Clearance Priority

Piloto

Piloto

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
989
Display Name
Display name:
Piloto
At TJBQ I got a clearance (TJBQ - KFXE) on the ground for the HARDEE intersection after departure. On takeoff the tower controller indicated to fly runway heading 08. After departure I called San Juan approach but they put me on hold (they were too busy). I called San Juan again but no response. After 10 minutes I decided to turn NW and go directly to HARDEE since I was getting close to the SJU approach path. Finally the SJU controller responded a little bit upset because I did the turn to HARDEE on my own. He cleared me right away to HARDEE. My understanding of the clearance on the ground is to follow it in the event of loss of radio contact. My question is how long I was supposed to wait before I turned to HARDEE if unable to stablish radio contact. Is there any timeout on the FARs. I had similar situations on approach and the controller never complained.

José
 
WellSir:

It's always easy to second-guess, after the fact, warm and dry with a cup of coffee in-hand.

You perceived that you were getting close to a hazardous condition, and in your discretion, as PIC, you opted to comply with the initial clearance.

Seems rational to me.
 
Piloto said:
At TJBQ I got a clearance (TJBQ - KFXE) on the ground for the HARDEE intersection after departure. On takeoff the tower controller indicated to fly runway heading 08. After departure I called San Juan approach but they put me on hold (they were too busy). I called San Juan again but no response. After 10 minutes I decided to turn NW and go directly to HARDEE since I was getting close to the SJU approach path. Finally the SJU controller responded a little bit upset because I did the turn to HARDEE on my own. He cleared me right away to HARDEE. My understanding of the clearance on the ground is to follow it in the event of loss of radio contact. My question is how long I was supposed to wait before I turned to HARDEE if unable to stablish radio contact. Is there any timeout on the FARs. I had similar situations on approach and the controller never complained.

José
Click to expand...
If I understand what you're saying it sounds like what you did would be correct in the US but I don't know if the same rules about lost comm apply in San Juan. That said, switching to 7700/7600 when you mentally declared lost comm would probably have gotten the controller's attention.
 
This is a great question, but i think you did fine...
 
>> what you did would be correct in the US but I don't know if the same rules about lost comm apply in San Juan.

Ah.... Puerto Rico *is* the US.

Paul
 
There is no time limit in 91.185. However, one might ask whether you were hearing calls from San Juan, and what other efforts you made to communicate, starting with a 7600 squawk. If the initally responded and you were still hearing them, then it could be argued that you hadn't really lost comm. In that case, a 7600 squawk is often effective in jarring them into a reply, and I'd give that a try before turning off my last vector.
 
What kind of time are you talking about here? A minute or two can seem like an eternity if you are waiting on something from atc. You were given runway heading, so unless you really thought there was lost comm then you should stay on rwy heading.
 
The only thing I would do differently in this case is give ATC heads up by transimitting something like "XYZ approach, Cessna123 if not get further clearence by XX:XX Zulu will assume communication lost and proceed according to last clearence to ABC"
 
Artiom said:
The only thing I would do differently in this case is give ATC heads up by transimitting something like "XYZ approach, Cessna123 if not get further clearence by XX:XX Zulu will assume communication lost and proceed according to last clearence to ABC"
Click to expand...

This would work very well in the oceanic environment were radio contact is lost at times and timing is not as critical. But on approach is a different situation. I was adviced at KMCO of landing at RWY 36L and vector east to intercept the FAF from the west. But the controller never mentioned to intercept the ILS of 36L. Knowing that there was traffic coming to 36R I decided to turn north at 36L FAF to intercept the ILS without the controller telling me. In this instance there was no time to wait for the controller instruction. The controller never complained and just handover me to tower.

