"Cleared to" verses "cleared direct to"

Blackhawk

Blackhawk

Well-Known Member
One more time. When you are given a hold your holding fix is now your clearance limit. As part of your hold ATC will say "Cleared to XYZ..." This does NOT mean you are cleared direct to XYZ, it means XYZ is now your clearance limit. Yesterday I heard ATC explain this to several airliners that started going direct and even my FO tried to do this until I corrected him.
 
mikecweb said:
Then wouldn't they have to give routing?
Click to expand...

The routing change may have come well before the holding clearance is issued. I Probably get routes that are different than "as filed" about 30% of the time.
Either way, while XYZ may be on your filed route it would not be "as filed" as you rarely put a fix as your destination. Since XYZ is no longer your destination you would not be cleared there "as filed".
Finally, if you are cleared direct to a fix ATC will say "now cleared direct to XYZ". Absent a clearance direct to a fix you still fly the last cleared route to the fix. Instrument flying 101.
 
Blackhawk said:
The routing change may have come well before the holding clearance is issued. I Probably get routes that are different than "as filed" about 30% of the time.
Either way, while XYZ may be on your filed route it would not be "as filed" as you rarely put a fix as your destination. Since XYZ is no longer your destination you would not be cleared there "as filed".
Finally, if you are cleared direct to a fix ATC will say "now cleared direct to XYZ". Absent a clearance direct to a fix you still fly the last cleared route to the fix. Instrument flying 101.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. If there is ambiguity in the clearance I'll query the controller.
 
mikecweb said:
Fantastic. If there is ambiguity in the clearance I'll query the controller.
Click to expand...

Usually (if not always), that is the best thing to do. Unfortunately some are not even questioning, just punching "direct to" into the FMS and going off of their cleared route.
 
@Blackhawk I understand what you're getting to but a lot of the new RNAV STARs have designated hold positions designed into them. Most of them are not on any portion of the route itself. If I'm "cleared to hold" at any one of these points, I'm going direct because there are no other options.

Agreed that a query would keep me out of hot water but I shouldn't just plug along my route either.
 
dustoff17 said:
@Blackhawk I understand what you're getting to but a lot of the new RNAV STARs have designated hold positions designed into them. Most of them are not on any portion of the route itself. If I'm "cleared to hold" at any one of these points, I'm going direct because there are no other options.

Agreed that a query would keep me out of hot water but I shouldn't just plug along my route either.
Click to expand...

Not sure what FMS you are using, but I have not heard of one where, if you select to hold at an intersection, it will automatically go direct to that hold. If you load an RNAV STAR in the FMS all the points, to include the holds, should be in the route. The hold being given yesterday in the example I cited was such a fix. Part of the RNAV arrival. Selected to hold at the fix and it did not try to go direct. It just entered the hold upon arrival.
 
Blackhawk said:
Or here's a novel idea. What about pilots actually learning what the terminology means instead of trying to get controllers to say things that aren't in the pilot controller glossary?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying. I have deviated around weather and when clear of the weather been told "Cleared direct to XYZ then as previously cleared". Is "As previously cleared" not in the controller glossary?

If not maybe it should be.
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk said:
Not sure what FMS you are using, but I have not heard of one where, if you select to hold at an intersection, it will automatically go direct to that hold. If you load an RNAV STAR in the FMS all the points, to include the holds, should be in the route. The hold being given yesterday in the example I cited was such a fix. Part of the RNAV arrival. Selected to hold at the fix and it did not try to go direct. It just entered the hold upon arrival.
Click to expand...

That's not what he is talking about. Several of the newer STARS have designated OFF ROUTE holding fixes that they will clear you to and stack airplanes up in. I can't find an example right now but I've seen a few off them.

That said, it doesn't sound like that's the situation that you were talking about in the first post. Yes, pilots do stupid things. Yes controllers do stupid things. Learn the lesson, (preach it if necessary) and then move on.
 
BobDDuck said:
That's not what he is talking about. Several of the newer STARS have designated OFF ROUTE holding fixes that they will clear you to and stack airplanes up in. I can't find an example right now but I've seen a few off them.

That said, it doesn't sound like that's the situation that you were talking about in the first post. Yes, pilots do stupid things. Yes controllers do stupid things. Learn the lesson, (preach it if necessary) and then move on.
Click to expand...

Okay. I don't remember seeing any of those but will look. In that scenario ATC would obviously need to clear you to the fix in some fashion since it is not part of your route.
 
Corporate Pilot said:
Not sure what you are saying. I have deviated around weather and when clear of the weather been told "Cleared direct to XYZ then as previously cleared". Is "As previously cleared" not in the controller glossary?

If not maybe it should be.
Click to expand...

That scenario is different. You have deviated from your cleared route. In this case your route stays the same just your clearance limit has changed.
An even simpler solution is pilots learning the difference between "cleared direct to" and "cleared to" as part of a hold.
 
@Blackhawk I haven't had the opportunity to fly or teach IFR a ton, but I'm a CFII so I'd like to teach this correctly.

In your example, are you speaking of an amended clearance once airborne? Can you set the scene for me; what would the calls/position be prior to receiving "cleared to"?

Let's say on the ground at KJZI we were cleared to KATL via direct. Once airborne, atc amends clearance stating "cross HVQ at FL180, then descend via EVULE ONE arrival runway 26R". Once on the arrival, say while flying to PLEES they need to assign the hold at DIRTY; how would that call sound?

EDIT: obviously if ATC needed to clear direct and hold, they would simply state "clear direct DIRTY and hold, expect further clearance 0200z". That's not what we're talking about here. Enroute to PLEES, would they say "clear to DIRTY via PLEES, SHANE, then hold, expect further clearance 0200z"?
 
Last edited:
We hear this phrasing in ICAO more than stateside. Cleared to does not mean direct unless they specifically say direct. Generally in the states, direct is implied, otherwise they would say cleared via.
 
Barbie, first it would be a pretty rare event to get a clearance direct to KATL. I can think of once over the years, and that was at about 0200, last flight in after a long day of weather delays after the front moves through and KATL was CAVU.

The scenario would be along a cleared STAR. In the case you gave along the EVULE 1, the scenario I encountered would be a holding clearance at say Shane. Normally but not always ATC will give you a heads up that it is coming. The clearance would be "You are now cleared to Shane, hold as published, EFC ####." What ATC is saying is that Shane is now your clearance limit, not that you are cleared direct to Shane, though in this case going direct would not really take you off the route.

The scenario of holding at Dirty is what the others were talking about. Since Dirty is not along the arrival you would need some sort of change to your cleared route to get there but it should be obvious, such as present position direct or after Shane cleared to Dirty.
Funny, years of flying the STARs I just lucked out and never got one of these off STAR holds so I never gave the points much thought.
 
As NewYorkophile stated the wording is international. If you don't like or find it too difficult find a different line of work. Not understanding this in the US might get you in hot water. Not understanding this in some countries could get you seriously killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top