If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
John Clonts wrote:
"expect holding at XXXXX, the next sector is not taking your handoff". Then before I get to XXXXX the handoff gets accepted. Now that sounds a lot more reasonable for ATC service. Yes, I agree. And it also suggests that in the original scenario, a good tack might be along these lines: ZXX Center: N1234, Potomac Approach is refusing to handle you, say intentions. N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over. What possible good comes from this? He's asked you what you would like to do, within the constraints of what he's already told you he's unable to give you. How could the controller possibly know what makes sense for you to do at that point? Are you the PIC, or are you just along for the ride? Something like, "I need to stay south of Camp David to avoid convective activity north of there. If Potomac won't take me, can you work me on vectors around the south edge of P-whatever-it-is?". At least that gives the controller something to decide if he can approve or not. Another constructive alternative, "If I hold at Hagarstown, how long would I expect until Potomac can work me?" Or, "Would it help if I climbed to xxx?" Or, here's another one, that's perhaps a little more devious. "If I changed my destination to Fredrick, could Potomac at least take me that far?" If the controller says "yes", once you get handed off to Potomac, you can try wheedling *that* guy for a clearance to York. It may be gaming the system a bit, but sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't and you might end up having to land at Fredrick, but that's probably no worse than landing back at Hagarstown. Any of these alternatives seem better than asking the controller to try and read your mind. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote So a pilot is under no obligation to accept any change to his clearance? I never said that. I said a pilot is under no obligation to accept any change to his clearance which the pilot feels is unsafe. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message operational restrictions that were being forced on the TRACON by higher levels of bureaucracy. This may be a reflection of that pressure. That could well be the case... in which case pilots starting to say "Unable" and causing controllers to go to their supervisors seeking solutions may well be the solution to this issue. Certainly "The next sector will not accept you -- state intention" is blatantly unacceptable ATC service. Let ATC propose the solution to me. Let the controller sit on the ground with his supervisor and figure out the solution -- don't leave it up to me while I am flying with a valid clearance on a route I planned around thunderstorms. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in message N1234: ZXX Center, If you'd like to offer me an amended clearance or holding instructions, I'd be happy to consider them, N1234, over. I agree... except in this case I might well also advise ATC that the current routing was selected to avoid convective weather. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message The controller didn't issue a clearance amendment, he informed him that Potomac approach wouldn't accept him and asked him for his intentions. This is his opportunity to come up with an alternative acceptable to him. I guess what I am most saying here is that "Potomac will not accept you" just does not make sense and therefore I would have little basis upon which to propose some alternative plan. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:1121648616.ba937d939e05237b4228738fe266ced1@t eranews... No emergency declaration. "Unable reroute" is all that is necessary. That's not a particularly useful answer to the controller's request for your 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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave S" wrote in message .net... Your options are to 1) accept the new instructions 2) cancel IFR 3) declare an emergency in which case you can disregard just about everything but the laws of physics. Well, not quite everything, and declaring an emergency isn't quite enough, you have to actually have one! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flap handle activated Climb/Cruise switching | Andy Smielkiewicz | Soaring | 5 | March 14th 05 04:54 AM |
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | March 2nd 04 08:48 PM |
G103 Acro airbrake handle | Andy Durbin | Soaring | 12 | January 18th 04 11:51 PM |
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? | greg | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 17th 03 03:47 AM |
Need door handle for 1959 Cessna 175 | Paul Millner | Owning | 0 | July 4th 03 07:36 PM |