Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

N801BH said:
Further speculation is he was NOT in VFR conditions but assumed he was barely high enough to clear the terrain and that no one would be the wiser..
Click to expand...

Unless he could see the terrain, I'm not sure he knew how close he was cutting it.
 
Everskyward said:
After reading the report, I would say that it only summarized the interaction between the pilot and controller so we can't really say what their actual conversation was. During the period the airplane was out of radar coverage the controller may have assumed that the pilot was climbing at the minimum IFR climb gradient for enroute. Above 10,000' it is 100' per nm.
Click to expand...

Non radar, you don't make assumptions , you get reports. And you issue positive control instructions, such as "cross xx miles west of xxx at and maintain 160".
 
vintage cessna said:
Non radar, you don't make assumptions , you get reports. And you issue positive control instructions, such as "cross xx miles west of xxx at and maintain 160".
Click to expand...
I have climbed out non-radar and have not gotten any instructions like that. It's the pilot's responsibility to know that the airplane can meet the minimum climb gradient.
 
Everskyward said:
I have climbed out non-radar and have not gotten any instructions like that. It's the pilot's responsibility to know that the airplane can meet the minimum climb gradient.
Click to expand...

I am speaking of the controllers responsibility. The system is designed to protect the innocents from the dumb asses you know.
 
vintage cessna said:
I am speaking of the controllers responsibility. The system is designed to protect the innocents from the dumb asses you know.
Click to expand...
If it's the controllers responsibility to issue instructions like that for a climb in non-radar conditions, I can't recall ever having received instructions like that, at least not on a regular basis. I have been asked to report reaching a certain altitude but have not been monitored along the way.
 
N801BH said:
But...

You can't protect dumb asses from themselves...:no::no:
Click to expand...

In this case I haven't made any final judgement, but I'm strongly leaning to the side that it could have been averted with proper ATC procedures. And those kids could have grown up to adulthood.

I know the pilot this, the pilot that, but I don't see any way that flight should have gotten as far West as it did at 140.
 
Everskyward said:
If it's the controllers responsibility to issue instructions like that for a climb in non-radar conditions, I can't recall ever having received instructions like that, at least not on a regular basis. I have been asked to report reaching a certain altitude but have not been monitored along the way.
Click to expand...

I can't address every situation you've had . I'm just trying to tell you, based on my experience and knowledge, how the flight should have been handled. And it is not hindsight, it is just just good and proper ATC procedures that every competent and well trained controller should employ.
 
vintage cessna said:
In this case I haven't made any final judgement, but I'm strongly leaning to the side that it could have been averted with proper ATC procedures. And those kids could have grown up to adulthood.

I know the pilot this, the pilot that, but I don't see any way that flight should have gotten as far West as it did at 140.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you said.. But..

If you saw the conditions that father took off in, you would not blame anyone else but him......
 
vintage cessna said:
I can't address every situation you've had .
Click to expand...
I realize that. However, you have posted a number of things which you claim ATC is supposed to do which are contrary to what I have experienced. I agree that there may be varying interpretations of the controller manual which differ between regions and individual controllers. I am not going to claim which one is correct. I'm only pointing out that others must have different ideas than you do.

I guess we need to wait for a chief council interpretation on some of these things. :D
 
N801BH said:
I agree with all you said.. But..

If you saw the conditions that father took off in, you would not blame anyone else but him......
Click to expand...

No doubt. I'm not trying to assess blame here, just pointing out what I consider to be a possible failure of the system . Something every pilot can learn from.
 
vintage cessna said:
In this case I haven't made any final judgement, but I'm strongly leaning to the side that it could have been averted with proper ATC procedures. And those kids could have grown up to adulthood.

I know the pilot this, the pilot that, but I don't see any way that flight should have gotten as far West as it did at 140.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean as far east?
 
Everskyward said:
I realize that. However, you have posted a number of things which you claim ATC is supposed to do which are contrary to what I have experienced. I agree that there may be varying interpretations of the controller manual which differ between regions and individual controllers. I am not going to claim which one is correct. I'm only pointing out that others must have different ideas than you do.

