"Cleared to" verses "cleared direct to"

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 phrase does not appear in any FAA publication.

Why don't you like "rest of route unchanged"? Is "as previously cleared" somehow better in your estimation?

Of course, that involves an off-cleared-route fix that is being inserted into the clearance.

But the OP was talking about a holding clearance. And I don't see anything in the words "hold southeast of XYZ as published" when XYZ is a fix along the cleared route that means "go directly there from your present position."

Maybe I'm confused but it seem that there are a number of different things different people are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

See AA965 in Cali...
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
That phrase does not appear in any FAA publication.

Why don't you like "rest of route unchanged"? Is "as previously cleared" somehow better in your estimation?

Of course, that involves an off-cleared-route fix that is being inserted into the clearance.

But the OP was talking about a holding clearance. And I don't see anything in the words "hold southeast of XYZ as published" when XYZ is a fix along the cleared route that means "go directly there from your present position."

"rest of route unchanged" works for me also.

Maybe I'm confused but it seem that there are a number of different things different people are talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Blackhawk said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense.
 
Blackhawk said:
XYZ may or may not be in their filed flight plan.
Click to expand...


I have to admit that flying L/ in the flatlands and in uncongested airspace has left me very rusty with SIDs, STARs, and this off route holding. We are cleared direct everywhere. The only time I hold is in the sim or during a 297.

In this scenario, is XYZ in the FMS flight plan? In other worlds, when the route is initially plugged in, is XYZ automatically populated as a waypoint that defines the cleared route? In your example is it part of the STAR?

I ask because after reading this thread, if "cleared to XYZ" and it wasn't in the box, then how would the pilots know where along the route to drop the waypoint? If it wasn't in there, I could see the idea that going direct was correct. If it was in there, I agree there shouldn't be a question that the pilots are expected to follow the current route with the new limit.
 
deadstick said:
I have to admit that flying L/ in the flatlands and in uncongested airspace has left me very rusty with SIDs, STARs, and this off route holding. We are cleared direct everywhere. The only time I hold is in the sim or during a 297.

In this scenario, is XYZ in the FMS flight plan? In other worlds, when the route is initially plugged in, is XYZ automatically populated as a waypoint that defines the cleared route? In your example is it part of the STAR?

I ask because after reading this thread, if "cleared to XYZ" and it wasn't in the box, then how would the pilots know where along the route to drop the waypoint? If it wasn't in there, I could see the idea that going direct was correct. If it was in there, I agree there shouldn't be a question that the pilots are expected to follow the current route with the new limit.
Click to expand...

In the scenario XYZ was part of the STAR and a point in the FMS as part of the cleared route route.
 
Got it. Something else I thing about is the hold. ATC would expect a hold (if not depicted) on that course in the STAR. To go direct to the fix, they would hold on that direct course. Right?
 
deadstick said:
Got it. Something else I thing about is the hold. ATC would expect a hold (if not depicted) on that course in the STAR. To go direct to the fix, they would hold on that direct course. Right?
Click to expand...

If not depicted ATC would have to give you what hold they want. Otherwise they would need to stay as published or give you something specific.
 
deadstick said:
I have to admit that flying L/ in the flatlands and in uncongested airspace has left me very rusty with SIDs, STARs, and this off route holding. We are cleared direct everywhere. The only time I hold is in the sim or during a 297.

In this scenario, is XYZ in the FMS flight plan? In other worlds, when the route is initially plugged in, is XYZ automatically populated as a waypoint that defines the cleared route? In your example is it part of the STAR?

I ask because after reading this thread, if "cleared to XYZ" and it wasn't in the box, then how would the pilots know where along the route to drop the waypoint? If it wasn't in there, I could see the idea that going direct was correct. If it was in there, I agree there shouldn't be a question that the pilots are expected to follow the current route with the new limit.
Click to expand...
For a waypoint not in the cleared route, I would expect ATC to say, "proceed direct XYZ" or "after [waypoint in the cleared route] proceed direct XYZ" and if they didn't I would ask, or actually, respond with "proceeding direct XYZ" if that made sense, and let them correct me. Communication requires understanding on both sides, not a mystery.
 
Blackhawk said:
If not depicted ATC would have to give you what hold they want. Otherwise they would need to stay as published or give you something specific.
Click to expand...

Found what I was thinking about--

AIM 5-3-8(c)
If no holding pattern is charted and holding
instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask
ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix.
This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an
aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that
desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding
instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to
frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), then
enter a standard pattern on the course on which the
aircraft approached the fix and request further
clearance as soon as possible. In this event, the
altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance
limit will be protected so that separation will be
provided as required.
Click to expand...


MidlifeFlyer said:
For a waypoint not in the cleared route, I would expect ATC to say, "proceed direct XYZ" or "after [waypoint in the cleared route] proceed direct XYZ" and if they didn't I would ask, or actually, respond with "proceeding direct XYZ" if that made sense, and let them correct me. Communication requires understanding on both sides, not a mystery.
Click to expand...


Didn't the FAA come out with a policy awhile ago that absolved ATC of correcting improperly read-back clearances?
 
deadstick said:
Didn't the FAA come out with a policy awhile ago that absolved ATC of correcting improperly read-back clearances?
Click to expand...
If that's true I'm not aware of it. The ATC handbook requires correction of incorrect read backs:

If altitude,heading,or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as appropriate.​

Are you thinking of the Merrell case in which the pilots incorrect read back was stepped on, but that didn't absolve the pilot?

Either way, even if ATC doesn't get "blamed" for not doing part of their job, I'm not sure that's a reason for us not to do our job (from both a regulatory and safety standpoint) of obtaining clarification of instructions that are not clear to us.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
If that's true I'm not aware of it. The ATC handbook requires correction of incorrect read backs:

If altitude,heading,or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as appropriate.​

Are you thinking of the Merrell case in which the pilots incorrect read back was stepped on, but that didn't absolve the pilot?

Either way, even if ATC doesn't get "blamed" for not doing part of their job, I'm not sure that's a reason for us not to do our job (from both a regulatory and safety standpoint) of obtaining clarification of instructions that are not clear to us.
Click to expand...


Turns out "while ago" was 1999. Wow, I feel old.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182661-1.html

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...mpliance-with-ATC-clearances-and-instructions
 
deadstick said:
Turns out "while ago" was 1999. Wow, I feel old.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182661-1.html

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...mpliance-with-ATC-clearances-and-instructions
Click to expand...
Tell me about it!

Interesting. Rick's article was a little late. The policy was applied to a real situation by the time the article was published - the Merrell case I mentioned.

Merrell was a Northwest captain. On a flight, he mistakenly thought an instruction meant for another pilot was for him. He read the instruction back but the read back was stepped on, so ATC never had the chance to correct it. There was a loss of separation and the FAA brought enforcement action against the captain.

By the time of Rick's article in 1999, the case had been tried before an ALJ who sided the the FAA. The NTSB reversed the ALJ saying the Merrelll had done everything reasonably required from him and said the FAA's interpretation was ridiculous. The FAA asked the NTSB to reconsider, which it did, but still flouted the FAA. Rick was correct: the NTSB did "tell the FAA it is all wet when it comes to this interpretive rule."

Unfortunately...

The FAA appealed to the US Court of Appeals which upheld the FAA because the statute that governs NTSB hearings required the NTSB to defer to the FAA's interpretation (a statute that was changed as part of the Pilots Bill of Rights).

But the rule doesn't absolve ATC. What it does is make the pilot strictly liable for not following an instruction even if he tries to get clarification.
 
deadstick said:
It's because of FAA BS like this I've paid for AOPA's LSP for a loooog time.
Click to expand...
Kind of off topic, but hey. It's a forum.
Good to have, but understand there is a limit to what AOPA's LSP will pay. On the government side, of course, there is no limit to what they will pay to prosecute a case, no matter how trivial the offense might be. They can bleed you dry in the process.
Probably the only reason the Merrell case went as far as it did was that Merrell had ALPA backing him. Otherwise he probably would have thrown in the towel as legal representation to this extent would have been very, very expensive. Mark probably has a better idea of the cost today, but there are several stages, each getting more expensive in lawyer fees.
There was even a case with the MCI FSDO where they were found to be a contributing cause in an accident by the NTSB because of the stress they put on a pilot due to "unwarranted actions".
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-harassed-pilot-fatal-cj-crash
Don't get me wrong. Most Safety Inspectors are good people. It only takes one, however, to make your life miserable.
 
Blackhawk said:
Kind of off topic, but hey. It's a forum.
Good to have, but understand there is a limit to what AOPA's LSP will pay. On the government side, of course, there is no limit to what they will pay to prosecute a case, no matter how trivial the offense might be. They can bleed you dry in the process.
Click to expand...
That's not completely true, especially these days. The FAA group that prosecutes enforcement and civil penalty actions are dealing with budget issues. That may still allow a lot of action against pilots since their budget will still be better than most of ours, but the decision whether to go forward with enforcement (at any discretionary level) will include consideration of both costs and triviality. An altitude bust, to use a common example, may or may lead to enforcement action based on such non-trivial considerations as whether there was a loss of separation or not.

And, yeah, there are limits to what the FAA will pay but, more importantly, there always limits to what we can do, although I suspect Merrell would have ultimately had a different result if decided today under the Pilots Bill of Rights.
 
Blackhawk said:
Don't get me wrong. Most Safety Inspectors are good people. It only takes one, however, to make your life miserable.
Click to expand...

I think there was a coverage change 2-3 years ago. I agree. Unfortunately I've been on the receiving end of a rotten apple who had a thing for my boss.

I know a guy who missed a verbage change on the medical form a few years ago. They went from revocation to 12 mo suspension to 6 mo suspension with the help of an aviation attorney. It still cost him a fortune in legal fees, but he still has his tickets. The AOPA policy is still better than nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top