 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A change in phraseology for 'pop up' aircraft requesting IFR clearance has caused flight confusion according to the reporter.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 116275 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198907 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : zse |
| State Reference | WA |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zse |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : radar |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Experience | flight time total : 5000 |
| ASRS Report | 116275 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Due to interpretations by FAA legal people, we are no longer to clear aircraft that 'pop up' VFR requesting their IFR to their destinations in a manner that pilots understand. It is deemed that the use of the word 'direct', even if the pilot filed direct, is providing course guidance and that a pilot below the mia has been given an invalid clearance. Telling a pilot he is 'cleared to XXX via leaving (altitude) (route) often gets arguments on the center frequencys due to the fact that pilots often can't climb VFR to the mia. Many airports in ZSE area are VFR airports with no published departure procedure, or in uncontrolled airspace. Our airspace people have instructed us to use the phraseology 'cleared to (destination) via (fix) (route) climb and maintain (altitude)...'. This can be very misleading to pilots as it is often a fix and route far removed from the filed route, and as a pilot I would feel that the controller is providing the new routing for terrain and traffic rather than a non-committment to course guidance. Far part 91 and the 7110.65 should be changed to read that pilots are responsible for their own terrain separation below the mia and controllers should advise the pilot of the mia during the initial clearance. This has become a major issue at our facility.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A CHANGE IN PHRASEOLOGY FOR 'POP UP' ACFT REQUESTING IFR CLRNC HAS CAUSED FLT CONFUSION ACCORDING TO THE REPORTER.
Narrative: DUE TO INTERPRETATIONS BY FAA LEGAL PEOPLE, WE ARE NO LONGER TO CLEAR ACFT THAT 'POP UP' VFR REQUESTING THEIR IFR TO THEIR DESTS IN A MANNER THAT PLTS UNDERSTAND. IT IS DEEMED THAT THE USE OF THE WORD 'DIRECT', EVEN IF THE PLT FILED DIRECT, IS PROVIDING COURSE GUIDANCE AND THAT A PLT BELOW THE MIA HAS BEEN GIVEN AN INVALID CLRNC. TELLING A PLT HE IS 'CLRED TO XXX VIA LEAVING (ALT) (ROUTE) OFTEN GETS ARGUMENTS ON THE CENTER FREQS DUE TO THE FACT THAT PLTS OFTEN CAN'T CLIMB VFR TO THE MIA. MANY ARPTS IN ZSE AREA ARE VFR ARPTS WITH NO PUBLISHED DEP PROC, OR IN UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE. OUR AIRSPACE PEOPLE HAVE INSTRUCTED US TO USE THE PHRASEOLOGY 'CLRED TO (DEST) VIA (FIX) (ROUTE) CLIMB AND MAINTAIN (ALT)...'. THIS CAN BE VERY MISLEADING TO PLTS AS IT IS OFTEN A FIX AND ROUTE FAR REMOVED FROM THE FILED ROUTE, AND AS A PLT I WOULD FEEL THAT THE CTLR IS PROVIDING THE NEW ROUTING FOR TERRAIN AND TFC RATHER THAN A NON-COMMITTMENT TO COURSE GUIDANCE. FAR PART 91 AND THE 7110.65 SHOULD BE CHANGED TO READ THAT PLTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN TERRAIN SEPARATION BELOW THE MIA AND CTLRS SHOULD ADVISE THE PLT OF THE MIA DURING THE INITIAL CLRNC. THIS HAS BECOME A MAJOR ISSUE AT OUR FACILITY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.