"Refusing to Handle You"

"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".

"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" 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: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" 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" 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.

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.

"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.

"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" 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