I guess we need to wait for a chief council interpretation on some of these things. :D
Click to expand...

Thank you Mrs Ron Levy for that observation........;)......:D
 
I don't think I've ever seen Ron use a smiley.
 
Everskyward said:
I realize that. However, you have posted a number of things which you claim ATC is supposed to do which are contrary to what I have experienced. I agree that there may be varying interpretations of the controller manual which differ between regions and individual controllers. I am not going to claim which one is correct. I'm only pointing out that others must have different ideas than you do.

I guess we need to wait for a chief council interpretation on some of these things. :D
Click to expand...

If you are talking about departing an airport in Class G non-radar initially, there may be nothing to do. You are responsible to reach MIA safely. You may use an ODP, it may be visually. ATC may give you a different altitude for traffic, or clear you short for traffic. You will get some sort of positive traffic separation from ATC.

If you are enroute and non radar, you should be asked to make reports, perhaps being given crossing restrictions for change of altitude, that sort of thing. If there is a change in MIA, it is the controllers job to make sure you get there. Non radar, you don't guess, you don't make assumptions about rate of climb or any of that. You use positive control measures.

The manual is the manual.
 
vintage cessna said:
If you are enroute and non radar, you should be asked to make reports, perhaps being given crossing restrictions for change of altitude, that sort of thing. If there is a change in MIA, it is the controllers job to make sure you get there. Non radar, you don't guess, you don't make assumptions about rate of climb or any of that. You use positive control measures.
Click to expand...

If you are enroute and non-radar, you shouldn't have to be asked to make position reports, but probably do.
 
vintage cessna said:
How you get to MIA will be up to you. If the terrain/obstacle condition is such that you determine you couldn't safely make it in IMC (if that condition prevails) then you should wait. If you are intimately familiar with the area and have the right equipment maybe you feel you good safely reach MIA in the soup.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether you're trying to address my specific situation, but if so, you're missing that they declined to give me a clearance from my present position, instead offering me only a clearance that takes effect at the MIA. If I needed to enter IMC to get to the MIA, I don't see how I could legally accept that clearance.

This is one of the reasons I avoid picking up clearances in the air here unless there are no reported cloud bases below the MIA.
 
vintage cessna said:
There are two most likely possibilities. One, the controller thought the pilot was cleared to 160, but wasn't. Two , the pilot was cleared to 160 but never climbed above 140.



On either scenario , why did the pilot fly so long flat and level at 140, with nothing being said by either party?
Click to expand...


Because the radar updates showed nothing abnormal?

Observe.

The plane was in radar contact for 27 minutes.

In ideal conditions, the Mooney POH states it would take 15 minutes and 4 gallons to climb to cruise. The POH states pilots could expect a 350 FPM rate.

Those are for ideal conditions. The conditions on day of flight were anything but ideal.

ARSR and ERAM update mode C once every twelve seconds. Any center controller knows an easy formula to figure rates of climb. Take the difference in mode c readout and multiply 600.

350 FPM rates show up as 100 foot mode c updates every other 12 second update. Rates less than 300 FPM give the illusion of level flight because they show a difference every second or every third update.

It's very feasible the ZLC controller issued the altitude, the pilot read it back (knowing saying unable would result in a reroute), and ERAM showed a slow climb nearly the entire 27 minutes the aircraft had initial tracking.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The terrain / obstruction question ATC is asking you, should only be asked AFTER you already informed them that you are unable to maintain VMC until reaching the MIA. If you can maintain your own terrain / obstruction clearance while IMC and below the MIA, they can issue the clearance. Really shouldn't be much of a delay involved.
Click to expand...
That's what I gather from what Steven has posted as well, but I've yet to be asked that question in that context. It's always, Nxxxxx looking for an IFR to Newport, or Nashua. They come back with the question, either right away or after telling me they can't give me a clearance as long as I'm below 5400. The answer is always yes since there are no obstacles above 3000 along that route this side of LEB. The time I mentioned where they gave me an "upon reaching" clearance, it might have been I who volunteered that I could maintain my own obstruction clearance.

