Proceed Direct...

[Teller1900]

The scenario:
Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."

You're IFR. KXYZ is an airport. XYZ is a VOR (of the same name) a few miles from the field. Your plane is /G. With that instruction do you go direct the airport, or direct the VOR? What if you're /A (or U). What if they're co-located?

Discuss.

 

[jesse]

The scenario:
Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."

You're IFR. KXYZ is an airport. XYZ is a VOR (of the same name) a few miles from the field. Your plane is /G. With that instruction do you go direct the airport, or direct the VOR? What if you're /A (or U). What if they're co-located?

Discuss.

What was in your flight plan? Did they say XYZ or did they say the name of the airport/vor?

Unless you had the VOR filed or they re-routed you with it I've found they rarely actually intend you proceed to the VOR and mean the airport.

Best thing? Just ask.

 

[Teller1900]

What was in your flight plan? Did they say XYZ or did they say the name of the airport/vor?

Unless you had the VOR filed or they re-routed you with it I've found they rarely actually intend you proceed to the VOR and mean the airport.

Best thing? Just ask.

Our filed/cleared route was ...BOWAN V487 WEIGH BTV. We were on V487 when they said "proceed direct Burlington." Burlington is the name of the airport and the VOR.

He didn't say "airport" or "VOR," though. I plugged in one thing, the CA put in the other. We asked for clarification, but he didn't really explain which one is the default meaning, if you will. Hense the question. Assuming proper verbage, which does it mean, or was it an incorrect clearance because of the possible ambiguity?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Seems like I hear "to the airport or the vor?" (from a pilot) several times a year still. Everytime I recall, the answer (by atc) was "the airport".
What happened to that program to rename VORs that were the same name as a nearby airport?

Honestly sometimes I wonder if it matters, by the time there is enough of an angular difference to notice, you are usually doing something else (on vectors, a star, recleared to an iaf)

 

[roncachamp]

The scenario:
Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."

You're IFR. KXYZ is an airport. XYZ is a VOR (of the same name) a few miles from the field. Your plane is /G. With that instruction do you go direct the airport, or direct the VOR?

The airport.

What if you're /A (or U).

The VOR.

What if they're co-located?

Previous answers still apply.

 

[roncachamp]

What happened to that program to rename VORs that were the same name as a nearby airport?

It was completed twenty years ago or so. "Nearby airport" meant about five miles.

 

[ScottM]

Seems like I hear "to the airport or the vor?" (from a pilot) several times a year still. Everytime I recall, the answer (by atc) was "the airport".
What happened to that program to rename VORs that were the same name as a nearby airport?

Honestly sometimes I wonder if it matters, by the time there is enough of an angular difference to notice, you are usually doing something else (on vectors, a star, recleared to an iaf)

Seems like every time I hear this from ATC it is also along with whether the fix is the airport or the VOR e.g. proceed direct to the Dupage VOR or proceed direct to the Dupage airport.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I've had the same thing happen, but am moving a bit slower than you <g>.

If I'm filed to the airport, I take it to mean direct to the airport. A few times, that was confusing and I requested clarification. Most times, when I was given that, the difference was very small or non-existent because I was pretty far out. Of course, it would make a difference as you arrived if NORDO, but I think they'd watch to see where you were going if in a RADAR environment.

Best,

Dave

 

[midlifeflyer]

What if they're co-located?

Who cares?

 

[poadeleted20]

See 91.123(a), last sentence:

When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

Note especially the word "shall." Only if the VOR is on the airport would I not worry about it. Also, I would not differentiate between aircraft with area navigation capability versus VOR-only types -- these days, controllers often, apparently without thinking, clear /U airplanes direct to things to which they cannot navigate themselves.

 

[jesse]

The airport.

The VOR.

Previous answers still apply.

Curious -- what are you basing those answers on?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The scenario:
Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."

You're IFR. KXYZ is an airport. XYZ is a VOR (of the same name) a few miles from the field. Your plane is /G. With that instruction do you go direct the airport, or direct the VOR? What if you're /A (or U). What if they're co-located?

Discuss.

Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."
N123 readback "Direct XYZ airport, N123."

??????????????????????????????

 

[SkyHog]

It was completed twenty years ago or so. "Nearby airport" meant about five miles.

Interesting. FTI just recently became FTI, like 2 years ago because of the confusion between Las Vegas, NM airport (KLVS) and the Las Vegas VOR (LVS).

Same with RSK and FMN a few years before that.

 

[jesse]

It was completed twenty years ago or so. "Nearby airport" meant about five miles.

Hm.

KLNK - LNK - 4.4 miles

I can think of many others..but they're all over 5 miles.

 

[Bob Noel]

>Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."
> N123 readback "Direct XYZ airport, N123."
>
> ??????????????????????????????

