ATC Phraseology Re Specifying Airport vs. VOR in Clearance

HighFlyingA380

HighFlyingA380

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
1,035
Location
St. Louis
Display Name
Display name:
Jim F.
So when cleared to a fix in which an airport and a ground-based NAVAID share the same name, what's the proper phraseology? If I'm reading JO 7110.65V 4-2-1b2 correctly, then it must be stated directly. I hear it all the time when assigned "direct St. Louis VOR." However, the specification is not used when there is no airport with the same name, such as with "direct Maples."

Today I was off of KJBR direct KSTL, and was given a suggestion to go "direct Farmington" to avoid a pretty nice storm. I punched KFAM into my flight-plan and went directly to it. I was then given a couple alerts as to being off course, which one ZME controller sounded quite displeased about (we half expected a number to call judging by the sound of his voice)... It wasn't until I was with ZKC and got another query about being off-course and I zoomed in the 530 and saw there was a FAM VOR a good distance away form the airport. I asked and she said, yeah, we were supposed to be going to the VOR, not the airport. Since no NAVAID type was included in the clearance, I just assumed he meant the airport, as I didn't even know there was a VOR.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised the feds haven't corrected that. KPTK, Pontiac, MI airport and the VOR both had the designation PTK. Quite a few years back the VOR was changed to PSI because controllers thought flights were going to the airport rather than to the VOR while enroute.
 
Norman said:
I'm surprised the feds haven't corrected that. KPTK, Pontiac, MI airport and the VOR both had the designation PTK. Quite a few years back the VOR was changed to PSI because controllers thought flights were going to the airport rather than to the VOR while enroute.
Click to expand...
Seems as though this is the first time it's made a difference with me, as the other usual routes I fly are filed as the VOR (PNT vs. KPNT) when the VOR is off-field, or when the VOR is on-field and it didn't really matter (ORD vs. KORD).

So obviously this has been a problem brought to their attention before. While there was no traffic conflict or hazard due to this particular instance, do ya'll think I ought to file an ASRS to help identify if/when a trend exists that could result in a safety of flight concern? "The ASRS acts on the information these reports contain. It identifies system deficiencies, and issues alerting messages to persons in a position to correct them." (ASRS Program Briefing)

I guess what I'm still trying to figure out is if there is a deficiency in the system, or if the controller or myself acted against a set protocol designed to alleviate such an event...
 
I thought that co-located navaids and airports have to have the same designator. That is what we were told when the Russellville designator was changed to KRUE to match the NDB,
 
I've always understood en route waypoints to be VOR's, NDB's, or GPS waypoints. I've never heard of an airport being an en route waypoint. I would have done the VOR myself.
 
Graueradler said:
I thought that co-located navaids and airports have to have the same designator. That is what we were told when the Russellville designator was changed to KRUE to match the NDB,
Click to expand...
This clearly not a standard. The St. Louis VOR (STL) is about 9nm NW of the field, while the on-field VOR is Cardinal (CSX). I guess your suggestion of them being named the same would make too much sense...
 
Good topic but please confirm you are saying the default is the Navaid when the VOR and Airport are close unless specified otherwise. Recently I was told by an approach controller Direct Raleigh then destination. I asked if they meant the airport or the VOR and I was told DIRECT RALEIGH which did not help. I picked the VOR. Both the airport and the VOR are named Raleigh Durham.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Seems as though this is the first time it's made a difference with me, as the other usual routes I fly are filed as the VOR (PNT vs. KPNT) when the VOR is off-field, or when the VOR is on-field and it didn't really matter (ORD vs. KORD).

So obviously this has been a problem brought to their attention before. While there was no traffic conflict or hazard due to this particular instance, do ya'll think I ought to file an ASRS to help identify if/when a trend exists that could result in a safety of flight concern? "The ASRS acts on the information these reports contain. It identifies system deficiencies, and issues alerting messages to persons in a position to correct them." (ASRS Program Briefing)

I guess what I'm still trying to figure out is if there is a deficiency in the system, or if the controller or myself acted against a set protocol designed to alleviate such an event...
Click to expand...

It sure wouldn't hurt to file an ASRS.

There are definitely opportunities for confusion in the system. How about Charleston VOR (HVQ) and Charleston Airport (KCHS)? If you have both of those in your flight plan and get cleared Direct Charleston, better query! Though some controllers call the VOR "Charly West" which helps (if you know what that means).
 
topsail said:
Good topic but please confirm you are saying the default is the Navaid when the VOR and Airport are close unless specified otherwise. Recently I was told by an approach controller Direct Raleigh then destination. I asked if they meant the airport or the VOR and I was told DIRECT RALEIGH which did not help. I picked the VOR. Both the airport and the VOR are named Raleigh Durham.
Click to expand...

Assuming that's true, I haven't bothered to look, controller is a jerk and I would have just kept asking him until he gave me an answer.
 
I would not ever assume they mean an airport unless said airport is part of your filed route already.
 
