"why do you wish to deviate?"

[SixPapaCharlie]

I got flight following from Arkansas to Oklahoma City today.
then we started playing dodge the rain shower with all these little pop-up storms all over the place.

I informed them I wish to change my destination to Denton Texas.

the controller then asked me why I wish to change my destination which I thought was a very strange question.

what information might he have been going after there?

I jokingly looked at my dad and said I wonder what happens if I get the wrong answer.

"tonight at six Papa Charlie. You will continue your course Oklahoma. that was not a good enough answer."

anyway, why might he have wanted to know my reason?

 

[Zeldman]

Controller planning. Also gives you a chance to give a pirep. He might not be seeing the weather you wish to miss. Or there may be other reasons to change a destination. He is there to help you if you have a problem. If you didn't answer at all then that gives the controller reason to believe someone is not letting you answer. I here that question anytime someone makes a destination change.

I have never found that question to be strange.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's a post-9/11 thing. Used to be ATC would just process the change, but now they have to ask "why?" so the Domestic Event Network (DEN, a joint FAA/TSA/DoD operation) can decide whether you really have to stop to pee or someone is holding a gun to your head.

 

[Lindberg]

I jokingly looked at my dad and said I wonder what happens if I get the wrong answer.

They shoot you down. Or not, since it's all security theater anyway. The question is pretty pointless. If your Socata is being hijacked to Denton, the hijacker isn't going to let you tell the controller that. And since just about any answer is good enough, why bother asking? Do they ask if you just cancel FF instead of changing your destination?

The question would actually make more sense from an "Do you have a problem I can help with?" perspective than a security perspective.

 

[denverpilot]

Why? Because you're getting more of the government that you paid for. The dollar amounts that started flowing into "Security" after 9/11 and never really stopped, are staggeringly big. We all apparently think bureaucracy will save us from the boogie men.

 

[poadeleted20]

We all apparently think bureaucracy will save us from the boogie men.

Speak for yourself. But whether I agree with the value of this or not, the reason I gave above is why they ask. Whether you choose to cooperate is up to you, but they're not going to stop until you do give an answer, and I don't see any gain to the pilot by giving them false information.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I thought about just responding "man, have you been to Oklahoma?"

 

[poadeleted20]

I thought about just responding "man, have you been to Oklahoma?"

Well, I'd have to say I've never been to heaven, but I've been to Oklahoma. :wink2:

 

[Jay Honeck]

After our last thread on this issue, where I mentioned being asked about changing our destination whilst on Flight Following, I told Mary that it was now a "required question that ATC must ask" since 9/11.

Well, lo and behold, today we were flying to McAllen, TX, and the weather conditions were not at all what had been predicted. Instead of scattered clouds we had towering cumulus building, lower visibility, and it looked like things might be developing into a line of storms.

So, Mary decided it was time to turn back, and told ATC that she was returning to Mustang Beach (KRAS).

We waited for the inevitable "Reason for deviation?" question...and it never came. The guy at Valley Approach just said okay, and that was that.

So, apparently it's not "required", although this is the first time we haven't been asked the question.

 

[roncachamp]

I got flight following from Arkansas to Oklahoma City today.
then we started playing dodge the rain shower with all these little pop-up storms all over the place.

I informed them I wish to change my destination to Denton Texas.

the controller then asked me why I wish to change my destination which I thought was a very strange question.

what information might he have been going after there?

I jokingly looked at my dad and said I wonder what happens if I get the wrong answer.

"tonight at six Papa Charlie. You will continue your course Oklahoma. that was not a good enough answer."

anyway, why might he have wanted to know my reason?

Overzealous controller. A change of destination when operating IFR was an event to be reported to the Domestic Events Network, I believe that is no longer required. But even if it is still in effect it wouldn't apply to you on flight following.

 

[docmirror]

Reason #3614 why the radio remains in the 'OFF' mode.

