"Refusing to Handle You"

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?

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" 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.

"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 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

"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 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" 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" 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."

"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.