MHT VOR and KMHT are about 4 miles apart, typically controllers will say "cleared direct Manchester" when asked for clarification it is almost always the airport since /G can do that :)

From an administrative standpoint its probably nitpicking but if you are /U or /A and assigned direct Frederick (as in the airport) I've wondered what would happen if there was cause to investigate since the strip says you accepted a clearance you can't fly. Yes I've gotten this too while flying /U. It seems the FAA is convinced everyone is /G even when the filed information says otherwise
 
topsail said:
Good topic but please confirm you are saying the default is the Navaid when the VOR and Airport are close unless specified otherwise. Recently I was told by an approach controller Direct Raleigh then destination. I asked if they meant the airport or the VOR and I was told DIRECT RALEIGH which did not help. I picked the VOR. Both the airport and the VOR are named Raleigh Durham.
Click to expand...

jesse said:
Assuming that's true, I haven't bothered to look, controller is a jerk and I would have just kept asking him until he gave me an answer.
Click to expand...

Would you keep asking him if you knew that the ARP and the VOR were less than .4nm apart?
 
That's the thing, in unfamiliar areas you may not know that when a modified clearance is given. This is doubly so if you're getting it in the air and have to chart it/plug it into the GPS once read back
 
Brad Z said:
Would you keep asking him if you knew that the ARP and the VOR were less than .4nm apart?
Click to expand...

Nope. But it matters in the case of KLNK and LNK. 4.4 nm apart and I've been told direct Lincoln before and asked. I've been given different answers as to which they actually wanted.
 
AustinPilot said:
I would not ever assume they mean an airport unless said airport is part of your filed route already.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to get at... What reference do you have to back-up the assumption? And unless they said, how was I to know they meant a VOR? I knew there was a Farmington airport, as I was just assigned it's current altimeter setting, but I didn't even know there was a Farmington VOR. We can't be expected to take out a chart and search the thing for NAVAIDs for every clearance point...
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to get at... What reference do you have to back-up the assumption? And unless they said, how was I to know they meant a VOR? I knew there was a Farmington airport, as I was just assigned it's current altimeter setting, but I didn't even know there was a Farmington VOR. We can't be expected to take out a chart and search the thing for NAVAIDs for every clearance point...
Click to expand...

Huh?....
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
But why should we have to do that if we've spent thousand of dollars on those shiny little boxes of magic that do it all for us??? ;)
Click to expand...

Because it's still a VOR-based infrastructure. Your shiny box of magic rides on the coattails of ATC's radar. Btw, why shouldn't you be expected to pull out a chart?

dtuuri
 
Jackson Hole airport is JAC.....

VOR is close and it's identifier is JAC....
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
So when cleared to a fix in which an airport and a ground-based NAVAID share the same name, what's the proper phraseology? If I'm reading JO 7110.65V 4-2-1b2 correctly, then it must be stated directly. I hear it all the time when assigned "direct St. Louis VOR." However, the specification is not used when there is no airport with the same name, such as with "direct Maples."

Today I was off of KJBR direct KSTL, and was given a suggestion to go "direct Farmington" to avoid a pretty nice storm. I punched KFAM into my flight-plan and went directly to it. I was then given a couple alerts as to being off course, which one ZME controller sounded quite displeased about (we half expected a number to call judging by the sound of his voice)... It wasn't until I was with ZKC and got another query about being off-course and I zoomed in the 530 and saw there was a FAM VOR a good distance away form the airport. I asked and she said, yeah, we were supposed to be going to the VOR, not the airport. Since no NAVAID type was included in the clearance, I just assumed he meant the airport, as I didn't even know there was a VOR.
Click to expand...


You are on an IFR flight plan. You are given a clearance to a waypoint (FAM). When would an airport (KFAM) be considered a waypoint?:dunno:
 
jesse said:
Nope. But it matters in the case of KLNK and LNK. 4.4 nm apart and I've been told direct Lincoln before and asked. I've been given different answers as to which they actually wanted.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I don't think its worth arguing with the controller when the VOR and Airport are co-located in the Raleigh example above.
 
RotorAndWing said:
You are on an IFR flight plan. You are given a clearance to a waypoint (FAM). When would an airport (KFAM) be considered a waypoint?:dunno:
Click to expand...
Why would it not be? According to the Instrument Flying Handbook's Glossary, a waypoint is defined as "geographical locations, or fixes, used to define an area navigation route or the flightpath of an aircraft employing area navigation. Waypoints may be any of the following types: predefined, published, floating, user-defined, fly-by, or fly-over." Is an airport not a predefined geographic location which can be used to define a route in which to fly?
 
AustinPilot said:
I would not ever assume they mean an airport unless said airport is part of your filed route already.
Click to expand...

It's not what you file, it's what you get: "ATC clears Buzzbomb 1234X to the Podunk airport...."

I can't recall ever getting a clearance that did not include the name of the destination airport. There are knowledge test questions on this very subject. AIM 4-4-3(a).

