ATC question: Denying a clearance because of DP req's

[Corona]

I don't work in a tower but I'll still try and provide some info. We have an order of priorities as to how we handle A/C ... unfortunatley what you were looking for is low on the list when things are busy. You are on the ground so in that order you do not need immediate attention, the attention is given to A/C already being worked in the system.

We also do not know what restricitions were placed on the tower... they may have had a temporary stop on IFR's not already filed... many times we are just told something quickly (eg. don't launch any for a few minutes) and have to wait to get the full story.

As for you not having ADF ... did that change your equipment suffix ?

OK, this thread had me digging into the 'ol AIM:

1) Sorry, ATCER, there isn't a suffix for ADF on an IFR plan (Yep; had to look that one up to verify what I thought I knew). However, the pilot is required to have the necessary equipment required to safely accomplish the flight IFR with the ground or GPS navigation aids defined by the flight plan. But, pilots are not required to have the published DPs (SIDs and ODPs). Hmm, this gets curiouser and curiouser...

2) Aim 5-2-6 goes into detail about what's required for DPs both from pilot and controller points of view. Ironically, the only requirement for DPs is that the pilot has text or graphic description of the procedure. Nowhere in the AIM that I have found does it discuss DP equipment requirements, except for RNAV DPs.

I think Immelman has thrown us quite a conundrum: Can ATC keep a pilot on the ground for not being able to comply with an ODP? Doesn't seem right to me, regardless of traffic volume. The AIM says ATC can issue ODPs as part of the clearance, but this seems an extreme interpretation to me.

Immelman, please do pursue this and let us know what you find. I suggest you start with calling the tower.

C

 

[GIVDrvr]

If recheck the initial post this is a situation were a radar facility is issuing a clearance at a non towered airport through an RCO on the field.

 

[GIVDrvr]

Corona if ATC needs to you to fly a certain DP in order that non radar separation be provided at the time of release and you cant comply you will sit on the ground and when you have exceeded 15 minutes of delay you will recorded as having been officially delayed and the reason recorded in the traffic management log will be 'pilots inability to comply with DP required for separation'. And that will be that.
The real question here is what if any alternative can be arranged? Mull that one and I'll chime back in later my beer is getting warm.

 

[Vector4fun]

4-8-11. PRACTICE APPROACHES
​

Except for military aircraft operating at military airfields, ensure that neither VFR nor IFR practice approaches disrupt the flow of other arriving and departing IFR or VFR aircraft. Authorize, withdraw authorization, or refuse to authorize practice approaches as traffic conditions require. Normally, approaches in progress should not be terminated.
​

I can't answer your question about the DP without actually knowing the airspace and ATC procedures at the facility in question. But if you read the above quote from the 7110.65, you'll see that while the Controller said the DP was the reason, the real reason may be that he was simply too busy to accomodate any more practice approaches, and he has the authority to deny them. It happens from time to time, a couple times a month here for example, we just start saying no. Usually after 30 min to an hour, we can start approving them again. If you'd had the equipment to fly the published DP, and he hadn't had to divert extra attention to getting you safely out while keeping everyone separated, you might have gotten your clearance.

Not speaking directly to you, but lots of pilots think if they file IFR, they get "priority" over other traffic. Not so, a practice approach is a practice approach, whether done VFR or IFR. And it's very low on the priority list. Even below itinerant VFR traffic.

 

[Immelman]

Once again thanks to all for the replies. This has been quite educational! As noted above it was not a towered airport but had an RCO which is used to obtain clearances. The same controller is working local traffic. The airport is Watsonville, CA (KWVI) in case anyone is interested. Traffic from other airports probably wasn't a factor, but practically speaking, the field is "one way" for IFR -- the DP and vector-based clearances have you take off or turn to the south-west to a fix... which puts you on the localizer for inbounds... so the controller can work exactly one airplane at a time in/out of the field.

I think the take-home from this is the fact that we were a training flight... had we been going some place (a quick launch through the clouds and out of his hair), I think the story would have been different, and Vector4fun's explanation seems to confirm that... from reading the AIM and others' posts above I think that a DP is not a requirement.

Vector4fun, thank you for the excerpt. I did not know that, but it does make sense. I had a feeling that was the reasoning behind this. The controller was polite and after a while apologetic, before saying we were 'unlikely' to get clearance without complying with the DP. So he never flat out denied me but after a while enough is enough, we were out of time, and we cancelled our request.

Hopefully things are less busy next weekend when I try this again, assuming the field is IFR (common to have a marine layer here)... I really want/need to get current! Maybe next time I will listen on the scanner before departure to see how busy things are. I also booked the airplane for longer.

 

[Corona]

If recheck the initial post this is a situation were a radar facility is issuing a clearance at a non towered airport through an RCO on the field.

Yep; I saw that. Doesn't change my response, though.

C

 

[Corona]

Corona if ATC needs to you to fly a certain DP in order that non radar separation be provided at the time of release and you cant comply you will sit on the ground and when you have exceeded 15 minutes of delay you will recorded as having been officially delayed and the reason recorded in the traffic management log will be 'pilots inability to comply with DP required for separation'. And that will be that.
The real question here is what if any alternative can be arranged? Mull that one and I'll chime back in later my beer is getting warm.

This is good info; didn't know about the delay report. However, it still doesn't change the fact we are on the ground trying to get into the air, so we are still stuck with the original problem.

If as Vector4Fun says, the controller was simply too busy, well, that's fine with me. Delays happen. But ATC needs to be honest about that. For a Pt. 91 operator, though, all you need is to be able to get into radar coverage or navigate to a published route. If you are bold, you can slog through the WX to get there without either, as long as you have clearance. I'm not bold, however.

The alternative you mention was rather the point I was trying to make, though I didn't do it too well. The easiest, and most likely what ATC was looking for, was some type of RNAV system, GPS or otherwise. In my experience, ATC pretty much assumes you have such a system if you are flying anything other than light singles.

This airplane didn't have any RNAV, so we are still stuck with the original problem.

Cheers,

C

 

[Beertini]

Be careful!

I think the story would have been different, and Vector4fun's explanation seems to confirm that... from reading the AIM and others' posts above I think that a DP is not a requirement.

Immelman-

This is a bit off topic but I feel it is an important point:

Please don't forget that the reason an obstacle DP exists is because there is something on the departure path that can kill you. That is the sole reason for the existence of an obstacle DP. If you chose not to treat the DP as a requirement, then the consequences can be fatal. The C-130 crash in Jackson Hole is a perfect example.

My .02 only.

Beertini

 

[414Flyer]

Denying a clearance because of DP? What about DVDA?