You can no longer rely on the controller correcting an incorrect readback

 

[Areeda]

>Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."
> N123 readback "Direct XYZ airport, N123."
>
> ??????????????????????????????

You can no longer rely on the controller correcting an incorrect readback

How about "Confirm, direct XYZ airport, 123"?

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, just for this reason, the FAA is working on renaming VOR's (both name and identifier) which aren't on the airport of the same name/identifier, but it's slow going.

 

[Ted]

Also, I would not differentiate between aircraft with area navigation capability versus VOR-only types -- these days, controllers often, apparently without thinking, clear /U airplanes direct to things to which they cannot navigate themselves.

In my /U aircraft (the Aztec), I have repeatedly gotten cleared direct [fix]. I make a point of responding that I can accept a clearance of an assigned heading of

, estimated direct, since I have the VFR GPS.

I'm looking forward to being able to file /G and just doing it the easy way.​

 

[roncachamp]

Interesting. FTI just recently became FTI, like 2 years ago because of the confusion between Las Vegas, NM airport (KLVS) and the Las Vegas VOR (LVS).

That's obviously a different issue as the VOR is on the field. I'd guess it was due to confusion between LVS VOR and LAS VOR.

 

[roncachamp]

Curious -- what are you basing those answers on?

26 years in ATC.

 

[roncachamp]

Hm.

KLNK - LNK - 4.4 miles

4.4 is less than 5.

I don't know that there was actually a distance limit established, I just remember that VORs that were more than about five miles away from an airport with the same identifier and/or name received new identifiers and names.

Minneapolis VOR (MSP) was 16 miles from KMSP, the VOR became Gopher (GEP).

Milwaukee VOR (MKE) was 20 miles from KMKE, the VOR became Badger (BAE).

Lafayette VOR (LAF) was 11 miles from KLAF, the VOR became Boiler(BVT).

There were certainly more than that, they seemed to come in bunches for a few years.

I can think of many others..but they're all over 5 miles.

Significantly over five miles? What are they?

 

[roncachamp]

>Center says "N123, proceed direct XYZ."
> N123 readback "Direct XYZ airport, N123."
>
> ??????????????????????????????

You can no longer rely on the controller correcting an incorrect readback

Rely on it absolutely? You never could, controllers are human, after all. But nothing has changed with regard to controllers correcting incorrect readbacks.

 

[sky1949]

Mr McNicoll is a bit of a right winger...but he knows his ATC stuff. Take it for almost gospel.

 

[gprellwitz]

Rely on it absolutely? You never could, controllers are human, after all. But nothing has changed with regard to controllers correcting incorrect readbacks.

Yeah. I just left an Operation Raincheck meeting where they made a point of stressing that controllers are responsible per 7110 for ensuring that the readback is correct. We then reviewed an incident that occurred at ZID last year(?) when a Southwest and Northwest flight with the same flight number took each others frequency changes, and it wasn't discovered until they'd traversed a couple of sectors. They also stressed that pilots should speak up if they hear a readback error, even if they aren't the party involved. As they said, there were probably ten other planes on the frequency who could have noticed and spoken up when NORTHWEST 1065 is answering calls for SOUTHWEST 1065 and vice versa during that 17 minutes.

 

[Teller1900]

The airport.

The VOR.

Previous answers still apply.

Thank you, I was hoping you or ApacheBob would see this thread. That's not the answer I was hoping for, though (I assumed the VOR would be implied, unless otherwise stated, for all equipment suffixes), so I guess I have to tell the captain he was right . Can you give me a citation of some sort (I did a cursory search of the .65S, to no avail), so I can have something to take him?

It was completed twenty years ago or so. "Nearby airport" meant about five miles.

The VOR/Airport in this scenario are 4.7nm apart, darnit.

Seems like every time I hear this from ATC it is also along with whether the fix is the airport or the VOR e.g. proceed direct to the Dupage VOR or proceed direct to the Dupage airport.

That what we were expecting/hoping for, but not how it was issued. Here in ORF (where the VOR is on the airport) they usually say "proceed direct the field." Not up north, though, I guess.

Also, I would not differentiate between aircraft with area navigation capability versus VOR-only types -- these days, controllers often, apparently without thinking, clear /U airplanes direct to things to which they cannot navigate themselves.

That's why I assumed the clearance would be to the NAVAID, not the airport; at least that way everyone would stand a chance of being able to comply (within the service volume, of course). As Ted said, we used to get "proceed direct SCUPP" in the Beech (/A - VOR/DME only), at least once a day. And once a day we would have to say "sorry, unable sir. We can take a 225 heading to join the BOS 082 radial, though, if you'd like."

 

[jesse]

4.4 is less than 5.

Ah. Okay. Well there are plenty of those left greater than 5.