Bob Gardner
 
ahkahn said:
I've always understood en route waypoints to be VOR's, NDB's, or GPS waypoints. I've never heard of an airport being an en route waypoint. I would have done the VOR myself.
Click to expand...


Agreed but because of history. Pre-GPS, "Direct Farmington" pretty much had to be the VOR. There wasn't any good/obvious/common sense way to navigate direct to the airport unless you had fancy RNAV gear.

That seems to be the cause of the modern "confusion". Now there is a way and the pilot who never had to fly the system without the RNAV doesn't even realize there wasn't an alternative pre-GPS.
 
I've dealt with this at several ASAP meetings, the FAA expects you to go to the VOR , some controllers don't seem to understand this from our own inquiries .

when in doubt clarify but load up the VOR and start navigating there until you can get a word in.
 
Last edited:
taters said:
...the FAA expects. you to go to the VOR...
Click to expand...
Reference?

Not trying to be confrontational by continuously asking for a reference, but that's the whole crux of this discussion: Everybody seems to have their own predisposition, but no FAA source has been found or presented as of yet...
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Reference?

Not trying to be confrontational by continuously asking for a reference, but that's the whole crux of this discussion: Everybody seems to have their own predisposition, but no FAA source has been found or presented as of yet...
Click to expand...

there really isn't any ..its a product of an antiquated system ..as it's been mentioned on this forum good controllers will automatically specify airport or VOR when issuing a "cleared direct." ..In the reports I've closed it was the controller(s) not the pilots that ended up being confused about where they were sending the airplane....

even if it turns out the controller was wrong and you were right....the onus is on the pilot in command to confirm a clearance if there's any doubt whatsoever....The FAA's gonna make damn sure you understand that if you're on the other end of a PD investigation.
 
Last edited:
HighFlyingA380 said:
Reference?

Not trying to be confrontational by continuously asking for a reference, but that's the whole crux of this discussion: Everybody seems to have their own predisposition, but no FAA source has been found or presented as of yet...
Click to expand...

Post #26?

Bob
 
It would never even enter my mind that ATC would clear me to an airport as an intermediate fix along a route. :confused:

Today we were cleared direct "Bozeman Airport" (the destination). But they are co-located, KBZN and BZN.
 
I just can't imagine a route with 10 enroute fixes with one of them being an airport. Doesn't happen. I've never gotten it. (or I flew over many a VOR instead of the airport and did not get chastised)
The only time you get an airport is the last item in the route.
Has someone actually gotten an airport in the middle of multiple enroute fixes?
 
About six months ago while deviating around some weather, the controller said "you are cleared direct to". (Long pause while he was trying to come up with a fix). "I tell you what, you are cleared direct the Kxxx airport, and then flight planned route. "

So not often, but it can happen.
 
bobmrg said:
Post #26?
Click to expand...
As pointed out in post 2 by Acrophine, the wording in AIM 4-4-3(a) is exactly as 7110.65V 4-2-1(b)(2) in that it's specifying that verbiage only for issuing a clearance limit.

Let'sgoflying! said:
I just can't imagine a route with 10 enroute fixes with one of them being an airport. Doesn't happen. I've never gotten it. (or I flew over many a VOR instead of the airport and did not get chastised)
The only time you get an airport is the last item in the route.
Has someone actually gotten an airport in the middle of multiple enroute fixes?
Click to expand...
Sure. I know I've filed an airport a couple of times in order to fly right over for the view, or because it was a known reference point to begin our photograph runs. Here it's not unusual to get direct to a nearby airport serving as a sort of makeshift initial approach fix, as in: "cleared direct MENNA, direct Alton, direct EXALE, intercept the 30R localizer" where MENNA and EXALE are intersections and Alton is an airport 15nm from the destination airport.
 
It appears the system is imperfect. Must be designed and run by human beings.
 
Palmpilot said:
It appears the system is imperfect. Must be designed and run by human beings.
Click to expand...


The system as based all the way back to the lighted airway system and amended over time, really hasn't been that bad. Surely it's a design that has generally held its own without too many major failures for closing on a century or so soon.

If you look at old charts and watch the tech and systems changes, the basic system is still there. How to track and control aircraft flying fixed routes. We just changed how the fixes are received over time.

The actual underlying system technically would still work without radar and without comm, and does from time to time but it's getting more rare. And it gets very inefficient in that mode.
 
P.S. The arbitrary and short-sighted removal of transition routes not based on radar vectors to approaches is the largest "breakage" of the base system in decades.
 
I'm in the "if it's an intermediate fix and not the clearance limit its a VOR" contingent. Seems pretty simple and straightforward.
 
I've had IFR clearances issued with IAD as part of the route. That has to be the airport (the onfield VOR is AML), so it's not impossible that they will put an airport in the middle of a /G clearance.

Dulles has a distinct name for the VOR. MGW on the other hand is the name of a rather important VOR nearby as well as an airport about 5 miles away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top