![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I normally fly out of Rochester NY, which is towered and class C. And 99%
of the time my clearance route is "Vectors as filed". But yesterday I had to stop off at Batavia to pick up something, and then continue on to Goderich Ontario. Since it's just easier to be on an IFR flight plan when crossing the border, I filed from Batavia (Genesee County). When I called on the RCO to pick up my clearance, instead of what I expected, I got "Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording. The controller helpfully explained later that they do it that way to head you back towards their airspace so they can get you radar identified before sending you towards Buffalo, since Batavia is almost right on the border between Rochester and Buffalo's airspace. And sure enough, as soon as I got to pattern altitude and called Rochester, he asked me to ident, and when I did he gave me the clearance to Goderich "As filed", so it's not like I went well out of my way. I think if I ever do that again, and it's good VFR conditions, I'll file from Buffalo VOR and pick up my clearance in the air on the way there. But I'm curious about what would have happened if I'd lost contact on the way to GEE and it had been real IFR. Geneseo VOR was my clearance limit, so what would I do if I couldn't go back to Rochester VFR? Assume I would have got my further clearance at GEE, so after I got there squawk 7600 and head off to Goderich? Hope that my transponder was still working and head back to Rochester to do the ILS? -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "I love the smell of burning components in the morning. Smells like victory." (The ******* Operator From Hell) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
"Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording. I'm guessing he said something to the effect of "expect filed route". Another possibility is "expect further clearance at XXXX". Given the information you supplied, it's a coin toss which :-) But I'm curious about what would have happened if I'd lost contact on the way to GEE and it had been real IFR. You would have whipped out your laptop, fired up a web browser, and gone to http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...4cfr91_00.html, where you would have read: 91.185 *IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure. [...] (c)(3) Leave clearance limit. [...] (ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route. Next, you would have slapped yourself for not paying more attention to your original clearance and take a guess at whether you had a EFC time or not, and if you did, what it was. For the moment, let's assume what the controller said was "Expect filed route after GEE". If so, assuming your filed route included GEE, you would have flown your cleared route, climbing to 6000 10 minutes after you took off. The interesting question is what you do when you get to your destination. Do you hold until your ETA, or do you just go ahead and fly the aporoach and land ASAP, as has been espoused so often on this newsgroup. What makes it interesting in my mind is twofold: 1) I have no idea if Goderich is in an area of radar coverage, and 2) I have little experience flying in Canada. I think I've got a good feel for how ATC works in the US, and feel comfortable exercising my PIC authority to play fast and loose with the last sentence of 91.185(c)(3)(ii). I can only assume that 91.185 is basicly an echo of ICAO procedures and the rules in Canada are the essentially the same, but I'd personally be more inclined to play a literal interpretation in Canadian airspace. Geneseo VOR was my clearance limit, so what would I do if I couldn't go back to Rochester VFR? Assume I would have got my further clearance at GEE, so after I got there squawk 7600 and head off to Goderich? Hope that my transponder was still working and head back to Rochester to do the ILS? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote: "Cleared to Geneseo VOR, via direct, climb to 4,000 expect 6,000 one zero minutes after departure". There was something in there about getting my filed route later, but I didn't catch the exact wording. I'm guessing he said something to the effect of "expect filed route". Another possibility is "expect further clearance at XXXX". Given the information you supplied, it's a coin toss which :-) No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't an EFC. or not, and if you did, what it was. For the moment, let's assume what the controller said was "Expect filed route after GEE". If so, assuming your filed route included GEE, you would have flown your cleared route, climbing to 6000 10 minutes after you took off. My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...", so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF. What makes it interesting in my mind is twofold: 1) I have no idea if Goderich is in an area of radar coverage, and 2) I have little It wasn't. As a matter of fact, the controller turned me loose about 20 minutes before I got to Goderich because his radio repeater near there wasn't working. Which is about where I entered IMC - kind of strange to be out of contact with radar, radio and the horizon all at once. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Heaven has all the lusers, a generous supply of larts - and no PHBs anywhere in sight. -- The BOFH Heaven, according to Suresh |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote: My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...", so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF. Seems like a reasonable plan. Going direct BUF would be more in tune with the letter of how the rule is written, though, since that's what you filed and were told to expect. On the other hand, in a lost comm situation, there's a good argument to be made for staying on airways, since they guarantee nav signal reception and terrain clearance. On the third hand, if you've got GPS, and are above the OROCA, going direct seems like the right thing to do. kind of strange to be out of contact with radar, radio and the horizon all at once. Why? Radar and radio contact with ATC are just conveniences. Neither is necessary to fly the airplane. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
In article , (Paul Tomblin) wrote: My filed route didn't include GEE, but I'd filed "Direct BUF v84 YXU ...", so I guess I would have flown the airway that connects GEE to BUF. Seems like a reasonable plan. Going direct BUF would be more in tune If I'm at GEE, "direct BUF" and "follow the airway between them" is the same thing. kind of strange to be out of contact with radar, radio and the horizon all at once. Why? Radar and radio contact with ATC are just conveniences. Neither is necessary to fly the airplane. Hey, I said it was strange (as in "unfamiliar"), not stressful or scary. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Tomblin wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure there wasn't an EFC. So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR pilot G) -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter R." wrote in message ... So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR pilot G) An EFC does not have to be issued if no delay is expected. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When given a clearance to a point enroute that is not your destination you
should also receive an EFC - just in case of lost comms - and ask for one if not provided. I doubt this would only be a Canadian procedure. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Peter R." wrote in message ... So, in the future, would it be valuable to expect an EFC and ask for one if you don't receive it? (A sincere question from a low-time IFR pilot G) An EFC does not have to be issued if no delay is expected. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No SID in clearance, fly it anyway? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 195 | November 28th 05 10:06 PM |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
Lost comm altitude? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 11th 04 12:29 AM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |