'Cleared To' vs 'Cleared Direct'

[B767Driver]

I was flying through an ATL Center sector this week on my way to Florida and the south KATL arrivals were checking in on the same frequency as I overflew the arrival.

Upon checking in with the sector controller, each aircraft was "cleared to SINCA intersection". Without fail, each pilot would read back "cleared direct to SINCA".

I listened each time as the Center Controller would say, "Negative, cleared to SINCA".

A very important distinction between the two...as 1) "Cleared to" means to stay on your routing with a clearance limit of SINCA and 2) "Cleared direct" means to fly direct to the fix without amending the previous clearance limit.

It's a subtle difference...but now all the Jetcareers pilots will never make that error!

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

If ATC gave SINCA as a clearance limit, shouldn't it have also given an EFC time?

 

[B767Driver]

If ATC gave SINCA as a clearance limit, shouldn't it have also given an EFC time?

Although it stands to reason, I don't think they have to. I.E, the lost comm situation where the clearance limit is reached with no EFC time...the course of action is different than if one was issued.

Commonly, you will get this verbage if there is a good chance you will have to make a turn in holding due to traffic saturation. The controller is not ready for your airplane to progress further along the arrival. In a few minutes, you'll either get holding instructions or a new clearance limit. Typically, you will be issued something like, "N12345, you are cleared to KATL via radar vectors, fly heading 330 and descend and maintain 17,000'." Not only do you have a new clearance...but you have a new clearance limit as well...this time all the way to the airport.

You raise a good question though...and it'll have me in the books to dig a little deeper now.

 

[n57flyguy]

Whats SINCA? is it an ILS intercept, or am I all screwed up?

 

[Mr_Creepy]

The ATL controller was being a smart ass. While the clearance is technically correct, the manual advises that the proper terminology would be:

"Cleared via present routing to SINCA"

 

[caliginousface]

Whats SINCA? is it an ILS intercept, or am I all screwed up?

SINCA is an intersection of two airways, just like DILLY, or NASTY. it could be the initial approach fix for the ILS, or any other approach.

 

[DE727UPS]

That controller was making a lot of extra work for themselves by not saying it a different way. Correct or not, I think most guys would assume direct when cleared to a fix. Why else say it? Now, B767 driver explains why but there has got to be a better way to get your point across without as much confusion.

 

[DE727UPS]

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html#4-2-1

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1

If they changed the clearance limit from an airport, to a fix, it makes sense that it's for a hold. In which case they have to say "expect no delay" or give you an EFC.

The controller could have made things easier on himself, and the pilots, by saying "cleared to SINCA via the arrival, expect no delay"

 

[seagull]

I think that the initial post was very valid, and would likely save your life one day if you fly International. This type of misunderstanding is pretty much what really killed AA going into Cali a few years ago. It happens ALOT!

 

[alphaone]

I think that the initial post was very valid, and would likely save your life one day if you fly International. This type of misunderstanding is pretty much what really killed AA going into Cali a few years ago. It happens ALOT!

Wasn't it that the controller said "cleared to" which meant AA would follow the route that safely would have taken them around mountains, but AA read it back as 'cleard direct" to a fix which from their current position would fly them right into a mountain which is what happened? Shouldn't the controller have picked up on the readback?

 

[seagull]

ATC in other countries do little, if any, monitoring of the readback. Can't assume that. Additionally, the U.S. phraseology is different than the rest of the World, which complicates things further. Finally, you forget that ATC's job is just to separate traffic -- NOT to keep you out of the terrain. ATC probably didn't care what they did in that regard, direct or via the routing, didn't matter, what mattered was other traffic. Odds are they had gotten away with it in the past.

 

[n57flyguy]

SINCA is an intersection of two airways, just like DILLY, or NASTY. it could be the initial approach fix for the ILS, or any other approach.

So its to set up for an ILS or other approach?

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

So its to set up for an ILS or other approach?

It can be or it could simply be an intersection mandatory reporting point/hold point etc. There called fixes.

 

[Malko]

Information on fix SINCA

Name: SINCA
Identifier: SINCA
Location: 33-04-52.280N / 083-36-17.520W (GEORGIA)
ARTCC: ZTL
Fix to be published? yes
Navaid radial/DME:
MCNr004.22/23.45
ATLr127.95/53.08
Charts: STAR ENROUTE LOW ENROUTE HIGH IAP MILITARY IAP
Charting info: GPS
Fix use: Reporting point

...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00026CANUK.PDF

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00026SINCA.PDF

 

[meritflyer]

Not every intersection is a 'set up' for an approach. Intersections are everywhere. If the intersection was to be used for an approach they would mention that in their clearance for example -

"Cleared to ABC intersection on current routing for the VOR RWY 23 approach"

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

So its to set up for an ILS or other approach?

This will really help you out:

www.airnav.com

They have alot of PDF files listing DP's and approach/STARS for airports. You can really learn alot from just looking and firmilarize yourself with them.