
> "What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
> of Potomac's airspace?"

Good enough.

> ...Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
> there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
> that?"

Well, he's at this point offering something. He could have been
offering something from the start, since he knows where I am and where
I'm heading. A more helpful original call would have been: "Potomac
can't take you right now. I can take you around twenty miles to the
East if you like, or to the northwest direct XXX. Which would you prefer?"

> You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
> try again". It doesn't work like that.

No, it doesn't usually work like that. However, "you can't do that,
what are you going to do about it?" sure makes it seem like the
controller is playing that game.

> "Say intentions" should
> not be something pilots fear hearing.

It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

Jose > wrote:
>> "Say intentions" should not be something pilots fear hearing.
>
>It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.

"We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route. Surely
you're not saying that you fear getting a re-route? It happens all
the time.

"We've revoked your clearance, say intentions" is just a re-route plus
an offer to let you decide how you would like to be re-routed. Why
should that be something to fear?

[Jose]

>>It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
>
> "We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route.

No, it boils down to "guess the reroute or go home." It only looks like
an offer to let me decide how I would like to be rerouted - to
=actually= decide I'd have to know what Potomac's airspace looks like.
I don't, and should not be expected to.

It's probably just a misunderstanding based on the controllers not being
pilots, and the pilots not being controllers (and therefore not knowing
what can and cannot be taken for granted), but in this context "say
intentions" sounds like "what are you going to do about it?", which
makes it seem like the controller is going to be non-helpful when the
pilot is depending on the cooperation of the controller.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121727600.b3bc3a1423b9b3b0f6d273c7323e0e2a@t eranews...
>
> Overall I think I agree with the points you are making except I just do
> not think it is reasonable for ATC to say "Potomac refuses to work you"
> when they just issued a clearance through that airspace 10 minutes ago.
>If Potomac never works through flights then do not issue clearances -- it
> is one thing if the clearance were issued 500 miles away but a flight
> departing HGR ought to be processed in a way that knows if Potomac will
> accept through clearances.
>

Okay. Fine. The center controller was wrong to issue the requested
routing. He should have told the pilot the only way he could go IFR was via
the preferential routing. Damn him for trying to do the pilot a favor!

The point you have to understand is that once Potomac approach says they
can't accept your flight the only way you're going through that airspace is
contrary to ATC instructions.


>
> And therein lies the issue here... legal or not, safe or not, is just
> seems absolutely poor service for a sector to flat-out "refuse" an
> airplane with no explanation right after takeoff. I think at the minimum
> some better explanation should be given to the pilot to understand what
> his happening and let him propose an alternate plan to ATC.
>

Well, that's essentially what the controller did when he said "state
intentions", he invited the pilot to propose an alternate plan to ATC.


>
> The fact that ATC said "State intentions" rather than offer a re-route
> suggests ATC was surprised by this as well.
>

Perhaps, but there's still no excuse for your suggested response.


>
> And most important of all, I suspect this may have been a subtle
> suggestion to the IFR pilot to cancel and go VFR and I think that is
> particularly disappointing and frankly unacceptable.
>

Canceling IFR and proceeding VFR is one possible solution but is in no way
suggested by "state intentions". The controller just wants to know what you
want to do given that you're not going to be continuing on your current
clearance. So tell him. About half the people participating in this
discussion seem to be under the impression that they must immediately
respond with a route that avoids the weather and Potomac approach. That's
not the case at all. The controller's expecting a response like, "I'd like
routing around Potomac approach clear of the weather", or "I'd like routing
around the weather", etc., etc., etc. Soliciting your input prior to
issuing a new clearance saves time.


>
> "State Intentions" usually occurs only when ATC has no clue what you want
> to do
>

That's exactly how it was used here.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121727705.48e6aca971a848425a3fb7d89eeb231a@t eranews...
>
> But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
> Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
> unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.
>

He wants to know if the pilot wants to be rerouted around approach, or
around the weather, or divert to another airport, etc., etc., etc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121735082.3ba5cd7c3a501c315a8498f64448bc75@t eranews...
>
> The suggestion "What are your intenstions"
>

"What are your intentions?" is a question, not a suggestion.


>
> meant that the pilot should
> propose a solution when ATC would not state the problem in a realistic
> enough fashion to understand it.
>

I think most pilots would understand it just fine, it's not that complex.
Why wouldn't it be proper for the pilot to propose a solution? He's the one
directly affected by any solution.


>
> "Potomac refuses" is not a reasonable
> statement of the problem. I have no clue how to solve that without more
> info.
>

Then ask for more info. Don't waste time saying "unable reroute" when it's
already been decided that you're going to be rerouted.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No. One property of the route =wanted= in this case is that it not go
> through Potomac approach.
>

No, one property of the route WANTED in this case is that go through Potomac
approach. The route is wanted by the pilot but Potomac approach says he
can't go through Potomac approach. So, one property of the route NEEDED in
this case is that it NOT go through Potomac approach. You can't always get
what you want, you get what you need.


>
> It appears from what the controller said that
> he didn't much care one way or the other. Now, maybe this controller
> tried everything he could and in frustration passed it on to the pilot.
> But it seems equally likely that Potomac just didn't want to handle him,
> and my response would be "try harder".
>

That answer just wastes time. It's already been decided that you're not
going through Potomac approach.


>
> Their approach suggests an unwillingness to work with the pilot.
>

The controller demonstrated a willingness to work with the pilot when he
issued the pilot's requested routing at departure instead of the
preferential route. Nothing in the OP's message suggests a change in his
attitude.


>
> IFR? At any altitude?
>

Yes.


>
> Because the pilot has no reasonable way of knowing where "Potomac
> Approach" is, especially since it changes with the whim and the weather.
>

Potomac approach boundaries are fixed. The pilot doesn't need to know where
they are, the controller does. All the pilot has to do is decide if he
wants to go around Potomac approach, or go around the weather, or divert to
another airport or cancel and go IFR. That's the information the
controller's seeking with, "say intentions."


