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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

(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.

"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?