Resume Own Nav...

[Antonio DiPasquale]

I was on an IFR flight plan today from KONT to KSQL and while on the cleared segment PIRRO V186 DARTS V459 LHS GMN AVE, I was given a very small shortcut to cut the corner by SoCal Approach before arriving at DARTS - "Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read back "Direct LHS" as I though the "resume own navigation" was superfluous since I was not on a radar vector. The controller responded with a stern "NO! Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read it back verbatim this time...minus the stern NO!, of course.

The PCG states: RESUME OWN NAVIGATION - a term used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while the aircraft is being radar vectored.

I was not on a radar vector. I was on my own navigation at the time and was given direct to a waypoint, which would be on my own navigation and not a radar vector. Was the controller just having a bad day and decided I was the next target of his ire? What else was I going to do at LHS?

 

[RyanB]

I’d interpret it as, “proceed direct LHS and then continue flying your cleared route”.

 

[luvflyin]

I was on an IFR flight plan today from KONT to KSQL and while on the cleared segment PIRRO V186 DARTS V459 LHS GMN AVE, I was given a very small shortcut to cut the corner by SoCal Approach before arriving at DARTS - "Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read back "Direct LHS" as I though the "resume own navigation" was superfluous since I was not on a radar vector. The controller responded with a stern "NO! Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read it back verbatim this time...minus the stern NO!, of course.

The PCG states: RESUME OWN NAVIGATION - a term used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while the aircraft is being radar vectored.

I was not on a radar vector. I was on my own navigation at the time and was given direct to a waypoint, which would be on my own navigation and not a radar vector. Was the controller just having a bad day and decided I was the next target of his ire? What else was I going to do at LHS?

I doubt it was about him having a bad day. He probably believes he’s right, even though he is wrong, and does it all the time.

 

[gacoon]

“Cleared direct LHS, rest of route unchanged”, hear all the time

 

[luvflyin]

I’d interpret it as, “proceed direct LHS and then continue flying your cleared route”.

Yup. And just saying direct LHS would be the same. Resume Own Navigation is redundant, unnecessary and incorrect per ATC rules.

 

[luvflyin]

“Cleared direct LHS, rest of route unchanged”, hear all the time

Doesn’t surprise me that’s still going on. But it is incorrect. There was a change to ATC rules over twenty years ago that specified ‘rest of route unchanged’ is not necessary in this situation.

 

[Steamflyer]

Just reply "direct LHS then on own" seems to work well without causing controller ire even if the second part is not needed technically.

 

[Pinecone]

What is the reference in the ATC handbook that says it is superfluous?

I would say that "Direct LHS" is a new clearance, and that you no longer have a clearance past that.

"Direct LHS, resume route" or similar is needed IMO.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No one's perfect. Great example is that controllers almost always say "Climb via" when there's a published SID top altitude, even if it's one that technically is not a "climb via." I used one of those in an article and someone pointed out that "climb via" was wrong. I asked, "wanna hear the audio?"

Superfluous? I've heard shortcuts like that with it and without it. Not important enough for me to check which way is perfect. Just spit back what they say.

 

[Antonio DiPasquale]

What is the reference in the ATC handbook that says it is superfluous?

I would say that "Direct LHS" is a new clearance, and that you no longer have a clearance past that.

"Direct LHS, resume route" or similar is needed IMO.

The superfluous part is that I was already "own nav" when I was given "Direct LHS" and continued "own nav" to LHS. I was never on a radar vector. Its sorta the "Department of Redundancy Department" scenario. The controller never gave me an additional clearance beyond LHS and the implied instruction is to continue my previously cleared route at LHS since no further instruction, like a hold for example, was given. If he had given me "resume route" or similar, I would have read that back, but he did not. Again, "resume route" is implied and you may or may not hear it depending on the controller.

 

[Larry in TN]

I would say that "Direct LHS" is a new clearance, and that you no longer have a clearance past that.

No, "Cleared to LHS" is a new clearance. "Cleared direct LHS" just returns you to your route (which contains LHS).

