"cleared to ... when direct ..."

[John Harper]

Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
(IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
worrying visually).

I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
forget to give me the subsequent clearance?

John

[Roy Smith]

In article <1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3>,
"John Harper" > wrote:

> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> worrying visually).

I suspect you dropped a word (or he did). It sounds like it should have
been "climb and maintain 6000. When able, direct Ventura".

I would have started a climb to 6000, taken a WAG at the heading to
Ventura, turned to that heading, and begun to tune in the VOR (or hit
direct on the GPS). Once I had a good signal, I would have tracked it
direct.

[Bob Gardner]

I'm going to quibble with Roy just a bit. "When able," in my mind, means
"when you can proceed direct without hitting anything." You can get a good
needle and still hit terrain. In this clearance, however, my guess is that
6000 feet was his minimum instrument altitude and you were good to go at
that altitude.

Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3>,
> "John Harper" > wrote:
>
> > Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> > (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> > Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> > me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> > such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> > me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> > sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> > worrying visually).
>
> I suspect you dropped a word (or he did). It sounds like it should have
> been "climb and maintain 6000. When able, direct Ventura".
>
> I would have started a climb to 6000, taken a WAG at the heading to
> Ventura, turned to that heading, and begun to tune in the VOR (or hit
> direct on the GPS). Once I had a good signal, I would have tracked it
> direct.

[Roy Smith]

In article <ZLUVb.12036$032.41047@attbi_s53>,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> I'm going to quibble with Roy just a bit. "When able," in my mind, means
> "when you can proceed direct without hitting anything." You can get a good
> needle and still hit terrain. In this clearance, however, my guess is that
> 6000 feet was his minimum instrument altitude and you were good to go at
> that altitude.

I certainly hope not! If 6000 was the MIA, what was the controller
doing issuing a route clearance? If John was on initial climbout, I
assume he was on a DP. How can the controller take him off the DP below
the MIA?

To get what Bob is talking about, I think the clearance needed to be
worded something like, "climb and maintain 6000, upon reaching 6000,
direct Ventura". On the other hand, if that's what the controller
wanted, it would have been simplier (and less confusing) to just issue
the altitude, and the direct Ventura once he reached it.


>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3>,
> > "John Harper" > wrote:
> >
> > > Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> > > (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> > > Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> > > me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> > > such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> > > me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> > > sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> > > worrying visually).
> >
> > I suspect you dropped a word (or he did). It sounds like it should have
> > been "climb and maintain 6000. When able, direct Ventura".
> >
> > I would have started a climb to 6000, taken a WAG at the heading to
> > Ventura, turned to that heading, and begun to tune in the VOR (or hit
> > direct on the GPS). Once I had a good signal, I would have tracked it
> > direct.
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
I'm going to quibble with Roy just a bit. "When able," in my mind, means
"when you can proceed direct without hitting anything."
<<

Well, if I"m in the soup, the only way I know I won't hit anything is to trust
the controllers. They aren't supposed to vector me into terrain. Now granted
I need some situational awareness, but not to the extent that I don't need
controllers and the instrument flight rules themselves.

Jose

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

[[email protected]]

Were you receiving departure radar vectors?

If so, a word was dropped or missed. The clearance you quote would make
no sense so it should have been promptly questioned. I suspect the
clearance was "cimb and maintain 6,000, when able direct Ventura."

John Harper wrote:

> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> worrying visually).
>
> I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
> direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
> initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
> forget to give me the subsequent clearance?
>
> John

[John Clonts]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> worrying visually).
>
> I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
> direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
> initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
> forget to give me the subsequent clearance?
>
> John
>

Which runway off of SMO?

[Jay Somerset]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:07:49 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article <1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3>,
> "John Harper" > wrote:
>
> > Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> > (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> > Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> > me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> > such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> > me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> > sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> > worrying visually).
>
> I suspect you dropped a word (or he did). It sounds like it should have
> been "climb and maintain 6000. When able, direct Ventura".

Or it might have been, "climb and maintain 6000, THEN direct Ventura" which
would require him to get to 6000 before turning. No way to tell -- either
is plausible.

>
> I would have started a climb to 6000, taken a WAG at the heading to
> Ventura, turned to that heading, and begun to tune in the VOR (or hit
> direct on the GPS). Once I had a good signal, I would have tracked it
> direct.

[John Harper]

Thanks for all the answers. This was runway 21 at SMO, heading
out over to the ocean. No DP, but standard procedure is RH
to intercept LAX315 (the coastline), then 270, vecs to VTU.

I don't THINK I misheard (although memory is a fickle thing) because
I heard him say exactly the same thing to the following departure as well.

The idea that I should climb to 6000 THEN Direct VTU would make
sense except that turning Direct would actually vector me slightly
AWAY from the terrain.

I was at 3000 which is high enough to not bump into any terrain locally
but certainly not IFR en-route clearance (the highest peak in the
ridge is about 2700 from memory).

Guess next time I'll ask.

