"Refusing to Handle You"

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

"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

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.

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

"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.

"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.

"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.