If you original routing did not include LHS then ask for further clearance after LHS.

 

[luvflyin]

What is the reference in the ATC handbook that says it is superfluous?

I would say that "Direct LHS" is a new clearance, and that you no longer have a clearance past that.

"Direct LHS, resume route" or similar is needed IMO.

It's 'rest of route unchanged' not 'resume route' that is the terminology used. Like @Larry in TN said above, getting cleared direct is very different than getting cleared TO. Cleared TO is what makes a new Clearance LIMIT.

4−2−5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE AMENDMENTS
a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued clearance by one of the following:
1. State which portion of the route is being amended and then state the amendment.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of route).
2. State the amendment to the route and then state that the rest of the route is unchanged.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.
3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED DIRECT (fix, waypoint).
Or
CLEARED DIRECT (destination) AIRPORT.
NOTE−
Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route unchanged.”
However, it must be understood where the previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, “rest of route unchanged”
may be used to clarify routing.

 

[Spring Ford]

 

[dtuuri]

Was the controller just having a bad day and decided I was the next target of his ire?

Methinks the controller said it while smiling. You can say almost anything if you smile at the same time.

 

[Justin M]

Methinks the controller said it while smiling. You can say almost anything if you smile at the same time.

Is that a ”le Femme Nikita“ reference?

 

[dtuuri]

Is that a ”le Femme Nikita“ reference?

No, I said it myself. But thanks for broadening my horizon slightly. First I heard of "le femme". Transgender now?

 

[Justin M]

No, I said it myself. But thanks for broadening my horizon slightly. First I heard of "le femme". Transgender now?

Hahaha. My lack of French language skillz strikes again! My French professor was more interested in “He Man and the Masters of the Universe “ and Mohawk hair cuts than teaching.

 

[Steamflyer]

The superfluous part is that I was already "own nav" when I was given "Direct LHS" and continued "own nav" to LHS. I was never on a radar vector. Its sorta the "Department of Redundancy Department" scenario. The controller never gave me an additional clearance beyond LHS and the implied instruction is to continue my previously cleared route at LHS since no further instruction, like a hold for example, was given. If he had given me "resume route" or similar, I would have read that back, but he did not. Again, "resume route" is implied and you may or may not hear it depending on the controller.

Long ago lost count of the times a new (or even current) controller has cleared direct to the waypoint already going direct to. It’s very common and changes nothing in my experience.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What is the reference in the ATC handbook that says it is superfluous?

I would say that "Direct LHS" is a new clearance, and that you no longer have a clearance past that.

"Direct LHS, resume route" or similar is needed IMO.

Reviving to ask this question.

You get a clearance. Keeping it simple...

"Cleared to the ABC airport. Radar vectors FXNAM, then as filed, climb and maintain..."

You take off, start receiving vectors, eventually, "Proceed Direct FXNAM."

Are you saying FXNAM is now your clearance limit?

 

[tsts4]

Reviving to ask this question.

You get a clearance. Keeping it simple...

"Cleared to the ABC airport. Radar vectors FXNAM, then as filed, climb and maintain..."

You take off, start receiving vectors, eventually, "Proceed Direct FXNAM."

Are you saying FXNAM is now your clearance limit?

I think ABC is still the clearance limit because they said direct to FXNAM vs cleared to FXNAM. With the direct to my understanding is they are turning responsibility for navigation over to the pilot but the route and clearance limit remain unchanged.

 

[Pinecone]

Reviving to ask this question.

You get a clearance. Keeping it simple...

"Cleared to the ABC airport. Radar vectors FXNAM, then as filed, climb and maintain..."

You take off, start receiving vectors, eventually, "Proceed Direct FXNAM."

Are you saying FXNAM is now your clearance limit?

I was, but was not thinking through. If the fix you are cleared direct to is on your clearance, your clearance is still valid, just amended.

If they clear you direct to a fix not on your clearance (and not a fix along an airway you are cleared on), then yes it would be your new clearance limit.