 

[AggieMike88]

It's a post-9/11 thing. Used to be ATC would just process the change, but now they have to ask "why?" so the Domestic Event Network (DEN, a joint FAA/TSA/DoD operation) can decide whether you really have to stop to pee or someone is holding a gun to your head.

When Ron and I left Port A, we originally filed for Denton, but when he suggested we stop before Denton to get something to eat and take a break. Quick thinking had me

"Center, 55WB, we would like to amend our flight plan and change our destination to Stephenville, TX, Sierra-Echo-Pappa"

"55WB, Houston Center, so I have something to tell my higher ups, what is the reason for the change?"

"Well, my passenger and I are getting hungry, we want BBQ, and that's where the Hard8 is located. 5WB."

"I have heard of that place, is it any good?"

"Oh, you betcha!"

(Chuckles) "Okay, then I'll have to try it someday. Change of flight plan approved. Enjoy your lunch."

 

[poadeleted20]

Reason #3614 why the radio remains in the 'OFF' mode.

You might still want to leave it in receive on 121.5. Uncounted numbers of TFR busts would have been avoided if the pilot was just obeying the rule on that point.

FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES.​

​

AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2.​

​

ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.​

​

IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE.​

​

WIE UNTIL UFN​

​

​

[emphasis added]

​

 

[DrewG]

Well, I'd have to say I've never been to heaven, but I've been to Oklahoma. :wink2:

Thanks, Ron. That song is now stuck in my head. There's worse things, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AggieMike88]

The way you taught me to set up and use the radios is serving me very well. Including having 121.5 on Comm2

 

[AggieMike88]

Well, I'd have to say I've never been to heaven, but I've been to Oklahoma. :wink2:

Then there is the Aggie joke about each time an Aggie crosses the Red River, he raises the average IQ of both states.

 

[docmirror]

You might still want to leave it in receive on 121.5. Uncounted numbers of TFR busts would have been avoided if the pilot was just obeying the rule on that point.
[/LEFT]

[emphasis added]

​

Sigh, Lucky me, I have a 2.5mm allen wrench in the plane, and the radio slides right out of the tray.

Heh - wouldn't it be funny if I was sitting there, holding my radio in my hand and had an emergency. I can see it now, trying to shove the radio in the tray, fumbling, drops it, on my toe, bend over to pick it up, enter a spiral, grasp radio, look up; "GAH!", pull back hard, rip off the tail, go into an inverted flat spin, unbuckle, find the door handle, open, jump, deploy, and get a good canopy 50' from the ground. Land in a farmers field with four lovely farm girls to 'help' me with my emergency, and then get clonked on the head by said radio. :wink2:

 

[Zeldman]

Then there is the Aggie joke about each time an Aggie crosses the Red River, he raises the average IQ of both states.

BWAHAHAHAHA..!!!!

Hey wait, I resemble that remark....

gigem

 

[Hank S]

You might still want to leave it in receive on 121.5. Uncounted numbers of TFR busts would have been avoided if the pilot was just obeying the rule on that point.
[/LEFT]

[emphasis added]

​

Interesting NOTAM quote, Ron. Do I correctly interpret this to be a requirement to adhere to advisory information published in the AIM? The AIM is not regulatory in nature, right? Or has that changed, too?

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

After our last thread on this issue, where I mentioned being asked about changing our destination whilst on Flight Following, I told Mary that it was now a "required question that ATC must ask" since 9/11.

Well, lo and behold, today we were flying to McAllen, TX, and the weather conditions were not at all what had been predicted. Instead of scattered clouds we had towering cumulus building, lower visibility, and it looked like things might be developing into a line of storms.

So, Mary decided it was time to turn back, and told ATC that she was returning to Mustang Beach (KRAS).

We waited for the inevitable "Reason for deviation?" question...and it never came. The guy at Valley Approach just said okay, and that was that.

So, apparently it's not "required", although this is the first time we haven't been asked the question.

Today was certainly some unique weather.