KRST & RST
KDSM & DSM

Some others too that I can think of..perhaps its 6 or something.

 

[jesse]

26 years in ATC.

That's nice -- but I was looking for the *REASON* as to why you said those answers so those of us without 26 years in ATC can understand why.

So basically you're saying if you're /G they mean the airport and if your /A they mean the VOR? That just seems odd to me.

 

[roncachamp]

Thank you, I was hoping you or ApacheBob would see this thread. That's not the answer I was hoping for, though (I assumed the VOR would be implied, unless otherwise stated, for all equipment suffixes), so I guess I have to tell the captain he was right . Can you give me a citation of some sort (I did a cursory search of the .65S, to no avail), so I can have something to take him?

There's nothing explicit, but every phraseology example includes the type of navaid when referring to a navaid. I don't believe there's an example of a clearance direct to an airport.

The VOR/Airport in this scenario are 4.7nm apart, darnit.

I don't recall seeing any documentation on it, but it seemed to be about that distance. There were a bunch of VOR name/identifier changes in the mid 80s. A lot of them were a pretty good distance from the airport, those that were fairly close to the airport but not on it were generally left alone.

That what we were expecting/hoping for, but not how it was issued. Here in ORF (where the VOR is on the airport) they usually say "proceed direct the field." Not up north, though, I guess.

I'm up north, I use it.

 

[roncachamp]

That's nice -- but I was looking for the *REASON* as to why you said those answers so those of us without 26 years in ATC can understand why.

Oh, sure, the *REASON* is laziness, sloppiness, etc. At the Academy, back when the FAA was still training controllers, if a student issued a clearance like that, "proceed direct Burlington", the instructor would respond, "is that Burlington Fairgrounds?" or "is that Burlington High School?", etc. The type of navaid should follow the name of the navaid, but that isn't stressed anymore.

So basically you're saying if you're /G they mean the airport and if your /A they mean the VOR? That just seems odd to me.

Actually, some mean the airport even if you're /A.

 

[SCCutler]

There's nothing explicit, but every phraseology example includes the type of navaid when referring to a navaid. I don't believe there's an example of a clearance direct to an airport...

Y'know, now that you mention it, I do not recall ever receiving a clearance to a VOR which did not include the controller *saying* "VOR" after the name, and I have gotten plenty of clearances direct to the airport without the word "airport" included.

It sounds to me like this is one of those, "...this is how it's done because this is how it has been done..." deals- and it seems to be working pretty well.

No matter how detailed the rules and regs get, there will always be situations which are simply not covered explicitly, and these are where common sense and judgment come into play.

OBTW, thanks for your input, Champ.

 

[poadeleted20]

Rely on it absolutely? You never could, controllers are human, after all. But nothing has changed with regard to controllers correcting incorrect readbacks.

A lot changed with Administrator v. Merrell, decided in 2000. Before that case, if a pilot read back a clearance and the controller didn't catch the error, the pilot was off the hook. Now, the controller's failure to catch an incorrect readback no longer saves the pilot's ticket. So if you aren't 100% absolutely positively certain of the controller's intent in giving you that instruction, refer to that last sentence in 91.123(a) cited above and immediately obtain clarification, because if you get it wrong, it could cost you your ticket for a month or two no matter what you read back.

 

[roncachamp]

Y'know, now that you mention it, I do not recall ever receiving a clearance to a VOR which did not include the controller *saying* "VOR" after the name, and I have gotten plenty of clearances direct to the airport without the word "airport" included.

Actually, I regularly clear aircraft direct to VORs without *saying* "VOR" after the name.

Northwest flies from Green Bay to Minneapolis, the route is the EAU 8 arrival. EAU is Eau Claire VORTAC, it's about two miles north of KEAU. I give GPS-equipped aircraft "direct Eau Claire", I don't include "VOR". I don't see any need to in a case like this, where it's an enroute fix. If the destination was KEAU it'd be a different matter.

 

[SCCutler]

Actually, I regularly clear aircraft direct to VORs without *saying* "VOR" after the name.

Northwest flies from Green Bay to Minneapolis, the route is the EAU 8 arrival. EAU is Eau Claire VORTAC, it's about two miles north of KEAU. I give GPS-equipped aircraft "direct Eau Claire", I don't include "VOR". I don't see any need to in a case like this, where it's an enroute fix. If the destination was KEAU it'd be a different matter.

...makes sense, with a modest application of common sense.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A lot changed with Administrator v. Merrell, decided in 2000. Before that case, if a pilot read back a clearance and the controller didn't catch the error, the pilot was off the hook. Now, the controller's failure to catch an incorrect readback no longer saves the pilot's ticket. So if you aren't 100% absolutely positively certain of the controller's intent in giving you that instruction, refer to that last sentence in 91.123(a) cited above and immediately obtain clarification, because if you get it wrong, it could cost you your ticket for a month or two no matter what you read back.

