Clearance Confusion

[NovemberEcho]

I mean in OKC if you don’t do one of the above you get dinged for that

 

[Stinger]

They also teach Squawk and Ident together.

 

[NovemberEcho]

They also teach Squawk and Ident together.

lol touché

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

They are doing it right. Hold For Release/Released/Clearance Void are not required if traffic doesn't make it a need.

That's a problem simply because it's not uniform. Go back to @Fly_Unity's post and take it at face value. He gets a clearance out of Scottsdale late at night, an otherwise very busy airport below a Class B shelf. He takes of expeditiously and reports in.

Not a thing wrong with it. Except a very unhappy controller threatening to report a deviation. A controller who is probably in the category of those who would never issue a climb into their Class B airspace any time of day or night without specifying a departure window. Maybe, like @NovemberEcho, finds it hard to believe its even legal and is convinced the rule is that in the absence void time language, you have not been released. Guaranteed, if there was a loss of separation, our pilot would have been given a hard time. Or, worse, metal touching metal.

This really isn't about what the "correct" interpretation is. IMO, this kind of operational inconsistency is just bad. I guess it would be OK if the .65 - and the AIM - were explicit but they are not. If it were explicit we wouldn't see controllers arguing about its validity. If it were explicit pilots other than those who have experienced it would know about it. How was NovemberEcho to know which type of control facility he was dealing with and whether or not to question the lack of the void time?

 

[Roger Roger]

That's a problem simply because it's not uniform. Go back to @Fly_Unity's post and take it at face value. He gets a clearance out of Scottsdale late at night, an otherwise very busy airport below a Class B shelf. He takes of expeditiously and reports in.

Not a thing wrong with it. Except a very unhappy controller threatening to report a deviation. A controller who is probably in the category of those who would never issue a climb into their Class B airspace any time of day or night without specifying a departure window. Maybe, like @NovemberEcho, finds it hard to believe its even legal and is convinced the rule is that in the absence void time language, you have not been released. Guaranteed, if there was a loss of separation, our pilot would have been given a hard time. Or, worse, metal touching metal.

This really isn't about what the "correct" interpretation is. IMO, this kind of operational inconsistency is just bad. I guess it would be OK if the .65 - and the AIM - were explicit but they are not. If it were explicit we wouldn't see controllers arguing about its validity. If it were explicit pilots other than those who have experienced it would know about it. How was NovemberEcho to know which type of control facility he was dealing with and whether or not to question the lack of the void time?

I maintain that the people giving a clearance with no “hold for release” when the aircraft is not released are in the wrong. As is evident in this thread, the majority of pilots who get an IFR clearance at an untowered airport are going to assume that they are released if they are not told to hold, and the verbiage in the .65 seems to support that. I mean it’s an untowered airport and I have my IFR, if you don’t want me to launch you better say so.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

I have never heard “released for departure” unless it’s after a hold for release. If ATC says “cleared to” that’s a clearance.

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. You must be given a release unless you're departing VFR and grabbing the clearance airborne.

I could see ATC giving a release with no void time. But if you're given a void time, you should always get a release time... it's almost definitional as the void time is based on the release time.

 

[gotWXdagain]

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. You must be given a release unless you're departing VFR and grabbing the clearance airborne.

I could see ATC giving a release with no void time. But if you're given a void time, you should always get a release time... it's almost definitional as the void time is based on the release time.

Negative. Both the .65 and the aim are worded “may issue” hold and release. No restriction given assumes released.

 

[Roger Roger]

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. You must be given a release unless you're departing VFR and grabbing the clearance airborne.

I could see ATC giving a release with no void time. But if you're given a void time, you should always get a release time... it's almost definitional as the void time is based on the release time.

Show me where it says that. I need an IFR clearance to operate IFR in controlled airspace. That’s it. If the controller needs to put a restriction on it (VINO or HFR) that’s on him to do, not me to read his mind. I don’t need jack diddly to depart from an untowered airport. I bet you won’t even find the word “IFR release” in 14 CFR.

The more I think about it, the more absurd it becomes.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Show me where it says that. I need an IFR clearance to operate IFR in controlled airspace. That’s it. If the controller needs to put a restriction on it (VINO or HFR) that’s on him to do, not me to read his mind. I don’t need jack diddly to depart from an untowered airport. I bet you won’t even find the word “IFR release” in 14 CFR.

The more I think about it, the more absurd it becomes.

I don't think it makes a difference so long as something is explicit as the published SOP so nobody has to read anybody else's mind and so pilot and controller are both on the same page.