Okay, thanks, that's probably enough of a threadjack... apologies. :redface:
 
azure said:
I'm not sure whether you're trying to address my specific situation, but if so, you're missing that they declined to give me a clearance from my present position, instead offering me only a clearance that takes effect at the MIA. If I needed to enter IMC to get to the MIA, I don't see how I could legally accept that clearance.

This is one of the reasons I avoid picking up clearances in the air here unless there are no reported cloud bases below the MIA.
Click to expand...

I will defer to someone else on this . When I was working the job, if a VFR pop up below MIA asked for an IFR clnc, no questions about terrain were asked. Some would ask the pilot if they were capable and equipped for IFR.

Chapter 4 in the 7110.65 address the issue from ATC standpoint if you want to check that out.
 
vintage cessna said:
I will defer to someone else on this . When I was working the job, if a VFR pop up below MIA asked for an IFR clnc, no questions about terrain were asked. Some would ask the pilot if they were capable and equipped for IFR.
Click to expand...
Right, in a pop-up situation. This was not a pop-up, I had a flight plan on file.
 
Were you in the air? If so, that is what I call a pop up. If you were in the air with a FP on file, that is a good pop up. If you are in the air without a FP, you are a bad pop up.
 
vintage cessna said:
I will defer to someone else on this . When I was working the job, if a VFR pop up below MIA asked for an IFR clnc, no questions about terrain were asked. Some would ask the pilot if they were capable and equipped for IFR.



Chapter 4 in the 7110.65 address the issue from ATC standpoint if you want to check that out.
Click to expand...


True, but only if the verified mode c altitude was above the highest obstacle in the area or the proposed route of flight. Otherwise, the terrain and obstruction jargon applies.
 
vintage cessna said:
Were you in the air? If so, that is what I call a pop up. If you were in the air with a FP on file, that is a good pop up. If you are in the air without a FP, you are a bad pop up.
Click to expand...
Whatever, but fwiw I've never heard picking up a filed IFR in the air called a pop-up. And you mentioned some controllers asking if the pilot is rated and equipped, the ONLY time I've ever heard of that happening is when no flight plan is on file. I've picked up in the air many times and have never been asked that.
 
MarkZ said:
True, but only if the verified mode c altitude was above the highest obstacle in the area or the proposed route of flight. Otherwise, the terrain and obstruction jargon applies.
Click to expand...

The terrain and obstruction jargon applies only when the aircraft is below the MIA and the controller is aware the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to that altitude.
 
For Azure. About half way down the writer outlines the controller duties for a VFR to IFR.


http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183174-1.html

Personally, I refer to a "Pop Up IFR" as someone who hasn't filed and looking for an IFR clearance as indicated in the article. Official terminology is Abbreviated IFR Flight Plan. Really not a flight plan since no one filed. Basically just need the basics to type into the computer.
 
azure said:
Whatever, but fwiw I've never heard picking up a filed IFR in the air called a pop-up. And you mentioned some controllers asking if the pilot is rated and equipped, the ONLY time I've ever heard of that happening is when no flight plan is on file. I've picked up in the air many times and have never been asked that.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to ask a pilot who has requested an IFR clearance if he is rated and equipped. Doesn't matter if he has already filed an IFR flight plan or not, doesn't matter if he's in the air or on the ground. That question is asked when a controller is working a VFR aircraft in weather difficulty so as not to offer an IFR clearance as a way out to a pilot who is not rated and equipped.
 
vintage cessna said:
If you are enroute and non radar, you should be asked to make reports, perhaps being given crossing restrictions for change of altitude, that sort of thing. If there is a change in MIA, it is the controllers job to make sure you get there. Non radar, you don't guess, you don't make assumptions about rate of climb or any of that. You use positive control measures.
Click to expand...
You are required to make position reports but only at mandatory waypoints or turn points on point-to-point routes, or when leaving an assigned altitude. In this case it would probably have been KICNE and RIW, not anywhere in-between.