Ok. I read the above referenced document.

I can honestly say that it made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok. I read the above referenced document. I can honestly say that it made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Well, maybe not, but can you show me the legal requirement for the law to make sense?

In any event, your ticket is now on the line when ATC give you a clearance even if you read it back, whether your readback is correct or not. IOW, under the law as currently interpreted, you are responsible for hearing the controller correctly, and the controller's failure to hear your readback or correct an error in it does not save you. Caveat aviator.

 

[roncachamp]

A lot changed with Administrator v. Merrell, decided in 2000. Before that case, if a pilot read back a clearance and the controller didn't catch the error, the pilot was off the hook. Now, the controller's failure to catch an incorrect readback no longer saves the pilot's ticket. So if you aren't 100% absolutely positively certain of the controller's intent in giving you that instruction, refer to that last sentence in 91.123(a) cited above and immediately obtain clarification, because if you get it wrong, it could cost you your ticket for a month or two no matter what you read back.

You're wrong.

Controllers are required to ensure pilots acknowledge clearances and instructions. If a route, altitude, heading, etc., is read back by a pilot, controllers are required to ensure the readback is correct. If the readback is wrong the controller is required to correct it. If the pilot acknowledges the clearance by reading it back but the readback is incorrect and the controller does not correct the readback, the pilot is off the hook for any unpleasentness that may ensue. The controller will be held responsible. That's as true today as it was before Merrell, Administrator v. Merrell changed nothing.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Well, maybe not, but can you show me the legal requirement for the law to make sense?

In any event, your ticket is now on the line when ATC give you a clearance even if you read it back, whether your readback is correct or not. IOW, under the law as currently interpreted, you are responsible for hearing the controller correctly, and the controller's failure to hear your readback or correct an error in it does not save you. Caveat aviator.

I'll just have to take your word on that.

 

[roncachamp]

Well, maybe not, but can you show me the legal requirement for the law to make sense?

In any event, your ticket is now on the line when ATC give you a clearance even if you read it back, whether your readback is correct or not. IOW, under the law as currently interpreted, you are responsible for hearing the controller correctly, and the controller's failure to hear your readback or correct an error in it does not save you. Caveat aviator.

 

[poadeleted20]

Controllers are required to ensure pilots acknowledge clearances and instructions. If a route, altitude, heading, etc., is read back by a pilot, controllers are required to ensure the readback is correct. If the readback is wrong the controller is required to correct it. If the pilot acknowledges the clearance by reading it back but the readback is incorrect and the controller does not correct the readback, the pilot is off the hook for any unpleasentness that may ensue. The controller will be held responsible. That's as true today as it was before Merrell, Administrator v. Merrell changed nothing.

Your legal interpretation of that case is incorrect, and reflects the situation pre-Merrell. This case changed that situation. Merrell in fact read back the clearance, and was not corrected. Initially, in accordance with many years of precedent, the NTSB sided with Merrell and dismissed the case. The FAA appealed to the US Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals said the rule means what the FAA says it does. The case was returned to the NTSB for reconsideration, and the NTSB grudgingly abided by the court's decision and sustained the violation.

Read all three NTSB Orders on the subject and the actual court case to understand all this.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4530.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4670.PDF
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1365a.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4814.PDF

BTW, I erred in saying Merrell's ticket was suspended. The suspension was waived due to timely filing of an ASRS report. However, the violation was sustained and went on his record.

 

[roncachamp]

Your legal interpretation of that case is incorrect, and reflects the situation pre-Merrell. This case changed that situation.

That case changed nothing. From JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control, Change 2, dated 3/12/2009 and valid through 8/27/09:

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure
acknowledgment by the pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other
information by using “Wilco,” “Roger,” “Affirmative,” or
other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back
by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If
incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.

Merrell in fact read back the clearance, and was not corrected.

Merrell in fact read back a clearance issued to another aircraft. The controller in fact did not ensure acknowledgment by Merrell of that clearance because he did not issue it to Merrell. The controller did not correct Merrell's readback because he did not receive it, it was blocked by the readback from the aircraft to which it was directed.

Initially, in accordance with many years of precedent, the NTSB sided with Merrell and dismissed the case. The FAA appealed to the US Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals said the rule means what the FAA says it does. The case was returned to the NTSB for reconsideration, and the NTSB grudgingly abided by the court's decision and sustained the violation.

Read all three NTSB Orders on the subject and the actual court case to understand all this.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4530.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4670.PDF
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1365a.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4814.PDF

I've read them before, I understand them, it is you that does not.

If Merrell v. Administrator has changed things in the manner you believe, there should be cases where pilots have been violated after an incorrect readback that was acknowledged by the controller but not corrected. Do you know of any such cases?