>
> What is getting my dander up isn't the situation of an approach not being
> able to handle an aircraft at the moment. I'm sure it happens many times.
> Rather, the phrase "what are your intentions?" in this context (right
> after "we're not going to do this") hints at an unwillingness of ATC to
> work with the pilot(*). ATC is there =for= the pilots, not the other way
> around.
>

Okay. You think seeking pilot input prior to deciding on a course of action
hints at an unwillingness of ATC to work with the pilot. It's actually the
opposite.


>
> I wonder how many airline pilots have heard "XYZ approach is refusing to
> handle you".
>

Conduct a survey.

[Howard Nelson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> news:1121727705.48e6aca971a848425a3fb7d89eeb231a@t eranews...
> >
> > But why didn't ATC just issue the re-route instead of saying "State
> > Intentions"? The whole things just seems weird, as if ATC were in an
> > unstated and subtle fashion encouraging cancelling IFR.
> >
>
> He wants to know if the pilot wants to be rerouted around approach, or
> around the weather, or divert to another airport, etc., etc., etc.

If this had happened to me I at first would have been somewhat dumbstruck.
Would a reasonable response to what happened be "I would like to proceed to
xyz (the airport initially filed to), I have x hours of fuel before reserve,
can you give me a routing to xyz that avoids significant weather and closed
airspace?". If that were given as my intentions would the controller have
enough information to issue an amended clearance?

Howard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Steven, I don't know if you are a pilot who flies solo IFR.
>

I have.


>
> But in the
> cockpit of most singles or light twins on an IFR flight plan the "big
> picture" of nearby convective activity is usually not available in real
> time. The pilot perhaps spent 15-30 minutes studying the airspace and
> weather, filed an IFR flight plan, had the clearance issued and launched.
> Heunderstood that he might be issued an amended clearance (most of us are
> prepared for that), a hold or be given a vector for deviation but it is
> difficult to expect him to in essence file a new "flight plan" in the air
> without "all the information" necessary for the flight (as the FARs
> state).
>

He's not expected to do that. He's expected to tell the controller what
he'd like to do; "I'd like routing around Potomac approach", "I'd like
routing around the weather", "I'd like to go back to Hagerstown and wait out
the weather", "8096J canceling IFR, have a nice day."


>
> The ATC at that point in time knows the "big picture" much better than the
> pilot (closed airspace, severe weather, etc.) and it would be helpful if
> they could present him with a workable alternate plan which he could then
> analyze and either accept or reject.
>

A workable alternate plan will be presented as soon as the pilot decides
what he wants to do.


>
> Within the previous hour the pilot had
> analyzed many factors, planned a flight and submitted it. It was accepted.
> Now he might repeat that process with less information available, propose
> it, and then have it rejected again. Perhaps repeat the cycle several
> times not really knowing what ATC wants. All this while flying the
> airplane in
> less than optimal weather. There are still planes out there flying IFR
> below the flight levels, using VHF radios and sporting numbers that begin
> with
> N. It's a messy system but we have to work together. As I said earlier I
> have
> never run across this scenario before. Usually the controller will issue
> an amended clearance or propose a couple of alternatives which will work
> for
> both of us.
>

That's not the situation at all. You're making this far more complicated
than it is! With "say intentions" the controller is just asking what the
pilot wants in a very general way. He's expecting a response like, "I'd
like routing around Potomac approach." He doesn't expect you to know the
approach boundaries.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121740153.ecd596a6a23c3493152de5dd2f9529e3@t eranews...
>
> I think what we are suggesting here but you are not considering is that
> maybe ATC just is not trying as hard as they could. Or perhaps they are
> inappropriately giving preference to airliners on the ground waiting to
> depart rather than GA aircraft in the air.
>

ATC isn't doing that.


>
> If ATC gave a clearance and then 10 minutes later that is a totally
> unworkable clearance, then ATC did something wrong and they should fix it.
>

They're going to fix it with a reroute.

[Roy Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> You can't always get what you want, you get what you need.

But only if you try, and then only sometimes.

[Richard Kaplan]

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Okay. Fine. The center controller was wrong to issue the requested
> routing.

Thank you.. we agree.

> Damn him for trying to do the pilot a favor!

Favor or not, changing a clearance in this type of weather is serious
business. The controller ought to fix the problem by being more proactive
in proposing solutions to the pilot.


> The point you have to understand is that once Potomac approach says they
> can't accept your flight the only way you're going through that airspace
> is contrary to ATC instructions.

Or by convincing Potomac to work harder to fix their error.

> Well, that's essentially what the controller did when he said "state
> intentions", he invited the pilot to propose an alternate plan to ATC.

The pilot did not need the extra workload; it would have been better for ATC
to work harder with Potomac or else for ATC to propose a routing to the
pilot.


> suggested by "state intentions". The controller just wants to know what
> you want to do given that you're not going to be continuing on your
> current

That is obvious. The pilot wants to efficiently get to his destination. If
ATC cannot honor their initial clearance then they should propose workable
alternatives. It is obvious this is what the pilot wants.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because ATC is supposed to be helpful, and this is not.
>

Why isn't it helpful for ATC to ask the pilot's intentions? Do you think
it'd be better if ATC decided on a remedial course of action without input
from the pilot?


>
> The pilot has no
> idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)
>

The controller does. Ask him.


>
> or for how long they
> will be refusing to honor the clearance the pilot =already= has.
>

Until about 2 AM.


>
> Therefore
> the pilot has no basis from which to plan a new routing, or to consider
> the altenratives.
>

He knows he can't go through Potomac approach and he doesn't want to go
through the weather, he needs to select an alternative to those. That
shouldn't be too hard for any experienced pilot.


>
> ATC however does know the pilot's destination and equipment, and probably
> has a pretty good idea of what the weather and traffic ahead is.
> Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They
> are refusing to do so.
>

No they're not.


>
> Empirically, it's an odd thing to say because it is rarely said. That by
> itself makes it odd.
>

That you haven't experienced it doesn't make it rare, it just means you're
inexperienced. Many high density TRACONs simply do not work thruflights.


>
> The pilot certainly can fly that route. ATC doesn't want him to.
> Specifically Potomac doesn't want him to.
>

The pilot can't fly that route because Potomac approach says he can't.


>
> Meaningful input requires information that ATC has, that the pilot
> doesn't, and that ATC is pointedly not giving the pilot.
>

The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.