 

[bqmassey]

Interesting NOTAM quote, Ron. Do I correctly interpret this to be a requirement to adhere to advisory information published in the AIM? The AIM is not regulatory in nature, right? Or has that changed, too?

The NOTAM mentions nothing about the AIM, and alone (AIM or not) establishes it as mandatory.

"If capable" is pretty loose language though.

 

[azure]

Overzealous controller. A change of destination when operating IFR was an event to be reported to the Domestic Events Network, I believe that is no longer required. But even if it is still in effect it wouldn't apply to you on flight following.

If it's still in effect, the Buffalo controller who granted my request for a new clearance last month was noncompliant. I had originally filed to KSDC for a pit stop, even though my actual destination was 6B0 in VT (fuel stop en route to KMPV). When I realized I wouldn't be needing that pit stop, I asked to amend my destination and was quickly cleared direct 6B0, no questions asked.

(That is, until the MOAs over the Adirondacks went hot, but that's another tale.)

 

[Brad Z]

Controller planning. Also gives you a chance to give a pirep. He might not be seeing the weather you wish to miss. Or there may be other reasons to change a destination. He is there to help you if you have a problem. If you didn't answer at all then that gives the controller reason to believe someone is not letting you answer. I here that question anytime someone makes a destination change.

I have never found that question to be strange.

Curious where you came up with that answer.

Overzealous controller. A change of destination when operating IFR was an event to be reported to the Domestic Events Network, I believe that is no longer required. But even if it is still in effect it wouldn't apply to you on flight following.

Agreed. I get that every time I change destinations IFR, but the OP should not be asked that when VFR receiving FF.

 

[BillTIZ]

I was IFR in heavy smoke between Helena MT and a mountain airport NE of Ogden UT. I changed my IFR destination to Ogden and was asked why. "I do not want to make a non percision IFR Appch in smoke in the mountains to an unfamiliar airport." I was still about an hour from the destination.

It was shortly after they told me I would have to climb for MEA to start the approach. As it was, I did not get to VMC conditions until about 10 miles from Ogden out in the valley.

 

[timwinters]

Curious where you came up with that answer.

 

[roncachamp]

If it's still in effect, the Buffalo controller who granted my request for a new clearance last month was noncompliant. I had originally filed to KSDC for a pit stop, even though my actual destination was 6B0 in VT (fuel stop en route to KMPV). When I realized I wouldn't be needing that pit stop, I asked to amend my destination and was quickly cleared direct 6B0, no questions asked.

Domestic Events Network (DEN) Reporting Requirements

 

[Velocity173]

Man we cover the same stuff over and over again.

The report is still in effect. IFR ONLY. ATC calls DEN on the phone. DEN decides whether to investigate. Yes, post 9/11. Never had to unform anyone prior to that.

A controller asking a VFR is just being curious. Personally never been asked while VFR why I'm changing my destination.

 

[poadeleted20]

Interesting NOTAM quote, Ron. Do I correctly interpret this to be a requirement to adhere to advisory information published in the AIM?

No. FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, not advisory in nature. This NOTAM requires you to do three things:

1. Review what it says in the AIM about intercepts. That's not making the AIM regulatory, but it is requiring you to review it.
2. Monitor 121.5 while in US airspace if you are capable of doing so.
3. Follow certain procedures specified in the NOTAM if intercepted.

So, those three things are, by this NOTAM, regulatory requirements. Notice that there is nothing saying you must do something the AIM says, only to do the three things this NOTAM requires.

 

[poadeleted20]

The NOTAM mentions nothing about the AIM, and alone (AIM or not) establishes it as mandatory.

Actually, it does mention something about the AIM, but only to require that you "review" it.

"If capable" is pretty loose language though.

Given the number of TFR violations we have on a continuing basis, and the consequences for such a bust, it shouldn't take a hammer to get pilots to monitor 121.5 any time they have a radio free from ATC and other normal operating duties like AWOS/CTAF/FSS/EFAS. As one of my wing commanders once said, "You gotta be smarter'n a box o'rocks."