 

[Larry in TN]

If they clear you direct to a fix not on your clearance (and not a fix along an airway you are cleared on), then yes it would be your new clearance limit.

More likely, a mistake. They think it's on your route but isn't. Happens to us occasionally. We tell them that it isn't on our route and they correct it.

It's not a clearance limit unless they say, "Cleared to...". "Cleared direct..." is not a clearance limit.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's not a clearance limit unless they say, "Cleared to...". "Cleared direct..." is not a clearance limit.

I think you may be technically correct, although I’m fairly certain I have been “cleared to” a waypoint on my cleared route in circumstances where it was a shortcut, not a new clearance limit. But whether or not my recollection is accurate, that’s an extremely small difference that is subject to an extremely big error on both sides of the mic.

Definitely agree about when they send you to a waypoint that’s not in your route, but that mistake kind of makes the point.

 

[Larry in TN]

I think you may be technically correct, although I’m fairly certain I have been “cleared to” a waypoint on my cleared route in circumstances where it was a shortcut, not a new clearance limit. But whether or not my recollection is accurate, that’s an extremely small difference that is subject to an extremely big error on both sides of the mic.

There is no ambiguity. The difference between "cleared to" and "direct to" is clear. The wording in the regulation, AIM, and P/CG is clear. Ask any controller. They will not have any confusion between the two.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is no ambiguity. The difference between "cleared to" and "direct to" is clear. The wording in the regulation, AIM, and P/CG is clear. Ask any controller. They will not have any confusion between the two.

“cleared to" and "direct to" is not the difference I responded to and was not the example you gave.

It's not a clearance limit unless they say, "Cleared to...". "Cleared direct..." is not a clearance limit.

I’ve heard “proceed direct” more times than I can count. No problem. Definitely not a clearance limit. And while I know the distinction, as this thread quite clearly shows, the use of the word “cleared” with the one and only distinction being the word “to” can easily lead to mistake and misinterpretation, despite the language in the 7110.

 

[Larry in TN]

“cleared to" and "direct to" is not the difference I responded to and was not the example you gave.

I’ve heard “proceed direct” more times than I can count. No problem. Definitely not a clearance limit. And while I know the distinction, as this thread quite clearly shows, the use of the word “cleared” with the one and only distinctivon being the word “to” can easily lead to mistake and misinterpretation, despite the language in the 7110.

We get "Cleared direct [waypoint]" all the time. Very common. It does not change our clearance limit.

A change in clearance limit will be "Cleared to [clearance limit] via [routing]".

Maybe a controller will post the applicable sections from 7110.65.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We get "Cleared direct [waypoint]" all the time. Very common. It does not change our clearance limit.

A change in clearance limit will be "Cleared to [clearance limit] via [routing]".

Maybe a controller will post the applicable sections from 7110.65.

As you know from having read my comments, we agree on what it means. And if you look, the part of he 7110 which says so was already posted by @luvflyin in Post #12. Interestingly, though, even that indicates a possibility of confusion.

 

[dtuuri]

Wrong key words, imo. You should all be listening for an EFC. None given? Better ask for one ASAP if you think it's a limit.

 

[flyingron]

You don't get EFCs if there's no clearance limit. A proceed direct or vector isn't a new clearance limit. It's merely a transient change to your route.

 

[dtuuri]

You don't get EFCs if there's no clearance limit. A proceed direct or vector isn't a new clearance limit. It's merely a transient change to your route.

Exactly. Listening for "Direct to" or some such variation and concluding it's a limit is missing the point. If it's a limit, there's supposed to be an EFC. Otherwise, it's a mistake.

 

[Clip4]

I was on an IFR flight plan today from KONT to KSQL and while on the cleared segment PIRRO V186 DARTS V459 LHS GMN AVE, I was given a very small shortcut to cut the corner by SoCal Approach before arriving at DARTS - "Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read back "Direct LHS" as I though the "resume own navigation" was superfluous since I was not on a radar vector. The controller responded with a stern "NO! Direct LHS, resume own navigation". I read it back verbatim this time...minus the stern NO!, of course.

