IFR Clearance you Cannot Follow

Penguinforce

Penguinforce

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
165
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Penguinforce
I had a general question for what happens when you're given an IFR clearance you cannot abide by. In particular, a clearance that takes you over water. For example, I'm planning a flight from Louisivlle to Chicago Midway and I noticed one of the approaches goes over Lake Michigan. We don't have the necessary equipment to go over water further than gliding distance from the shore. Is it as simple as requesting a different approach or clearance? Specifically, what's the "right" thing to say to ATC in this instance?
 
Absolutely request a different approach - citing your need to stay close to land. I’ve done that on departure clearances as well.
You can also put ‘no over water beyond 2 miles’ (or whatever you want) in the comments when you file.

Never accept a clearance you don’t like.
 
Aviatorbrew said:
“ unable”. And request a different clearance
Click to expand...
That's about it. I'd add it's generally a good idea to add a reason. Despite some comments here about always using standard phraseology, don't be afraid of plain English. "Unable. We don't have the equipment for over-water. Request the [name of approach.]"

Looking at the chart for the RNAV 22L, I can think of a few things to ask for other than a completely different approach. You are likely to get vectors anyway but requesting a straight-in clearance from the IF would put you only about 2.5 nm out, if that's within your risk tolerance.
 
Who is the Pilot in Command? A hint...their feet aren't on the ground.

As others have said "unable". If ATC isn't getting the hint, and is pressuring you to do something you can't, declare an emergency or if VFR cancel your IFR clearance.

I had a buddy flying Part 135 charter in a turboprop who had ATC trying to vector him into a South Florida thunderstorm that wasn't showing on their scope yet. They said turn left for traffic...unable...turn left for traffic now...unable due to convective buildup...I don't see anything turn left now...I will either go straight, go right, or declare an emergency, your choice ace, left isn't happening...standby.
 
Thank you for the advice. I wasn’t sure if I was overthinking it by simply saying unable. I also wasn’t sure if asking for another approach would fly with ATC considering Midway is such a busy airport. (First time flying into an actual busy Charlie airport haha)
 
Follow up question I just thought of. Say you’re on the ground and receive your ifr clearance from tower and read it back correct but after further looking at the departure plate, for whatever reason you aren’t able to fly the departure procedure. (For example in Colorado some days you cannot abide by the prescribed climb rate). Do you go back onto the clearance frequency and ask for an amended clearance or do you do this with ground/tower?
 
Penguinforce said:
Follow up question I just thought of. Say you’re on the ground and receive your ifr clearance from tower and read it back correct but after further looking at the departure plate, for whatever reason you aren’t able to fly the departure procedure. (For example in Colorado some days you cannot abide by the prescribed climb rate). Do you go back onto the clearance frequency and ask for an amended clearance or do you do this with ground/tower?
Click to expand...
Go back to clearance.
 
Penguinforce said:
Follow up question I just thought of. Say you’re on the ground and receive your ifr clearance from tower and read it back correct but after further looking at the departure plate, for whatever reason you aren’t able to fly the departure procedure. (For example in Colorado some days you cannot abide by the prescribed climb rate). Do you go back onto the clearance frequency and ask for an amended clearance or do you do this with ground/tower?
Click to expand...

You can ask ground/tower, and they may send you back to clearance. Could be the same person working all three frequenices. I wouldn't change frequencies without communicating though.
 
Penguinforce said:
Thank you for the advice. I wasn’t sure if I was overthinking it by simply saying unable. I also wasn’t sure if asking for another approach would fly with ATC considering Midway is such a busy airport. (First time flying into an actual busy Charlie airport haha)
Click to expand...
"Busy" is exactly why you offer an alternative. It shortens the conversation.

Think about it in a more familiar context. You are flying VFR into KAPA. It's a typical spring afternoon with the winds howling from the west. It's beyond your personal crosswind limits for the 17/35s. You want 28 Which do you think would go over better on a busy day?