>
> Perhaps we have different definitions of "accomodating".
>

Perhaps. I use Webster's. What do you use?


>
> Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.
>

Oooh, something new!


>
> It's =you=
> flying up the coast, say to Teterboro. You're directly on the other side
> of Potomac Approach's airspace (whatever shape it happens to be at that
> time). For argument's sake, you're at 5000 feet in a rental 172RG with a
> moving map GPS, no radar, no spherics, and no weather imagery available to
> you (except via descriptions on the radio). You have three and a half
> hours of gas, and have a clearance through to your destination, which
> takes you in between building TCU. There are cells to your west and
> northwest somewhere, maybe forty miles off your route. You're IMC.
>
> "N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"
>
> How do you respond?
>

I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Okay. Then say that when the controller asks your intentions.

Again... "Intentions" are obvious. ATC should offer specific options.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121823357.bf2888d2a56b794c5f24b222c96ebfe3@t eranews...
>
> Again... "Intentions" are obvious. ATC should offer specific options.
>

Again. The options are obvious, or they should be to any experienced pilot.
Tell ATC which of the obvious options you'd like. ATC is there to help you,
try working with them instead of against them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I need to fly around or over Potomac's airspace. So, I might start by
> asking some questions:
>
> "If I climbed up to 9000, would that help?"
>
> Center comes back with, "Sorry, you'd need to get up to 13,000 to stay in
> Center airspace on that route, can you make that?" (I'm making that up,
> but
> it sounds plausable).
>

As I recall from a conversation with a Washington ARTCC controller some
years ago, the forerunner of Potomac approach went up to either FL180 or
FL240.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."
>
> (I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you
> as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact,
> Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at
> 5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was
> originally).
>
> Now what?
>

Let me add a touch of realism. Instead of, "Unable 13,000. Tell you what,
can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for now, and let me go off frequency
for a while to talk to Flight Service?" You say, "Unable 13,000. Tell you
what, can you give me a hold somewhere and let me go off frequency for a
while to talk to Flight Service?" The controller responds with a hold clear
of approach and the weather so you can chat with FSS. Controllers are eager
to help, but you have to tell them what you want. They can't read your
mind.

[Jose]

> No, one property of the route WANTED in this case is that go through Potomac
> approach. The route is wanted by the pilot but Potomac approach says he
> can't go through Potomac approach. So, one property of the route NEEDED in
> this case is that it NOT go through Potomac approach. You can't always get
> what you want, you get what you need.

No, one property of the route WANTED by Potomac approach is that it not
go through there. Who's wagging the what?

> Potomac approach boundaries are fixed. The pilot doesn't need to know where
> they are, the controller does. All the pilot has to do is decide if he
> wants to go around Potomac approach

Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to
the pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that
are not fixed). And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries
are in order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around
it or do something else.

>> I wonder how many airline pilots have heard "XYZ approach is refusing to
>> handle you".
> Conduct a survey.


OK. For all airline pilots on this newsgroup who are willing to
participate, please post here whether or not you have ever heard in
flight a controller say that "XYZ approach is refusing to handle you,
say intentions" (for the pedants, replace XYZ by any approach). "NO"
answers are just as important as "YES" answers.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, he's at this point offering something.
>

Yup. All he needed was some idea of your intentions.


>
> He could have been offering
> something from the start, since he knows where I am and where I'm heading.
>

But not what you want.


>
> A more helpful original call would have been: "Potomac can't take you
> right now. I can take you around twenty miles to the East if you like, or
> to the northwest direct XXX. Which would you prefer?"
>

Well, those are obvious and not the only options. Stating the obvious just
wastes time.


>
> No, it doesn't usually work like that. However, "you can't do that, what
> are you going to do about it?" sure makes it seem like the controller is
> playing that game.
>

That's the way it seems to you. It's not that way.


>
> It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
>

That wasn't said.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it boils down to "guess the reroute or go home." It only looks like
> an offer to let me decide how I would like to be rerouted - to =actually=
> decide I'd have to know what Potomac's airspace looks like. I don't, and
> should not be expected to.
>

It's not that way at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> If this had happened to me I at first would have been somewhat dumbstruck.
> Would a reasonable response to what happened be "I would like to proceed
> to xyz (the airport initially filed to), I have x hours of fuel before
> reserve,
> can you give me a routing to xyz that avoids significant weather and
> closed airspace?".
>

Certainly.


>
> If that were given as my intentions would the controller have
> enough information to issue an amended clearance?
>

Yes.

[Jose]

>> The pilot has no
>> idea what "Potomac" is (from a routing standpoint)
> The controller does. Ask him.

Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in
how long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
information).

>> Therefore ATC is in a good position to offer helpful alternatives. They
>> are refusing to do so.
> No they're not.

Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python. The pilot wants to get to
his destination efficiently. The controller knows what's 'open' and
what's not, or is at least in a much better position to ascertain this.

> The pilot can ask, ATC can't read minds.

ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't
know what the pilot would want. Otherwise, it pretty much goes without
saying that the pilot wants to get to his destination, and that makes it
reasonable for ATC to offer reasonable alternatives.

>> Let's see if I can learn something, and turn this around.
> Oooh, something new!

Actually, I learned something once before. :)

>> "N423YL, Potomac is refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?"
>>
>> How do you respond?
>>
> I respond with, "Never mind that center, my route takes me in between
> building TCU. N423YL requests clearance to Richmond via direct."

"Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
intentions?"

I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might
not reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the
closed approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and
are now faced with my reply.

At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
where I think the controller should have started.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121823244.3f20b0e8e6c677a1a5f1609735509f17@t eranews...
>
> Favor or not, changing a clearance in this type of weather is serious
> business. The controller ought to fix the problem by being more proactive
> in proposing solutions to the pilot.
>

In what type of weather? Nothing in the OP indicated the pilot was in any
significant weather at that point. The pilot wanted to fly from HGR to THV.
Normally such flights are taken north over SCAPE to avoid Camp David but
there was weather affecting that route. So he filed a route to the south to
avoid the weather, HGR..MRB..EMI..THV. The problem with that route is it
goes through Potomac approach.

Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?


