ATC Phraseology Re Specifying Airport vs. VOR in Clearance

[roncachamp]

Why?

Because it indicates you do not understand what constitutes proper preflight planning.

It's entirely accurate and done everyday by pilots.

Not by pilots that perform proper preflight planning.

Going 100 miles off a planned course on a 1800 mile flight is very common.

The planned course in this case was a 175 mile flight, the NAVAID concerned was about twelve miles off.

BTW, 100 miles off a planned 1800 mile flight would be 360,000 square miles. It appears your knowledge of arithmetic is comparable to your knowledge of aviation.

You should be embarrassed as a controller to not realize that

You are not in a position to know what should bring embarrassment to a controller.

 

[jesse]

Because it indicates you do not understand what constitutes proper preflight planning.



Not by pilots that perform proper preflight planning.



The planned course in this case was a 175 mile flight, the NAVAID concerned was about twelve miles off.

BTW, 100 miles off a planned 1800 mile flight would be 360,000 square miles. It appears your knowledge of arithmetic is comparable to your knowledge of aviation.



You are not in a position to know what should bring embarrassment to a controller.

You're right. Make that 360,000 square miles. That surely makes your argument make more sense.

Proper preflight planning does not involve memorizing every fix in 180,000 square miles or 360,000 square miles.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm sorry, this isn't realistic. I'm familiar with the VORs that define my route, and if I fly the same route a bunch, I start to learn more of the surrounding area as well. But I've deviated hundreds of miles for weather before - I'm not going to know the names and identifiers for every off-route fix everywhere I go.

You mean it's not realistic for you. We're talking about a NAVAID just twelve miles off a route that is 175 miles long. A pilot that has done the preflight planning called for in the FARs would have known about it.

 

[roncachamp]

You're right. Make that 360,000 square miles. That surely makes your argument make more sense.

Proper preflight planning does not involve memorizing every fix in 180,000 square miles or 360,000 square miles.

See message #83.

 

[narchee]

And I have asked a handful of our pilots, some more experienced than I and some less, and the overwhelming majority said in the original situation then would punch in the airport, not any NAVAID.

That is very surprising. Do these pilots mostly fly VFR? I can't think of a single time I was given an airport as an intermediate fix when IFR.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You're right. Make that 360,000 square miles. That surely makes your argument make more sense.

Proper preflight planning does not involve memorizing every fix in 180,000 square miles or 360,000 square miles.

FWIW, it doesn't hurt to become familiar with your route as well as waypoints along it.

Kuala Lumpur has a very nasty habit of issuing a departure clearance with a SID. When you line up on the runway and get the TO clearance they say "Climb 5,000 direct XXXXX" which isn't on the SID, but on another one. I got burned my first time out of there, after that I looked over all of the departures and got familiar.

And a last note, pilots should have their charts available for just a situation.

Just saying.

 

[jesse]

FWIW, it doesn't hurt to become familiar with your route as well as waypoints along it.

Kuala Lumpur has a very nasty habit of issuing a departure clearance with a SID. When you line up on the runway and get the TO clearance they say "Climb 5,000 direct XXXXX" which isn't on the SID, but on another one. I got burned my first time out of there, after that I looked over all of the departures and got familiar.

And a last note, pilots should have their charts available for just a situation.

Just saying.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. All I'm stating is that when you're enroute on a long flight it's entirely realistic to not be familiar with a fix you're assigned and wasn't part of your original plan

 

[RotorAndWing]

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. All I'm stating is that when you're enroute on a long flight it's entirely realistic to not be familiar with a fix you're assigned and wasn't part of your original plan

I'm always triggered to say "Please spell the fix"?

 

[kayoh190]

I'm always triggered to say "Please spell the fix"?

That tends to work really well. Fortunately for me, every controller I've worked with has been a lot more understanding than Mr. McNicoll seems to be.

 

[roncachamp]

That tends to work really well. Fortunately for me, every controller I've worked with has been a lot more understanding than Mr. McNicoll seems to be.

JOOC, what did I write upon which you drew that conclusion?

 

[flyingron]

In which case, clarify if you are unsure.

Ron likes to point out it's a rule. I like to point out it's the one and only thing that makes any sense whatsoever.

No I point out that there is no rule, and despite the fact that YOU don't think it makes sense, ATC has issued me routes in the NE that include AIRPORTS (not VORs) in the middle of the route.

And what good is spelling the fix going to do you if the airport and the VOR have the same identifier? ATC hasn't drank the ICAO koolaid on airport identifiers. They don't prefix things with K.

 

[roncachamp]

And what good is spelling the fix going to do you if the airport and the VOR have the same identifier? ATC hasn't drank the ICAO koolaid on airport identifiers. They don't prefix things with K.

Actually they do, and have done so for a long time. They just don't do it exclusively.

 

[Velocity173]

IAW 7400.2H para 3-3-3 d, Farmington VOR should be renamed. There...end of story.

 

[flyingron]

Actually they do, and have done so for a long time. They just don't do it exclusively.

Tell me what the thing that issues you the routes puts on for the identifier? How do you resolve if it is an airport or a VOR if they have the same ID?

 

[taters]

Only on POA can such a simple issue be so ****ing complicated

 

[roncachamp]

Tell me what the thing that issues you the routes puts on for the identifier? How do you resolve if it is an airport or a VOR if they have the same ID?

It puts out what has been filed. If 3-letter identifiers have been filed the computer spits out 3-letter identifiers. If 4-letter identifiers have been filed the computer spits out 4-letter identifiers. Flights are assumed to begin and end at airports. If the airport has the same identifier as an off-field VOR the computer treats the flight as originating or ending at the airport.

Filing both identifiers could sometimes create problems. GRB VOR is about five miles northwest of the GRB airport. The standard route to MSP was the Eau Claire arrival, which originated at the GRB VOR. If filed as GRB..GRB.EAU5.MSP problems could arise if the route needed to be amended as the computer didn't know which GRB to use and would respond with "ambiguous element". If filed as KGRB..GRB.EAU5.KMSP there was no issue.

 

[Jaybird180]

Only on POA can such a simple issue be so ****ing complicated

...and with the required bickering, no less.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The only "I'd punch in the VOR" answer I got was from an older gentleman who's never flown with a certified GPS, let alone /G, until starting this job about a year ago.

And that's kind of the issue in a nutshell. By far, most of the rules of the IFR road are based a pre-GPS world. It has become commonplace to give instructions to go direct to the destination airport, even when the airplane's flight plan is /A or /U.

What this thread suggests is, at least in the case of intermediate en route fixes, the AIM and the Controller's Handbook hasn't completely caught up to make it clear which they are talking about.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No I point out that there is no rule, and despite the fact that YOU don't think it makes sense,

So you think it doesn't make sense to ask for clarification? Other than that, I can't figure out what in the post you quoted from - where I said the only thing that makes sense is to ask for clarification if you are unsure - you are disagreeing with.