Choice A
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south, landing with Golf.
ATC: Report 3 mile final runway 35R.
Pilot: Unalbe 35R
ATC: Are you having trouble?
Pilot: No. The winds are too strong.
ATC: Say intentions.
Pilot: How about 28?

Choice B.
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south. Landing with Golf. Request 28 due to winds.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
"Busy" is exactly why you offer an alternative. It shortens the conversation.

Think about it in a more familiar context. You are flying VFR into KAPA. It's a typical spring afternoon with the winds howling from the west. It's beyond your personal crosswind limits for the 17/35s. You want 10. Which do you think would go over better on a busy day?

Choice A
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south, landing with Golf.
ATC: Report 3 mile final runway 35R.
Pilot: Unalbe 35R
ATC: Are you having trouble?
Pilot: No. The winds are too strong.
ATC: Say intentions.
Pilot: How about 28?

Choice B.
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south. Landing with Golf. Request 28 due to winds.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. This was a great example thank you
 
Penguinforce said:
Follow up question I just thought of. Say you’re on the ground and receive your ifr clearance from tower and read it back correct but after further looking at the departure plate, for whatever reason you aren’t able to fly the departure procedure. (For example in Colorado some days you cannot abide by the prescribed climb rate). Do you go back onto the clearance frequency and ask for an amended clearance or do you do this with ground/tower?
Click to expand...
You go back to clearance. Think of it this way:

Tower, Ground, and Clearance Delivery are just divisions of workload within the same Tower facility. CD is really just an extra person handling clearances so that Ground can be freed up to handle, well, ground traffic (There are Class D airports not busy enough to need it, and they don't even have a CD frequency.).

(I was going to add some silly analogy, but figured I wouldn't press my luck.)
 
Penguinforce said:
I had a general question for what happens when you're given an IFR clearance you cannot abide by. In particular, a clearance that takes you over water. For example, I'm planning a flight from Louisivlle to Chicago Midway and I noticed one of the approaches goes over Lake Michigan. We don't have the necessary equipment to go over water further than gliding distance from the shore. Is it as simple as requesting a different approach or clearance? Specifically, what's the "right" thing to say to ATC in this instance?
Click to expand...
Unless you're in a "for hire" operation, what equipment do you think you need to fly over water (regulatory, that is, not what you think is prudent).

You can ask for a different approach, but C90 isn't particularly accomodating.
 
I have more than 230 Lake Michigan crossings in single-engine airplanes. I always wear an inflatable life preserver and had a six-person raft on board for almost all of those trips. (Not sure I could get it out of the airplane and get myself into it). The Bonanza always got me across the lake in a fairly short amount of time and at a comfortable altitude. But on those first crossings, I could hear every spark plug fire and every valve open and close.

A few guys criticized me for flying over the lake with a single engine. I pointed out that I lived five years in northern Minnesota, where the choices were trees, rocks or water. I figured water was the best choice.

Part 91 flights don't require over water equipment, but, of course, it's always a good idea.
 
I was going from Colorado Springs to Nellis AFB in an F-15 which is ‘/I’ on the navigation equipment. No GPS, no VOR - TACAN and enroute NAV (INS) only.
Clearance: cleared via new route …. Blah blah blah…
Me: unable that clearance. I can’t navigate to VORs.
Clearance: uhhhh…. Ok stby. Ok new clearance ….blah blah blah….
Me: unable that clearance also, I can’t legally navigate to GPS points.
Clearance: (****ed off voice) well, what CAN you accept???!
Me: I can accept clearance as filed….
Clearance: Fine. Cleared as filed.

:D
 
So you get a forecast, know the forecasted wind direction, then want to gum up things at a busy destination by refusing the approach clearance to a runway you should have expected on the ground? Sounds dumb to me. Go to another airport.
 
Last edited:
The gps 22 approaches replaced the 31C circle approach. Perhaps that’s an option.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Busy" is exactly why you offer an alternative. It shortens the conversation.

