Clearance amended/clearance limit

[Anne]

This weekend on an IFR flight, I was cleared RV to the VOR, then the Victor airway, then direct. I was being vectored to the first VOR when I was instructed to fly to direct to another VOR.

Now this second VOR is on the airway. The airway traverses through several VORS. As I was approaching the VOR I asked if that was my clearance limit and did I need further clearance, and he said he had me down for the Victor airway then direct to the airport.

I was expecting since he changed what I had in the first place and the clearance was only to the VOR, that my clearance limit was at the VOR. I didn't want to just assume I should continue on the victor airway.

Any comments?

 

[EagleRJ]

It sounds like you just got a shortcut- from your originally filed route to a VOR farther down the airway.

Your cleared route after that second VOR remained the same. Ordinarily you won't get a VOR as a clearance limit, unless you are planning practice approaches, or you file a composite flight plan (IFR switching to VFR at a designated point).

 

[GravityHater]

If he says you are now cleared to vor ABC and that is all he says, I would respond, "Cleared to vor ABC and understand we are then cleared as filed (or say whatever your previous clearance was) after ABC?" He probably just forgot to include that, and will likely say 'affirmative'.

 

[mattpilot]

when he says "cleared to the VOR ABC .... "

thats your clearence limit. Most of the time you will get your destination as a clearence limit, but in some circumstances, he may only clear you to a VOR.

Remember the order the controller gives it to you:

C - clearence LIMIT
R - route
A - alt
F - freq
T - xponder


So if the controller says only cleared to VOR ABC - then thats as far as you go.

 

[chperplt]

So if the controller says only cleared to VOR ABC - then thats as far as you go.

That may be the intent of the rule, but not the practical application of it. I don't think 1% of the controllers will say "cleared ABC VOR, rest of the route unchanged." They simply say "cleared ABC VOR."

When in doubt, most certanly ask for clarification.

 

[A Squared]

That may be the intent of the rule, but not the practical application of it. I don't think 1% of the controllers will say "cleared ABC VOR, rest of the route unchanged." They simply say "cleared ABC VOR."

When in doubt, most certanly ask for clarification.

Yeah, I hear that sometimes, I also hear the following fairly frequently:

(You are cleared via the airways to xyz, they give you direct ABC vor)

Cleared to XYZ (destination) via direct ABC VOR, flight planned route, or

Cleared to XYZ (destination) via direct ABC VOR, rest of route unchanged.

I think this is probably a little more correct, in that it gives you your clearence limit (unchanged) and then your route (new routing) THat would make it a little clearer and removes the ambiguity of whether you have a new clearence limit.

Remember, there *are* times that they will simply tell you "cleared to XXXXX" maintain YYYYY and the intent is to give you a new clearence limit. You encounter this in non-radar operations, usually as you're approaching your destination and hte4re's already someone on approach.

anyway, I second what chperplt said, if you're scratching you head, wondering what they meant, ask for clarification.

 

[GravityHater]

when he says "cleared to the VOR ABC" thats your clearence limit. Most of the time you will get your destination as a clearence limit, but in some circumstances, he may only clear you to a VOR
So if the controller says only cleared to VOR ABC - then thats as far as you go.

and if that is what atc offered you are free to decline it. Do not accept a new clearance you are uncomfortable with (or you think may be unsafe or illegal). What, in this case, is your plan in the event of lost comm? I would insist on more than a clearance to a VOR.
In reality, atc is more than willing to help out and would not 'drop' you at a VOR.

 

[A Squared]

and if that is what atc offered you are free to decline it. Do not accept a new clearance you are uncomfortable with

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate you probably haven't flown much non-radar IFR.

If ATC needs to hold you at some point, you can't just say, "Naaahhhhh I'm going to keep on going toward my destination".

I would insist on more than a clearance to a VOR.

Yeah, you could do that, but it wouldn't get you anywhere and it would make ATC get a little test, as they reiterated your clearence limit.

In reality, atc is more than willing to help out and would not 'drop' you at a VOR.

In reality, they *do* "drop you at a VOR" on occasion. They have to sometimes. that's how non-radar works. ATC can't have 2 planes cleared for the same approach at the same time, or one on approach and one departing at the same time. They resolve that by issuing a clearence limit to one of the aircraft. Frequently, you do not have to hold, and you get approach clearence before reaching the clearance limit, sometimes you do have to hold, but enless you're declaring an emergency, refusing a clearence limit isn't a really good idea. This is normal day to day reality in non-radar ops.

 

[mattpilot]

What, in this case, is your plan in the event of lost comm?

Very simple. When you are cleared only to a clearence limit, and not to your final destination, you will most certainly get a EFC (Expect further clearence) time.

I'd follow the FARs... i'd fly to my clearence limit, hold until EFC time, then continue on my either a) route i was told to expect, or b) what i filed in my flightplan.

 

[Vector4fun]

IIRC, we used to have to add "Then as filed" or "Rest of route unchanged" or something similar after issuing a "shortcut" to a point somewhere on the assigned route. Several years ago, that requirement was dropped, figuring it was understood the pilot was to resume the last assigned route after reaching the fix in question.

See FAA 7110.65

4-2-5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE AMENDMENTS​

a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued clearance by one of the following:



​

1. State which portion of the route is being amended and then state the amendment.


​

PHRASEOLOGY-​

CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of route).

2. State the amendment to the route and then state that the rest of the route is unchanged.​

PHRASEOLOGY-​

(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.

3. Issue a clearance "direct" to a point on the previously issued route.​

PHRASEOLOGY-​

CLEARED DIRECT (fix).


​

NOTE-

Clearances authorizing "direct" to a point on a previously issued route do not require the phrase "rest of route unchanged." However, it must be understood where the previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, "rest of route unchanged" may be used to clarify routing.

​

4. Issue the entire route by stating the amendment.​

​

yada, yada, yada.​

​

Whenever in doubt, simply verify the clearance with the controller:​

​

"Understand rest of route unchanged after XYZ?" or some such....​

BTW, whenever *I* amend a clearance limit anymore, I try to make very plain that it is a new clearance limit. And as someone else also stated, if the VOR was your new clearance limit, you should have gotten an EFC or other estimate of delay prior to reaching the fix.