>
> Or by convincing Potomac to work harder to fix their error.
>

He tried as hard as he could, Potomac approach made no error.


>
> The pilot did not need the extra workload;
>

There is no extra workload on the pilot.


>
> it would have been better for
> ATC to work harder with Potomac
>

He made a maximum effort.


>
> or else for ATC to propose a routing to
> the pilot.
>

ATC will do that as soon as the pilot decides where he wants to go.


>
> That is obvious.
>

Then why did I have to explain it?


>
> The pilot wants to efficiently get to his destination.
> If ATC cannot honor their initial clearance then they should propose
> workable alternatives. It is obvious this is what the pilot wants.
>

That is not obvious. The pilot may want to divert to another airport. The
pilot has to tell the controller what he wants.

I've explained this many times. Are you even trying to understand it, or
are you just being argumentative?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, one property of the route WANTED by Potomac approach is that it not go
> through there. Who's wagging the what?
>

Well, since Potomac approach IS going to get what they WANT, it follows that
what is NEEDED is a route that does not go through Potomac approach.


>
> Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to the
> pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that are not
> fixed).
>

Cite them.


>
> And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries are in
> order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around it or do
> something else.
>

Why doesn't he ask?

[Jose]

>> Whether they are fixed or not is not information readily available to the
>> pilot (there are plenty of examples of controller boundaries that are not
>> fixed).
> Cite them.

The boundaries between what controllers handle what flight on what
frequencies for example, which depends on LOA and the winds. The
internal boundaries of airspace that is sometimes approach and sometiems
center. And if I'm citing them incorrectly, I know some stuff like that
has been discussed here, and I bet you remember what it really is and
could fill me in. It's one of the reasons that these boundaries are not
shown on charts - they keep changing, even as to altitudes.

If I were a controller, I'd know what they are. I'm just a pilot, so I
dial the frequencies I'm handed off to, and everyone's happy.

>> And the pilot =does= need to know what the boundaries are in
>> order to make an intellegent decision as to whether to go around it or do
>> something else.
> Why doesn't he ask?

I suppose if it were me, I would ask. But it would take me a moment or
two to realize that this is what they are expecting.

I guess I'm just too used to getting reroutes I can accept or reject,
rather than "can't go there, try again".

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Well, since Potomac approach IS going to get what they WANT, it follows that
> what is NEEDED is a route that does not go through Potomac approach.

.... and Potomac should not get what they WANT... it's the pilot that
should get what they want. That's what approach is for. Approach
should get what they NEED in order to give the pilot what he WANTS.

"Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you.
And that is where my dander got caught.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Supposed I asked. What would the answer be? (I'm more interested in how
> long it would take for the controller to communicate the relevant
> information).
>

Probably the airways or VORs that define the route around it.


>
> Yes they are. We're back to Monty Python.
>

No, you're just being Jose. You say ATC is refusing to offer helpful
alternatives, but ATC wasn't asked for any alternatives, therefore it cannot
be said that ATC is refusing to offer helpful alternatives. Well, I guess
it can if you want to appear stupid.


>
> The pilot wants to get to his destination efficiently.

How do you know he doesn't want to divert and wait out the weather?


>
> The controller knows what's 'open' and what's not, or is at least in a
> much better position to ascertain this.
>

But not in a position to know what the pilot wants.


>
> ATC can read flight plans. Doing so would provide a clue as to what the
> pilot wants, unless things are so balled up that there really isn't any
> good way to get to the destination. In that case, ATC really doesn't know
> what the pilot would want.
>

Now you're catchin' on!


>
> "Unable direct Richmond, that takes you through Potomac. What are your
> intentions?"
>

No, it takes me into Potomac approach. I'm no longer a thruflight, I'm now
an arrival. Potomac approach may not do thruflights, but they definitely do
arrivals.


>
> I made that up; I'm pretty sure that you know where Potomac lies and
> picked a good route, but if it were an unfamiliar approach, you might not
> reasonably know that direct wherever would take you through the closed
> approach. So, pretend with me that you didn't know the area, and are now
> faced with my reply.
>

As I explainedabove, it's not a closed approach anymore.


>
> At some point you are likely to ask for suggested routings, and that's
> where I think the controller should have started.
>

Why would I need a route suggestion? My diversion takes care of the weather
problem, I don't need any help navigating.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> ... and Potomac should not get what they WANT... it's the pilot that
> should get what they want. That's what approach is for. Approach should
> get what they NEED in order to give the pilot what he WANTS.
>

That is what's happening. The pilots of all those air carrier jets
streaming through the airspace you want to use are getting what they want.
Traffic flows are dictated by air carrier needs because they're the biggest
users.


>
> "Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you.

Not in this case.


>
> And that is where my dander got caught.
>

Get over it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The boundaries between what controllers handle what flight on what
> frequencies for example, which depends on LOA and the winds.
>

That doesn't change facility boundaries.


>
> The internal boundaries of airspace that is sometimes approach and
> sometiems center.
>

You mean TRACONs that close at night? Their boundaries don't change.


>
> And if I'm citing them incorrectly, I know some stuff like that has been
> discussed here, and I bet you remember what it really is and could fill me
> in. It's one of the reasons that these boundaries are not shown on
> charts - they keep changing, even as to altitudes.
>

ARTCC boundaries sometimes change, but they're on the charts.


>
> I guess I'm just too used to getting reroutes I can accept or reject,
> rather than "can't go there, try again".
>

Then you haven't flown enough.

[Hamish Reid]

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

> "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where
> > the following was said:
> >
> > "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"
> >
>
> To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay Approach?

Erm, 1999? :-)

Hamish

[Warren Jones]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
> You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have to
> look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have seen
> improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and I have
> seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for being
> rude and just plain wrong.
> Michelle
>
>

If it makes you feel good, go ahead and call. You are wasting your time. I
assure you that a call to the QA office of a mac-daddy approach control like
Potomac, Southern Cal, Chicago, New York, Atlanta etc, whining about the
facility's refusal to work you en route through busy terminal airspace,
wouldn't make it out of the QA office. They'd pay you lip service, and then
they'd probably laugh about your temerity/stupidity after they hung up the
receiver. Little airplanes IFR en route don't have the magical power to fly
willy nilly through busy Tracons unless the pilot knows the magic word when
he is refused initial clearance. Also, if he uses the magic word, he'd
better be prepared to formally defend its use.