Think about it in a more familiar context. You are flying VFR into KAPA. It's a typical spring afternoon with the winds howling from the west. It's beyond your personal crosswind limits for the 17/35s. You want 28 Which do you think would go over better on a busy day?

Choice A
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south, landing with Golf.
ATC: Report 3 mile final runway 35R.
Pilot: Unalbe 35R
ATC: Are you having trouble?
Pilot: No. The winds are too strong.
ATC: Say intentions.
Pilot: How about 28?

Choice B.
Pilot: Cessna 12345. 8 south. Landing with Golf. Request 28 due to winds.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Only thing I would change is replace ‘request’ in Choice B with ‘I’ll need.’
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. Only thing I would change is replace ‘request’ in Choice B with ‘I’ll need.’
Click to expand...
Either way and others will also work in
Gilbert Buettner said:
I have more than 230 Lake Michigan crossings in single-engine airplanes. I always wear an inflatable life preserver and had a six-person raft on board for almost all of those trips. (Not sure I could get it out of the airplane and get myself into it). The Bonanza always got me across the lake in a fairly short amount of time and at a comfortable altitude. But on those first crossings, I could hear every spark plug fire and every valve open and close.

A few guys criticized me for flying over the lake with a single engine. I pointed out that I lived five years in northern Minnesota, where the choices were trees, rocks or water. I figured water was the best choice.

Part 91 flights don't require over water equipment, but, of course, it's always a good idea.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't regulatory. It's about personal minimums. I remember many pilots from my years in land-locked Colorado who expressed concerns about being over significant bodies of water without being gliding distance to shore - the same distances from land that those of us who are used to it wouldn't give a second thought to.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Either way and others will also work in

The issue isn't regulatory. It's about personal minimums
Click to expand...

The original post said:

"We don't have the necessary equipment to go over water further than gliding distance from the shore."

To me that says by regulation. Personal minimums/requirements aren't necessities, they are wishes.

"I require 5 miles and 5000' ceilings as a private pilot."
"I need 3000 SCT or I can't shoot an ILS."
"I can't fly over Lake Michigan unless I'm FL230"
No, you don't require them, you just desire them.

I assumed from the original post based on wording it was a 91 for hire or 135 flight.
 
midlifeflyer said:
We have very different views of personal minimums.
Click to expand...

Can't fly over water is different than won't fly over water.

There's a difference between can't and won't. Personal minimums fall under the latter, regulations under the former. OP said necessary equipment. i.e. regulation. Or he worded it badly.
 
Last edited:
This happened all the time when flying from Long Island to Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket. I’d just ask clearance for a different route over land and they were happy to accommodate.
 
EdFred said:
Can't fly over water is different than won't fly over water.

There's a difference between can't and won't. Personal minimums fall under the latter, regulations under the former. OP said necessary equipment. i.e. regulation. Or he worded it badly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But you were saying they were wishes not necessities. That I disagree with. Not everything I need in life is a regulation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed. But you were saying they were wishes not necessities. That I disagree with. Not everything I need in life is a regulation.
Click to expand...

I stand by my position that they are wishes. There are things I can't do, and I won't do. Those that I can't do are governed by laws (of physics, biology, nature or regulations), those that I won't do I am fully capable of doing, but simply want/wish the situation to be different.

My two rules are: No flying when embedded TS are a decent probability, and certain icing conditions.

It's not that I CAN'T do them, it's that I WON'T do them, and I wish for different conditions so I could.
 
EdFred said:
I stand by my position that they are wishes. There are things I can't do, and I won't do. Those that I can't do are governed by laws (of physics, biology, nature or regulations), those that I won't do I am fully capable of doing, but simply want/wish the situation to be different.

My two rules are: No flying when embedded TS are a decent probability, and certain icing conditions.

It's not that I CAN'T do them, it's that I WON'T do them, and I wish for different conditions so I could.
Click to expand...
I gotta add to this pedantic argument.. because well, I *want" to.

You can break regulations. You probably have broken some. Perhaps you *won't* intentionally break one. So, they aren't so much a can't as a won't.
 