Thanks again,

John

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> worrying visually).
>
> I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
> direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
> initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
> forget to give me the subsequent clearance?
>
> John
>
>

[Brien K. Meehan]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...

> Well, if I"m in the soup, the only way I know I won't hit anything is to trust
> the controllers. They aren't supposed to vector me into terrain. Now granted
> I need some situational awareness, but not to the extent that I don't need
> controllers and the instrument flight rules themselves.

I know you're making a point, but I seriously, seriously hope you're
not saying that you need controllers, and don't need situational
awareness, to avoid terrain.

In the soup, traffic should be your only variable. Even so, no matter
how much you "trust" controllers, you don't "know" you won't hit
traffic. Controllers make mistakes every single day. You still have
the responsibility to see and avoid traffic.

For terrain and obstacles, you ABSOLUTELY DO need situational
awareness to (and beyond) the extent that you shouldn't need
controllers. Anyone who finds that he doesn't have this level of
situational awareness should either make a big change to his flight
planning methods, or should revise his personal minimums to exclude
actual IMC.

[Patrick Mayer]

Hi,

> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb.

My guess is: he said "c/m 6000 THEN direct Ventura" (so you'd have to climb
to 6 on your current clearance and turn after reaching 6.000)

> I wonder what this clearance really meant?

Probably the best guess, whether IFR or VFR is: if you're not 100% sure what
he meant or if you understand everything correctly: ask the guy! Nobody will
grill you for that, and it is a lot less sweat in the cockpit if you sure
you're doing what the controller wants you to.

Happy flying,
Patrick

[[email protected]]

this is an extremely important point. Can the group gurus chime in
here to sort it out?
Roy thinks "when able direct" implies the controller is assuming
responsibility for terrain clearance.
bob suggests "when able direct" implies the pilot, not the controller
is assuming responsibility for terrain clearance.
My experience is with Roy's thoughts. The few times terrain was a
factor, the controller said words to the effect as "when clear of
terrain, proceed direct XYZ.
Stan

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:46:30 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article <ZLUVb.12036$032.41047@attbi_s53>,
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
>> I'm going to quibble with Roy just a bit. "When able," in my mind, means
>> "when you can proceed direct without hitting anything." You can get a good
>> needle and still hit terrain. In this clearance, however, my guess is that
>> 6000 feet was his minimum instrument altitude and you were good to go at
>> that altitude.
>
>I certainly hope not! If 6000 was the MIA, what was the controller
>doing issuing a route clearance? If John was on initial climbout, I
>assume he was on a DP. How can the controller take him off the DP below
>the MIA?
>
>To get what Bob is talking about, I think the clearance needed to be
>worded something like, "climb and maintain 6000, upon reaching 6000,
>direct Ventura". On the other hand, if that's what the controller
>wanted, it would have been simplier (and less confusing) to just issue
>the altitude, and the direct Ventura once he reached it.
>
>
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3>,
>> > "John Harper" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
>> > > (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
>> > > Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
>> > > me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
>> > > such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
>> > > me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
>> > > sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
>> > > worrying visually).
>> >
>> > I suspect you dropped a word (or he did). It sounds like it should have
>> > been "climb and maintain 6000. When able, direct Ventura".
>> >
>> > I would have started a climb to 6000, taken a WAG at the heading to
>> > Ventura, turned to that heading, and begun to tune in the VOR (or hit
>> > direct on the GPS). Once I had a good signal, I would have tracked it
>> > direct.
>>
>>

[Newps]

wrote:

> Roy thinks "when able direct" implies the controller is assuming
> responsibility for terrain clearance.

Absolutely he does. A controller never says to proceed direct when
able, when the "when able" part means that you have to know when you are
above the terrain. When able direct always means navigation. When you
are receiving the relavant station you may go directly to it.


> bob suggests "when able direct" implies the pilot, not the controller
> is assuming responsibility for terrain clearance.

That's not correct.


>

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-10, Newps > wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Roy thinks "when able direct" implies the controller is assuming
>> responsibility for terrain clearance.
>
> ...When able direct always means navigation. When you
> are receiving the relavant station you may go directly to it.
>

I wish the pilot-controller glossary were as specific:

"WHEN ABLE- When used in conjunction with ATC instructions, gives the
pilot the latitude to delay compliance until a condition or event has
been reconciled..."