The PCG states: RESUME OWN NAVIGATION - a term used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while the aircraft is being radar vectored.

I was not on a radar vector. I was on my own navigation at the time and was given direct to a waypoint, which would be on my own navigation and not a radar vector. Was the controller just having a bad day and decided I was the next target of his ire? What else was I going to do at LHS?

I think you will find controllers are become more picky with lazy pilots and abbreviated read backs

 

[luvflyin]

We get "Cleared direct [waypoint]" all the time. Very common. It does not change our clearance limit.

A change in clearance limit will be "Cleared to [clearance limit] via [routing]".

Maybe a controller will post the applicable sections from 7110.65.

b. Clearance limit.
1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the word “airport” must follow the airport name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT.
2. When the clearance limit is a NAVAID, and the NAVAID type is known, the type of NAVAID must follow
the NAVAID name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (NAVAID name and type).
3. When the clearance limit is an intersection or waypoint, and the type is known, the type must follow the
intersection or waypoint name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (intersection or waypoint name and type).

 

[luvflyin]

I think you will find controllers are become more picky with lazy pilots and abbreviated read backs

And pilots with lazy controllers

 

[luvflyin]

Wrong key words, imo. You should all be listening for an EFC. None given? Better ask for one ASAP if you think it's a limit.

Exactly. Listening for "Direct to" or some such variation and concluding it's a limit is missing the point. If it's a limit, there's supposed to be an EFC. Otherwise, it's a mistake.

Not Always.

a. Clearance limit (if any part of the route beyond a clearance limit differs from the last routing cleared, issue
the route the pilot can expect beyond the clearance limit).
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).
EXAMPLE−
“Expect further clearance via direct Stillwater V−O−R, Victor Two Twenty-Six Snapy intersection, direct Newark.”
b. Holding instructions.
1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the pilot that no delay is expected.
2. When the assigned procedure or route being flown includes a charted pattern, you may omit all holding
instructions except the charted holding direction and the statement “as published.” Always issue complete
holding instructions when the pilot requests them.
NOTE−
The most generally used holding patterns are depicted on U.S. Government or commercially produced low/high altitude en
route, area, and STAR Charts.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,
or
CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

4. When delay is expected, issue items in subparagraphs a and b at least 5 minutes before the aircraft is
estimated to reach the clearance limit. If the traffic situation requires holding an aircraft that is less than 5 minutes
from the holding fix, issue these items immediately.
NOTE−
1. The AIM indicates that pilots should start speed reduction when 3 minutes or less from the holding fix. The additional
2 minutes contained in the 5−minute requirement are necessary to compensate for different pilot/controller ETAS at the
holding fix, minor differences in clock times, and provision for sufficient planning and reaction times.

 

[dtuuri]

Not Always.

a. Clearance limit (if any part of the route beyond a clearance limit differs from the last routing cleared, issue
the route the pilot can expect beyond the clearance limit).
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).
EXAMPLE−
“Expect further clearance via direct Stillwater V−O−R, Victor Two Twenty-Six Snapy intersection, direct Newark.”
b. Holding instructions.
1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the pilot that no delay is expected.
2. When the assigned procedure or route being flown includes a charted pattern, you may omit all holding
instructions except the charted holding direction and the statement “as published.” Always issue complete
holding instructions when the pilot requests them.
NOTE−
The most generally used holding patterns are depicted on U.S. Government or commercially produced low/high altitude en
route, area, and STAR Charts.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,
or
CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

4. When delay is expected, issue items in subparagraphs a and b at least 5 minutes before the aircraft is
estimated to reach the clearance limit. If the traffic situation requires holding an aircraft that is less than 5 minutes
from the holding fix, issue these items immediately.
NOTE−
1. The AIM indicates that pilots should start speed reduction when 3 minutes or less from the holding fix. The additional
2 minutes contained in the 5−minute requirement are necessary to compensate for different pilot/controller ETAS at the
holding fix, minor differences in clock times, and provision for sufficient planning and reaction times.

