Narrative:

I have a safety concern to which I have been unable to find an acceptable resolution. It concerns clearances that we are given on flights to airports with off-airport VOR's by the same name as the destination airport. The best example is departing msp and given a clearance to 'rochester' by ZZZ center. This clearance is ambiguous; it is not clear whether we are cleared to the VOR or the airport. I have spoken to several instructor pilots and many captains. The opinions vary. Some say the VOR; others the airport; and others say it depends upon the weather at the destination airport; VFR vs. IFR. Others say it depends upon how we are filed and whether or not the FMS is operational. Most feel quite strongly about their opinion. I have twice spoken with msp ARTCC on the telephone and inquired as to what they mean by this type of clearance. The answers I got were different both times. My personal opinion is consistent with what the first center controller told me; 'it always means the VOR.' he further explained that when our airspace system was designed we only had the capability to navigate to a VOR and therefore could not navigate direct to an airport. I personally like this definition because if the weather is worse than expected at the destination; the VOR is typically an IAF for an approach. After my initial telephone conversation with the center controller I felt confident that it always meant the VOR unless specified otherwise. I got so much resistance from many captains that I felt compelled to call ARTCC a second time. During the second phone call I was told it means the airport unless the VOR is specifically stated. Wanting an accurate confirmation I called the technical support line and asked if they could tell me where this clearance is defined in writing e.g.; far's; aim; air traffic controller's handbook; etc. After several discussions and e-mails the consensus from them is that this type of clearance is not defined and if any question exists I should query the controller. Asking the controller for confirmation is always a good idea but not always practical or even possible. For example; departing ZZZ for rst during a big push when everyone is deviating due to bad weather the frequency is almost too busy to make normal transmissions let alone request confirmations. I feel an unnecessary and unacceptable level of risk exists by introducing the possibility of an aircraft going to someplace the controller does not expect. Several months ago I was enroute to rst from ZZZ as the pilot not flying. We had been given a long series of vectors and then clearance to 'rochester' I asked the captain to confirm my selection of the VOR in the FMS; and he disagreed. He selected the airport. We were getting close to rst and the frequency was busy. Eventually I managed a confirmation and the controller responded with irritation; 'the VOR.' I would like to help address this safety concern but I'm not sure of where to best begin. This ambiguity is unnecessary; unsafe and very easy to solve. We simply need a definition of what this clearance means; or in the absence of this we simply need the controllers to state in the initial clearance VOR or airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier pilot voiced concern regarding ATC routing assignments with regard to direct airport vs. VOR; when identifications are the same.

Narrative: I have a safety concern to which I have been unable to find an acceptable resolution. It concerns clearances that we are given on flights to airports with off-airport VOR's by the same name as the destination airport. The best example is departing MSP and given a clearance to 'Rochester' by ZZZ center. This clearance is ambiguous; it is not clear whether we are cleared to the VOR or the airport. I have spoken to several instructor pilots and many Captains. The opinions vary. Some say the VOR; others the airport; and others say it depends upon the weather at the destination airport; VFR vs. IFR. Others say it depends upon how we are filed and whether or not the FMS is operational. Most feel quite strongly about their opinion. I have twice spoken with MSP ARTCC on the telephone and inquired as to what they mean by this type of clearance. The answers I got were different both times. My personal opinion is consistent with what the first center controller told me; 'It always means the VOR.' He further explained that when our airspace system was designed we only had the capability to navigate to a VOR and therefore could not navigate direct to an airport. I personally like this definition because if the weather is worse than expected at the destination; the VOR is typically an IAF for an approach. After my initial telephone conversation with the center controller I felt confident that it always meant the VOR unless specified otherwise. I got so much resistance from many captains that I felt compelled to call ARTCC a second time. During the second phone call I was told it means the airport unless the VOR is specifically stated. Wanting an accurate confirmation I called the technical support line and asked if they could tell me where this clearance is defined in writing e.g.; FAR's; AIM; Air Traffic Controller's Handbook; etc. After several discussions and e-mails the consensus from them is that this type of clearance is not defined and if any question exists I should query the controller. Asking the controller for confirmation is always a good idea but not always practical or even possible. For example; departing ZZZ for RST during a big push when everyone is deviating due to bad weather the frequency is almost too busy to make normal transmissions let alone request confirmations. I feel an unnecessary and unacceptable level of risk exists by introducing the possibility of an aircraft going to someplace the controller does not expect. Several months ago I was enroute to RST from ZZZ as the pilot not flying. We had been given a long series of vectors and then clearance to 'Rochester' I asked the Captain to confirm my selection of the VOR in the FMS; and he disagreed. He selected the airport. We were getting close to RST and the frequency was busy. Eventually I managed a confirmation and the controller responded with irritation; 'the VOR.' I would like to help address this safety concern but I'm not sure of where to best begin. This ambiguity is unnecessary; unsafe and very easy to solve. We simply need a definition of what this clearance means; or in the absence of this we simply need the controllers to state in the initial clearance VOR or Airport.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.