It doesn't seem to say anything about terrain OR navigation. Is there
another reference?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> worrying visually).
>
> I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
> direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
> initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
> forget to give me the subsequent clearance?
>

As it is nonstandard phraseology, it's meaning cannot be known for sure.
Are you sure that's what the controller said?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:ZLUVb.12036$032.41047@attbi_s53...
>
> I'm going to quibble with Roy just a bit. "When able," in my mind,
> means "when you can proceed direct without hitting anything." You
> can get a good needle and still hit terrain. In this clearance, however,
> my guess is that 6000 feet was his minimum instrument altitude and
> you were good to go at that altitude.
>

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

WHEN ABLE- When used in conjunction with ATC instructions, gives the pilot
the latitude to delay compliance until a condition or event has been
reconciled. Unlike "pilot discretion," when instructions are prefaced "when
able," the pilot is expected to seek the first opportunity to comply. Once a
maneuver has been initiated, the pilot is expected to continue until the
specifications of the instructions have been met. "When able," should not be
used when expeditious compliance is required.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, if I"m in the soup, the only way I know I won't hit anything is
> to trust the controllers. They aren't supposed to vector me into
> terrain. Now granted I need some situational awareness, but not
> to the extent that I don't need controllers and the instrument flight
> rules themselves.
>

The only way? What about departure procedures?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1076387776.207455@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
> Thanks for all the answers. This was runway 21 at SMO, heading
> out over to the ocean. No DP, but standard procedure is RH
> to intercept LAX315 (the coastline), then 270, vecs to VTU.
>

Is that what was issued in this case?

[John Harper]

Yes.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1076387776.207455@sj-nntpcache-5...
> >
> > Thanks for all the answers. This was runway 21 at SMO, heading
> > out over to the ocean. No DP, but standard procedure is RH
> > to intercept LAX315 (the coastline), then 270, vecs to VTU.
> >
>
> Is that what was issued in this case?
>
>

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Absolutely he does. A controller never says to proceed direct when
> able, when the "when able" part means that you have to know when you are
> above the terrain. When able direct always means navigation. When you
> are receiving the relavant station you may go directly to it.

It sounds like you're saying the controller cannot say "direct when able,"
then you say the controller can say "direct when able" with regards to nav
facility reception.

In the case of Santa Monica Runway 21, even though the guy was probably
pretty low when told he could proceed direct to Ventura, terrain was not a
factor. The terrain is well to the north, and northwest. The MVA is 1500
where the clearance was likely issued. A direct track to VTU doesn't get
into a higher MVA area for quite a ways, well beyond what a nominal climb
rate would overcome. The highest MVA, way down the road, is 4,000 (with a
little 4,100 area) and the pilot was cleared to 6,000.

So, he could have been at say, 1,200 and not yet able to receive VTU. Once
he did though, his slight right turn to proceed direct would not have
created a terrain clearance issue for the departure controller.

[Mick Ruthven]

I suggest you call the tower (or whatever facility issued it) and ask what
that clearance meant.

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1076387776.207455@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Thanks for all the answers. This was runway 21 at SMO, heading
> out over to the ocean. No DP, but standard procedure is RH
> to intercept LAX315 (the coastline), then 270, vecs to VTU.
>
> I don't THINK I misheard (although memory is a fickle thing) because
> I heard him say exactly the same thing to the following departure as well.
>
> The idea that I should climb to 6000 THEN Direct VTU would make
> sense except that turning Direct would actually vector me slightly
> AWAY from the terrain.
>
> I was at 3000 which is high enough to not bump into any terrain locally
> but certainly not IFR en-route clearance (the highest peak in the
> ridge is about 2700 from memory).
>
> Guess next time I'll ask.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> John
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1076365605.761786@sj-nntpcache-3...
> > Got an odd clearance the other day, on climbout from Santa Monica
> > (IFR but in perfect VMC): "climb and maintain 6000 when direct
> > Ventura". I took this to mean that someone would later clear
> > me direct VTU, whereupon I would climb. However I never got
> > such a clearance, and later an evidently nervous controller called
> > me, cleared me to 6000', and asked me if I had the terrain in
> > sight (which I did, but it was getting close for IFR though not
> > worrying visually).
> >
> > I wonder what this clearance really meant? Did it mean "when ABLE
> > direct", i.e. when I could receive the VOR (which I couldn't
> > initially although I was filed /G anyway)? Or did someone just
> > forget to give me the subsequent clearance?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>

[Newps]

wrote:
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Absolutely he does. A controller never says to proceed direct when
>>able, when the "when able" part means that you have to know when you are
>>above the terrain. When able direct always means navigation. When you
>>are receiving the relavant station you may go directly to it.
>
>
> It sounds like you're saying the controller cannot say "direct when able,"
> then you say the controller can say "direct when able" with regards to nav
> facility reception.
>
> In the case of Santa Monica Runway 21, even though the guy was probably
> pretty low when told he could proceed direct to Ventura, terrain was not a
> factor. The terrain is well to the north, and northwest. The MVA is 1500
> where the clearance was likely issued. A direct track to VTU doesn't get
> into a higher MVA area for quite a ways, well beyond what a nominal climb
> rate would overcome. The highest MVA, way down the road, is 4,000 (with a
> little 4,100 area) and the pilot was cleared to 6,000.
>
> So, he could have been at say, 1,200 and not yet able to receive VTU. Once
> he did though, his slight right turn to proceed direct would not have
> created a terrain clearance issue for the departure controller.
>
This is exactly the situation I described. Airplane is on a vector that
will get it pretty close to his on course heading. When he receives the
station he goes directly to it.