I can imagine that the controllers and flight service specialists in
Maryland and the Old Dominion tremble when they hear your voice on the
radio.

Chip, ZTL

[Jose]

>>We're back to Monty Python.
>
> No, you're just being Jose.

And you're just being Steven.

> How do you know he doesn't want to divert and wait out the weather?

It's not the weather that prompted the exchange, it was Potomac's
refusal to accept the flight. Had it been the weather, the pilot would
likely have requested the diversion first. Granted, maybe the weather
contributes to Potomac's INABILITY to handle the flight, but REFUSAL
does not imply INABILITY (though it does imply inconvenience).

>> unless things are so balled up...
> Now you're catchin' on!

"State intentions": "what are you going to do?" (controller has
hands-off stance)

"State request": "how can I help you?" (controller is offering
coordination assistance - which is the controller's reason for being)

> No, it takes me into Potomac approach. I'm no longer a thruflight

Got it. I'd have to know (or suspect) that the reason they are
=refusing= to accept me is that they (as a matter of policy) don't take
thruflights, and not that they are balled up by the weather, or don't
like the position of my wings, or just don't feel like doing whatever it
takes to squeeze me through.

I would never (prior to this exchange) suspected that "they just don't
do thruflights" or "today they aren't doing thruflights".

Ok, in the future I'll try gaming the system. Everyone does that, and
soon Potomac will refuse to accept incoming. Chicago will follow suit.

> That is what's happening. The pilots of all those air carrier jets
> streaming through the airspace you want to use are getting what they want.
> Traffic flows are dictated by air carrier needs because they're the biggest
> users.

Some time back, in a different thread (about angelflight) you stated
that angelflight did not get any priority, and continued to say that
aircraft are handled on a first-come first-served basis. Your statement
above seems to contradict that (otherwise I could just be scooted in
front of the next jet that's not there yet).

>>"Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you.
> Not in this case.

Yes in this case, if they are "unable" to handle me because of all the
jets that haven't gotten there yet. They are unable to handle me =and=
give the jets priority. If what you say is operative, they are
=unwilling= to not give the jets priority in order to let me through.

> ARTCC boundaries sometimes change, but they're on the charts.

Maybe that's it, but as I recall it also had to do with altitudes, which
to my knowledge are not charted in that detail.

> Then you haven't flown enough.

Right. I could fly twice as much and it wouldn't be enough. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Warren Jones]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for
>> now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?"
>
> "Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you."
>
> (I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you
> as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact,
> Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at
> 5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was
> originally).
>
> Now what?
>
> Jose

How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> And you're just being Steven.
>

Thank you.


>
> It's not the weather that prompted the exchange, it was Potomac's refusal
> to accept the flight.
>

Weather was his reason for the route through Potomac approach.

[Warren Jones]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
>>
>> "We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route.
>
> No, it boils down to "guess the reroute or go home." It only looks like
> an offer to let me decide how I would like to be rerouted - to =actually=
> decide I'd have to know what Potomac's airspace looks like. I don't, and
> should not be expected to.
>
> It's probably just a misunderstanding based on the controllers not being
> pilots, and the pilots not being controllers (and therefore not knowing
> what can and cannot be taken for granted), but in this context "say
> intentions" sounds like "what are you going to do about it?", which makes
> it seem like the controller is going to be non-helpful when the pilot is
> depending on the cooperation of the controller.
>
> Jose

I don't read this situation as "guess the reroute or go home." The Center
Controller is going to be issuing Mike ATC instructions to keep him out of
Potomac Approach, because Potomac has unabled an IFR handoff. The Center
guy is helpfully fishing for Mike's input. He may not have used the best
phrasing, but that's what it boils down to. No way in hell the Center
controller is going to let Mike procede on course. He can't. If Mike
doesn't do anything more at all, the Center is going to at least vector him
to stay out of the Tracon.

Chip, ZTL

[Jose]

> How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?

Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of
the midwest.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Warren Jones]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?
>
> Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the
> midwest.
>
> Jose
> --

Hey, I thought *I* got to be the pilot here!?! :-)

Chip, ZTL

[Howard Nelson]

"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape
where
> > > the following was said:
> > >
> > > "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"
> > >
> >
> > To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay
Approach?
>
> Erm, 1999? :-)
>
> Hamish

Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a
couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach,
followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding like
Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your
intentions?".

Howard :)

[Howard Nelson]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > >
> > > > This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape
> where
> > > > the following was said:
> > > >
> > > > "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"
> > > >
> > >
> > > To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay
> Approach?
> >
> > Erm, 1999? :-)
> >
> > Hamish
>
> Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a
> couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach,
> followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding
like
> Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your
> intentions?".
>
> Howard :)
>

My bad

The sequence was Bay to Sierra to NorCal. I can't wait to see what the next
consolidation is. Luckily I haven't said Bay Approach (or TCA) in years
probably because the correct answer is printed on my charts.

Howard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the
> midwest.
>

Potomac is in the east.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:45:23 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> That is what's happening. The pilots of all those air carrier jets
>> streaming through the airspace you want to use are getting what they want.
>> Traffic flows are dictated by air carrier needs because they're the biggest
>> users.
>
>Some time back, in a different thread (about angelflight) you stated
>that angelflight did not get any priority, and continued to say that
>aircraft are handled on a first-come first-served basis. Your statement
>above seems to contradict that (otherwise I could just be scooted in
>front of the next jet that's not there yet).

Well, how often is an air carrier flying low enough to be in approach
airspace for an airport they're not landing at? Gets back to "they
have to deal with arrivals, not throughflights".

[Roy Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?

Could be. The rest of us look at charts :-)

[Dave Butler]

Roy Smith wrote:
>>someone else wrote>
>>N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or
>>holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over.
>
>
> What possible good comes from this? He's asked you what you would
> like to do, within the constraints of what he's already told you he's
> unable to give you. How could the controller possibly know what makes
> sense for you to do at that point? Are you the PIC, or are you just
> along for the ride?

