So what you’re saying is, because the Controller gave an incorrect instruction, the FO should have flown an irrational flight path rather than requesting clarification from ATC per 91.123 (a)
Sigh. "Was" from today's perspective. "Is" on that day. "What is your course to XYZ?"
I really like this response for several reasons, most of which highlights “book” vs “reality/expectations”. Like hitting the IF on an RNAV arriving from the same side and flying the PT: they aren’t expecting it even though that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do.
That would be in compliance with I think it’s @midlifeflyer ’s cardinal rule of flying IFR. Be on the same page as the Controller.
Of course, I'm not saying that at all. If the controller said, "What was your course to XYZ?" I would understand that to mean I'm being asked for my planned route before I was taken off of it by the controller's vector. I would assume the controller had a technical reason, such as possibly marking the route on the display for reference.
Can't get good help anymore; the world isn't a better place.
When folks don't understand the meaning of the "book", they gripe about the difference from "reality". Take 91.185 for example. Leaving a clearance limit was never meant for anything other than a holding fix (they simply changed what to call it). Now pilots and controllers gripe that the book says they must leave a made-up fix over the airport because it's a "clearance limit".
AAGGGHHHH!!! It’s lost comm. RUN!!!!
It would. On this one, assuming you chose to intercept the leg, it would be as simple as checking in with, "1234A 2,000 climbing 3,000 heading 320° to intercept the Vidalia-Athens course."
That's not what I was talking about. 91.185 is lost comm. 91.181(b) is what I referenced, which is "course to be flown".
Yeah, but I wasn't responding to your post, just the general gripes about how the book says one thing, which is really not what it always was meant to convey, and reality is something imagined to be different, which is really what the book has meant all along.
I think you can have obstacles poking up into controlled airspace. Do you want to rely on ATC to keep you clear? And if they refuse? Or if you can't raise them? Gotta have a plan and stay on it until you're clear, THEN fly the pre-assigned heading, i.e., "When entering controlled airspace, fly..." and not as soon as you enter. IMO.
Perhaps next time the controller will tell the pilot to do that…
If they give me a vector that conflicts with the ODP or a NOTAM then I’ll reference that to them and we’ll get a different vector. Either way I don’t leave it unspoken.
That's not how the ATC system is designed to work. The departure vector is the exception, not the norm.
It isn't that simple, IMO. I think the pilot should treat a heading given before takeoff as a traffic assignment not as an obstacle clearance assignment unless departing a runway with a specific "diverse vector area" (DVA), which isn't synonymous with a generic diverse departure area. ATC isn't responsible for terrain/obstructions until they have you radar identified and subsequently issue a heading. If the traffic assignment doesn't jibe with the PIC's obstacle avoidance intentions, then I agree with you to inform ATC.
I'm not sure where we're disagreeing. I said "radar vector" which, I thought, meant radar contact plus a heading. Saying "Enter controlled airspace heading XXX" isn't a radar vector.
Lots of places in populated areas do that but it is the exception, not the base upon which the IFR system is built. RADAR and RNAV are the fancy things added on top that often makes things easier.
What airport(s)? It makes a difference. If the nontowered airport has a diverse vector area, you might well get vectors from the ground, especially if it also a Class E surface area. I talked a bit about some of the departure permutations, including pilot/ATC roles, in my 2021 IFR Magazine article, "Departures" (no firewall).
Whether or not the field has an operating control tower isn't a good indicator for if, and when, obstruction clearance will be provided by ATC. Many ATCTs are VFR-only. They don't originate or modify IFR clearances, they only relay them from the overlying TRACON or Center, or provide IFR separation services themselves. Mark's column, linked above, explains it well.
That's essentially correct. When you receive radar vectors from ATC, ATC is taking responsibility for terrain and construction clearance. As previously mentioned, there are two conditions:
It looks like we agree after all. My concern was that @WDD could interpret
Well, maybe. There may be an unassigned ODP that is necessary to keep you from hitting something. That may well take you in the opposite direction of that waypoint in your clearance. As a plain vanilla Part 91 pilot, you can certainly disregard it (unless it's assigned), and head directly to your cleared waypoint into the clouds.
Yep, absolutely. Home airport I know the performance/weight I need to be at to clear the trees at the end of the runway. From there, I can circle the pattern at 700 AGL all day and clear everything. From there, I can std rate turn and cruise climb in any direction to 3k and clear the local hills.
You can feel confident in directing your concern elsewhere
You would be correct. But some of the discussion here is when you get something in your Clearance like "...upon reaching Controlled Airspace, fly Heading 123..." That is NOT a Radar Vector as you may not be talking to ATC yet (possibly too low) and you are not Radar Identified once you reach Controlled Airspace (e.g. 700 or 1200ft). So if you make the turn per your Clearance, the terrain avoidance is still on you since you're still not actually getting Radar Vectors.