Well, I stand by my assertion because if the controller is compliant with par. a & b, then the OP's post is moot because the intention is explicit. Therefore, only 4. applies which implies an EFC (or "no expected delay" under b. 1., essentially the same thing). No?

 

[luvflyin]

Well, I stand by my assertion because if the controller is compliant with par. a & b, then the OP's post is moot because the intention is explicit. Therefore, only 4. applies which implies an EFC or "no expected delay" (essentially the same thing). No?

Yup.

 

[midlifeflyer]

b. Clearance limit.
1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the word “airport” must follow the airport name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT.
2. When the clearance limit is a NAVAID, and the NAVAID type is known, the type of NAVAID must follow
the NAVAID name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (NAVAID name and type).
3. When the clearance limit is an intersection or waypoint, and the type is known, the type must follow the
intersection or waypoint name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (intersection or waypoint name and type).

That's exactly my concern with the potential for misunderstanding - one that is reflected in this thread.

CLEARED DIRECT - not a clearance limit.​

CLEARED TO - a clearance limit.​

What about "Cleared Direct To?"

Curious about one thing. I don't think 50/50, but I hear "Proceed direct" often in situations similar to the examples of "Cleared Direct." It would seem that, it's use and the absence of the word "cleared" removes all doubt that it's not a clearance limit. What leads a controller to use "proceed" rather than "cleared."?

 

[luvflyin]

That's exactly my concern with the potential for misunderstanding - one that is reflected in this thread.

CLEARED DIRECT - not a clearance limit.​

CLEARED TO - a clearance limit.​

What about "Cleared Direct To?"

Curious about one thing. I don't think 50/50, but I hear "Proceed direct" often in situations similar to the examples of "Cleared Direct." It would seem that, it's use and the absence of the word "cleared" removes all doubt that it's not a clearance limit. What leads a controller to use "proceed" rather than "cleared."?

Proceed is used in conjuction with Vectoring. FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix). A few years back I submitted a Change to the 7110.65 suggesting the phraseology CLEARED DIRECT be dropped and replaced with PROCEED DIRECT for all the reasons discussed here. I included all the paragraph numbers in the book where it appears. They said they didn't think it was necessary. Maybe I'll do it again and include a link to this thread. Maybe you wanna give it a try.

1−1−8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCEDURAL CHANGES
The office of primary responsibility (OPR) for this order is:
FAA Headquarters, Mission Support Services
Policy (AJV-P)
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20597
a. Personnel should submit recommended changes in procedures to facility management.
b. Recommendations from other sources should be submitted through appropriate FAA, military, or
industry/user channels.
c. Proposed changes must be submitted electronically to 9−AJV−P−HQ−Correspondence@faa.gov. The
submission should include a description of the recommended change, and the proposed language to be used in
the order.
NOTE−
For details on the submission process as well as additional AJV−P processing responsibilities, please see FAA Order JO
7000.5, Procedures for Submitting Changes to Air Traffic Control Publications.

 

[Pinecone]

I think you may be technically correct, although I’m fairly certain I have been “cleared to” a waypoint on my cleared route in circumstances where it was a shortcut, not a new clearance limit. But whether or not my recollection is accurate, that’s an extremely small difference that is subject to an extremely big error on both sides of the mic.

Definitely agree about when they send you to a waypoint that’s not in your route, but that mistake kind of makes the point.

That happens all the time. They clear me to something on the flight plan so the new route cuts a corner and saves some time. But since that is to a fix on my route, I can continue the rest of route after I rejoin

 

[Pinecone]

You don't get EFCs if there's no clearance limit. A proceed direct or vector isn't a new clearance limit. It's merely a transient change to your route.

Unless the clearance to proceed direct is to a fix not on your route. What are you supposed to do when you reach that fix? Stop? You do not have a clearance for where you are.

If it is to a fix on your route, once you get there, it is pretty obvious you keep going as if you reached that point via your original routing.