<Roy's excellent suggestions snipped.>

As usual, an excellent answer, Roy.

Dave

[Dave Butler]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> john smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oops!
>>> I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
>>> Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of
>>> the flight.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to squawk "Lost Comm", just set 7600 and leave it there.
>>
>> The "7700 for one minute, then 7600" procedure predates me, but I
>> understand that a long time ago (like 15 or 20 years), that was how it
>> was done. No longer the case.
>
>
> ...and I suppose I should stop flying triangular patterns as well. Never
> could remember if it was clockwise for no receiver or the ohter
> way..

Heh heh.

[Dave Butler]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?
>
>
> Could be. The rest of us look at charts :-)

Whew. This has been some discussion. If only Roy, Steven, Richard, Jose, Warren
were all inside the same room talking this out, it would make some fascinating
listening. As it is, man, I'm tired of reading. :-)

DGB

[Everett M. Greene]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> >
> > Again... "Intentions" are obvious. ATC should offer specific options.
>
> Again. The options are obvious, or they should be to any experienced pilot.
> Tell ATC which of the obvious options you'd like. ATC is there to help you,
> try working with them instead of against them.

It's my understanding that the usual procedure in a case
such as this is for the controller to issue a reroute based
on the pilot's destintation, present location, and traffic
and weather conditions. Giving the pilot a "say intentions"
sounds a lot like "you're on your own buddy!". That doesn't
sound at all helpful.

Something I haven't seen discussed is how long the
pilot has to give ATC some suggestions in this case.
While contemplating alternative plans and awaiting a
revised clearance, the pilot is to continue on his
existing clearance. What happens if that takes him
into the control area that doesn't want him?

[Scott Moore]

Jose wrote:
>>I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:
>>
>>"What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
>>of Potomac's airspace?"
>
>
> Good enough.
>
>
>>...Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
>>there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
>>that?"
>
>
> Well, he's at this point offering something. He could have been
> offering something from the start, since he knows where I am and where
> I'm heading. A more helpful original call would have been: "Potomac
> can't take you right now. I can take you around twenty miles to the
> East if you like, or to the northwest direct XXX. Which would you prefer?"
>
>
>>You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
>>try again". It doesn't work like that.
>
>
> No, it doesn't usually work like that. However, "you can't do that,
> what are you going to do about it?" sure makes it seem like the
> controller is playing that game.
>
>
>>"Say intentions" should
>>not be something pilots fear hearing.
>
>
> It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
>
> Jose

Exactly. They tear up my clearance constantly and issue new ones.
The best I can think of is that since the entire plan basically got
canceled, they were letting the OP rethink it all.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Howard Nelson" > wrote:

> "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article t>,
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > >
> > > > > This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape
> > where
> > > > > the following was said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay
> > Approach?
> > >
> > > Erm, 1999? :-)
> > >
> > > Hamish
> >
> > Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a
> > couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach,
> > followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding
> like
> > Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your
> > intentions?".
>>
> My bad
>
> The sequence was Bay to Sierra to NorCal. I can't wait to see what the next
> consolidation is. Luckily I haven't said Bay Approach (or TCA) in years
> probably because the correct answer is printed on my charts.

Just don't call them "Oakland" like I do every now and then...

I'm betting on "Left Coast Approach" by 2020 :-).

Hamish

[Robert M. Gary]

Changing squawk code seems like a bad idea (as well as totally
unnecessary). You are already radar identified, changing squawk code
would just "un identify" you. Seems bad.
As far as declaring an emergency goes, I would only do that if there
was no other route that would not endanger me. Perhaps if TS were
closing around me that would be an emergency. Being irritated that you
must turn back and go back to the airport you took off from doesn't
sound like a reason to roll fire trucks.

-Robert, CFI

[Allan9]

Steve do they still use PDR, PDAR, and PARs?.
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Shouldn't that be taken into consideration by ATC prior to issuance of
>> the clearance?
>>
>
> They probably did. Remember, they initially issued a different route
> which was declined due to weather. Perhaps they then issued the route
> through the TRACON hoping they could sell it to approach.
>

[Allan9]

That's why they sponsor pilot controller forums.
Have you ever gone to one?
Al


"Dave Butler" <x@yy> wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>
>>>Hell, am I the only one that ever consults a map in these discussions?
>>
>>
>> Could be. The rest of us look at charts :-)
>
> Whew. This has been some discussion. If only Roy, Steven, Richard, Jose,
> Warren were all inside the same room talking this out, it would make some
> fascinating listening. As it is, man, I'm tired of reading. :-)
>
> DGB

[Allan9]

Ron
R for receiver only
Al

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> In article >,
>> john smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oops!
>>>I guess I got my code squawks backwards.
>>>Should have typed 7700 for one-minute, then 7600 for the remainder of the
>>>flight.
>>
>>
>> If you want to squawk "Lost Comm", just set 7600 and leave it there.
>>
>> The "7700 for one minute, then 7600" procedure predates me, but I
>> understand that a long time ago (like 15 or 20 years), that was how it
>> was done. No longer the case.
>
> ...and I suppose I should stop flying triangular patterns as well. Never
> could remember if it was clockwise for no receiver or the ohter
> way..

[Allan9]

Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would do
in your facility.
Al

"Warren Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Michelle P" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have to
>> look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have
>> seen improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and I
>> have seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for
>> being rude and just plain wrong.
>> Michelle
>>
>>
>
> If it makes you feel good, go ahead and call. You are wasting your time.
> I assure you that a call to the QA office of a mac-daddy approach control
> like Potomac, Southern Cal, Chicago, New York, Atlanta etc, whining about
> the facility's refusal to work you en route through busy terminal
> airspace, wouldn't make it out of the QA office. They'd pay you lip
> service, and then they'd probably laugh about your temerity/stupidity
> after they hung up the receiver. Little airplanes IFR en route don't have
> the magical power to fly willy nilly through busy Tracons unless the pilot
> knows the magic word when he is refused initial clearance. Also, if he
> uses the magic word, he'd better be prepared to formally defend its use.
>
> I can imagine that the controllers and flight service specialists in
> Maryland and the Old Dominion tremble when they hear your voice on the
> radio.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>
>

[Jose]

> R for receiver only

"R" means "right" as in clockwise?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Allan9]

If an old man can make another comment that may not be current in todays
situations. When the original clearance was issued it conformed with
"standardized" departure procedures from the departing airport/terminal
facility. Even though a rereoute either major or minor will be required in
the future the clearance is issued. The first time the controller would be
aware of it would be in the center sector/terminal facility immediately
prior to the required change. This may or may not be compatible with
traffic flows in effect. ie departure procedures, arrivals procedures, etc.
Maybe on of the current controllers could be so kind to explain the
tailoring symbols on a flight progress strip. If they still use them.