Salty said:
I gotta add to this pedantic argument.. because well, I *want" to.

You can break regulations. You probably have broken some. Perhaps you *won't* intentionally break one. So, they aren't so much a can't as a won't.
Click to expand...

Very true, and I admittedly have broken one regulation numerous times, on purpose, with no remorse.
91.107
 
Penguinforce said:
Follow up question I just thought of. Say you’re on the ground and receive your ifr clearance from tower and read it back correct but after further looking at the departure plate, for whatever reason you aren’t able to fly the departure procedure. (For example in Colorado some days you cannot abide by the prescribed climb rate). Do you go back onto the clearance frequency and ask for an amended clearance or do you do this with ground/tower?
Click to expand...

Assuming you haven’t moved since receiving the clearance, stay with clearance for that. Definitely not something you want to be fiddling with once on the taxiway or lined up for departure.
 
To clarify this is a part 91 flight not for hire. And yes coming from land locked colorado I'm definitely much more comfortable staying within gliding distance to the shore haha
 
Penguinforce said:
To clarify this is a part 91 flight not for hire. And yes coming from land locked colorado I'm definitely much more comfortable staying within gliding distance to the shore haha
Click to expand...

So it's not that you can't accept the clearance, but that you won't accept the clearance. There is a difference.

Either way, you can say "unable, I'll cancel IFR and continue under VFR"
 
Awesome dog in the avatar by the way, I used to have a keeshond
 
I **hate** being over water, you're the pic.
 
EdFred said:
"unable, I'll cancel IFR and continue under VFR"
Click to expand...


I have been IFR in a MOA a few times and it went hot. I cancelled IFR and continued VFR with flight following. No adjusting the route, just the altitude by 500 feet.
 
If you can’t/won’t do the advertised approach at a busy place like MDW, be prepared to go somewhere else.
 
^to the point above, some places, especially if you are in a bravo, there's going to be limited options, even with the "cancel IFR" thing.. you can't just willy nilly around a bravo or a busy airspace

A severe example, but if I plan a flight to AVX I can't logically tell the control not to send me out over the water.. doing that flight you WILL be out of glide range for a portion of it. So, if overwater flying is a valid concern plan your trips accordingly

PS - I too hate overwater flying but short of carb ice or pilot induced failures you'd have to have very bad luck to lose all your engine power in the few minutes you may be out of glide range in most cases.
 
This discussion reminded me of my first crossing of the Atlantic Ocean on the way to Germany in a C-130. The navigator was an old timer who knew I was a new copilot, and somewhere about halfway across, he says, "Hey, copilot... does it bother you to know this airplane was built by the lowest bidder?"
 
midwestpa24 said:
Who is the Pilot in Command? A hint...their feet aren't on the ground.

As others have said "unable". If ATC isn't getting the hint, and is pressuring you to do something you can't, declare an emergency or if VFR cancel your IFR clearance.

I had a buddy flying Part 135 charter in a turboprop who had ATC trying to vector him into a South Florida thunderstorm that wasn't showing on their scope yet. They said turn left for traffic...unable...turn left for traffic now...unable due to convective buildup...I don't see anything turn left now...I will either go straight, go right, or declare an emergency, your choice ace, left isn't happening...standby.
Click to expand...

You can’t declare an emergency because you don’t like a clearance unless in fact you are in an emergency state. Your example of an attempt to turn you into a thunderstorm would qualify. Not liking the assigned approach would not qualify. You would be expected to ask for a different approach and if ATC unable divert to another airport. ATC does have ways of pushing an issue. Fighter jets by their nature like to stay high with an idle decent. Penetration style approaches are available for their use and ATC must allow that option if requested. Sometimes however if you refused a enroute descent the controller said roger you are cleared to the IAF for the penetration approach, hold as published expect further clearance at XXXX. This was usually followed by cancel that request we will take the enroute. The same might well apply in this case. A vector for the requested approach with a EFC. Your choice would be to accept it or divert. Declaring a emergency would not be a option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top