 

[Fearless Tower]

It's a post-9/11 thing. Used to be ATC would just process the change, but now they have to ask "why?" so the Domestic Event Network (DEN, a joint FAA/TSA/DoD operation) can decide whether you really have to stop to pee or someone is holding a gun to your head.

Have to?

I have changed my destination several times while flying IFR and never been asked by ATC for a reason.

 

[poadeleted20]

Have to?

I have changed my destination several times while flying IFR and never been asked by ATC for a reason.

Yes, "have to". See the DEN repoting link roncachamp posted above -- item 4c on page 2.

 

[roncachamp]

The report is still in effect. IFR ONLY. ATC calls DEN on the phone. DEN decides whether to investigate. Yes, post 9/11. Never had to unform anyone prior to that.

Where can one find the current requirement to report a change of destination when operating IFR?

 

[frfly172]

On the way up the coast,from cape may to norwood ma. Changed destination twice with no questions,even from the NY controller. Some times they ask and sometimes they don't.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, "have to". See the DEN repoting link roncachamp posted above -- item 4c on page 2.

See also the cancellation date of that notice.

 

[Groundpounder]

I don't understand why some of you are getting wrapped around the axle about this. Just tell them why.

"Passenger request"

"Weather at destination"

"Need to stop for fuel"

Most controllers could care less why you are changing, but as retarded as their procedures may be, they still have to comply with them. An overly long explanation does no one any good, and the guy on the other end of the radio is just rolling his eyes as you enter into a lengthy dissertation.

 

[poadeleted20]

See also the cancellation date of that notice.

That's the date that temporary guideance was incorporated into FAA Order 7210.3. Dig in the current version of that and you'll find the current guidance which drives controllers to do this.

a.​

The FLM/CIC must report all instances of loss​

of radio communication, intermittent transponder or​

transponder/Mode C failure, the inability to security​

track aircraft, and other unusual IFR/VFR flight​

information to the Domestic Events Network (DEN)​

through the appropriate lines of communication.​

Some examples are, but are not limited to; suspicious​

activities, deviation from assigned course/altitude, or​

other equipment malfunction that may cause an​

aircraft to operate in an unexpected manner. Relay all​

known information regarding the aircraft.
​

​

 

[roncachamp]

That's the date that temporary guideance was incorporated into FAA Order 7210.3. Dig in the current version of that and you'll find the current guidance which drives controllers to do this.
[/LEFT]

No "Change of destination while on an IFR flight plan" to be found there.

 

[DJTorrente]

Given the number of TFR violations we have on a continuing basis, and the consequences for such a bust, it shouldn't take a hammer to get pilots to monitor 121.5 any time they have a radio free from ATC and other normal operating duties like AWOS/CTAF/FSS/EFAS. As one of my wing commanders once said, "You gotta be smarter'n a box o'rocks."

I suspect TFR (DC SFRA/FRZ) areas, and thus busts, are less dense and less frequent away from your home territory. Besides, I hope that wanting to keep an ear out for fellow pilots in distress might be a slightly more motivating reason to monitor guard than wanting to be compliant subjects who make it easier for our overlords to contact and thus commend at will in event we stray across their arbitrary and shifting lines only on a map.

Honestly, I've never been asked "why" about a change of destination, and my first response if asked would be "Meeting with the President of the International Brotherhood of Nunya Business. Cancel flight following, m'kay." The idea that an in-flight deviation might portend a terrorism event AND the pilot intends to or can inform the controller to that effect, especially in response to a direct question, is beyond farcical -- like the DC SFRA and most TFRs themselves.

 

[poadeleted20]

No "Change of destination while on an IFR flight plan" to be found there.

True, but it does say "Some examples are, but are not limited to;..." Perhaps you, as a former controller, aren't in the loop on what other things are considered reportable.

 

[N747JB]

When Charlene got in a fight with a buzzard, I diverted to my maintenance base vs my intended destination. They gave me a number to call and discuss the bird strike and deviation. No big deal.