I find it exceptionally hard to beleive any controller would use the phrase
"refused". I can beleive they told you you would have to be rerouted.

Nuff for now thanks for letting me vent.
Al

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>>I'm not sure where this is going, but how about:
>>>
>>>"What clearance can you give me which will get me around to the east
>>>of Potomac's airspace?"
>>
>>
>> Good enough.
>>
>>
>>>...Or maybe he'll say, "Unfortunately, I can't get you anywhere near
>>>there. The best I can do in that direction is blah, blah. Can you do
>>>that?"
>>
>>
>> Well, he's at this point offering something. He could have been
>> offering something from the start, since he knows where I am and where
>> I'm heading. A more helpful original call would have been: "Potomac
>> can't take you right now. I can take you around twenty miles to the
>> East if you like, or to the northwest direct XXX. Which would you
>> prefer?"
>>
>>
>>>You seem to be expecting that he's going to say, "Bzzzt, wrong answer,
>>>try again". It doesn't work like that.
>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't usually work like that. However, "you can't do that,
>> what are you going to do about it?" sure makes it seem like the
>> controller is playing that game.
>>
>>
>>>"Say intentions" should
>>>not be something pilots fear hearing.
>>
>>
>> It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is.
>>
>> Jose
>
> Exactly. They tear up my clearance constantly and issue new ones.
> The best I can think of is that since the entire plan basically got
> canceled, they were letting the OP rethink it all.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Steve do they still use PDR, PDAR, and PARs?.
>

If by "they" you mean US ATC in general, the answer is yes. I'm not
familiar with the DC area specifically.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "State intentions": "what are you going to do?" (controller has
> hands-off stance)
>

State

tr.v. stat·ed, stat·ing, states

To set forth in words; declare.


In·ten·tion

n.

1. A course of action that one intends to follow.
2. An aim that guides action; an objective.


So, "State intentions": "Declare a course of action that you intend to
follow." (controller wants to know what the pilot would like to do)

The phrases "say intentions" and "state intentions" are not standard
phraseology. The phrase "advise intentions" is standard phraseology", the
Pilot/Controller Glossary defines it as "tell me what you plan to do." "Say
intentions" is far more common than "advise intentions", however.


>
> Got it. I'd have to know (or suspect) that the reason they are =refusing=
> to accept me is that they (as a matter of policy) don't take thruflights,
> and not that they are balled up by the weather, or don't like the position
> of my wings, or just don't feel like doing whatever it takes to squeeze me
> through. I would never (prior to this exchange) suspected that "they just
> don't do
> thruflights" or "today they aren't doing thruflights".
>

It comes with experience.


>
> Some time back, in a different thread (about angelflight) you stated that
> angelflight did not get any priority, and continued to say that aircraft
> are handled on a first-come first-served basis. Your statement above
> seems to contradict that (otherwise I could just be scooted in front of
> the next jet that's not there yet).
>

No contradiction. Aircraft are routed based on performance and destination,
within those parameters they're handled on a first-come, first served-basis.


>
> Yes in this case, if they are "unable" to handle me because of all the
> jets that haven't gotten there yet. They are unable to handle me =and=
> give the jets priority. If what you say is operative, they are
> =unwilling= to not give the jets priority in order to let me through.
>

They're coming in a steady stream. There's no room to let you through.
What you're asking for is akin to crossing a busy interstate on a bicycle.

[Allan9]

They being the CONUS ARTCC
PDR = Preferential Departure Route
PDAR = Preferential DEparture Arrival Route
PAR = Preferential Arrival Route

Centers have them for most all terminal airspace.
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Steve do they still use PDR, PDAR, and PARs?.
>>
>
> If by "they" you mean US ATC in general, the answer is yes. I'm not
> familiar with the DC area specifically.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> They being the CONUS ARTCC
> PDR = Preferential Departure Route
> PDAR = Preferential DEparture Arrival Route
> PAR = Preferential Arrival Route
>
> Centers have them for most all terminal airspace.
>

They exist for busy terminal airspace, most terminal airspace does without
them.

[Allan9]

Green Bay have them?
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> They being the CONUS ARTCC
>> PDR = Preferential Departure Route
>> PDAR = Preferential DEparture Arrival Route
>> PAR = Preferential Arrival Route
>>
>> Centers have them for most all terminal airspace.
>>
>
> They exist for busy terminal airspace, most terminal airspace does without
> them.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Green Bay have them?
>

Nope.

[Warren Jones]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
> Warren
> I take exception to your statement.
> The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
> situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would
> do in your facility.
> Al

Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.

Chip, ZTL

[Allan9]

My sneaking hunch would be your southbounds are affected by MKE's
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Green Bay have them?
>>
>
> Nope.
>

[Allan9]

Four years AMQA ORD/C90
Al

"Warren Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Warren
>> I take exception to your statement.
>> The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
>> situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would
>> do in your facility.
>> Al
>
> Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
> Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
> concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
> separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
> are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> My sneaking hunch would be your southbounds are affected by MKE's
>

Yes, MKE has preferential routes. As do many other terminals which aircraft
may be cleared to from GRB. But GRB has none.

[Warren Jones]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
...
> Four years AMQA ORD/C90
> Al
>
> "Warren Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Allan9" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Warren
>>> I take exception to your statement.
>>> The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
>>> situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they
>>> would do in your facility.
>>> Al
>>
>> Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
>> Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
>> concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
>> separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
>> are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.
>>

And in the situation of Potomac Tracon controller refusing the routing on
this aircraft, as AMQA at Potomac you would have done what internally? You
said "the user would have had the situation explained to them, rightly or
wrong". That's lip service. That's exactly what I would expect QA to do at
my facility. Soothe the pilot with "we're looking into this." But as far
as somehow finding a QA issue in the case cited, refusing the route isn't a
QA issue. It's a tactical issue and the controller is the tactician.