José
 
Piloto said:
I was adviced at KMCO of landing at RWY 36L and vector east to intercept the FAF from the west. But the controller never mentioned to intercept the ILS of 36L. Knowing that there was traffic coming to 36R I decided to turn north at 36L FAF to intercept the ILS without the controller telling me. In this instance there was no time to wait for the controller instruction. The controller never complained and just handover me to tower.
Click to expand...
OTOH, if the controller intended to take you through and bring you back, you could have caused a loss of separation by your unauthorized deviation from your last clearance, and it would have been your certificate the FAA would go after if that happened. So I'd say you either missed something the controller said or you just got lucky.

Yes, the controller is supposed to tell you if s/he's going to take you across and back during vectors to final, but sometimes it gets lost in the shuffle. I'd be on the radio and asking before I made that turn-on without hearing at least "join the localizer." Usually the response starts "oops," but sometimes it's "Roger, I'll be bringing you back to join shortly," and you wouldn't want to preempt the controller's plans unless you're headed for somthing tall and hard.
 
My two cents would be not to accept the hold unless given an EFC time. At least that was what the DPE told me in my oral. After that EFC time you fly the plan that you were given.
 
rmlewisjr said:
My two cents would be not to accept the hold unless given an EFC time. At least that was what the DPE told me in my oral.
Click to expand...
While that's good advice, I don't see its applicability to this situation, which involved a vector, not a hold.
After that EFC time you fly the plan that you were given.
Click to expand...
You don't depart the hold at EFC unless you've actually lost comm. If you can still hear them, there are still ways to have 2-way comm even if they can't hear your voice. But if EFC is approaching, and you do still have 2-way voice comm, it's a good idea to ask the controller what's happening, and get a new EFC if you'll be holding past the original one.
 
Ron Levy said:
OTOH, if the controller intended to take you through and bring you back, you could have caused a loss of separation by your unauthorized deviation from your last clearance, and it would have been your certificate the FAA would go after if that happened. So I'd say you either missed something the controller said or you just got lucky.

Yes, the controller is supposed to tell you if s/he's going to take you across and back during vectors to final, but sometimes it gets lost in the shuffle. I'd be on the radio and asking before I made that turn-on without hearing at least "join the localizer." Usually the response starts "oops," but sometimes it's "Roger, I'll be bringing you back to join shortly," and you wouldn't want to preempt the controller's plans unless you're headed for somthing tall and hard.
Click to expand...

Ron

Here is a reason http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7025897569830845243# why you should not trust ATC 100%. Both aircraft were in contact with ATC in clear weather yet they managed to collide due to ATC instructions.

José
 
Piloto said:
Ron

Here is a reason http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7025897569830845243# why you should not trust ATC 100%. Both aircraft were in contact with ATC in clear weather yet they managed to collide due to ATC instructions.

José
Click to expand...
If you use that example as a reason for disobeying ATC instructions while IFR when there is no immediate threat of collision with an obstruction or another airplane, you are not going to like what the FAA does next.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you use that example as a reason for disobeying ATC instructions while IFR when there is no immediate threat of collision with an obstruction or another airplane, you are not going to like what the FAA does next.
Click to expand...

Like the above there are dozens of them. I would rather see what the FAA is going to do next rather than been smash. Keep in mind that over 100nm ATC radars may not see traffic in your vicinity but TCAS will do. I have seen this over oceanic and mountain regions many times. Also keep in mind that in any misjudgement the controller always survive but not the pilot and the passengers

José
 
Last edited:
Piloto said:
Like the above there are dozens of them. I would rather see what the FAA is going to do next rather than been smash.

José
Click to expand...
History suggests that violation of an ATC clearance/instruction is more likely to result in a "smash" than following it. So if you're looking for validation of your violation of 91.123, you won't find that here.
 
flyingmoose said:
What kind of time are you talking about here? A minute or two can seem like an eternity if you are waiting on something from atc. You were given runway heading, so unless you really thought there was lost comm then you should stay on rwy heading.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how our perception of time can change depending on the circumstances. I have gotten in the habit of using the timer on my transponder whenever I think something is taking too long. It helps calibrate my perception of how much time has passed. Like you said, most of the time it is only a minute or two.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top