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.

 

[GravityHater]

Thanks for filling us in VFF, about atc no longer needing to reiterate the remainder of the previous clearance.
As I was trying to suggest, I have never heard atc ambiguously 'drop' anyone at a VOR without some kind of plan. They will quite distinctly give you a hold and EFC, or (where I fly) reiterate/reissue the continuing clearance. Unlike Chperplit's experience, where I fly (south central US) they have time to give you the "rest unchanged" or "then as filed". This part may be a regional thing.
Mattpilot, I think we are agreeing but it just doesnt seem so because of the nature of this medium... I do not fly a lot of non-radar myself but I am on the same frequency hearing what is happening. Originally when we were talking about being 'dropped' at a vor, no mention was made of either a hold, nor an EFC being involved until you did, in post #9. If this was previously assumed I apologize. In fact, I agree with your lost comm comments.

 

[U of I Tweak]

I was being vectored to the first VOR when I was instructed to fly to direct to another VOR.

It seems to me that you weren't ever given a clearance other than your original when you began your flight. Say you cleared "N61750 you are cleared to KABC via DEF VOR, V-45, then direct....blah"

Enroute you are told, "Proceed direct GHI VOR," which happens to be on V-45. Your clearance was never changed, you are still cleared to KABC, you just received a vector to get there a little different way.

If you were told, "N750, you are cleared to the GHI VOR, proceed direct." That's a new clearance and a new clearance limit. That's how I would interpret it. If I don't hear the magic words that say 'I'm cleared to' something new, then the original clearance limit applies, even if the route changed.

 

[A Squared]

As I was trying to suggest, I have never heard atc ambiguously 'drop' anyone at a VOR without some kind of plan.

You get that every once in a while. Typical situation is an approach that has a fairly lengthy transition or arc. There's preceeding traffic and ATC won't be able to clear you for the approach before you hit the IAF or transition fix. ATC will clear you to a fix further down the approach with an altitude assignment which will keep you above the aircaft on approach, and above the missed approcah procedure should he go missed, THis allows you to effectively begin the approach without being cleared for the approach, and it keeps you clear of the other traffic Now, ATC probably *should* give you an EFC, or at least a "no delay expected" but I've received a ammended clearnce limit without that more than once.

 

[TIS]

If your clearance limit changes you'll know it. The phraseology is, "You're cleared to the ABC VOR... ," or some other fix as applicable. If they say, "Cleared direct to ABC VOR," and say nothing about holding instructions then it is only shorcut routing.

TIS

 

[enigma]

This weekend on an IFR flight, I was cleared RV to the VOR, then the Victor airway, then direct.

Anne, I assume that this was the clearance you picked up before departure. To what point were you given "direct" after the Victor airway?

I was being vectored to the first VOR when I was instructed to fly to direct to another VOR.

The controller gave you a shortcut, not an amended clearance.

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.

He was saying ("he had me down") that his paperwork showed the airport as your clearance limit.

I was expecting since he changed what I had in the first place and the clearance was only to the VOR,

Your intro seems to indicate that your destination airport was your clearance limit. What was the original clearance? Were you cleared to destination via some route, or to a VOR with an EFC?

that my clearance limit was at the VOR. I didn't want to just assume I should continue on the victor airway.

Any comments?

Again, we need to know the details of the original clearance.

enigma

 

[Anne]

As I read these replies, I believe I had my routing change, not my clearance limit. I was given a shortcut along my route, and should have expected to continue my route as given after the shortcut.


My original clearance was:

RV to MHT then V141 then direct KBTV

The shortcut was to LEB, and I was not given an EFC time.