Chip, ZTL

[Allan9]

Just to make certain we are talking apples and apples I am not referring to
the published (AIM) for one, Preferential Routings. I am speaking to the
ARTCC (ZAU or ZMP) internal computer routings. That'll be what comes out
between the plus signs.
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> My sneaking hunch would be your southbounds are affected by MKE's
>>
>
> Yes, MKE has preferential routes. As do many other terminals which
> aircraft may be cleared to from GRB. But GRB has none.
>

[Allan9]

Maybe that's the manner your QA operates. We did tell the user we would
investigate and would ask them if they wanted us to get back to them with
what we found. If they did we did. Internal people actions were handled in
house. All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved.
Al

"Warren Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Four years AMQA ORD/C90
>> Al
>>
>> "Warren Jones" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Allan9" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Warren
>>>> I take exception to your statement.
>>>> The situation would have been researched and the user would have had
>>>> the situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they
>>>> would do in your facility.
>>>> Al
>>>
>>> Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
>>> Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
>>> concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
>>> separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all
>>> you are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.
>>>
>
> And in the situation of Potomac Tracon controller refusing the routing on
> this aircraft, as AMQA at Potomac you would have done what internally?
> You said "the user would have had the situation explained to them, rightly
> or wrong". That's lip service. That's exactly what I would expect QA to
> do at my facility. Soothe the pilot with "we're looking into this." But
> as far as somehow finding a QA issue in the case cited, refusing the route
> isn't a QA issue. It's a tactical issue and the controller is the
> tactician.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Just to make certain we are talking apples and apples I am not referring
> to the published (AIM) for one, Preferential Routings. I am speaking to
> the ARTCC (ZAU or ZMP) internal computer routings. That'll be what comes
> out between the plus signs.
>

I'm talking apples.

[Allan9]

Ok
Al

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Just to make certain we are talking apples and apples I am not referring
>> to the published (AIM) for one, Preferential Routings. I am speaking to
>> the ARTCC (ZAU or ZMP) internal computer routings. That'll be what comes
>> out between the plus signs.
>>
>
> I'm talking apples.
>

[Warren Jones]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
. ..
> Maybe that's the manner your QA operates. We did tell the user we would
> investigate and would ask them if they wanted us to get back to them with
> what we found. If they did we did. Internal people actions were handled
> in house. All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved.
> Al
>

"All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved."

That's a typical FAA bureaucratic QA management answer. You gave the user
lip service. Sounds like your QA is the same as everyone else's.

Chip, ZTL

[Allan9]

Well Warren all I can say to you is bid a QA job and try to correct what you
perceive as a problem. If you choose not to then you are part of the
problem. The phrase you choose to exploit was meant to say in a nice way
that if you required remedial training it would be handled inhouse. All the
user would need to know was the situation was resolved. If you think that's
bureaucratic there's nothing I could say to you. There are a lot of people
that "care". Based on your we-they response I'd say you are part of the
problem
Al


"Warren Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Allan9" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Maybe that's the manner your QA operates. We did tell the user we would
>> investigate and would ask them if they wanted us to get back to them with
>> what we found. If they did we did. Internal people actions were handled
>> in house. All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved.
>> Al
>>
>
> "All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved."
>
> That's a typical FAA bureaucratic QA management answer. You gave the user
> lip service. Sounds like your QA is the same as everyone else's.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>

[Warren Jones]

"Allan9" > wrote in message
.. .
> Well Warren all I can say to you is bid a QA job and try to correct what
> you perceive as a problem.

Hello AL? We don't have "QA bids" in most places because the
traffic-dodging cowards that work in QA are all "permanent" staff. At my
facility, I am of neither the correct gender or racial profile to be a QA
"specialist" anyway. Just wondering, as a C90 QA demigod for four years,
how much ATC currency did you have to maintain? Down here, no one in our QA
office has worked air traffic in over fourteen years.

>If you choose not to then you are part of the problem.

What problem? The "problem" that Potomac wouldn't work this aircraft
contrary to SOP and LOA on a direct routing through busy terminal airspace?
Or am I part of the overall "problem" that caused you to selflessly take a
QA/staff/management bid? Very altruistic of you. I'm sure that like all
the other strap hangers and feather merchants, you went ATC staff because
you are one of the "good" people who "care", and not at all because you
sucked as a controller and were facing 25 years in a career you couldn't
handle.

>The phrase you choose to exploit was meant to say in a nice way that if you
>required remedial training it would be handled inhouse.

Which phrase, said in a "nice" way, am I exploiting?

You're the guy giving lip service to the user about the "situation being
resolved." The simple truth is that in this instance of the aircraft being
piloted by Mike, which started this thread, there is no QA issue. Not one.
The ZDC controller failed to get Potomac Tracon to buy off on a route
through busy terminal airspace. That's every day ATC. It a tactical issue.
Michelle suggested to Mike that he call QA at Potomac because Potomac was
somehow at fault for not accepting the route, aka "refusing" to handle the
flight.. I pointed out to her what a waste of time this would be in this
situation, to which she responded that her calls had resulted in discipline
of a "rude" and just "plain wrong" controller. You and I both know that
what Michelle posts is bunk. Her calls probably didn't make it out of the
Potomac QA office. Remember the ADIZ? Potomac QA is likely buried in
paperwork for incidents, OE's and OD's stemming from the mess around DC. I
seriously doubt that they have any time at all to track down "rude"
controllers and give them days off for bad (but safe and procedural)
service.

And by the way, if I required "remedial" training, where else would it be
handled besides "inhouse"? Yall send your 70 Chicago controllers somewhere
for remedial? C90 too small to self-train, or what?


>All the user would need to know was the situation was resolved. If you
>think that's bureaucratic there's nothing I could say to you.

Indeed.


>There are a lot of people that "care". Based on your we-they response I'd
>say you are part of the problem
> Al

What problem?

Chip, ZTL