Also, the current chart for the Teton3 departure shows a required climb gradient of 335'/NM to 14,000. I'm not sure what speed Mooneys climb at but at 75 knots that's an average of 419'/min. At 100 knots it's 559'/min. Either that or you need a ceiling/visibility of 4,400/3, which they didn't according to observations. I don't know if this is a plausible climb rate for a Mooney considering the ambient conditions.

I would say the controller is not responsible for you meeting the minimum climb gradient because they can't know what every airplane will do under all conditions. They are only responsible for starting the climb far enough back that you will be able to meet the required altitude if you are using the minimum climb gradient, that is unless you are doing a VFR climb.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
For Azure. About half way down the writer outlines the controller duties for a VFR to IFR.


http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183174-1.html

Personally, I refer to a "Pop Up IFR" as someone who hasn't filed and looking for an IFR clearance as indicated in the article. Official terminology is Abbreviated IFR Flight Plan. Really not a flight plan since no one filed. Basically just need the basics to type into the computer.
Click to expand...
Not sure why that's for me, since I think (hope) I made it clear that I'm NOT talking about a pop-up situation (using my definition, which is apparently the same as yours and DIFFERENT from VC's).

In the cases I'm talking about, I'd filed IFR before taking off and was looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Totally different situation.
 
roncachamp said:
There is no requirement to ask a pilot who has requested an IFR clearance if he is rated and equipped. Doesn't matter if he has already filed an IFR flight plan or not, doesn't matter if he's in the air or on the ground. That question is asked when a controller is working a VFR aircraft in weather difficulty so as not to offer an IFR clearance as a way out to a pilot who is not rated and equipped.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there was a requirement to ask that, only that it's the only time I've heard the question asked.
 
azure said:
Not sure why that's for me, since I think (hope) I made it clear that I'm NOT talking about a pop-up situation (using my definition, which is apparently the same as yours and DIFFERENT from VC's).

In the cases I'm talking about, I'd filed IFR before taking off and was looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Totally different situation.
Click to expand...

If you are in the air, requesting IFR clnc, FP or no FP, chapter 4 of the 7110.65 ( close to the beginning of the chapter) will give you the answer you are seeking in plain language.
 
azure said:
Not sure why that's for me, since I think (hope) I made it clear that I'm NOT talking about a pop-up situation (using my definition, which is apparently the same as yours and DIFFERENT from VC's).

In the cases I'm talking about, I'd filed IFR before taking off and was looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Totally different situation.
Click to expand...

Correct but if you go to the point where the controller asks the questions for VFR looking to pick up an IFR, that's what is applicable. Doesn't matter if you filed or not. They have to ask those questions.

Yes, as Steven indicated earlier, sometimes they roll right into the terrain / obstruction question and completely bypass the VMC question.
 
vintage cessna said:
If you are in the air, requesting IFR clnc, FP or no FP, chapter 4 of the 7110.65 ( close to the beginning of the chapter) will give you the answer you are seeking in plain language.
Click to expand...
Okay, I went through the trouble of pulling up the 7110.65 and skimming through a few pages until I found section 4.2.8, which seems to be what you are talking about. It's consistent with what Steven has posted, and NOT consistent with my experience with ZBW.
 
Velocity173 said:
Correct but if you go to the point where the controller asks the questions for VFR looking to pick up an IFR, that's what is applicable. Doesn't matter if you filed or not. They have to ask those questions.
Click to expand...
If you've filed, isn't most of that information already on the strip? (aircraft type and equipment, contact info, etc.)

To summarize: the only time they are required to ask whether you can maintain terrain and obstruction clearance is when you're below the MIA and they have reason to believe you can't climb in VFR conditions to the MIA. But at least some facilities ask it routinely for air pickups.
 
azure said:
Okay, I went through the trouble of pulling up the 7110.65 and skimming through a few pages until I found section 4.2.8, which seems to be what you are talking about. It's consistent with what Steven has posted, and NOT consistent with my experience with ZBW.
Click to expand...

Did you look at Change 3, which was issued last month? Not big changes, but still, it's best to be looking at the latest version.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC_7110.65V_chg_3.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top